Mr. MCMILLAN. You had a flood disaster in Texas. And wasn't that declared a disaster area? Didn't you receive something? Mr. THOMPSON. I think we did.

Mr. BATTLES. What I am concerned about is, if the law is so written that they cannot spend the money, then I hope you folks would try to do something the first of January-that is, if it is so written that it is just a matter of the Secretary of Agriculture and his people interpreting the way they want in deciding they do not want to spend it.

You know, many times as I told our State disaster committee chairman, I felt a lot of things, even in our State legislature, you could appropriate, or pass a bill for something and when somebody comes to administrate it, it is different.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I thoroughly sympathize with you. We have been passing legislation too loose, I think, because they passed rules and regulations down there to prevent the people from getting the benefits of what the Congress intended.

I know that has passed on numerous occasions.

Mr. BATTLES. I was not at the hearing at St. Paul but I understand Senator Thye and Congressman H. Carl Andersen were there and met with them. And from what I was told Congressman Andersen was very much perturbed because of the interpretation they have put on the law, because it was affecting his county, too-that they were not interpreting it the way he said it was the intent of Congress.

Mr. MCMILLAN. He was one of the main sponsors of the legislation. Mrs. KNUTSON. I have the figures for the sum that was allocated to the State of Minnesota.

Mr. BATTLES. $186,000. I understood that we, if we would have asked for it, could have received approximately a quarter of a million. Mrs. KNUTSON. They did ask for it?

Mr. BATTLES. The counties did ask but the State asked for $196,000; $25,000 was divided up among counties in southwestern Minnesota. None of the counties in the northwest got it, to my knowledge.

I think that concludes it.

Mr. MCMILLAN. I am glad you did mention it, because I have been pestered to death myself about that same $22 million and I have not been able to hear of anyone who got any of it.

Mrs. KNUTSON. At least, we know other parts of the United States are not getting it, either.

Mr. BATTLES. I should not leave the impression that the National Disaster Committee has given Minnesota this $196,000, that our State disaster committee asked for, but that was all we could get the State disaster committee to ask for. I understand that was their request. Mr. MCMILLAN. You are certainly entitled to disaster benefits, I would think.

Mrs. KNUTSON. Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee?

Well, we do thank you, Mr. Battles, for appearing before us.
Mr. BATTLES. Thank you.

Mrs. KNUTSON. The next witness I would like to call is Mr. Huhnke.

STATEMENT OF E. H. HUHNKE, DEER CREEK, MINN.

Mr. HUHNKE. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I want to speak to you on a subject that is not probably a matter of your

committee, but it is a subject that bears on the family-sized farm and on every farm. I am speaking of the Social Security Act as it now stands.

From the time the social security began, whenever our cooperative organization had an annual meeting we would see a statement in the annual report, "social security taxes paid." Those were the taxes that we paid for our employees. And we know that in everything that we bought in those days somewhere social security taxes were hidden in the price. But we didn't get any social security. It was not until a couple of years ago that agriculture became eligible for social security.

I was 69 years old when I became eligible for it and I started drawing benefits when I was 71. And you can see for yourselves on a small farm you cannot build up any social security benefits. So the result of it is that I am drawing $30 a month and my wife is drawing $15.

If agriculture had been allowed to come into the social security system at the time social security began, $45 a month on a farm in those days would have been a lot of money. And if people that were in the age group that we are in now, at that time they would have been pretty well taken care of. But today $45 a month is just nothing.

I would like to ask your committee if you can have it under investigation?

I do not know how many people there are that are drawing the minimum amount. But I think the minimum amount should be at least $60 and $30. It should really be $70 and $35. I do not want to go too high because we know that we cannot overload anything like that. But we should have an increase somewhere along the line to compensate for the increased cost of living.

We are just about ready to quit. We cannot rent our farm out. The farm next to me has had two renters move off because they could not pay the rent. The buildings are standing there idle.

We are going to try to keep on for another year or two, but it won't be very long with us. You can't sell the farm. You can't ask the boys to come back because they are making more money than we are. Mr. KRUEGER. May I interrupt here? What is the reason you cannot get a renter on your farm?

