THE AGRICULTURAL CENSUS

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-FIFTH CONGKESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 682 and H.R. 688

BILLS TO PROVIDE MORE TIMELY AND ACCURATE DISTRIBUTION OF CENSUS DATA AND A REDUCTION IN THE REPORTING

BURDEN ON RESPONDENTS

MARCH 17, APRIL 1, AND 2, 1977

Serial No. 95-13

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

87-766 WASHINGTON : 1977
e t jui -

\3I Y39ll

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE

ROBERT N. C. NIX, Pennsylvania, Chairman

MORRIS K. UDALL, Arizona, Vice Chairman

EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, Illinois

JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California

JAMES M. COLLINS, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Missouri

BENJAMIN A. OILMAN, New York

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi

JIM LEACH, Iowa

TOM CORCORAN, Illinois

JAMES M. HANLEY, New York

CHARLES H. WILSON, California

RICHARD C. WHITE, Texas

WILLIAM D. FORD. Michigan

WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY, Missouri

PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado

WILLIAM LEHMAN. Florida

GLADYS NOON SPELLMAN, Maryland

HERBERT E. HARRIS II, Virginia

STEPHEN J. SOLARZ, New York

MICHAEL O. MYERS, Pennsylvania

CECIL (CEC) HEFTEL, Hawaii

JAMBS J. HOWARD, New Jersey

RALPH II. METCALFE, Illinois

LEO J. RYAN, California

VICTOR C. SMIROLDO, Executive Director and General Counsel

THEODORE J. KAZY, Minority Staff Director

ROBERT E. LOCKHART, Deputy General Counsel

DAVID MINTON, Deputy General Counsel

3. PIERCE MYERS, Assistant General Counsel

HERMAN THOMPSON, Assistant General Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION

WILLIAM LEHMAN, Florida, Chairman

JAMES J. HOWARD, New Jersey JOHN H. ROUSSELOT, California

LEO J. RYAN. California JIM LEACH, Iowa

PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado

STEPHEN J. SOLARZ. New York

(Mike Ferrell, Subcommittee Staff Director, Room 601 HOB Annex I•Ext. 56741)

(II)
.Po3J< J<??7 CONTENTS

Statement of•

Hagan, Robert L., Acting Director, U.S. Department of Commerce

Bureau of the Census, accompanied by Orvin Wilhite, Chief, Agriculture Division, and Shirley Kallek, Associate Director for Eco- P»w

nomic Data 22

Hjort, Howard W., Director, Agricultural Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, accompanied by William E. Kibler, Administrator, Statistical Reporting Service; and Edward Reinsel, Acting

Data Coordinator, Economic Research Service 39

Pressler, Hon. Larry, a Representative in Congress from the State

of South Dakota- 17

Rose, Hon. Charles, a Representative in Congress from the State

of North Carolina

Simon, Hon. Paul, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Illinois 1

Smith, Hon. Neal, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa. 3

Weller, Paul S., Vice President for Public Affairs, National Council

of Farmer Cooperatives, Washington, D.C 55

Communication from•

Hagan, Robert It, Acting Director, Bureau of the Census, letter dated

April 23, 1977

HEARING HELD IN ILLINOIS

Statement byAndres, Howard, Claire, 111 97

Aves, Allan, president, De Kalb County Farm Bureau 88

Bjelland, Milford, president, Grundy County Farm Bureau 76

Bridge. Robert, De Kalb, 111 93

Durin, Stanley, Steward, 111 94

Emerson, John, De Kalb Corn Growers Association 96

Freebairn, Ralph, president, La Salle County Livestock Association 74

Gain, Jeffrey W., director, community programs, of the commodity division of the Illinois Farm Bureau 63

Grommes, Ray, president, Kane County Livestock Feeders Association 71

Hart, John, president, De Kalb County Livestock Feeders 67

Heinisck, Carl, vice president, De Kalb Bank 79

Hutcheson, Bob, Jr., De Kalb County Farm Bureau 91

Jameson, Gordon, president, La Salle County Farm Bureau 69

Mullins, William, secretary, Illinois Corn Growers Association 100

Pritchard. Robert, president, De Kalb County Soybean Association.- 85

Whipple, Malcolm, vice president, La Salle County Pork Producers and

vice president of the county farm bureau 82

Whitney, Brooks, Mc Nabb, 111 104

Wirsing, David, president of the Pork Producers, Sycamore, III 98

HEARING HELD IJ» IOWA

Carstensen, Ingwer, representing the Iowa Cattlemen's Association 119

Elwood, Lambert, member, Iowa County Board of Supervisors and representing the Iowa County NFO 121

Geikew, Stan, Benton County Farm Bureau 123

Glngerich, Don, director of District No. 7, Iowa Pork Growers 128

Hora. Milver, president, Johnson County Farm Bureau 130

Johnson. Thatcher, deputy secretary. Iowa Department of Agriculture,

representing Hon. Robert Lounsberry, secretary of agriculture 106

(in)
IV

Statement by•Continued P»e«

Jorgensen, Marlyn, board member, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation 115

Lang, Maynard, representing the Iowa Dairy Association and the

Poweshiek County Farm Bureau 113

McKean, Lowell, Iowa County Extension Service 134

Rockwell, John, representing the Iowa Farmers Union 132

Skow, Duane M., statistician in charge, Iowa State office, Statistical

Reporting Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 109
THE AGRICULTURAL CENSUS

THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 1977

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION,

Washington, D.G.

The subcommittee met at 9 a.m., in room 304, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. William Lehman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will come to order.

Today, the Subcommittee on Census and Population begins its

hearings on the agricultural census.

During the latter part of the preceding Congress, legislation was

unanimously reported from the full committee that would have

made significant changes in the agricultural census. Congress adjourned before the bill was considered.

This morning we have invited witnesses with differing points of

view to bring the subcommittee up to date and suggest ways in

which the agricultural census can be improved.

Although the two principal bills, introduced by Mrs. Schroeder

and Mr. Smith, will be the focal point of these hearings, I think the

subcommittee is also interested in learning what specific steps the

Bureau has independently developed, tested and evaluated during

the past year. Make no mistake, however, the subcommittee is committed to bringing about a reduction in the respondent burden, the

simplification of the questionnaire and an accurate definition of a

farm.

If it takes legislation we will have to act soon to provide either

the Bureau of Census or the Department of Agriculture enough

lead time to make the necessary improvements for the next census of

agriculture.

My primary concern is that the mistakes, delays, complexities, and

burdens on the farmers do not reappear 2 years from now. Hopefully,

our witnesses today will instruct the subcommittee on the best course

of action to take.

We have a very distinguished Congressman from southern Illinois,

Paul Simon, as our first witness.

STATEMENT OP HON. PAUL SIMON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OP ILLINOIS

Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Chairman.

I just very briefly want to testify, that I think some changes•

some very drastic changes•are required in the agricultural census.

Let me just cite a few things very quickly.

(1)
2

In 1964 there were 480 questions to be answered on the agricultural census form; in 1969 there were 754; in 1974, 911. Last year

I had a fellow on my staff as an intern who is a Harvard graduate.

He had to fill out the 1974 agricultural form. He's a farmer by

background from southern Illinois. He could not fill it out.

Now, if a Harvard graduate can't fill out an agricultural census

form, something is wrong with that agricultural census form.

I would point out to the subcommittee a letter sent by our colleague, Frank Horton, now chairman of the Commission on Federal

Paperwork, to Mrs. Schroeder. I want to quote one paragraph:

The Commission, during the course of its hearings around the country, has

received a number of serious complaints about the burden imposed upon farmers

by requests for information from federal agencies, and, specifically, by the

census of agriculture. Vigorous measures need to be taken now as planning

for the 1978 census is beginning. The forms used for the 1974 Census of Agriculture were too long•some 20 pages•and too complicated, coverage was incomplete, missing substantial numbers of farms, especially small farms. There

appeared to be duplication and lack of coordination between the data collection

by the census of agriculture and the Department of Agriculture. The results

of the census were so long delayed in publications as to be of limited use for

some purposes.

I don't think there is any question of the validity of those complaints. And there are also some other problems. One of the things

that I would hope would take place, is a greater use of the sampling

procedure, to save a lot of time, in addition to cutting back on the

number of questions.

One of the things that's also pointed out in that last letter to Mrs.

Schroeder, is that here is now duplication in collection of names.

I realize the confidentiality problems with the Census Bureau, but

somehow, we should solve that problem so we don't have two

agencies going to all of the expense of compiling lists of farms and

farmers in this Nation.

That's basically my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and members of the

committee. The agricultural census is resented by farmers in my district. It is an example of an area where we ought to be cutting back

on Federal paperwork.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Simon.

Mrs. SCHROEDER?

MRS. SCHROEDER. I'm delighted to have your testimony, and miss

your presence on the subcommittee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Simon, you have a district that's basically industrial and agricultural. You have a pretty good mix.

Mr. SIMON. Well, it is. I have somewhat of a mix. I have 22 counties in my district. It is a rural area with quite a bit of coal mining.

So, it is a mix.

The CHAIRMAN. My problem is that the economy of your district

depends on the economy of both agricultural and so-called commercial-industrial part of your community.

Mr. SIMON. Eight.

The CHAIRMAN. Why couldn't you have one census that would

cover both of them?

Mr. SIMON. Well, I think that is a very fundamental question that

has to be asked: "What are we looking for?"

The CHAIRMAN. Right.
Mr. SIMON. And I'm not sure that fundamental question has ever

really been asked. Is this a sociological study ? Is this an economical

study? What is this?

That's really the direction of your question, and I think that question has to be asked.

The CHAIRMAN. Are not many of your farmers also employed in

industry ?

Mr. SIMON. Many of them are. Many of them have no choice. The

land in my territory tends to be poor farmland. There are a few

exceptions. In fact, my colleague, Congressman Neal Smith, happens

to own a farm in my district, and I'm sure that farm is an exception

to that generally poor land.

My district has the lowest income of any congressional district in

the State of Ilinois, lower than the two black districts in Chicago,

for example. And that means that, obviously, the farmers of that

area are not making a lot of money, most of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony,

and it only convinces me in my brief time as chairman of this subcommittee that there is not that much uniqueness about the agribusiness, or argiculture business, and the people that are working

part time as family farmers and part time in industry, that we do

not need to have all this extra burden placed on them in the form of

these heavy questionnaires and this actually millions of total hours

of manpower in paperwork to fill them out.

Thank you very much.

Mr. SIMON. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The Honorable Neal Smith from the State of

Iowa, the breadbasket of America, is our next witness.

STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members

of the subcommittee.

I do appreciate this opportunity to appear before you and visit

with you about what I believe, is a very7important matter to both

farmers and the millions who are, in some wav, involved in agribusiness industries. It involves not only the collection of agricultural

data and its use, but also the methods used in securing that data.

The Census Bureau for many years, and especially when taking

the last two agricultural census, has used methods which irritate

farmers, has failed to secure accurate data, and has failed to distribute whatever data they secured on a timely basis.

They have been using a long and complicated form mailed to

millions of farmers and, in some cases, the people who should

not have received it, and have followed this up with threats, including telephone calls over party lines seeking personal information.

These calls are very repugnant to conscientious, law-abiding, hardworking citizens who are rural American.

By any reasonable measurement, at least the two agricultural

censuses have been a failure•colossal failure.

The 1974 census involved an attempt to secure information from

approximately 2% million farms. In the process of attempting to
secure this information, the Census Bureau mailed more than 13

million pieces of mail, including a 20-page questionnaire and several

followup mailings.

Many of the questionnaires were mailed to people who had quit

farming prior to 1974 and, at the same time, they somehow missed

on the first mailing, 400,000 of the large-scale, commercial farms. In

one instance, they even sent out the wrong mailing.

As a result of the whole snafu, a large number of farmers failed to

complete the questionnaire•I think it was close to 20 percent•before the Census Bureau imputed some estimated figures with the help

of a computer. But, even after their computation, by their own admission, they had no response from 13 percent of the 2^ million

farmers.

To make matters worse, they do not know which 13 percent did

not respond and, therefore, the validity of all the statistics is questionable, to say the least.

Also, to make matters worse, the final results of this incomplete

and inaccurate census of 1974 have not even yet been published. They

say it will be published within a few months. All they have are some

preliminary reports. And this means that the questionable data will

be 3 years old and will be obsolete before it will be available for those

for whom it was taken.

The 1969 census was also a catastrophe. In that census, it is now

agreed that they missed approximately 8^ million head of cattle.

This sent the wrong signal to farmers. It told them that more cattle

were needed at the very time they had entered the overproduction

phase of the cattle cycle.

Testimony before the Appropriations Committee 1 week ago indicates to me that the Census Bureau has not learned very much

from their blunders. They are now preparing a list for another mailout for the next agricultural census. In preparing this list, they are

starting with the national list of farm operators developed by the

Statistical Research Service in the Department of Agriculture, which

was compiled for a totally different purpose, of course.

Questioning during the course of the appropriations hearings indicates those in charge do not know what information is on that

list or how it was developed. They are also going to secure information from Federal income tax returns•a practice which I abhor,

and which is specifically, by law, prohibited to the Department of

Agriculture.

It is apparent that the Census Bureau is expecting to secure information from income tax returns which anyone who has filled out a

farmer's return knows is not on schedule F. For example, schedule F

does not tell how many horses or cattle a fanner owns, and the net

taxable income figure, in many cases, tells more about the weather

in a particular year than it does about the size, or the efficiency of

a farmer's operation, or his potential as a customer for agri-business,

which is one of the important reasons for the census to start with.

Even if the statistics were as valid as the Census Bureau seems to

think, I object to getting names and certain information off of income tax returns and putting them on a computer. And that is what

they intend to do. Sooner or later the data will somehow be used

in violation of the traditional confidentiality that we have expected

of income tax returns.
Census is now preparing to send out a presurvey mailing of the

1978 census in an attempt to correct their mailing list. That is to be

followed by questionnaires, and then they will have various followups trying to determine why some did not answer, threatening some,

and personally calling some. They are sure to miss hundreds of

thousands, and all of this assures development of another case of

gross irritation in the 1978 census.

The Department of Agriculture has proven that it is capable of

producing accurate economic data on a timely basis. The cattle numbers, pig numbers, cattle on feed, and other statistics needs relating to

agriculture are collected by the USDA on a national basis, rather

than on a county basis, in most instances.

Since the Census Bureau will now be taking a demographic census

every 5 years, it seems to me the time has come to shift the responsiblity for the economic census relating to agriculture over to the

Department of Agriculture. Let the Census Bureau count the number of farmers and do the social census along with its regular 5-year

census since they have to reach rural non-farm people for this information as well as farm people.

But, let the Department of Agriculture do what it alreadv has

proven it can do much better and in a more timely manner, and that

is to conduct the economic survey of agriculture. There's one thing

for sure, they could not do any worse.

I urge the committee to favorably report the bill which will accomplish these objectives, and that is H.R. 688.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your testimony, Congressman

Smith.

Mrs. Schroeder?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. DO you know if there would be a conflict of interest if the Department of Agriculture did this?

Mr. SMITH. Well, to start with, I can't see how there could be a

conflict of interest because their interest is getting accurate data.

They're more interested in getting accurate data than the Census

Bureau•almost none has ever questioned the validity of the Statistical Reporting Service's data that they have acquired.

People that are interested in either side don't question their crop

reports being as accurate as they can be.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. The thing that perplexed me is that it would be

conceivable that the Department might want to prove that their

farm programs were aiding farmers, and there might be some problem there.

I know we had a problem with this farm definition, with the Department of Agriculture asking the Census Bureau to redefine the

farm. And maybe it was incorrect, but there were different people

who impugned different intentions of the Department of Agriculture's wanting to do that.

Mr. SMITH. I can't see how that, in anyway, gets involved with

proving or disproving the effectiveness of farm programs.

In other words, what we're looking for is not only on national

and State, but also on a county level: the number of cattle, the

same things they're doing on an annual basis on a national level;

the number of pigs; the potential sales for the tractor industry; the

sale of farm machinery; the potential for the chemical industry to
sell farm chemicals. They're just looking for raw data that can be

used by people that own part of the agri-business industry, as well

as the 2i£ million farmers.

