STATEMENT OF RODNEY ANDERSON, LARAMIE COUNTY FARM BUREAU, PINE BLUFF, WYO.

My name is Rodney Anderson from the Laramie County Farm Bureau in Southeastern Wyoming. With me are Farm Bureau Leaders, Arlo Bowen, Niobrara County; Dick McKamey, Washakie County; Milton Small, Platte County; Marge Newman, 'Goshen County; and John Longfellow, Fremont County. We commend this committee for conducting public hearings into the serious economic problems facing agriculture. We appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns with you and suggest some possible solutions.

Currently agriculture is the weakest economic segment of Wyoming. While per capita income has substantially increased in Wyoming recently, agricultural producers have not shared those benefits. Instead, Wyoming's total net agricultural income has drastically declined to practically nothing. The Wyoming Crop and Livestock Reporting Service statistics from 1977 illustrate this decline (see Exhibit A).

Various factors have contributed to this serious economic decline. These include an accelerated inflation rate which has spiraled production costs, unfair foreign competition, over-regulation by federal agencies, unfavorable administration policies, drought, and overproduction. These ever-growing negative factors have resulted in the bleakest economic picture for agriculture since the depression of the 1930's.

Agricultural credit is tightening. For example, one agricultural loan officer in Wyoming reports that four out of five ranchers or farmers who seek refinancing are turned down by his institution. For others, the depressed economy has forced them to sell out.

The following are suggested:

There should be more effective use of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, offering participants the opportunity to set aside land in return for performance payments. Wheat and feed grain production lands should be set aside to avoid even more detrimental surpluses.

The federal government should vigorously seek expansion of foreign markets for U.S. products and reverse recent decreases in foreign sales. This would not only strengthen commodity prices, it would assist in rectifying a negative U.S. balance of payments.

We urge Congress to pass legislation which would require food processors and any other large purchasers of agricultural commodities to bargain in good faith with producer groups for price. The federal government should encourage formation and effective use of marketing and bargaining cooperatives so that higher prices to producers can be negotiated.

Additional emergency agricultural credit programs should be developed which will assist deserving farmers in meeting their current financial crisis.

The federal government might reduce the importation of meat when domestic supplies are high. Contrary to its present position, the federal government should ensure that imported meat is of the same sanitary and quality standards as domestic meat, and it should inform the consumer as to the country of origin.

Congress should support an increased level of both research and the utilization of resultant technology-including proper use of fertilizers,, herbicides and pesticides-so that maximum agricultural yields may be obtained from a minimum of land.

Grazing fees on federal lands should reflect the cost of production and the market value of livestock.

The federal government should encourage, not discourage, intensive management of the lands it owns in federal lands states like Wyoming. Pressure to remove livestock from grazing these lands, if successful, would cause many ranch operators to go out of business, lower the value of their deeded land and subsequently depress the local economy.

Federal policies should recognize the economy of scale in agricultural operations. Tendencies to contain the size of these operations should be discouraged.

At every possible opportunity the federal government should reduce expanding any unnecessary federal bureaucracy with its growing regulations, paperwork and increased intervention in private enterprise.

In conclusion Farm Bureau seeks higher net incomes for agriculture.

For improved net incomes in agriculture to be long lasting, they must be obtained in the marketplace and must not be dictated by government or arbitrarily set by individuals or a group of individuals.

Farmers and ranchers should receive full cost of production and a profit for their products. This objective should be pursued with vigor in export and domestic sales. Our oversupply of products must be countered by reduced production and/or aggressive promotion and sales. For such goals to be achieved, Congress and the Administration must control inflation and carefully examine and remove, or appropriately modify, those rules and regulations and programs which place added costs on agricultural producers-thus intensifying the current cost-price income squeeze.

STATEMENT OF ELBERT URBAN, BLACKWELL, OKLA.

My name is Elbert Urban, I am a true family farmer; because I live on a farm Southeast of Blackwell, Oklahoma with my wonderful wife and 5 children ages 4 through 16. Last year this family farm produced 63,000 bushels of wheat, 9,000 bushels of milo, 120 tons of alfalfa hay, 60 tons of prairie hay, 15 calves from mother cows, and grazed 300 stocker calves on grass and wheat pasture; and we are going broke and will be bankrupt within 2 years under the present conditions of the past 2 years.

You, the House Agriculture Committee, participated in drafting the 1977 Farm Bill. After it became law, you began to see the once complacent American Farmer leave his farm and tell this great nation-The law, the conditions, are no good. They spell economic disaster not only for the American Farmer but for this nation as well.

Have you listened, watched, and considered maybe we made a mistake; President Carter, Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland, some Representatives and Senators have stepped forward in our free press and told the American people "the 1977 Farm Bill is good legislation and it will fill the needs of American Agriculture if it has time to work, especially by using the Reserve Program". Well, this Family Farmer says their thinking and actions is just what comes out the rear end of the Democratic Party's symbol.

The farmers are quite familiar with the contents of the 1977 Farm Bill. The act does contain additional price benefits. But compared to what?

The 1973 Farm Bill was a "swinging sword" for the producer, because it allowed excessive production and it set the target price based on a growth index of the U.S. economy at around 4.5%. The 1968 Farm Bill had subsidy payments at $1.89 for wheat in the last year. What was the growth index of the economy from 1973 forward? Don't forget to add on the inflation figure and remember the wheat producer during 1968-72 was in economic trouble. The problem was overproduction and inadequate subsidy payment levels set by law. Also the producer was unknowingly facing economic disaster with future inflation. The Russian Grain Deal saved the day at that time.

Our government asked the American Farmer in good faith "to plant fence row to fence row" and produce all we could because the "U.S. Farmer had a good market for his production." "The world is hungry and needs the food," quoted Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, in Amarillo, Texas in January of 1974 at the N.A.W.G. Convention. Then followed 8 or 9 consecutive embargoes and government leaders using food as a "twisting arm" in world affairs.

Government has lost the Faith of the American Farmer. President Carter says we've passed a good Farm Bill, providing $6 billion for agriculture; the truth is $2.7 billion is for agriculture and the rest is for food stamps for consumers and other things.

The Grain Reserve as such is nothing more than a "U.S. Political Tool". You should read that provision of the 1977 Farm Bill and realize the prices set out for C.C.C. held stocks. What guarantee was given the producer as to who, when, where and how much could be released. I Find It To Be Just Policy.

The loan, as set in the 1977 Farm Bill will be an "income support" and it will be no less than $2.25 for 1977 and no less than $2.35 for 1978. This is like the minimum wage law, it sets an income support for the lowest quality workers. Is $2.25 and $2.35 all the American Farmer's work is worth? Don't forget the Secretary of Agriculture has in his power by signing his name, to set the loan not in excess of 100 percent Parity (price index)-This man has the Power of a Dictator, he was given this power by our own U.S. House of Representatives, Senate, and President. Can the Secretary set the income support at a level that will cause "Financial Chaos" not only among the producers but for the nation?

Looking at the loan reserve from a farmers position; what Congress, the President, and other naive people are saying is nothing but an outright lie. The truth is; the farmer in our area takes home $2.01 not $2.25 income support. Then after 4 years of the reserve he is facing a take home of $1.97 wheat or turning it over to the government as we have in the past.

The following will prove this fact:

=

(a) $2.25 loan minus le adjustment $2.24.

(b) $2.24 minus 3c for fees and charges = $2.21.

(c) $2.21 minus 200 storage = $2.01 take home income support.

(d) $2.01 minus 6 interest for 4 years (536) = $1.48.