Mr. HUHNKE. Because they are not available.

Mr. KRUEGER. The renters are not available?

Mr. HUHNKE. They are not available. Who is going to go on it? There are a few, but they can't pay.

Mr. KRUEGER. Do you rent your land for cash?

Mr. HUHNKE. Well, I am still working it, but they were renting for cash-this fellow that lost 2 years' rent-he was renting for cash.

Mr. KRUEGER. I suppose the situation varies, depending on the locality. Out where I come from in North Dakota there are more renters than land. Perhaps, we should send some to you.

Mr. HUHNKE. It is a different proposition with you people because you are grain farmers. We have to depend on dairy products or some kind of livestock products, strictly, in our part of the country because we have too much lowland. It isn't suitable for grain. It has to be hay and pasture and the like of that.

Mr. MCMILLAN. What I understand is you want a dollar's worth of security and not 50 cents?

Mr. HUHNKE. I would like to see the dollars buy more.

Could I make an additional statement now?

Mrs. KNUTSON. Yes.

Mr. HUHNKE. I wish that the people would come out for a deficiency payment, or subsidy, because I feel that is the first step in fighting inflation. I think there is nothing in the world more depressing on the people of the United States today than this inflation that we are in. I want to support you people on that.

Mr. THOMPSON. I think this observation may be appropriate. Our committee does not handle it.

Mr. HUHNKE. I know you do not.

Mr. THOMPSON. It is not an agricultural problem and we will take it up with the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. HUHNKE. Thank you.

Mr. THOMPSON. But what I wanted to tell you is this, I was in the Congress when we were considering the original concept of social security. That was back in 1933, or 1934 when I served a term and then did not seek reelection. It was passed, I think, in 1935, maybe 1936. But the whole theory back of it was that it was security that was being provided to the old people.

In those days $100 would buy a certain amount of security. Today it will buy about half that much.

And the way I felt, and I have always voted, was to provide security rather than dollars.

So I agree with you that something should be done to bring it in balance. My concept is the same as when I first heard of it, to provide security, and to make it so that the old folks do not have to worry, that they have just what the name implies, security. I think you can depend upon all of us to help you.

Mrs. KNUTSON. Thank you.

Mr. HUHNKE. Thank you.

Mrs. KNUTSON. We will next hear from Mr. Julius Speer, of Evansville, Minn.

STATEMENT OF JULIUS SPEER, EVANSVILLE, MINN.

Mr. SPEER. Madam Chairman, and fellow citizens, I am 58 years old and have farmed all my life.

We have heard so much about 90 percent of parity that I wish I had never heard of it, that they would take that figure away. But I do not know why our educated people that are running the Government should figure that we should run and operate our business at any less parity than anybody else. We put in a crop, have to worry about the weather, insects, and everything else, and that is trouble enough without worrying what market price we will get for it.

I went through the times when we sold grains for 11 cents, hogs for 212 cents, and we didn't have as much trouble as we do now because our overhead was practically a fixed overhead.

We have to pay our light bill, we have to pay our telephone bill, we have insurance, etc., which we all know about.

It was brought up when Mr. Smalley, I believe, was on the stand testifying about the fact, what are you going to do with the crop when they do not want to buy it or something. Like I said, I have sold grain, oats, for 11 cents, hogs for 212 cents. Nobody ever turned me down, they always bought it. And right today if we could get

99133-58- -6

a fair price for a percent of the grain we would gladly keep the surplus at home and you would be rid of your storage problem and everything else.

That is the way I look at it. I hope I am not too wrong.

So I would like to see a fair share of the prosperity go to the farmer. I do not think that there is 90 percent of the people that want anything radical for living on the farm.

I have operated a lot of land all my life. Right now my son and I operate about four or five hundred acres of crop, a thousand acres of land, which is land that is six different farms where other people have moved off and then they come over to Speer to farm it. Well, it was run down and we do not make too much out if it, either, but we are always hoping to have a good year.

I do not know how much longer it will keep on. I told my son, "We will try it 1 more year, and that will be the end. to quit like the rest of them have."