Actually, agri-business uses it more than farmers use it. But I

just don't see how they would•even if they could, and I don't think

they can, with their collection methods•use it as a method of proving or disproving effectiveness of farm programs.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Do you feel that the agricultural census is being

fairly duplicative of what the Department of Agriculture is already

doing ?

Mr. SMITH. I think the economic part of it is duplicative as far as

getting national figures are concerned. However, they do go down to

the county level, and Agriculture doesn't try to do that except in

certain selective States. So, it's more in detail.

However, on the other hand, it has been so inaccurate that it's of

no real value anyway; and the farm machinery business, for example, doesn't depend on it any more. It's so obsolete by the time they

get it, they have ways of getting some preliminary surveys of their

own.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Isn't it conceivable that we should just ban the

agricultural census altogether?

Mr. SMITH. I would prefer to let Census go ahead and have a

demographic census of everybody in the United States because

you're going to do the it every 5 years, now, anyway. Then, on the

economic part, have the Department of Agriculture do that.

Agriculture could secure the cattle numbers, pig numbers, and all

these things, that are needed in much more detail than we get it in

the annual reports. At least once every 5 years we ought to have

it in great detail.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Would you do that with a sample survey ?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

I don't think it can be done any other way. And they have found

that out. Perhaps 1 out of 5, or even, in some cases•if they're not

getting down to the township level•they could take, perhaps, 1 out

of 10. But take a certain number, say, one out of five, and have a

personal interview with them.

If they don't want to answer the questions•and that will happen

in a few cases•in order to sustain the validity of the sample, then

they get that information some other way. They find out from some

other records how many acres are in the farm, get some estimates

as to yields in order to keep the sample valid.

And that way they can get some more accurate information. Not

only that, but it also could be published in a matter of weeks, or

months, instead of 3 years.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.

Smith.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Leach?

Mr. LEACH. I'd just like to say that I would hope Mr. Smith's bill

would be given serious consideration. The issue revolves not only

around the competence of the Departments involved but the cooperation farmers are likely to give. Farmers are rebelling against the

Bureau of Census approach. I think if it's run by the Department of

Agriculture, they may have a different feeling. We'll have greater

cooperation.
I would like to pursue just one question, and that is: In such

surveys in America, a sampling of one out of five is extraordinarily

high.

Mr. SMITH. That is true.

Mr. LEACH. And one out of ten is as well.

Do you really feel we need that high of a percentage?

Mr. SMITH. For statewide statistics we don't but I think we might

for countywide.

I'm not sure about countywide, but farmers are, of course broken

up into so many different categories. While all are farmers, some

are cattle farmers or raise different crops. Also, it would depend

upon the number of farmers in a particular county.

They may be able to do it with less than one out of five, but at

least one out of five would cost a lot less than the way the census is

doing it, and there could be a more accurate, detailed sample.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Solarz.

Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to have to temporarily leave in a minute or 2, for

just the beginning of the hearing down the hall, but I will be back.

I do want to ask one or two questions. First I have to confess:

Until today's hearing I did not even know that there was an

agricultural census.

The census reported in my district in Brooklyn that there was a

grand total of eight full-time farmers. Where they're farming,

no one knows; but the census says they're there, and I assume they

are doing some work in their back yards.

Mr. SMITH. I might mention that they missed 1 million horses

in the census a couple of times ago. I expect some of those horse

owners live in Brooklyn.

Mr. SOLARZ. Well, I don't think there are any horses in my

district, at least not the four-legged kind.

[Laughter.]

Do you know if there are any benchmark surveys which are conducted outside the juris-diction of the Bureau of the Census?

Mr. SMITH. In government, you mean?

Mr. SOLARZ. Yes.

Mr. SMITH. I'm not really qualified to answer that. I have the

feeling•I can't put my finger on it right now•that there are

some.

However, I've been on the appropriations for Census Bureau for

15 years, and I know this, that most departments, if not all of them,

contract with Census, in effect, to do this kind of work.

Mr. SOLARZ. TO the extent that the problems you pointed out in

your testimony actually exist•and I assume that if you say all

these terrible things took place, they did•doesn't that point, obviously, to the need for an improvement in the way in which this

agricultural census is conducted? Why shouldn't it be possible to

concentrate on improving the way in which the census is conducted,

rather than transferring the jurisdiction to another department

which, conceivably, might make the same mistakes?

Mr. SMITH. TO start with I think that if Census really wanted to

do it, they could do it. But they would have to copy what the Department of Agriculture has already proven they can do.
8

Also, Agriculture has some of the in-house capacity that's needed.

In addition to that, when we get down to the personnel for the

survey, I think that Agriculture can do it with very little additional

personnel, because they have people in county offices that are doing

some other tasks that, even on a part-time basis, could be added. And

they have the contact with the people.

I just think they can do a better job with this thing.

Mr. SOLARZ. What's the position of the established farm organizations and farm interests with respect to your legislation?

Mr. SMITH. They have an advisory commission down at the Census

Bureau, and they call them in once a year; and by the time they get

through them, their representatives are kind of docile. But I

understand that in the last few months they've become a little more

militant. They've made, possibly, some progress at least toward this.

Mr. SOLARZ. Assuming the committee decided, in its wisdom, not

to report out the legislation, is there anything you think we could do

to help bring about an improvement in the way in which the Bureau

of Census conducts this operation ?

Mr. SMITH. I think you can do a lot of things just with hearings

and exposing the department to the wrath of the committee and trying to get them to improve whatever they're doing. I think that's

been shown before.

Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kousselot.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I want to compliment my colleague for appearing before this subcommittee. I know we discussed this a couple of

times on the floor last year.

I guess my questions would be similar to those of my colleague

from New York. As you know, I do not favor transferring functions

from one agency to another when the basic responsibility is in a

given agency. In this case, that agency is the Census Bureau.

And if they're not doing the job, and that's why

Mr. SMITH. I'd like to point out this is a little bit different, however. In the case of Census, other departments contract with the

Census.

In effect what I am saying is: Don't have Agriculture any longer

contract with Census to do the economic data gathering. Census is

really an agency that gets its contracts from other departments to

do their statistical work.

But the Department of Agriculture has its own statistical reporting service. They have their own capability.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. HOW many are in that department?

Mr. SMITH. I don't know.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. What is their capability ?

Mr. SMITH. They do annual crop and livestock reports on a nation-wide basis, and in some cases on a county and a State basis, they

don't get down to the detail that we provide in the census, but they

do some of the same kind of work.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, where do they get most of that data?

Mr. SMITH. They do it with a scientific sampling survey. • Mr. ROUSSELOT. You've given us an example of something they're

now doing. Do you know how many people they use to carry out

the survey?
Mr. SMITH. In the Census?

Mr. ROUSSELOT. No; in Agriculture.

Mr. SMITH. NO ; I don't know the exact number that they're using

for each survey.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. What you're saying is it might be more satisfactory to farmers if the Census Bureau contracted with the Agriculture Department?

Mr. SMITH. NO; the Census Bureau wouldn't even get into it. In

effect, we're asking the Census Bureau to do what Agriculture could

do.

Various departments ask the Census Bureau to do a statistical

survey of some kind, and in appropriations, we trasfer from that

department's budget over to the Census Bureau the money that it

takes to do that survey.

In this case, I say just let Agriculture do what it's already doing some of anyway, by what they've shown they can do, and what

they have a good background doing.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, I haven't talked to my other colleagues on

the committee, or my new chairman, in any great detail on this subject, so I don't know what other peoples' thoughts are. I probably

would find my views similar to my colleague's from New York.

If, in fact, we could find a way to get the Census Bureau to do a

better job, that might be a more appropriate way rather than the

transfer of function.

Mr. SMITH. There's something I think might influence you a little.

I say even if the Bureau improved its operation enough, it would be

more expensive.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. You mean the Census Bureau?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Why is that?

Mr. SMITH. Because Agriculture already has some of the capability that's needed to deal with this on a continuing basis.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I'm sure you wouldn't say to me that Agriculture

is always perfect in its ability to keep things efficient.

Mr. SMITH. NO. I'm just saying that Agriculture's Statistical Reporting Service has a very good reputation.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Does anybody on the committee know how many

they have in the Agriculture Department doing this?

The CHAIRMAN. We can instruct Counsel to get this information.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. What do they call this division in Agriculture

now? I apologize for not knowing.

Mr. SMITH. The Agricultural Statistical Reporting Service.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. How many surveys do they do a year ?

Mr. SMITH. They do the annual pig report, the annual cattle numbers, the annual cattle on feed. They do crop reports on less than an

annual basis, and they've developed methods, for example, of collecting together pieces of information and not putting it all together

until they all get into a room, making sure that, you know, the information isn't released prematurely.

And they do it on a very timely basis. They are accustomed to

doing things timely, not waiting a year, or two, or three years to

release the report.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. They do it on a scientific sampling basis?
10

Mr. SMITH. Right, and they get national statistics; and in some

cases they get down to the county level. But they don't do it in the

detail that we need in the 5-year census.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Okay. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. On page 2, you refer to the "violation of tha

traditionally confidentiality that we have expected of income tax

returns." Well; if anybody thinks that income tax returns are confidential, they're sadly misled.

Mr. SMITH. Well, at least we've prohibited the Agriculture Department from getting information from income tax returns or puting names and information on a computer list which is easily spread

around.

I just think it's not a good practice. I don't think it's that important.

The CHAIRMAN. This really doesn't bear on that question, but the

treasury department in the State of Florida keeps a person on

permanently at the Cordele, Ga., regional area of the IRS to pick

up data that they can use for the purpose of collecting intangible,

personal-property taxes from the State of Florida. So, really, any

governmental agency, as far as I know, has total access to the income

tax return. It's the kind of thing that we ought to talk about at another time, but income tax returns are wide open for data collection

at this time.

But I think that one of the questions is the problem of the confidentiality in collecting data for census. How would you deal with

the confidentiality problem of the census data collected by the Agriculture Department?

Mr. SMITH. The previous paragraph•

The CHAIRMAN. In the same manner?

Mr. SMITH. That's right.

The CHAIRMAN. I look at the agricultural census as a form of

audit of the agriculture system, and I just wonder whether we can

be as detached as necessary when you have the Department of Agriculture auditing its own programs, in a sense, wy collecting and

analyzing its own data.

Mr. SMITH. Well, I just don't see how changing the cattle numbers

or the pig numbers is going to reflect upon the job they do with regard to some farm program. I don't see how that would do that.

In fact, they would be, in the long run, I think, more interested

in making sure it is accurate. They don't want to happen, for example, what happened to the 1969 Agricultural Census, when they

missed 8y2 million cattle and sent the wrong signals out. They

wouldn't want that to happen.

They would know the importance of getting accurate information

and not letting something like that happen.

The CHAIRMAN. Is an agricultural census as necessary in the respect that agriculture is just another form of our economy, whether

it's mining, or agriculture, or transportation? Could not the agricultural census be really folded into the general economic census as

part of our whole?

Mr. SMITH. Well, we do special censuses for the other industries,

too, and the Government pays for them.

The CHAIRMAN. But they are usually done by the Census Bureau

on a contract basis.
11

Mr. SMITH. Yes, they're contracted for. They come over there

every year with a long list of things they could do if we want to

pay for them. And we select some and authorize them.

The CHAIRMAN. I can understand the value of using these kinds

of people to collect the most viable data.

Mr. SMITH. I think it's the particular selection, in general, this

census deals with. I just think it's an exception to that rule.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, under Bob Bergland's direction, I wouldn't

have a problem. I'm not so sure, though, under some other Secretary

of Agriculture. I thank you very much.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We'll now have the distinguished Congressman

from North Carolina, and the futurist leadership.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES ROSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. KOSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to comment today on the

legislation that you have before you. I do not wish to belabor the

point about the basic concept of the legislation, that is, to change

the place where census of agriculture is conducted.

But rather, I'm very concerned about changing the definition

of what is a farm. Because of my lateness in attending, I do not

know whether or not the Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture have had an opportunity to testify yet this

morning.

Yet I see in both of those statements, which I assume are the

statements that they will present to this committee later, that they

both fully support the current definition of a farm which says that

a farm is any establishment from which $1,000 or more agricultural

products are sold during a particular year.

And in this statement from the Department of Agriculture, the indication is that the actual number of farms eliminated by the change

will be minimal; in any event, these operators would still be eligible to participate in programs of the Extension Service.

Mr. Chairman, a change in the definition of what is a farm would

eliminate 25 percent of all the farms in North Carolina. My information is that it is close to 600.000 of the farms in this State.

And I would like to share with this committee, very briefly a

memorandum dated July 15, 1976, which came into my possession

from a public-spirited employee of the Department of Agriculture.

It was a memorandum signed by Don Paarlberg, the Director of

Agricultural Economics, and it was directed to the Secretary, Mr.

Butz. I would like to read it for the record. Now this is the Director of Agricultural Economics, at the Department of Agriculture,

writing his boss, Earl Butz, saying:

"We reached agreement with Census and with OMB on a change in the definition of a farm. Advisory committees to census and USDA endorse the change.

The new cut-off is $1,000 instead of $250. The effect of this change would be to

improve the accuracy of our statistics and to report a more truthful figure on

"income per person on farms," thus depriving the corn, wheat, and cotton

farmers of their fallacious rationale for costly commodity programs.

We worked this out satisfactorily with the farm organizations and with the

agricultural committees.
12

As part of all this, we supported the Bureau of the Census in their wish to

retain the agricultural census. (There had been an effort to transfer this to

TJSDA.)

We delivered on our part of the deal.

But the Census ran into some opposition from their committee. Thereupon,

without consultation with me, they backed away from their commitment They

now say they will stay with the old definition.

I feel very deeply about this.

My request of you is that you call Elliott Richardson and ask him to hnvp

his man, Vince Barabba, fulfill the Commerce's commitment. And that you call

Jim Lynn and ask him to have his man, Joe Duncan, fulfill the OMB

commitment.

I can document this whole business if need be.

This is the most flagrant breaking of an agreement in my 16 years in Government. If the Departments are to work together, there must be respect for

positions jointly taken.

Now, obviously, Mr. Richardson was called by either the Secretary or someone at Agriculture, because former Commerce Secretary, Elliott Richardson, issued on December 10, 1976, a directive

to utilize the revised farm definition announced in August 1975.

Now, in joint committee hearings, subcommittee hearings•that

Chairwoman Sehroeder's subcommittee in the 94th Congress held•

Mr. Barabba indicated to us that they were seriously considering

breaking down the agricultural census, for the information they

would report about farmers, into several categories: corporate

farmers, special experimental farmers•farms and farmers•full-time

farms and farmers, and part-time farmers.

Now, I completely understand, that if you come out with just one

figure for the average income of the American farmer, that it's much

better statistically if you can have a low cut•or as high a cut-off

point, for the bottom side, as you possibly can.

Rut, since there was an indication from the Department of the

Census that they understood that one statistic on farm income was

not going to be worth very much any more, because of the different

types of farmers that are developing in this country•such as corporate, such as part-time, such as full-time•that they were willing to

differentiate.

Congressman Gillis Long, Congressman Andrew Young, both testified last year before my subcommittee that they felt change in definition of a farm would be detrimental, especially to poor people in

the South.

We feel•all of us, very strongly•that people who are not counted

will soon be forgotten. And I understand that if this definition, from

$250 to $1,000, takes effect, there will be a statistical increase in

average income of the American farmer of approximately $2,000.

And while, statistically, I'm sure that TJSDA would like to have

that available to them, 1 object to the change in the definition of a

farm.

It's indicated that no States would lose any of the funds currently

allocated. That is a promise that I do not believe people at TJSDA

can assure us will happen.

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me come, and I hope

you will unravel this bureaucratic situation that has existed, and

keep the farm definition as it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rousselot.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I vield the floor to Mrs. Schroeder.
13

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, I thoroughly congratulate the gentleman

from North Carolina in having stayed with us, because I do think,

had he not, and other people, we would have been steamrollered

through.

This "memo" is kind of shocking proof of what was really going

on.

Should there be a separate farm census, and if there should be a

separate farm census, should the Department of Agriculture do it?

Or, should the Census Bureau continue to do it?

Mr. KOBE. First, I think there should be a separate agricultural

census because of the way that the farm community has come to

depend on it and use it for many purposes.

As for the question of whether it is to continue to be done by

Census or it should be done by Agriculture, I really don't have an

opinion. I don't know.

I think you should examine the argument Mr. Smith made, that

Agriculture does have a lot of this information available to it now.

There might be economies that could result from Agriculture doing

it, but as Mr. Rousselot said, and I tend to agree with that argument

also, Census was set up to do this kind of thing.

And by statistical sampling, which I think surely can be more

widely used•in census of agriculture, and I say especially about

the farmers with incomes under $1,000, farms that produce things

of less than $1,000 value a year•statistical sampling will be fine.

The Rural Development Subcommittee and the Rural Caucus

would like to know as much as we can about poor people, especially,

who live in marginal agriculture operations. But, Mr. Rousselot's

argument about moving things around to me has some merit.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. My problem is with the Smith approach. I could

never figure out exactly why the Agriculture Department wanted

to change the definition, what was the purpose, and whether or not

they would have a conflct of interest in trying to get the raw data.

I think, had they been taking the census, we would have lost. There

wouldn't have been any way to really have figured out what they

were doing. At least we had the interplay between the two agencies.

So that has really concerned me, in looking at Mr. Smith's bill,

and wondering how we should proceed on it. Do you have any idea

why the Secretary of Agriculture felt so strongly about changing

the definition?

Mr. ROSE. Well, maybe it had something to do with the statistical

increase of $2,000 in the average income of every American farmer.

That would have been a nice little present to have handed to the

President at election time.

And I jokingly accused him of that, and he said that had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Mr. ROUSSEIXXT. Well, explain to us now, what you mean by

"farmers."

Mr. ROSE. All right. The average income of the American farmer,

according to the last census, using the definition of a farm as any

place that sells at least $250 or more in produce a year, was about

$9,000.

If you raise that from $250 to $1,000 in saving that you, Congressman Rousselot, if you don't sell over $1,000 a year from your

87-766•77 2
14

place out in the country, you're not considered a farmer. You're considered a gardener, maybe, I doubt that you're going to get the same

kind of attention from the Agriculture Department.

But when you raise it from $250 to $1,000, then when you run

the computers and figure out the average income of the American

farmer, with kind of a flow, it jumps $2,000 to about $11,000 a year.

Mr. ROTTSSELOT. Well, now, how would that have been an advantage to Ford politically!

Mr, ROSE. Well, we were stretching a point, I graciously admit

to you.

Mr. ROTTSSELOT. I want to be sure he wasn't getting away with

something.

Mr. ROSE. I think the same argument I made to the committee

about what Mr. Butz and Mr. Ford might have been trying to do

2 years ago, might apply to my friend from Georgia now.

Mr. ROTTSSELOT. Oh, you mean the peanut farmer?

Mr. ROSE. Yes; I don't want him to fall into the same problem,

also.

Mr. ROTTSSELOT. OK.

Mr. ROSE. And that is, it would appear that suddenly there is

statistical increase of $2,000 in the average income of the American farmer, and it would have looked goon in advertising to indicate how well the Butz administration had treated the American

farmer.

Mrs. SCHROEDER. Well, I appreciate your constant attention, and I

hope we can finally take care of this issue.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Not being a dirt farmer, like Mr. Carter and Mr.

Bergland, I must tell you I'm not fully appreciative, and I've tried

to listen to the testimony and look at this memorandum, of what

changing it to $1,000 does to all these farms. They're fairly marginal farms, aren't they ?

Mr. ROSE. Sure, they're marginal farms, but we've got several•

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I'm not against marginal.

Mr. ROSE. I'm not either, but here's the thing. In the South, especially, there are a lot of people who live in rural areas who are

engaged in agriculture to feed themselves, their own family, grandmother, grandaddy. nieces, nephews•

Mr. ROUSSELOT. The whole family.

Mr. ROSE. The whole family. They sell a little bit of what they

pr-oduce, and it may amount, you know, to $750 or $1,000 a year.

I say they should be treated, if they want to live in rural America

and engage in farming just for their own use, not as some organ of

export, that they should be counted as farmers and they should be

given attention from USDA.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. All right now, are those kinds of producers•

$250 to $1,000•are they in other parts of the country, too? Or are

we talking about just the South?

Mr. ROSE. Sure, they're all over,

Mr. ROTTSSELOT. Could you say how many, say in California?

Mr. ROSE. Not too many. I have the statistics, breaking it down

State by State. But the main impact of this is in the South.

Now there's the real kicker that we're worried about. Agricultural

research and agricultural extension funds are allocated to States

according to the number of farms. OK?
15

Mr. KOUHBELOT. Yes.

Mr. ROSE. YOU change the definition of what is a farm•

Mr. ROUSSELOT. And you eliminate a lot.

Mr. ROSE. You eliminate 25 percent of all of the farms in my State

of North Carolina.

Now the Department of Agriculture says here the impact would be

very small because no State loses any of the funds it is currently

allocated.

And I would like to see that in law. I think that's saying, "We're

going to promise you as good Scouts that nothing's going to happen

to you." But I don't think the legal basis for saying that exists. I

can be proved wrong; somebody can show me.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, describe for us if you can, in our own State,

tliis family farm kind of thing. It this net earnings or gross earnings?

Mr. ROSE. A gross figure.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Are there tax advantages to be gained in declaring a farm, a family farm f

Mr. ROSE. Certainly, and I'm not familiar with all the ramifications.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. You mean there are other ramifications?

Mr. ROSE. I don't think that this change in definition is going to

change what the farm is, so far as Internal Revenue Service is concerned. In other words, I think they've got their own set of definitions.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, your concern, then, is that suddenly 25 percent, or roughly thereof of the farms in your State, are really operating as farms in kind of a family unit. They're not on food stamps;

are they ?

Mr. ROSE. I hope not. I don't want to sound like I'm comparing

these marginal operators to the full-time farmer.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. YOU made that very clear.

Mr. ROSE. And I really think that the Census Bureau should

go ahead and delineate between part-time farming and full-time

farms and corporate farms and experimental farms, like Mr. Barabba

told us that they were thinking about going to do, and to statistically

sample, if you want to, this low end. But just give us an idea of

what this low end is all about.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Where did you get your estimate that roughly 25

percent of the farms in your State would be eliminated from census

count if, in fact, they changed it to $1,000.

Mr. ROSE. I got that from statistics that I think both Agriculture

and Census supplied last year. I have them in my office, and I think

you people probably have them.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Could you supply whatever you have as relates to

your State on that so that we can make a judgment?

Mr. ROSE. Be glad to.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I yield to Mr. Leach.

Mr. LEACH. I just have one question.

Am I right, that of this group that are affected, that virtually

all are legitimate farmers; they're not city folk who own three acres

in the countryside. Basically we're just dealing with poor people

who have personal farms.
16

Mr. ROSE. That is my understanding. Now, I don't want to represent to you that they're not^-

Mr. LEACH. But in the vast majority that's the case?

Mr. ROSE. In the vast majority, that's our impression.

Mr. LEACH. There can be exceptions!

Mr. Ross. There could be.

Mr. LEACH. That's all.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I yield.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I suppose what I ought to do is to go to the

California statistical people and find this out, but as you knowr

farming is our biggest industry in California. I'd really like to know

what the impact of this would be on California.

Mr. ROSE. We have that. We'll get it for you.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Do we have that!

I certainly don't want to be against my small farming people,

peanut or otherwise.

Mr. ROSE. If she can be allowed to answer part of this•this is

Carol Forbes, who was legal counsel to the Subcommittee on Farm

and Rural Development.

Ms. FORBES. The problem with the tabulating, how many people

who are going to be seriously affected, and the disclosure that an

adverse population of minority farmers was going to be affected, had

to be draged out of USDA last year.

We had to demand that they do that breakdown, and give us their

statistical impact on farmers.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Did you do that by State?

Ms. FORBES. We did it State-by-State. We'll be glad to provide

it for you.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, we might as well do it for all States.

Mr. ROSE. We'll give it to you for all States.

Ms. FORBES. Of course, the problem of having the $1,000 breakdown is that you get into these hobby farmers who just can't make

a living otherwise, and, of course, that's a symptomatic problem, not

that they just don't want to count any of them.

Mr. ROSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. TO sum it all up, I think that with all of this

data that we're collecting now, if we can't really determine what a

farm is, then the data itself has no validity. I think that's the first

thing that this subcommittee should really get a handle on, "what

is a farm."

One of the things that I was thinking about is, that if we change

the criteria about land income•whether it's gross income, or net

income, or net profit•we've really got to know.

Perhaps, we should work into some kind of a hold harmless

arrangement by State, by county, or any other way so that if we do

change the definition, that we do not neglect the family farmer who

depends on this kind of count for the benefits of whatever that

farmer's entitled to.

I know people that have thoroughbred farms that loose a million dollars a year, and yet they're counted as a farm.
17

Before we start worrying about changing the questionnaire, we

ought to find to whom this questionnaire should be going.

Mr. ROSE. Could I make one comment that I think you all might

be interested in?

There is another committee on which I serve, and which our staff

have been inviting computer applications, and I've gotten to know

a lot of the computer people in the Federal Government. And one of

the computer experts in an agency in the Government•not either

one of the two that are represented here•told me that he was

charged with the responsibility of computerizing a lot of information that his department had required individuals to submit.

But he said the problem was that nobody in the department had

ever figured out what the usefulness of this information they had required everybody to submit was going to be.

So, I would hope that, somewhere in your deliberations, that someone might look at this information that is being required, and ask

the simple question: Who needs to know that? Who is going to use

it? Why do we need to bother with gathering it?

The CHAIRMAN. And, does it come too late to be of any value?

Mr. ROSE. Right. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

We have another distinguished Congressman from the State of

South Dakota. Congressman Pressler, who recently has been involved

at the district level with this same problem.

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY PRESSLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. PRESSLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members

of the subcommittee. I have a brief statement here, which I think

has been distributed.

Accurate information is important, but the manner in which it

is collected should also be given adequate consideration. This observation sums up in a nutshell the feelings of South Dakota farmers

concerning the census of agriculture.

Good reliable statistics on agriculture are valuable to many people; to the farmer in deciding on his type and level of production;

to the businessman in determining what and how much supplies he

should have on hand; and to the Government in formulating agricultural policy that will better meet the needs of the farmer. The

census of agriculture can be an important tool for gathering and

disseminating this information; in fact, it is currently the only source

of agricultural data for individual counties.

However, due to several practices used in the collection of this

data, many farmers in my district havo become highly suspicious of

the census of agriculture. The census is no longer taken by visits to

compliance, antagonized many farmers•in some cases•to a point

individual farms; it is now conducted through the mail. This lack

of personal contact, coupled with the threat of a $100 fine for nonwhere questions were left unanswered or distorted information was

supplied.

Other factors have contributed to this antagonism as well. The

1974 forms consisted of 20 pages containing thirty-eight sections.
18

Faced with a mounting tide of paperwork created by other Government agencies at all levels, farmers were none too pleased with this

addition to the pile. Many of the questions seemed irrelevant or too

personal; the section on financial data was highly objectionable to

farmers.

The method in which the data was obtained created yet another

problem•the timeliness of the information. The results of the 1974

census are just now being made available in 1977. Obviously, some

changes have to be made; the census as it now stands may well be

just a waste of the farmers' time and the taxpayers' money.

With some basic changes, the census of agriculture can once again

become an effective and useful tool. Shortening the form would be

a major step in improvement; 5 pages should be an absolute maximum. The questions could focus on easily provided, more relevant

data, such as total production, type of livestock and crops raised,

acreage and equipment used. If the form is designed to obtain

essential data, the farmer will be more willing to comply, and he can

do so much more easily. Also the data could be more quickly compiled and the results speedily disseminated. Thus, its usefulness and

timeliness would be greatly increased.

In addition, a greater attempt can be made to personalize the

census. It is too expensive and impractical to visit each farm in the

country: however, a sizeable number of firms could stiil be visited

personally by census personnel. The accuracy of the data would be

greatly increased and farmers might bo willing to discuss more detailed information. Most importantly, an atmosphere of trust between farmers and the Bureau of the Census would have a chance

to develop.

Finally, if all of the previous suggestions are adopted, the need

for keeping the club of a $100 fine over the head of each farmer

will no longer exist. The implementation of the proposed measures

should create a greater willingness among farmers to complete the

forms; the existence of the fine at present has created a negative

attitude among farmers and only adds to the problem of noncompliance.

I might note at this time that a public discussion of possible

changes in the census of agriculture was held in my district at Sioux

Falls, S. Dak. on February 11 of this year. This meeting was most

successful. Individual farmers and leaders from farm organizations

offered suggestions in both written and oral form, and officials from

the Agriculture Division of the Bureau of the Census were also

present to listen to the suggestions and offer their proposals for the

1978 census.

The Census Bureau officials indicated at that, time that they were

considering several changes for 1978. Shirley Kalleck, the associate

director for economic fields, said that the Bureau was considering

using a sampling of 20 percent of the farmers in each county who

would be personally visited, and that the basic form would be considerably shortened, perhaps to the 5-page length which I have suggested.

If the Census Bureau is to undertake the adoption of such measures

on its own, it may well not be necessary for the Congress to direct

through legislation action that changes be made. Those officials pres-
19

unt at the February 11 meeting indicated a willingness to make some

changes. However, I do not have any commitment in writing to such

a course of action. A record of comments made at that meeting was

not kept.

My suggestion would be, then, that Members of Congress, especially the members of this committee, urge the Bureau of Census

to take administrative action to make necessary changes in the census

of agriculture. Should it become clear, however, that those who administer the program are unwilling to act, then legislative action

will become necessary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify here

today.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pressler.

Mr. Rousselot?

Mr. EoussELOT. Well, as you have so thoroughly gone into the

subject matter at hand, can you give us any more than you have

in your testimony, as the result of the public discussions that were

held in your district?

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes; there was a wide feeling among the farmers

that we don't know how much gas and oil there is in the country, we

don't know how much other industries have on hand or what the

supplies are, but for some reason we have the philosophy that we

need to know how many bushels of corn the farmer has and how

many hogs he expects to have, and so forth.

And there was a strong feeling among the farmers that was very

much an anti-census feeling, expressed, but a willingness to cooperate if certain steps were taken.

There was a strong feeling against the $100 fine. There's a strong

feeling against the length of the forms. I thing our farmers are willing to cooperate, and many of them see some benefits, but they feel

they're sort of being singled out from other industries.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield ?

I thought, basically, the farm census information was for the benefit of the farmers.

Mr. PRESSLER. Well, they don't feel that way.

They're willing to cooperate, but they feel that speculators in

grain trade, foreign countries, and others, benefit more than they

do. Since the information is 2 years old, it's very hard for the farmer

to do any planning. My farmers do not feel that they get a benefit

from the census of agriculture. They're willing to cooperate if it's

in the country's interest, but they feel that grain speculators and

foreign countries and other people get more benefit.

They have the strong feeling that if it's for the good of the

country they're willing to cooperate.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. In other words, they have the definite feeling that

there's a lot of other people who may be benefiting from much of

this data that is hard for them to understand.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. What's the use to them ? As you say, they're willing

to make whatever input they can give, assuming they can understand

that the end product is of value.

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes; one thing we need to define is the benefit the

farmers get from it.
20

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield ?

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Sure.

The CHAIRMAN. IS the FDA information more valuable to them

than the census ?

Mr. PRESSLER. Well, once again that comes out once, in July. You

get the September -wheat futures, but you cant change how much

•wheat you're going to plant in Julv. Farmers have a great deal of

sense about its usefulness to them. 1 think the one thing that needs

to be denned is how the country, as a whole, benefits from it.