We will have Nobody, I do not think, ever asked for any wonderful thing out of agriculture, but when you operate as much land as I do, and then do not know whether you can pay the bills for sure when winter comes, there is, certainly, something wrong with that.

I thank you.

Mrs. KNUTSON. Are there any questions by the committee.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speer.

Mr. SPEER. Thank you.

Mrs. KNUTSON. We will next hear from Mr. Earl Williams, of Fergus Falls, one of our citizens.

STATEMENT OF EARL WILLIAMS, FERGUS FALLS, MINN.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I have just a few remarks that I want to make, and figures to read into the record and then I have a copy of that for the committee if they would like to have it.

I am very vitally interested in the family-sized farm for a number of reasons. I suppose the main one is that I was brought up on the farm. My father ran a dairy for a number of years. So I am familiar with the milking of cows, and the handling of them.

Because of the various situations we were forced off the farm. I went to school and became a lawyer. And subsequently, moved to Fergus Falls after serving some time in the Air Force in World War II.

Our family farm, I think we all agree, is a very vital segment of our economy and our way of life, and as such we are, certainly, very vitally interested in preserving the family farm.

Now, I have felt for a long time that we have been making some very serious mistakes in this country and that too often even we have been paying out a good many dollars to the large farmers, the corporation farm, and that our legislation has been pointed in their favor rather than in favor of the family-sized farm. Some of the figures that I have here I feel support that very fully and completely. And I would like to give them to you.

For example, under our present legislation, which we passed some time ago, as you all know, there is one farmer in Roshoven, Tex., who received $705,648 in the year 1956 for support of a rice crop.

The Briscor Production Co., of Alvin, Tex., received $205,586 for support of rice in the year 1956.

The Koop Bros. received $191,484 in support price in the year 1956. The Pierce Ranch, of Texas, also, received $177,993 in that year for support of their crops.

Let us take a look at cotton-and maybe that is the reason why it has gone up out of the reach of the foreign market.

In South Carolina, I believe that is Mr. McMillan's territory, Coker's Pedigree Seed Co., received a cotton loan for 1956 in the sum of $122,935.

We can move over and take a look at the Delta Pine & Land Co., of Scott, Miss. And I believe some of the gentlemen here may be familiar with that company. In the year 1956 they received $1,146,605 in support of cotton for 1 year. That is the one company. Harry H. S. Mitchell, of Millington, Tenn., received a cotton-support loan in the sum of $194,455 for the year 1956.

The J. B. Hein Co., of Sandis, Ala., received a support loan on cotton for the year 1956 in the sum of $152,123.

In Texas, there are 5 individual farmers who have each received in excess of $300,000 apiece in support of cotton for the year 1956.

I cite these statistics for the very simple reason that I feel that our legislation has long pointed too much towards the assistance of the large farmers and the big farmer.

I have an uncle out south of Underwood, Minn. He operates 80 acres of land. Does he receive any price support? Or any sort of help? Not one penny. But he is to pay for this because he pays

income tax every year.

I ask you is that supporting the family-sized farm? I think that is the sort of legislation that we need to take a good look at and to do something about.

How does this compare with Minnesota in some of the supports that are paid here? We have a few large farmers, but they are not very large, in comparison with some of the others. The largest one in the ninth district for example, is, so far as support is concerned, Victor Youngren group, $44,491 for 1956 for wheat.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Are those loans or supports?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Support loans.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Support loans?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is right.

Mr. BASS. They are not payments now. You are not trying to imply that these men have been given this money as a payment?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I am stating that these figures are support loans, money that has been paid to them by the Government under the pricesupport program.

Mr. BASS. Wait just a minute-wait a minute. Let us get the record straight. You said it is money that has been paid to them? Let us let the record show the facts. This is money that has been loaned to the farmer on commodities that he produced and put in Government storage, instead of paying the farmer for producing it-right or wrong? Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not going to argue with the committee as to the technicalities of it.

Mr. BASS. If you will yield to me just a minute. Let us talk about something else then. Minnesota is one of the biggest dairy States in the Union, isn't it?