I asked the question: "How many farmers here have used the

Census of Agriculture or the crop reporting service in your planting?" Not a single hand went up. So••

The CHAIRMAN. Would you yield, Mr. Rousselot?

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Of course.

The CHAIRMAN. This is very interesting to me because it only indicates that there is no difference between the use of agricultural

census as far as the practical use of it than the use of any other

statistical information and data that we've collected for other parts

of our economic community.

Why should these long forms be imposed solely on the farmer

for the benefit of the whole economy if the farmers themselves

are not going to get some special benefit out of it?

Mr. PRESSLER. I suppose there can be seen a greater good in trying

to project•food is such an essential commodity• and see what direction we're going in.

It was pointed out that the Earth-Orbiting satellite does photograph crop lines. They can identify what kind of crop it is through

the color that's shown on the graph.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. IS that really in place, though, so that we can do

it on an effective basis? From the satellite information gathered,

can you really get accurate up-to-date information on the subject

you've lust stated?

Mr. PRESSLER. I'd be happy to submit a more detailed statement.

But near Sioux Falls, S. Dak., in my district, is the Earth-receiving

orbit and satellite receiving station, and I've had demonstrations of

pictures, of the Soviet Union and the United States, where you see

the fields and the different color of the crop, and they are, I'm told,

fairly accurate projections.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. YOU mean they can tell the difference between the

crops by photographs taken by satellite? I'm sure this is a stupid

question on my part, but can they ?

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes, they can, and how old it is.and so forth.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I'm somewhat disturbed that people who are being required to cough up this information have no understanding"•or at least the ones vou are meeting•of what it's for?

Mr. PRESSLER. Yes; that's right.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I don't blame you for being here today to say:

"Well, I had a meeting in my area, and they don't understand it."

Have you traced to see where this information does go? Who uses

it? Do vou use it?

Mr. PRESSLER. NO, I haven't, in fact. But the most important thing

for the subcommittee to do is to erive a statement to my people as to

why go through this exercise. What is the purpose of it?
21

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Good point.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kousselot, that question was raised by Mr.

Rose when he said that he talked to a computer person from one

of the departments who was getting up all of this information and

feeding it into the computer, out he didn't know for what purpose.

Mr. KOUSSELOT. I appreciate what he said, and I understand the

point he was making. But the people who are providing the information in these questionnaires, who say they'd like to be helpful, and

are willing to be helpful, but have no genuine appreciation of where

it goes. It's not helping them, or at least they don't see that it's

helping them.

Mr. PRESSLER. No. they don't see that.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. They've got to see that it's helping them.

Mr. PRESSLER. The point was brought, for example, that we don't

know how much gas or natural gas we have. We can perceive the

need to know better what sort of reserves we have if we can get

that information.

The point was made by one person that, "Our Government is too

timid to give a questionnaire to an oil company•and give them a fine

for not responding•while it gives it to family farmers." Well, that

may be an exaggeration. But, as far as I know, we don't know that

much about supplies on hand of oil and gas. We can all see a need

for more information of that type.

I did ask the question: "Who has used this information in their

operations," and no one in the room•>

Mr. ROUSSELOT. How many were there?

Mr. PRESSLER. Sixty or seventy people.

Mr. RotrssELOT. And they were all farmers?

Mr. PRESSLER. Largely farmers.

The CHAIRMAN. Let's get back to the family farm definition. In

South Dakota, you don't have the same problem with family farms

that you would in North Carolina•changing it from $250 to $1,000

wouldn't affect that many farmers in South Dakota, would it?

Mr. PRESSLER. I don't know. I don't think so. We don't have quite

the same situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Pressler, for that

very enlightening testimony and firsthand information.

We have next Mr. Robert Hagan, Acting Director of the Bureau

of the Census.

Mr. Hagan, could you identify your staff for the purposes of the

record ?

Mr. HAGAN. Yes: Mr. Chairman, I have with me Miss Shirley

Kallek, Associate Director for Economic Fields, Bureau of the

Census, which includes both the economic and agricultural census

areas.

I also have Mr. Orvin Wilhite, who is the current Chief of the

Agriculture Division of the Bureau accompanying me.

The CHAIRMAN. DO you have a statement?

Mr. HAGAN. Yes, sir, I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You're free to read it or make a summary statement.
22

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. HAGAN, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUREAU

OF THE CENSUS, ACCOMPANIED BY SHIRLEY KAILEK, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR ECONOMIC FIELDS, AND ORVIN WLLHITE,

CHIEF, AGRICULTURE DIVISION

Mr. HAOAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to summarize

it in some fashion without damaging the impact of the imformation.

And I'd also ask to give comments on some of the statements which

were made previously, which were either presented incorrectly or

misrepresented some of the information. I think they ought to be

corrected in the record.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to discuss the current status of the 1974 Census of Agriculture, and our plans for the forthcoming 1978 Census of Agriculture, and also to present our views regarding the basic elements

of H.R. 682 and H.R. 688, which relate to the census.

The Census Bureau's mission, as the Government's principal, general purpose, statistical agency, obviously requires that we collect

reliable statistics, publish them in a timely fashion, and disseminate

them as widely as possible. We do not establish program policy or

predict future trends based on data we collect, including agricultural data. These are, obviously, the functions of other groups, both

public and private.

There is no doubt that the 1974 Census of Agriculture was a

significant burden to some farmers, and it appears that much of what

we attempted to do was viewed by farmers as interference, time consuming, or an invasion of privacy.

Therefore, the Census Bureau has examined its census operations

carefully in an attempt to determine what caused resistance to the

1974 Census of Agriculture. For example, notwithstanding the fact

that there were actually more questions asked in the 1969 than have

been asked in 1974, there was much less resistance in 1969.

Discussions with numerous farm groups, and farmers in particular, have indicated that some of the resistance was not solely

against the Bureau of the Census, or the census of agriculture, but

against all kinds of government activities which required their

reporting.

More importantly, it is obvious that our explanations for a need

for census information, and how it would benefit individual farmers,

was not understood by the farming community. This was clearly

brought out by Congressman Pressler in his comments.

We need better communications, certainly.

Probably the most significant factors were the size of the form

and the inclusion of some of the more complex items on the complete count basis. This problem arose because of the time constraints imposed by the initial impoundment of the planning funds

for the 1974 Census of Agriculture, which, incidentally, was opposed

by the Bureau of the Census.
23

When the funds were finally released, it was not possible either to

revise the nlethodology that had been used in the 1969 census for the

first time, or to plan effectively for the usual follow-on surveys which

provide data, from only a sample of fanners.

In attempting to meet the urgent needs of all data users, we obviously did not fully consider the requirements, time constraints,

and the burden imposed upon the farm operator who had to complete the report form.

I would say, without hesitation, that the primary goal for the

1978 census is to provide timely and reliable information in meeting the challenge of balancing data needs against reducing respondent burden. We intend to minimize the response burden and

still provide the necessary data.

We are meeting with users of agricultural data and representatives of farm organizations and the farming community to obtain

their recommendations and suggestions in order to help us establish

priorities for the requested data needs.

We're holding numerous meetings with farmers, such as the one

described by Congressman Pressler, to obtain their comments and

suggestions. We know we must rebuild a cooperative effort with the

fanner.

We have, therefore, drastically changed our plans for 1978 in a

way which we think will still permit us to meet the goals I previously

stated. We will continue to strive for a complete count of all farm

operators since this is the most effective way to obtain comparable

county-by-county data for the entire United States.

The major difference will be the inclusion of only a minimum number of basic items on the complete count basis. These data items

would include information on land, livestock, and crops which are

needed on a county basis and which are fundamental to an indepth knowledge about agriculture.

Thus, the basic census form should be reduced from the 1974 size

of 20 pages to about 6 to 8 pages in 1978.

The CHAIRMAN. When will you have a first rough draft of that?

Mr. WILHITE. About 1 month. You're aware, perhaps, that we are

doing a very heavy research effort to find out who the users are. In

just about 1 month we'll have a rough draft.

Mr. HAGAX. We'll provide it to the committee at that time.

There are also a number of other data items which are needed,

but which can be collected on a sample basis. All items, which we

plan to collect at the, county level, must be absolutely necessary for

publication at that degree of geographic detail.

We, therefore, require all data users to tell us specifically how

they plan to use the information, and why it is necessary at the

county level. We are examining ways to spread the sample items so

that the reporting burden can be divided among all farmers.

It should be noted that when sampling is used, the largest unit

in the sample, in this case the operators of the largest farms, will

get all items to report, The 1978 census will not meet all data needs
24

of all interested groups, but only those needs which are most vitally

required.

Other items of information which are also felt to be necessary,

but which can be used adequately at either the State or national

level, will be included in sample surveys which will be conducted

in /1980, the year following the census, proper. Items of this type

include nonfarm income, farm financial and credit information,

information on the use of chemicals for insect and weed control,

and so on. The sample surveys will include approximately 10,000 to

20,000 farmers, and the data will provide estimated totals for each

State and the Nation as a whole.

I would like to make some additional comments on the use of

sampling to collect information. The Bureau of the Census has long

been a strong advocate of, and has provided basic leadership in, the

use of sampling to obtain information with a minimum cost and a

reduced respondent burden. Existing legislation encourages the Secretary of Commerce to authorize the use of sampling to collect information where appropriate, with the exception of determining

population for apportionment purposes. Sampling has been used

to increase efficiency of collecting information and to reduce respondent burden in a number of previous agricultural censuses and

will continue to be used in the future.

A brief background of the use of sampling by the Bureau of the

Census may be helpful. Probability sampling was first used in a

census of agriculture in 1945. In that census, there was a basic

questionnaire covering information asked of all farm operators. Additional information, needed only at the State and national level,

was requested from a sample of these farm operators. This sample

was based on the area sample frame for the. master sample of agriculture, which was developed jointly by the Bureau of the Census and

the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. TT.S. Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Statistical Laboratory of Iowa

State College•now Iowa State Universitv•for use in connection

with the 1945 Census of Agriculture, and for general use in sample

surveys in the field of agriculture. The work of the Statistical Reporting Service•SB.S•of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

started in 1954 to utilize area sampling based on this area sampling

frame.

In the 1964 census, information on 49 different items was collected

from a sample of 20 percent of the farmers who had less than 1.000

acres of land or less than $100,000 value of products sold. These

items included equipment inventory, chemicals and fertilizers applied,

expenditures, land value, nonfarm income, and debt. Estimates for

these items were prepared and published at the county level, using

the sample data in combination with selected information on all

farms from the census.

In the 1969 Census of Agriculture, data for farms under $2,500

total value of products sold were collected on a 50-percent sample

basis. Sampling errors of total estimates at the county level were
25

calculated and published. Data on farm finance and farm enterprises, which were needed only at the State and national level, were

obtained in sample surveys following the census. The frame for

these surveys was the set of farms included in the census.

As can be seen, sampling has been a part of the Bureau of the

Census operational program for conducting censuses of agriculture

for over 30 years. Our plans for the 1978 Census of Agriculture include the use of sampling to the maximum extent feasible.

Another area of concern has been the definition of a farm. The

farm definition has changed nine times, the last two changes occurring in 1959 and then again in 1975.

The preliminary reports of the 1974 census were published by

the old definition•by the definition which was established in 1959,

in accordance with the requirements of Public Law 94-229.

The final reports of the 1974 census are being published in accordance with former Commerce Secretary Richardson's directive•that

was cited by Congressman Rose•issued on December 10, 1976, to

utilize the revised farm definition which had been announced in

August 1975.

Thus, the final publications show data for all farms on the basis

of the new definition, operations with $1,000 or more in sales of

products, and also include sufficient general information presented

under both the new and previous definitions to permit the reader

to assess the effect of the change.

Now, since there was a large amount of discussion on the impact

of the change in the farm definition, I would like to offer to the

committee for the record a table, which has been provided to interested congressional offices, listing the impact of the change in

definition.

Just to cite a few numbers from this table, the national total of

farms in this category, with total value between $250 and $1,000,

amounts to 6 percent of all farms in the country, the absolute number being a little over 150,000.

Now, the largest number of such small farms, in an absolute sense,

occurred in the South where about 77,000-78,000 farms fell in that

category. North Carolina had 9,403 such farms. That was 9.4 percent

of the total farms in North Carolina,

In the West, the absolute number is not as large, but percent is a

little bit larger, surprisingly, than in the South. It's again approximately 8 percent or 7.92 percent. The number in California totals

6,000 such farms, or 8.5 percent of the farms in California.

The CHAIRMAN. 6,000 farms in California fall under•

Mr. HAGAN. Under the $1,000 farm definition level.

The CHAIRMAN. That includes backyard, orange groves, and everything like that ?

Mr. HAOAN. It's an assortment of activities; yes, sir. We will provide this table for your consideration. I'd like to add one additional

piece of information on this. In terms of value of sales, nationally,

it's % of 1 percent for all farm products.

[The tabulation referred to follows:]
26

FARMS AND VALUE OF SALES BY 1959 DEFINITION, PRELIMINARY DATA: 1974 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE, PRELIMINARY, NOVEMBER 1976

All farms Farms with sales less than $1,000

Value of Number Value of sales

thousands Percent of Dollars (In Percent of

Number of dollars) Total all farms thousands) total sales.

United States, total.. 2,450.126 80,430,668 151,741 6.19 44,246 .055

136,403 4,213,486 9,622 7.05 2,244 .053

7,020

2,821

353,792

72,865

646

407

9.20

14.43

161

85

.046

New Hampshire .117

Vermont __• 6,270 204,314 439 7.00 no .054

Massachusetts 4,970 176,118 576 11.59 175 .100

Rhode Island 710 21,601 122 17.18 31 .144

Connecticut .. 3,799 177, 780 398 10.48 101 .057

New York _ .. 46, 288

8,055

1, 436, 812

288,868

2,904

726

6.27

9.01

575

247

.040

New Jersey . .086

Pennsylvania 56,470 1,481,336 3,404 6.03 759 .051

The North Central 1,057,068 35,826,010 43,661 4.13 16,528 .046

Ohio 97,697 2,224,478 6,035 6.17 1,652 .074

Indiana 92, 349 2,564,099 5,082 5.50 1,399 .055

Illinois 115,059 4, 570,289 5.025 4.37 1,465 .032

68,638 1,464,117 4,947 7.21 1,100 .075

Wisconsin 92,636 2,317,226 3,419 3.69 813 .035

102,112

129,404

3, 383, 824

6,276,265

3,820

3,387

3.74

2.62

1,051

1,004

.031

Iowa .• .016

Missouri 121, 272 2, 288,201 5,881 4.85 1,396 .061

North Dakota 43, 366 1, 769,268 691 1.59 187 .011

South Dakota 43,653 1,640,917 914 2.09 276 .017

Nebraska 68,973 3,688, 823 1,631 2.36 565 .015

Kansas 81,909 3,633,605 2,829 3.45 778 .021

The South 998,314 22,968,952 77,987 7.81 18,645 0.81

Delaware 3,574 240,056 175 4.90 50 .021

Maryland 16,285 614,955 1,166 7.16 350 .057

Virginia 55,581 941,373 5,253 9.45 1,373 .146

West Virginia 19,123 134,034 2,196 11.48 437 .326

North Carolina 99,939 2,053,572 9,403 9.41 2,207 .107

South Carolina 31,948 645,077 3,175 9.94 676 .105

Georgia

Florida

58,413 1,784,507 4,179 7.15 772 .043

34,937 1,867,838 2,565 7.34 673 .036

Kentucky 109,725 1,226,694 8,203 7.48 2,551 .208

Tennessee 102,474 926,132 9,491 9.26 2,883 .311

Alabama.. 60,756 1,089,695 5,039 8.29 922 .085

Mississippi 57,375 1,206,639 4,734 8.25 740 .061

53,497 1,837,313 3,092 5.78 674 .037

35,466

73,649

1,170,846

1, 568,393

2,647

4,314

7.46

5.86

526

945

.045

Oklahoma .060

Texas 185,572 5,661,827 12,355 6.66 2,866 .051

The West 258,341 17,422,220 20, 471 7.92 6,829 .039

Montana 24,285 1,029,724 1,051 4.33 299 .029

Idaho 24,810 1,358,346 1,177 4.74 423 .031

Wyoming 8,329 356,372 414 4.97 122 .034

Colorado 26.8% 1,935,986 1,627 6.05 474 .024

New Mexico 12,387 517,394 1,230 9.93 337 .065

Arizona .... 6,602 1,090,765 617 9.35 209 .019

Utah 13,130 329,357 1,043 7.94 384 .117

Nevada 2,218 131,398 183 8.25 58 .044

Washington . 32,514 1,663,611 3,152 9.69 988 .059

Oregon...

California

29,990 1,027,359 3,387 11.29 1,128 .110

73, 549 7,366,364 6,262 8.51 2,251 .031

Alaska 333 6.707 42 12.61 17 .253

Hawaii 3,298 608,837 286 8.67 139 .023

Mr. HAGAN. In planning for the 1974 census, obviously we had

a large amount of communication and interchange between ourselves

and committees and other users, as well as with the Department of

Agriculture, concerning the farm and the meaning of the farm definition.
27

And, traditionally, we have•although the authority rests with

the Secretary of Commerce, title 13•we have approached this decision on farm definition as a joint one between the several arms of

the Government that are interested.

Now, obviously, the figures I cited on the number of farms which

are in that category between $250 and $1,000, is quite a bit different

from what it was in 1969. And tins, of course, is caused chiefly by

inflationary factors, and the changes in price structure.

Now, to address one point in one of the bills, in view of the substantial increases in price levels and other changes in the structure

of agricultural operations, we oppose reinstitution of the farm definition first used in 1959.

Since the statistics are increasingly important elements in the

development and evaluation of Federal programs, and statistical

concepts which are based on dollar values must be adjusted to reflect changes in levels of economic activity, the current farm definition provides a more realistic profile of economic activities significantly involved in the production of agricultural services.

We do, however, recognize that there is a need for information

about persons, families, and resources in rural areas, but in looking

at the continuing changes in structure and organization of agricultural operations, we do not believe that the census of agriculture is

the appropriate means to obtain such information. The Decennial

Censuses of Population and Housing and related demographic current surveys are better able to provide the demographic characteristics of the rural population.

The Department of Commerce, therefore, opposes the enactment

of either H.R. 682 or H.R. 688. H.R 682 would fix by statute specific criteria for reporting burden, farm classification, and publication of statistical reports in connection with the agricultural censuses which are authorized by title 13, U.S. Code. We do believe

that our plans for the 1978 Census of Agriculture will achieve or

approach the intent of the bill with regard to reporting burden.

The questions to be asked of all farmers are items which are most

easily answered, and this will reduce the reporting burden. The

more difficult questions are those which will be included in either

the sample questions on the census report form or in the sample

surveys which will be conducted in the following year.

A complete and detailed publication schedule is also being developed. The Census Bureau's publication goal for 1978 is to begin

issuing the preliminary county reports in the fall of 1979. approximately 10 months after the collection effort has begun and nearly 6

months earlier than was accomplished in the 1974 census.

I should add at this point that the 1974 publication schedule was

interrupted and delayed by the passage of a public law which fixed

the farm definition for a period of time.

The publication schedule calls for all reports being released

within a 2-year period, that is by the end of 1980. This is a goal

which has been established for all censuses in the economic activity

area at the Bureau, which cover most of the economic sectors, including manufacturing, mining and trade.

I think it's an important point that the very nature of the census

itself does not permit completion within a 1-year time period as
28

called for. The census is not intended and it should not be expected

to provide data on short-term developments in the agricultural sector of the economy.

The principal purpose of the census is to permit the study of this

sector m depth, and permit detailed analysis of subsegments. It's

the only source of local area data for agriculture, and this means

the ability to obtain comparable data for all counties in the United

States at the same point in time.

A census measures change over a period of time and permits an

examination of the structure of the economy. A census, by including

all farm operations, permits unlimited types of tabulations to assist

in understanding what is taking place. Time is required to collect

the basic information and to perform careful edit and review. We

believe the 5-year cycle, which presently includes 2 years of development and planning. 2 years for collection, processing, and publication of the data, and the final year for special reports, is proper.

"We oppose reinstitution in the 1974 census publications of the

farm definition first used in 1959. The Bureau of the Census stronglv

opposes H.R. 688 which would repeal Section 142 of Title 13. United

States Code, requiring the Secretary of Commerce to conduct censuses of agriculture.

This bill actually proposes to abolish the census of agriculture as

it's presently known, and to substitute in its place an expanded program of commodity, statistics, and other data to be collected and

published by the Department of Agriculture on an annual basis.

The entire elimination of a requirement, for a periodic full-scale

agricultural census program, as stipulated in H.R. 688, is apparently

based on the premise that an expanded data collection program in

the Department of Agriculture would be a suitable substitute for

the census.

We believe this premise is not valid because the 5-year census and

annual sample surveys that are conducted by the Department of

Agriculture have different and complementary objectives.

When the 94th Congress considered a similar proposal in 1976,

our opposition to the proposal was supported by the Department of

Agriculture, Department of Interior. Farm Credit Administration,

Bureau of Economic Analysis, various farmer associations, and other

public and private users.

Ample testimony exists from last year's hearing to substantiate

the fact that agriculture is too important to the welfare of this

Nation and the world not to be measured accurately. The censuses

provide data for each countv. thus providing the statistical building

blocks for the territories of farm organizations, and for every conceivable farm-related supply and market organization. The censuses

provide benchmark data for the support•or correction•of interim

sample surveys.

H.R. 688 would require an annual agricultural survey which,

when necessary, provides statistics at the county level. To conduct

a survey of this size on a yearly basis, capable of producing acceptable statistics for every county in the- United States, would be a

massive undertaking. Depending on the pattern of farming in the

country, the sample size required to provide adequate statistics would

vary widely. In some extreme cases. 100 percent enumeration would

actually be necessary.
H.R. 688 also prohibits the use of Federal income tax returns by

the Department of Agriculture, The IRS records are an important

component of the Census Bureau's list of farms, and the Tax Reform

Act recently enacted provides access for this purpose only to the

Bureau.

I might add that the Bureau obtained this access initially in 1944,

and it's been renewed twice through various Executive orders, and

final action has been incorporated into the IRS Code. We use other

records, of course, such as those in Social Security, trade associations, the list from the Statistical Reporting Service, and the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service to supplement the

list derived from IRS records.

Because of the unique statutory protections of 13 I

T

SC, sections

8 and 9, which prohibit further disclosure, IRS is authorized to

provide the needed information only to the Census Bureau. This

restriction limits the ability of any other agency to develop as complete and comprehensive a list as the Bureau can construct,

Where it is desirable to draw a sample from a list of all elements

in the universe, the more complete the sampling frame, the more

reliable the sample.

Recognizing the problems with the 1974 Census of Agriculture,

the Census Bureau is committed to improving the entire program.

The methods designed to reduce the farmer's reporting burden are

being tested. Channels of communication are being established between the Bureau and farmers. Public information programs are

being intensified to explain the importance of the census to the

fanner.

We sincerely believe that it is in the best, interests of the agricultural community and the public at lanre for the Bureau to continue

to conduct a 5-year periodic census of agriculture.

Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any questions; however, I would like to insert at this point, two or more statements

which I think will provide proper information concerning some

points that Congressman Smith made.

The reference to the difference of 8i/£ million cattle that was cited

both last week in your Appropriations hearings and here today is

a misstatement. The proper reference is 5.8 million, but the numbers

have been transposed. While its still a large number. I think the

correct figure should be inserted.

I also would like to offer, for your consideration a communication

from the Census Bureau to Congressman Teague, Chairman of the

Technology Assessment Board, which we submitted in July of last,

year, which does provide information pertaining to correction of

errors and misleading: statements in the paper entitled. "An Integrated Agricultural Data System," produced by the Office of Technology Assessment.1

The other reference which I would like to correct for the record, is

that the final response rate for the 1974 census is 92 percent. The testimony stated that it was 13 percent nonrosponse. Actually, there, was

an 8 percent nonresponse in the final analysis.

The reference to the 400.000 large-scale commercial farmers which

1 Retained In subcommittee files.

87-766 O•77 3
30

were missed, in actuality turns out to be about 315,000 names which

we researched. We added about 90,000 farms of all sizes as a result

of that operation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hagan.

I assume, from your testimony, that most, if not all, of the problems that we are dealing with in regard to the agricultural census can

be corrected, improved, or relieved administratively, and it is not

necessary to do so by changing the legislation.

Mr. HAGAN. Yes, sir, that is our belief.

The CHAIRMAN. DO you need any legislative support for these

kinds of changes, or do you think you can handle the whole thing

bureaucratically. and I use that word in a positive sense.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HAGAN. I don't see it so much as a need for legislative change

as I see, perhaps, the need for some additional funds which we would

identify through the proper channels for specific activities which

we would want to undertake.

The CHAIRMAN. Another specific question T wanted to ask relates to

your tesimony on page 3. "The 1978 census will not meet all data

needs of all interested groups but only those needs which are most

vitally required."

Now required, as Congressman Pressler said, by whom? He says

that this is required by speculators and traders and so forth. This is

the bottom of page 3.

Mr. HAGAN. Yes, sir. Obviously there's a very intricate and continuing mechanism for trying to evaluate the various kinds of data

needs, that mechanism might be a matter of legislation or of program implementation by the various departments. We can provide a

very detailed run down of who asks for what kinds of information

and how their requests relate to a specific census question.

Now, the problem we have, of course, is trying to identify that

data needed at the county level or the State level, or the national

level, and also, in many cases, to make some very tough choices about

which of those can be carried on the questionnaire, and which have

to be deferred.

So, our commitment is to conduct a very top-flight review of these

data neds. We can provide additional information on how that's done.

The CHAIRMAN. YOU say you would have, something to .show this

subcommittee, as to what you're trying to do, around the first of May ?

Mr. HAGAN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. TWO overriding problems are: The complaint of

Congressman Rose in regard to the definition change from $250 to

$1,000; and also, though it doesn't affect that many people throughout

the country or that much of the farm economy, still, in California,

you're talking about 6,000 people, in North Carolina, you're talking

about 9,400 people.

Would you suggest some kind of a hold-harmless arrangement, so

that by changing this data or this definition, that no fanner now

existing under this kind of category would be adversely affected?

How would you do that?

Mr. HAGAN. Mr. Chairman, that issue arises in a number of areas,

for the Bureau either produces or collects information where certain
31

actions regarding eligibility or inclusion in programs are taken or

withdrawn, based on certain cutoffs and statistical levels.

At the Bureau, of course, since we're not involved in program administration, we. can, perhaps, be less sensitive about it, and our opinion, of course, is that we would like to see us not have these pressures

placed on a statistical program.

This applies not only on farm definition levels, but in many places:

Revenue sharing and

The CHAIRMAN. Tn other words, the cost of collecting and analyzing the data is more than the benefits to the recipients of this information that you collect.

Mr. HAGAN. Well, there may be that issue, too. The problem we

have, of course, is that if the collection of the information will trigger

a certain kind of action, once it's produced, then it's got to have an

impact on some of the respondents because they understand what the

data are going to be used for.

And clearly, from our point of view, we think that it would be

much better for our operations if a hold-harmless position of some

sort could be placed in legislation. I realize that presents other problems, but it does affect the freedom of statistical activity of our

organization.

The CHAIRMAN. One other thing that relates to this, that I've been

reading about and I think some of the information is coming from

your Bureau, is that the trend of movement of the people is once

again, back from the metropolitan area to the rural areas, and much

of this trend will be settling on to small farms.

Mr. HAOAN. Right.

The CHAIKMAN. It is important for us to be able to account, for

these people. I know personally of people who are retiring from

school systems and metropolitan jobs•police forces and everything

else•that arc going back into the rural areas to be partly self-supporting on these so-called marginal farms.

They won't be working in the plant in the city, but they will be on

a pension and will be a small "farmer," too.

Mr. HAGAN. Our migration statistics do indicate this trend, and indicate some rather surprising events in the terms of migrations in

New England.

But I'd like to add one more caution or concern that I have with

regard to including the small farmers in an agricultural census. And

that's the question of burden, because, I think the two issues have to

be looked at together.

We're committed to reducing burden. It's certainly an initiative of

the previous administration that's being strengthened and enforced

by the current administration, to cut down the Federal reports that

produce a burden on individuals. And this is another component of

burden reduction.

I think examination of the question of definition should also include this issue to see if it's a iustified burden to place on the small

fanner as compared to the benefits that he receives.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hagan. I would like to submit some questions

for your answers and in turn make them a part of the record.

Mr. HAOAN. Very well, Mr. Chairman.

[The questions and answers referred to follow:]
32

1. Q. On page 2 of your testimony, you state that you plan to assign

priorities to requested data needs. What criterion will you

use to set these priorities?

A. The criterion follows the line of importance listed below:

1. Data required by law

2. Data required to plan or evaluate legislated programs

3. Data required by agencies in planning and evaluating

farmer related programs, but not specifically legislated

4. Data required to establish benchmarks

5. Data for study by analysts

6. Data used in agricultural educational programs and studies

7. Other

Of course, there are overlapping requests, and some require

judgments as to whether or not a specific data item is required;

in general, agencies have looked at their alternatives before

requesting the census data.

2. Q. On page 3, the Bureau states, "The 1978 census will not meet

all data needs of all interested groups but only those needs

which are most vitally required. What is meant by the term,

vitally required? Please define.

A. Vitally required data would usually conform to priorities 1,

2, and 3 which are indicated in the previous question. The

other priorities are less vital in relation to the burden

imposed on respondents.

3. Q. What "methods" are you speaking of when you say, "Methods

designed to reduce the fanner's reporting burden are being

tested"?

A. Some items will be omitted from the census. In addition, we

are seeking to reduce respondent burden and are testing several

methods, including:

1. The use of sampling to collect some items of data that were

collected from 100 percent of the farms in 1974. Two levels of

sampling will be used. Items for which county data are required

are being tested to measure the extent and reliability of results

which can be obtained by sampling techniques. Data for which

State or National estimates are sufficient will be collected in

more limited sample surveys in the year following the census

proper. In this way, only a limited sample of the farms engaged

activity!iCUlar aCtiV1ty wil1 "e asked questions about that "
33

2. The use of Improved report form design and wording of items.

We will be testing new designs to make it easier for the farmer

to find his way through the form, as well as revised wording

intended to make it easier for the farmer to understand the

questions asked and to report his answers. Me intend to make

1t unnecessary for the farmer to have at his side a book of

Instructions on how to prepare his agriculture census report.

We also want to make the census report form look simple and

straightforward to the fanner so that he is not discouraged

from replying as promptly and as accurately as he can.

3. The use of a 1-page screening form to be mailed to agricultural associated persons and whose status as a farm operator

is not known. In this, nonfarm operators will not be burdened

with a census of agriculture form in the census proper.

4. Q. During the hearings in South Dakota the Bureau states it

planned to sample about 20 percent of Congressman Pressler's

district in 1978. How does this compare with 1974? Am I

correct in assuming that you are not planning to use sampling

to any greater extent than you have in the past?

A. Sampling was not used in 1974. The plans for the 1978 census

in all areas of the Nation are as follows:

1. Collect from all farms the minimum data necessary

2. Collect from approximately 20 percent of the farms limited

additional data needed by county

3. Collect from smaller samples of farms in the year following

the census, which are needed at only the State and national

levels.

Samples of approximately 20 percent of the farms to provide county

data were used in the 1964 Census of Agriculture and in earlier

censuses going back to 1950. We anticipate that about the same

proportion of the census questions will be asked only of sample

farms in the 1978 census as was the case in earlier censuses.

However, no final decisions have been made yet. The size of the

sample survey in the year following the 1978 census will be

comparable with that of similar surveys conducted following the

1969 Census of Agriculture.

5. Q. On page 3, you state that the basic census form will be reduced

from 20 pages to 6 or 8. Estimate the length of time required

to fill the form and compare it with 1974. Will the number of

forms a farmer has to fill out increase for the 1978 census?

A. We plan to collect selected data from all farms on a basic form

which will be no more than 6-8 pages. Approximately 20 percent

of the farms will receive a slightly longer form to collect the

county-level data that are planned to be obtained on a sample
34

basis. Farm operations vary in size and complexity. A fanner

who concentrates on one or two crops or livestock will find

that the form will take perhaps 10 minutes to complete; a farmer

with a very complex operation will find that more of the items

on the form apply to his operation and it will take him longer

to complete the form. In fact, some farmers may need as much as

30 to 45 minutes to complete the form. The design of the forms

being drafted for testing allows the farmers to "skip" items

on the form which do not apply. From our tests, we will be able

to determine a better estimate of completion time. Roughly,

from our experience, we are estimating that on the average a

farmer would take approximately 20 minutes to complete the

census report form (averaging the 100 percent and sample). For

comparison, for 1974 the average time was estimated at approximately 45 minutes.

In order to sample for State-level data, some farmers will have

an additional report form to complete in the year following the

census. However, that form will relate more to his specific

activities, based on his census report. Although there will

be more than one sample survey, we will attempt to avoid including

the same farm in 2 or more samples. It may be necessary to include

a relatively few of the largest operations in more than one survey

in order to obtain reliable estimates in each of the surveys.

6. Q. In 1974, it is my understanding that preliminary questionnaires

were sent out to over 4 million farmers to develop mailing lists.

It's reported that some farmers received multiple letters and

thank you cards. Some even phone calls. This seems to be a

wasteful duplication in light of the apparent cooperation between

Agriculture and Census to share lists. What is being done to

correct this situation?

A. Mailings to individual farms were not made to develop mailing

lists. The Department of Agriculture has been very cooperative

in sharing lists of farm-associated addresses with us. Additional

names and addresses of persons associated with agriculture were

obtained from as many sources as possible including

the ASCS, SRS, IRS, Department of Interior, and Social Security

Administration, as well as State and private sources.

Since no preliminary questionnaires were sent out prior to the

census, there was no way to distinguish between farm operators

and nonoperatlng landlords. Questions on the census form were

used to determine if the individual was in scope of the census.

Approximately 2 weeks after mailing, each addressee received a

"thank you" card which thanked him if he had already completed

the report form and gently reminded him of the need to do so,

1f he had not.

Following this mailing, and at approximately one month Intervals,

a follow-up letter was mailfid to nonrespondents; A total of

six follow-up letters were mailed.
35

Beginning in March 1975, a telephone program was instituted

to contact operators of larger farms to ensure that data were

obtained from this group.

For 1978, the Bureau will still need to obtain name and address

lists from other sources to ensure as complete a coverage as

possible. We are working very closely with USDA and have had

a number of meetings with the agencies which have or are currently

attempting to build agricultural operator lists.

However, we also recognize the need for a massive public relations

program to acquaint fanners with the need for a census and of

the changes being made to reduce respondent burden.

We need the expressed support of Congress, the agencies, and

organizations, government and nongovernment who use the data

collected to persuade farmers to actively cooperate in the

census.

Q. Why will the costs of the 1978 census be double that of 1974

when every effort is being made to reduce the duplication and

provide greater efficiency and accuracy, especially since you

are no longer counting farms which sell less than $1,000 worth

of agriculture goods?

A. The budget proposed for the 1978 Census of Agriculture is

$39.5 million, a 60-percent increase over the 24.8 million

dollars for the 1974 Census of Agriculture. Of this increase,

4.0 million is for pay raises, increased printing costs, and

the like. In addition, $9.9 million is included in the 1978

proposal for adjustments to include additional surveys and

testing which were included in the 1969 census, but which were

excluded from the 1974 census. These exclusions were necessary

due to the limited time frame in which the 1974 census could be

planned. In addition, the Census of Irrigation and Drainage,

which is done on a 10-year cycle, will be conducted as part of

the 1978 census.

Improvements for the 1978 Census of Agriculture amount to a net

of about $850,000 since there is a savings of approximately

$900,000 due to increased efficiency in the use of administrative

records and processing techniques. The major improvements for

the 1978 census include expansion 1n corporate pattern data to

provide linkage to information from other economic censuses and

additional programs for evaluation and coverage. The 1978 census

budget also includes savings of $250,000 due to the reduction in

the number of farms.
36

8. Q. The Department of Agriculture, in the hearings, stated that

the statistical definition for a farm is decided on a "purely

arbitrary" basis. In light of this and of the fact that the

Bureau has stated the extreme difficulty it has in finding the

small rural farmer, isn't it appropriate to assume that the

major reason for the definition change is bureaucratic, not one

of providing a more accurate description of agriculture today?

A. The farm definition is "arbitrary" only in the sense that it

reflects administrative judgments with respect to the objectives

of a 5-year census, what statistics it should provide, and what

it should cost relative to the uses of the data and the reporting

burdens placed on respondents. These judgments are professional,

they reflect significant input from data users, and in the current

instance, the adopted definition clearly provides for a more

accurate description of agriculture than the definition established 18 years ago.

9. Q. Isn't it the classification system not the statistical definition

that describes the farming community?

A. Several classification systems are used to describe the farming

community, including principal occupation, race, tenure, and

age of operator, value of sales, type of operating organization,

size of farms, standard industrial classification, and for the

first time for 1974, a new classification categorizing farms as

primary, part-time, business associated or abnormal.

10. Q. Does the definition provide you with any information other than

the starting point for the counting of farmers in America?

A. The purpose of the Census definition is to provide a uniform

minimum criterion for describing the agricultural operations

included in the published data.

11. Q. In the course of hearings which have been held on the census of

agriculture, one of the overriding concerns of the Subcommittee

has been the possibility of an eventual phase out of a separate

census of agriculture by making it just another component of the

economic census. By excluding the demographic questions 1n the

1978 census, aren't you in effect doing just that?

A. Section 142, title 13, United States Code, specifically requires

that a census of agriculture be conducted. The Bureau has no

intention of phasing out the census of agriculture. However, It

is highly desirable that the census of agriculture be coordinated

with the economic censuses to permit an adequate description of

the agricultural sector of the economy, and its relationships to

other sectors; and to avoid gaps in the coverage of activities of

agriculture related industries.
37

The demographic characteristics that have been traditional in

past censuses of agriculture are being continued. However,

the need for accurate statistical information about persons

who live in rural areas transcends the scope of agriculture.

Such demographic data needs exist for all rural residents. We

believe that the census of population and housing represents

the best means of providing this needed information especially

now that legislation passed by the Congress requires quinquennial

censuses of population and housing (previously required only at

10-year intervals). In line with this, related current demographic

surveys can also be used for updating during the intercensal years.

To insure that this area is not slighted, the Bureau has established

a task force charged with the responsibility for identifying these

needs for demographic data and to recommend the most effective way

to collect them.

12. Q. What is the difference between an agriculture census that collects

economic statistics of farming and a component of the economic

census that collects this data?

A. Each of the components of the economic censuses uniquely reflects

the character of its subject-matter field. Thus, the census

report forms for the census of manufactures are tailored by

industry, and are quite different from those of the census of

retail trade or the census of construction industries. Also,

the methods for ensuring the completeness of coverage of the

census and the quality of the census data differ between censuses.

However, there is a basic set of common threads that permit

inter-industry analyses and a statistical description of the

economy (within the scope of the economic censuses) as a whole.

There is no way 1n which the census of agriculture could lose

its distinctive character, its distinctive items of information,

and its unique user requirements for data at the county level.

However, an agriculture census that collected economic statistics

without regard to the other sectors of the economy could not

meet the current needs of agricultural economists for data to

support sophisticated economic analyses of agriculture and food

supply. Also, it could not avoid gaps in the coverage of

industries which are not classified in agriculture but which

are agriculture-related, such as agricultural services and food

processing.

These considerations argue persuasively that the census of

agriculture should be coordinated with the economic censuses

in their timing, as provided for 1n legislation passed by the

last Congress, and in their conceptualization. This Issue is

totally unrelated to, and separable from, whether or not data

are obtained to relate the demographic and economic aspects of

farming.
38

13. Q. Who in the Bureau will be analyzing the results of the 1978

census? Are they the same people (or division) who designed

the questionnaire?

A. The Agriculture Division has primary responsibility for all

phases of the Agriculture census program Including planning,

data collection, completeness of coverage, and publication.

Other elements of the Census Bureau participate in their

areas of expertise. The Agriculture Division also benefits

from the advice of USDA analysts who are data users of Census

Bureau Advisory Committees, and of various inter-agency

committees concerned with agriculture. As in other fields,

the Bureau intends to seek the participation of experts--

especially from academic and research institutions•in the

preparation of analytic monographs based on the census of

agriculture.

14. Q. In your analysis of the results of the 1978 census and future

agriculture censuses, will you have the ability to continue

to compare the demographic aspects of farming with the economic

aspects? For all practical purposes, is that phase of analysis

now eliminated?

A. The Bureau expects to eliminate questions concerning nonfarm

income of family members from the 1978 Census of Agriculture.

Other demographic data will be approximately comparable to

that collected in 1974 for operations meeting the 1978 farm

definition. These demographic data are normally used as

classification criteria for economic data. The Bureau will

continue to collect and use comparable demographic data in

future censuses of agriculture unless the data are available

from other sources.
39

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness we have is Mr. Howard Hjort, Director of Agricultural Economics of the Department of Agriculture.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD W. HJORT, DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL

ECONOMICS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED

BY WILLIAM E. KLBLER, ADMINISTRATOR, STATISTICAL REPORTING SERVICE; AND EDWARD REINSEL, ACTING DATA

COORDINATOR, ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Mr. HJORT. Certainly.

Mr. Chairman, although I served in the Department for about 13

years, I've been away for the last 8 years. I've been back in USDA

about 8 days now, and so I don't characterize myself as an expert

on these matters. I have with me Mr. Kibler, who is the Administrator of the Statistical Reporting Service in the Department, and Mr.

Reinsel who is with the Economic Research Service.

The statement has been prepared, and with your concurrence, I'd

like to have that submitted for the record, and then briefly summarize the viewpoints.

The Chairman. There'll be no objection.

Mr. HJORT. Thank you.

Let me begin by saying that we're fully in support of the objective

of H.R. 682 to reduce the response burden on farmers and agribusinessmen.

And we're also in support of the objective of H.R. 688, to ensure

more timely distribution of accurate agricultural census data.

However, the Department is opposed to H.R. 682 as written. We

favor the increased use of sampling survey techniques, and we support the efforts of the Department of Commerce in moving toward

greater reliance upon those technques.

We fully support the current farm definition, which was only recently adopted by the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce

and the Office of Management and Budget, after lengthy consultation.

As you know, this definition identifies the farm as any unit that

sells $1,000 or more worth of agricultural products in a year. Now,

anybody that has a gross return of less than $1,000 a year from the

sale of agricultural products certainly has some expenses, and deducting these doesn't leave a person very much income to live on.

The fact of the matter is that these people are not farmers. Their

main income is derived from other sources. They are likewise picked

up in other censuses.

The CHATRMAN. Sort of double-dipping.

Mr. HJORT. Right. They're not excluded from the Federal statistics.

The new definition will include over 94 percent of those that were

counted in the 1974 Census of Agriculture, and certainly it will reflect a true estimate of the number of real agricultural units in the

Nation.

The modernized definition will, in fact, help us true up some of

the statistics that we report through USDA. At the same time, I

want to stress that all of these people out there, whether or not they

are defined as farmers, will still be eligible for any of the programs

of the Department of Agriculture. A person doesn't have to be a
40

farmer by any kind of a census definition to be eligible for programs

and services provided by the extension service, soil conservation service. Farmers Home Administration, or any of the many other agricultural farm programs.

No State will lose any Federal funds currently allocated according

to the farm population.

The current Federal fund base is protected. The grandfather

clause effect is there. However, anv new funds for research or services that could be allocated on the basis of number of farms or number of rural residents would be affected by the new definition.

The flexible definition of a farm, using the index of prices received by farmers as proposed in H.R. 682, would complicate the

economic analysis of the agricultural sector, and we believe it would

cause confusion.

Although we concur in the need for significant reduction in respondent burden, we do oppose legislation mandating a reduction

by a specified amount. The review and approval of data collection

systems as provided by the Federal Reports Act should be sufficient

control to ensure the protection of respondents.

We also are concerned with a potential problem inherent in demanding publication of census of agriculture data by the end of

the year in which the census is taken, as proposed in H.R. 682. A

legislatively fixed date, especially a demanding one, could lead to

inaccuracies and a generally less-than-qualified job of summarization.

This also assumes appropriate and adequate resources to conduct

the census in a timelv manner. Undoubtedly the Bureau of the

Census has the expertise and equipment to summarize and publish

the Census of Agriculture on a timely basis. However, it appears

that the agricultural census has had a verv low priority within the

Bureau, and in our view is Tepeatedly delayed in favor of other

census activities.

The Department, of Agriculture does not believe it is appropriate

to address the shift of the census of agriculture from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture as outlined

in H.R. 688. There is other legislation pending before the Congress

to provide the President with the authority to reorganize the entire

Federal Government.

In addition. OMB is coordinating a review of all Federal

statistics.

Therefore, we prefer to take no position until the outcome of

this legislation and ongoing reviews are known. However, we might

point out that there are both advantages and disadvantages in such

a transfer. And let me mention those. Perhaps I'll stress the advantages more than the disadvantages, but. in any event, the Department of Agriculture does have long experience in conducting sample

surveys to gather information for estimates.

The Department is presently engaged in a major effort, to build

a list of farmers1 names and addresses for survey purposes. ITSDA

has an effective network of 44 field offices serving all States to collect and publish current agricultural data.

The staff at T

T

SDA is in close daily contact with agricultural

data users, and. thus, is qualified to respond adequately to data user

requests.
41

A transfer to USDA would eliminate the misconception of most

farmers that the census of agriculture is already conducted by

USDA.

USDA has an enviable record in timely publication of agricultural information.

And I want to add one other point on this with respect to the

Statistical Reporting Service. In recent years I have served as a

consultant, and the Statistical Reporting Service with its procedures,

statistical base, its integrity, and its confidentiality, is, in my view,

a premier statistical agency. I'm not saying it can't be improved.

Any organization can be improved. But the confidentiality of the

information, the timeliness, the accuracy, and the reliability of statistics that come out of these department reports, are without peer.

On the other side of the ledger, the Department of Agriculture

does not have a mandatory reporting regulation as is available to

the Department of Commerce. But we don't see the need for such

a provision in the law.

Also, we would note that moving the census of agriculture to

the Department of Agriculture would, in some people's minds, remove the independent check on information provided by the two

agencies.

That completes mv oral presentation. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Your prepared statement will be in the record at

this point.

[The statement referred to follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OP HOWARD W. HJORT. DIRECTOR. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to have this opportunity to present the views of tiie U.S. Department of Agriculture on House

Bills 682 and 688. I will address the provisions of H.R. 682 first with my later

remarks directed to H.R. 688. The Agriculture Census Amendments Act of 1977

(H.R. 682) provides for a specified reduction in respondent burden, the use of

sampling methods, rigid census publication requirements and specifications that

will classify farms. H.R. 688 would transfer the function of the Census of Agriculture from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture.

DEFINITION OF A FARM

First, let me address the issue of definition of farms as provided in the Bill,

which the Department opposes. Historically, the definition of a farm has been

based on value of production and/or value of sales, usually in conjunction with

an acreage criterion. The definition has undergone numerous changes during

the past century to meet dynamic economic and structural changes in agriculture. Such changes have been made administratively through the concurrence

of major agencies and industry groups concerned. The desirability of the most

recent modification was first discussed in the early 1960's when it was recognized that changes in price levels and the structure of agriculture required a

modernization of the definition. The Department of Agriculture was closely

involved with the Bureau of the Census in developing the criteria which resulted in effecting a new definition to be adopted with publication of the 1974

Census of Agriculture. The Department will publish this new series for the

first time in its December 1977 report. This report will also present the number

of farms on the basis of both the old and new definition for the 1969-74 period

to provide data users with a bridge to the new series.

We fully support the current definition which designates, as a farm, any

establishment from which $1,000 or more agricultural products is sold or would

normally be sold during the year. We believe this definition will properly reflect today's agriculture in the economic and statistical data normally used to
42

describe that sector. Farms selling le9s than $1,000 of products account for

a very small portion of total agricultural production and an even smaller portion of total cash sales from farming. However, their inclusion as farms has

an unrealistic and significant impact on per unit statistics such as net income

per farm. Indeed, the socio-economic concept of a farm that has been followed

for many years must not be considered outdated. Fewer than 20 percent of

families living on farms rely solely on farm income. About 20 percent of those

whose occupation is farming do not live on the farm. In an effort to better

track such changes new farm classifications are being implemented with publication of the 1974 Census of Agriculture. The Department and the American

Agricultural Economics Association will be addressing some of the problems

of outdated concepts and data requirements for the future in an "Agricultural

and Rural Data Workshop: Improvement of Concept and Operation" to be

held this spring.

The cbanges that have occurred in the structure of farming and the importance of off-farm sources of income to many farm families place the very

small operator in the same policy need category as other rural nonfarm people.

Traditional agriculture programs to enhance farm prices and farm income

do not significantly help these small operators, yet they have been included in

the statistics and economic data series that are used for making policy decisions on farm programs. Thus, the elimination of this group from the statistical definition will make data series on the farm sector more appropriate for

the types of decisions for which they are used. Congressional authorization of

the mid-decade Census of Population and Housing will provide a clear opportunity for acquiring the data needed for both farm and non-farm residents.

These data should be considerably more complete for rural residents that produce under $1,000 worth of agricultural products than the Census of Agriculture

data.

The change in the definition of a farm will be largely reflected in statistical

data and there will be little, if any, direct programmatic impact on the very

small operators. Because of the inflationary trends, the actual number of farms

eliminated by the change of definition will be very minimal. In any event, these

operators will still be eligible to participate in programs of the Extension Service. Soil Conservation Service. Farmers Home Administration, and Agricultural

Stabilization and Conservation Service.

There will be a very slight impact on the distribution of Federal funds for

agricultural research, extension, and rural development, particularly after the

1980 decennial census of population figures become available in 1982. The

formulas for distributing these funds include variables for farm population

and rural population. The impact would be very small because no state loses

any of the funds it is currently allocated; the new population numbers are

used solely to allocate new funds added to these programs.

The Department of Agriculture believes that the farm definition developed

jointly with the Census Bureau is appropriate for today's agriculture and we,

therefore, oppose the legislative definition of a farm as proposed in H.R. 682.

Adjustment of the minimum sales value using the percentage change in the

Index of Prices Received by Farmers would recognize changes in the price

evel, but would produce census data of reduced value. A constantly changing

definition would complicate comparative analyses and lead to confusion. A statistical definition set by law would, on the other hand, be too inflexible. It

would be unnecessarily difficult to update the definition when sound statistical

policy calls for such a timely change. The review and public discussion procedures used by the Office of Management and Budget in carrying out its responsibility to assure relevance and appropriateness of federal statistics appears more preferable than fixed legislation. The statistical description of an

economic sector provides the public, and makers of public policy, with an

understanding of the sector .and guidance for policy decisions. Statistical definitions established by law may become outdated if the economic structure and

policy needs change for a sector.

RESPONDENT REPORTING BURDEN

H.R. 882 also requires a 50 percent reduction of respondent burden for the

1978 Census of Agriculture to be taken in 1979 compared with the 1974 Census.

Although we concur with the need for a significant reduction in respondent

burden, we oppose a legislative mandate for a reduction of a specified amount.
43

The purpose of review and approval of data collection systems as provided by

the Federal Reports Act should be sufficient control to insure the protection of

respondents.

Traditionally, both the Statistical Reporting Service and the Economic Research Service of USDA work closely with the Census Bureau in developing

the Census of Agriculture questionnaire. In our opinion, the Census Bureau

has erred by making the questionnaire too comprehensive. At the same time,

we recognize that during the planning stage the Census staff is besieged by

numerous legitimate requests for data, and the process of establishing priorities

for data demands is a difficult one.

In the past, the Bureau of the Census has used an advisory committee consisting of representatives of farm organizations, agri-business industries, academic and research organizations, for advice on the types of data that should

be collected. The Administrators of the Statistical Reporting Service and Economic Research within USDA are ex-officio members of that committee. We

prefer that this procedure, used in conjunction with well established statistical procedures subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget,

be used to reduce the reporting burden rather than legislatively specified

remedies. This method allows response to changing data needs such as those

now essential is the fields of energy, pollution, and conservation.

USE OF SAMPLING

The Department does support the greater use of statistical sampling in

obtaining Census data. USDA has often encouraged the Census Bureau to consider using a sampling approach to reduce respondent burden and cost, rather

than attempting to obtain reports from all farmers. Sampling, however, has

been used only to a very limited degree in primary censuses of agriculture.

There has been some use of sampling in follow-on surveys.

RELEASE OF DATA

In today's dynamically changing agriculture, the usefulness of data diminishes rapidly with the passage of time. The Department of Agriculture feels

strongly that there should be a realistic time between data collection and publication of the Agricultural Census. The long time span for both the 1969 and

1974 Censuses is not considered realistic.

Undoubtedly, the Bureau of the Census has the expertise and equipment to

summarize and publish the Census of Agriculture on a timely basis. However,

it appears that agriculture has not had high priority within the Bureau, and

its needs often delayed in favor of other census activities. We are concerned,

though, about the advisability of requiring publication of information by the

end of the year in which the census is taken as prescribed in H.R 682. A

legislatively fixed date, especially a demanding one, could well lead to inaccuracies and a generally less than quality job of summarization. This also assumes

appropriate and timely receipt of adequate resources to conduct the Census

in a timely manner.

TRANSFER OF THE CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The Department does not believe it appropriate to take a position on the

proposed transfer of the Census of Agriculture functions from the Department

of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture as outlined in H.R. 688. The

President has legislation pending before the Congress that would enable the

Executive Branch to begin a major reorganization of the Federal Government.

It is expected thnt the thorough study and review of all functions that will be

considered for realignment and/or transfer under any reorganization will produce a more effective plan for improved performance of the Executive Branch.

One of the principal advantages of such a review is the independent participation of staff outside either Department. Such participation should be expected

to help insure a more objective analysis. The Office of Management and Budget

is currently working on "A Framework for Planning U.S. Federal Statistics,

1978-1989" which will provide a more systematic and comprehensive effort in

the planning of Federal statistical programs.

There are a number of advantages and disadvantages to be considered in

connection with the functional transfer proposed by H.R 688. I would like to
44

briefly review these as I understand them. Some of the advantages of a transfer

to the Department would include:

(1) The USDA has long experience in conducting sample surveys for collecting agricultural information at both local and national levels. A centralization of the agrieutural data colection responsibilities could reduce respondent

burden and eliminate some duplication of effort. Census restrictions imposed by

Title 13 now makes it impossible for the Bureau of the Census to exchange data

with the Department of Agriculture although the Department traditionally provides Census data which helps produce an improved product

(2) Major efforts are underway in USDA to develop and maintain a complete

list of farm operators for current survey activities. The list will be kept current

using the most up-to-date survey data. This list could be used in collecting the

Agricultural Census data and would help reduce respondent burden. It should

be noted, however, that the Census Bureau also has a list but it is presently

not available to us.

(3) USDA has in place an effective network of 44 statistical offices and

experienced staffs to give local and personal assistance in list development and

maintenance and agricultural data collection activities.

(4) A transfer would eliminate the misconception by a majority of farmers

that the Census of Agriculture is conducted by the Department of Agriculture.

(5) The Department of Agriculture has a unique record in the timely collection and release of agricultural information.

(6) USDA staffs are in constant contact with agricultural data users on

information needs. Thus the Department should be qualified to establish realistic priorities for agricultural data requirements.

On the other hand, some of the disadvantages of such a transfer would

include:

(1) The absence of a law reguiring mandatory reporting by respondents and

guaranteeing confidentiality for the data respondents report. Legislation is

being developed to overcome the latter concern. The Department does not seek

mandatory reporting requirements.

(2) The Department does not have, nor would it seek, authority to use income tax records in the development of lists of names and addresses of farm

operators.

(3) The collection of the Census of Agriculture data by the Department of

Agriculture will remove an independent check by a different agency on the

various series of current agricultural statistics published by USDA.

(4) The Department of Agriculture has no single data collection activity

which is as large a project as the Census of Agriculture and thus may be considered as lacking experience for a job of this scope.

There are, no doubt, other advantages and disadvantages. However, those

cited have been expressed most frequently from many sources. We believe

they warrant thorough discussion and evaluation.

Today's dynamically changing agriculture needs timely and reliable data for

making intelligent decisions on policy, marketing, and production. The source

of such data is of minor importance compared with th equality and timeliness

of the data. In this respect, the Census of Agriculture needs to be improved.

Regardless of where the Census of Agriculture functions are assigned, factors

such as questionnaire content, adequate resources in terms of staff and funds,

data needs, survey design, and the level of resjwndent burden should all be

given strong consideration in developing plans for this effort. A good quality

census reflects favorably on the Department of Commerce and the Department

of Agriculture; a poor quality census reflects unfavorably on both

Departments.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. My chairman says he'll be back in just a minute.

Do you want to comment on Congressman Rose's remarks? Were

you here when he testified ?

Mr. HJORT. Yes; I was.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Do you want to comment on his statements about

the problems he sees in leaving the definition of a farm $250 to

$1.000•what he considers to be a removal of a substantial number

of farms in his State.
45

Mr. HJORT. I did mention that in my brief remarks. Let me repeat

that part of it, though, because you were not here at that time.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, I don't want to ask you to•

Mr. HJORT. I think it is very relevant. I would appreciate the

opportunity to respond to the question.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. First of all, is $1,000 gross?

Mr. HJORT. Yes; and anybody that sells $1,000 worth of agricultural commodities has some expenses associated with producing

these commodities. So these people, in fact, are not farmers. Their

major source of income is from other sources.

The second point is that any person is eligible to participate in

any of the Department programs that are available. Eligibility is

not statistical definition of a farm. Any person in North Carolina,

or any other place, is eligible to receive the assistance of the Extension Service or Soil Conservation Service, or any of our other action

programs. Eligibility is not conditional on a place being defined as

a farm.

These people that will no longer be defined as farmers are not

forgotten. They are included in other censuses. Where they are rural

residents, their income is reported in other censuses. And their agricultural production is a very small portion of OUT total.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. What other censuses report them?

Mr. HJORT. In the general decennial population census to be taken

in 1980 and in the new approved mid-decade census to be taken

in 1985.

They're included, they're people. They're citizens of the United

States. So, obviously, they're included, and so is their income.

There is the grandfather clause that protects the base for research

funds. Current Federal funds going for research will continue to

flow at the same level established by the old definition. The allocation of any new money that might be based on the number of farms

would be influenced by the new definition. And that is the only

point that seems to be of great concern.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, I think we understood from Congressman

Rose that it wasn't the gross income. I don't think there was an

attempt on anybody's part to misunderstand that I guess if you

produced $750 worth of farm income, which is a relatively small

family operation, even if it was outside income of some kind, and

worked hard to produce that, I guess you'd consider yourself a farm.

What is the advantage in eliminating them as an economic unit

producing in the agricultural field? My understanding was that the

figure in California would be 6,000 farms eliminated. Is that correct?

Mr. HJORT. I'm not sure.

Mr. HAGAN. That was the figure I said, Congressman.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Was that right?

Mr. HJORT. I understand that's from the 1969 census.

Mr. HAOAN. 1974. The table's beine provided to counsel.

Mr. HJORT. I think Congressman Rose's numbers would be based

on 1969.

Mr. HAGAN. I think his numbers were.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. NO; I think his numbers were 1974.

Mr. HAGAN. Well, they were much too high for 1974.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Were they? I'm sure income's gone up.

87-766•77 i
46

Mr. HJORT. The main advantage is that it trues up the statistics

that are used to report on the structure and characteristics of American agriculture.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Yes.

Mr. HJORT. That's the advantage.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, I guess my problem is, I don't care for

producing on a part-time basis. If they're producing tomatoes, or

tobacco leaves, or whatever it is, if they are part of the stream, I

don't see the advantage in eliminating them.

I know I'm a little bit slow; I'm a Member of Congress. But

could you explain that to me?

Mr. HJORT. AS I said, very few who produce less than $1,000

worth of products would class themselves as farmers. There are even

a large number of people above that line who would not class themselves as farmers.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Let's take somebody above $1,000. Give me an

example of somebody that produced, say, $5,000 worth of gross

income and doesn't consider themselves a farmer.

Mr. HJORT. A person that has $5,000 income from a farm could

be••

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, let's say, for the sake of argument, he produces tomatoes, how's that, in California.

Mr. HJORT. And then I'd say he's president of a bank.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Fine.

Mr. HJORT. That's the difference. And he'll report that his main

source of income is from a bank.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. But he's still producing $5,000 worth of tomatoes.

And what you're saying to me is that the income cutoff point really

doesn't matter. It's where he earns his principal income. That's what

you're saying.

Mr. HJORT. That wasn't exactly what I was saying.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, but you said it really doesn't matter if it's

above $1,000. There are some people that produce more than $1,000

that don't consider themselves to be farmers, but they may contribute to agricultural production.

Mr. HJORT. Certainly.

. Mr. ROUSSELOT. And they are a unit.

So, I guess what you're saying, then, it doesn't matter what the income cutoff point is, that becomes arbitrary as to whether they consider themselves to be producers, major producers, in the agricultural

field. Is that correct?

Mr. HJORT. That, apparently, has been the way the definition has

has been cited ever since it's been discussed•arbitrarily.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, what I've heard you say•and maybe I

shouldn't have interrupted you, I should have let you complete it•

that the income itself, as income received by an individual or a

family, is not as important as whether that individual or unit considers themselves to be principally in farming. Is that right.

Mr. HJORT. I was simply saying from their standpoint.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Yes.

Mr. HJORT. From their standpoint it probably isn't. It's very important to have a definition from the standpoint of the Department

of Agriculture.
47

Mr. ROTJ88ELOT. I understand that.

Mr. HJORT. An example is for the purpose of describing the

structure of the agricultural sector.

Mr. ROTTSSELOT. But you see what Charlie Rose is saying to us is

that there are people who produce $750 dollars in some kind of gross

income from agricultural produce of some kind. They consider themselves in farming, whether we like it or not. Why should they

arbitrarily be cut off because they're under $1,000?

Mr. HJORT. And all I'm saying is that they're eligible for all of

the Department programs•the operating programs out there. The

definitions have nothing to do with that. They're eligible for the

services.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. But isn't State and county aid based on the number of farmers? Are there certain Federal benefits you get by having

just a numerical number of farmers?

Mr. HJORT. There are under certain programs, such as agricultural research, which was a concern. As I said, as I understand it

in the law, there is the grandfather clause that protects the present

Federal fund base.

But additional new money that might be appropriated in the

future would be influenced by this change.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be a fail-safe thing that, you could benefit from any new source programs that would be initiated.

Mr. HJORT. You would benefit according to the new definition,

rather than the old.

The CHAIRMAN. Right.

Just to follow that up, briefly. We talk so much in terms of economics and I keep getting back to the same question. Is there that

much of a need for a separate agricultural census, as separate from

a regular economic census that you get from other segments of the

economy? It's just a burden on the agricultural producers that

doesn't seem to be as heavy on the other segments-of our economic

community.

Mr. HJORT. Well, as you know, the Statistical Reporting Service

is collecting current information on a regular basis. That information, of course, needs to continue irrespective of the question of how

the census is conducted.

I would expect that there could be some advantage in the suggestion that was made earlier here, that, in a census there are very

few items that are needed to describe the general population. These

could be collected in. one census. Then there's still the agricultural

economic data needs that must, be filled. Some of it is now gathered

by the Statistical Reporting Service in the Department and some of

it through the Census, that may more properly fit together.

The CHAIRMAN. There's obviously some overlap.

.. I have no other questions.

Mr. ROU8SEU>T?

Mr. ROTTS8ELOT. Mr. Hjort, I may just write you a letter on this

definition problem. I'm not sure I understand what I consider to be

the arbitrariness of the $1,000 figure versus the $250 figure, at least

what it appears to me to be on the basis of today's testimony and

the testimony wo had last year. So I'll write you and get you to
48

elaborate, especially when I understand that you have categorical

definitions of a farm.

Mr. HJORT. We have•

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Classifications; primary farm, a parttime farm,

business•

Mr. HJOKT. Those are to be in a used Census.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. But you pay attention to that.

Mr. HJORT. Those are the classifications that are used in the

Census of Agriculture. We would use these. We cooperated with the

Census in defining these.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. But do you make use of those?

Mr. HJORT. We make use of the statistics.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. It's a difference to you as to how to classify.

Mr. HJORT. Right.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. And I wonder if that classification isn't more important than the dollar figure.

Mr. HJORT. It probably is. We use both.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. So why does it harm; if you have those kinds of

classifications, why does it do harm to still count one that produces

$250 or more up to $1,000.

Mr. HJORT. I don't want to imply that I think it does harm. It's

a question of the reliability and the accuracy of how one portrays

American agriculture.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Right.

Mr. HJORT. The response or completion rate for questionnaires

from the small farms is low. I'm sure the people in the Bureau of

Census can tell you more precisely than I, but I think it's certainly

true that these units that have very small gross income from agriculture have the highest nonresponse rates, making the data less

accurate, and it would be very difficult and expensive to get information from them.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Right.

Mr. HJORT. And, in large part, 'because it's the logic that they

don't really consider themselves fanners. We would be very happy to

respond.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

We have some questions that we'll forward to you in the form of

a letter, and your response will be included in the record without objection.

[The questions and answers follow:]

Question. I am told that in the past the TJSDA has provided lists to the

Bureau of the Census to assist them in the taking of the census. As you know

Congress recently appropriated 1.2 million dollars to the Department for the

purpose of compiling: a National List of Farmers. I understand negotiations

are currently underway to determine whether or not the Department will provide the list to the Bureau. Do you anticipate any problem In this respect?

Answer. In all recent Censuses of Agriculture, USDA, SRS, has cooperated by

providing lists of extremely large livestock farms and lists of specialty crop

farms. These lists had been compiled for the crop and livestock estimating

program and no major costs were involved in providing them to the Census.

The current project to build a national list of farmers is not scheduled for

full completion until late 1978. We have pointed out to the Census staff that
49

this schedule may present some timing problems for using this list for the

1978 Census of Agriculture. Much of the time required to build a list of all

farm operators is associated with verifying that names and addresses secured

from administrative records, such as ASOS flies, really represent operating

farms. SRS also is collecting control information, such as size and type of

farm, which is required for efficient sampling. This process is very time consuming since it often involves some contact either by mail, telephone, or personal interview with the individuals who turn up in the list building process.

This process could be greatly shortened or simplified if it were possible to

obtain all this information from the administrative records or from a source

such as the list used for the 1974 Census of Agriculture. Both USDA and the

Census Bureau have long recognized the need and desirability for reducing

both costs and respondent reporting burden by sharing, for statistical purposes,

both lists and information collected by each agency. Unfortunately, this sharing

has not been possible because of restrictions placed on the Census Bureau by

Title IS of the U.S. Code. USDA has and will continue to cooperate with the

Census in every way possible to ensure that the Census of Agriculture results

in a quality product. We do not anticipate any difficulty In working out the

scheduling and other details for making this list available to Census for their

use. The Department is also anxious to make full use of data that might be

provided by Census, within the limitation of Title 13, to support the list building activity.

Question. Is it correct to assume that the list is being gathered with the new

definition as its criterion? If it were to revert back to the previous definition

how would it affect the gathering of information for this list?

Answer. Presently, the Department is required to estimate total agricultural

production regardless of whether it comes from places defined as farms. Hence,

it is important to have a list that includes all producers regardless of size of

operation. Practicality, however, dictates that the list be more complete for

larger producers.

The list development activity is divided into two major phases. The first

phase involves obtaining lists of names and addresses of all operators along

with whatever measures of size might be available. In most instances, control

data for an individual operation is incomplete which makes it nearly impossible

to classify farm operators who are near (on either side of) the borderlines

of either the old or new definition. The second phase involves obtaining sufficient control information to enable farm or nonfarm classification for these

borderline cases. Thus, our process can easily adapt to any given farm definition. With this flexibility, and since the charter of the Statistical Reporting

Service is to measure all agricultural activity, those individuals with agricultural sales less than the amount described by the farm definition will be

retained as a portion of the list

Question. In testimony before this Subcommittee, last year, there were assurances that there would be no affect on funding programs with the implementation of this new definition. Now the Department states that the impact of tills

definition on funding will be very small. Will you please clarify?

Answer. The implementation of this new definition would have no effect on

present Federal funding to States for agricultural research, extension, or related programs. Its impact would be felt with the allocation of new funding

that might be based on the existing farm population. However, since new appropriated money is generally small relative to the current base, the overall impact on funds is likely to be very small. For example, using the best available

sample data for the 1975 farm population, on the basis of the old as well as

the new definition, and assuming no change in rural population since 1970, a $1

million new allocation for the Hatch Act funds or the Smith-Lever Act would

result in the following allocation changes: (1) the largest gain by any State

would be $1,000 more in the Hatch Act and $1,200 more for extension programs; and (2) the biggest losses would be $800 in the Hatch Act and $600

in extension funds.

There would be no impact or change if no new money is appropriated. No

State loses any money it is currently allocated and all would gain from any

additional appropriation. Data used in these formulas must come from the

Census of Population, so there can be no possible impact before these data are
50

available in about 1982. The Hatch Act and the Smith-Lever funds are distributed as follows:

[In percent!

Diitribution characteristic Hatch Act Smith-Lever Act

Administration ,.....•• 3 4.0

Each State equal 20 J9.2

Nonformula 25

Rural population (excluding (arms) 26 38.4

Farm population 26 38.4

Total - 100 100.0

Farm population excluded by the new definition would merely increase the

rural population total. Factors likely to impact these allocations considerably

more than any change in number of farms are the shifts occurring between

urban and rural populations between 1970 and 1980. These shifts will be

measured by the 1980 Population Census that will be published in 1982.

Question. The Department stated, in the hearings of March 17th, that it

would prefer to withhold comment on the proposed transfer of authority of

the taking of the agriculture census from Commerce to Agriculture. Does this

reflect a change in the Department's position of the past?

Answer. During the past year a number of things have occurred that influenced the Department to take its present position on House Bills 682 and 688.

Legislation has been approved that ensures a mid-decade Census of Population

in 1985 and subsequently every 10 years. This Census will provide a new

vehicle for acquiring better quality demographic, economic, and social data

about farm and rural families. New House Bill 688 sets no rigid time frame

for transfer of the census as was the case for H.R. 12397 and 1976. Farmer

concerns with reporting burden continue to increase and their feelings are

being expressed through both the Legislative and Executive Branches. The

Department has received additional appropriations for developing a list of

farm firms to be used in improving its current statistical programs. This list

would be beneficial in taking the agricultural census. These factors and the

President's desire to make a detailed study and review of all Executive Branch

functions that might be considered for reorganization, make it most inappropriate for the Department to take a firm stand now for or against H.R. 688.

As pointed out in our testimony, both advantages and disadvantages can be

identified with the functional transfer proposed. These can probably be best

debated and more objectively evaluated by people outside the Departments of

Agriculture and Commerce.

Mr. LEHMAN. "Would you care to have Mr. Hagan come back, Mr.

Rousselot?

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Yes; thank you.

Could you comment for us on some of Congressman Pressler's

comments? I know you were here when he gave his testimony.

Could you comment on some of the statements that came up in this

meeting that he had in South Dakota, February 11, where none of

the people supplying the statistics seem to appreciate or understand

what it?s all for?

Mr. HAGAN. Yes; sir, I think that our being there is an indication

that we had reached the same conclusion, basically, because, in fact,

our response rate indicates much more resistance.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Right.

Mr. IIAOAN. And clearly it is our responsibility, whether it's explicit or not, to communicate better with the public, and, well, according to our tallying of questions, there seems to be quite a range of

numbers•

Mr. ROUSSELOT. At that meeting ?
51

Mr. HAGAN. NO, I'm talking in general. The 1974 Census doesn't

have quite as many inquiries as the 1969 Census. But, nevertheless,

the resistance was much greater on the part of the farmer, and clearly the uses and the needs were not understood by the farmers.

I think the benefit to the farmer has to be viewed as an indirect

one rather than a direct benefit•I don't think the kind of question:

"Have you used the Census of Agriculture in planning your operation?"•would elicit many positive responses. But to the extent that

the census information itself, and particularly as it relates to smaller

areas, is used by many other elements in the agricultural economy to

provide additional product services and so forth, it's certainly defensible, and I invite Miss Kallek to make a few more comments if

she will concerning our uses.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Were you at this meeting ?

Miss KALLEK. Yes; you have some problems not only in the agriculture census, but with all economic and demographic censuses.

A small farmer, or a small businessman doesn't use the data directly, but we feel it would be to his advantage. That is one of the

things we're trying to show him•how to use the data. We've had a

series of data user conferences and we have been preparing case

studies to show how this information can be used. But at the present

time it's used by the farm associations.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. YOU mean the marketing cooperatives?

Miss KALLEK. Right. For example

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, let me interject at this time. Why wouldn't

the market cooperative for which these farmers are operating, or

might be operating have told them the value of it?

Miss KALEK. Because in many instances even the farm cooperative

doesn't really know where the data comes from. I'll give an example.

Several years ago one of the largest manufacturers in this country

wrote to us stating they no longer intended to report in a monthly

census survey of tractor production, because they knew their own

monthly production, and they got the industry figures from their

trade publication. They never associated the fact that the trade publication was just reissuing the Census Bureau data to which they were

contributing in their census reports.

This is a problem of communication, and where data gets used.

Our data are not copyrighted. Anybody can use them- And the most

important thing is that they be used; not really that the farmer,

per se. knows exactly where they come from, because the benefits are

there in any circumstance.

But the tractors are distributed for sale by county, and the way

they know how many to put in each county is by use of the Census

data•this is how planning is done.

Another example is the use of agriculture census data by another

tractor manufacturer, which wished to manufacture a new type of

combine, and their engineering department wanted special data•

special tabulations from the Census to identify the characteristics

most needed by farmers for economy of operation.

And so the data are used by a great many people, but just as importantly are used as bench mark information for general surveys.

For example, it's used to bench mark the agricultural section of the

gross national product.
52

It's used by numerous other Government agencies, and, as Mr.

Hagan said before we'll submit a specific list of the types of information that were requested by the various agencies.

Mr. ROTTSSELOT. Have you published any kind of an information

booklet, or have you been allowed to, that could be given to farmers

to show the value of the data they produced for you in these surveys•where the end product is, where it goes, how it may be helpful

in the marketing cooperative, how it may help the grain elevators?

Miss KALLEK. Again, this is a problem with the agricultural census or the economic censuses. We did prepare booklets in the 1974

census. We obviously have to prepare additional types, because they

were not as effective as we thought they would be.

We will be sending out special 'booklets with the census of agriculture forms, and with the economic census forms, because of the

need to have people know why they should report and the advantages

to them in being reported.

Mr. R0TJ88ELOT. Now, have we failed you in giving you the wherewithal•and I don't mean to carry on a propaganda campaign•

to provide that kind of information to the people from whom we're

trying to glean information ?

Mr. HAGAN. NO.

Our authority and the responsibilities are clear, and in our relationships with this committee I think the support we've received

has been quite good. I would like to refer back to a comment in my

testimony.

I think it would be more of a general comment It may ont be

specifically identified in the same language, but in my testimony I

did reference the fact that the 1974 census obviously had a number

of problems. And some of those problems were caused by factors

beyond the control of the Bureau of the Census, such as the impoundment of the planning funds for the 1974 census with the original

intent to delay it for 7 vears.

As you know, in Public Law 93-86 Congress restated the requirement that the census be taken for 1974. While this problem was being

resolved, we lost about 15 months out of the normal 2-vear preparation and planning period. In the rush to get ready for the census

we let ourselves be persuaded to include questions that had not been

pretested and questions that previously had been asked on a sample

basis.

Mr. ROTJSSEEOT. Yes; the question count rose from 165 questions to

911 questions in 1974?

Mr. HAGAN. I don't accept the question count. Our best count, for

the larger of the two forms used for the 1974 census indicated that

there were a possible 750 entries including checks for yes-no boxes

and things like that.

So, I don't know the source, and I certainly don't support the

accuracv of the count.

Mr. RoussELOT. I guess if we got it from our previous hearings

Mr. HAGAN. I don't think the source was identified there. I don't

recall. The 750 count is one that we have made.

Mr. RotrssELOT. For 1974, that's your count?

Mr. HAGAN. That's the approximate number of items of information we have requested. They cover all possible kinds of agriculture
53

and no farms in the Nation approaches having to answer even half

of them.

The average number of responses given by farmers on a national

scale is 114.

Recognize that the questionnaire was designed for all sizes of

farms, all geographic areas, had to carry every crop, all kinds of livestock, fruit, nut trees, and the whole array of commodity information.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. There are lots of nuttrees.

Well, then, your feeling is that you do recognize that people aren't

responding because they don't understand?

Mr. HAOAN. They certainly didn't. There was ample evidence in

their letters.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. And they clearly feel overburdened.

Mr. HAGAN. That's certainly true.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. And you feel that you've analyzed it carefully

enough to decide that next time, whether it's an agricultural census

or an economic census, or whatever, that you're doing the best you

can to reduce that down and eliminate unnecessary questions?

Mr. HAOAN. Yes; sir, there will be very substantial reduction in

the number of questions that the average farmer would have to

answer.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Maybe you've said that before•percentage wise,

how much ?

Mr. HAOAN. It's very close to 50 percent.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. YOU can achieve that?

Mr. HAGAN. Yes; through this combination of a shortened form,

and additional sample follow-on surveys where we are going to have

to get additional information in much more detail. But we do plan

to submit a draft questionnaire, and you'll be able to observe the

reduction.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, I'm glad to hear that you were present with

the Pressler siminar•whatever we call it•in South Dakota. How

many more of these will you hold throughout the country ?

Mr. HAOAN. The number is really not set. We're responding to

invitations on request. There are several more planned.

Miss KALLEK. We have to be on the road a great deal.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. SO, by the end of the year you'd get about how

many ?

MISS KALLEK. Well, for the farmer sessions, I think we have about

six or eight set up for the next several months.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Will you plan to notify the Congressmen and the

Senators from that area, so that they can get their constituents, who

yelled and screamed about this, to those meetings?

Miss KALLEK. Many of them are being set up with cooperation

of the various congressional offices. For example, I'm going down

to Florida the first week in April.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I see.

Miss KALLEK. The northern part of Florida.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. DO you have such a schedule for California ?

Miss KALLEK. Not at this time.

Mr. HAOAN. We'll be available.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, since farming is our biggest dollar product,

I think maybe it might be helpful. I used to have substantially more
54

farming activity that I do now, after reapportionment, but it is a

rather important thing, especially because of the problems and other

issues that are now affecting it; the dams that are being cut off and

things like that. Anyway, we appreciate that you're responding, and

I think education is a primary part of the problem.

I hope you will help us anticipate for the 1980 census. We are immediately deluged, as you know from history, long before they

ever hit everybody's mail box and/or the interviews begin, by ail

kinds of suspicions.

We might anticipate some educational meetings in several parts

of the country. I know there are other ways to spend money, but I

think we might anticipate that for the 1980 census.

Mr. HAGAN. We've been working at that, Congressman, for several

years. In fact, we held around 90 local public meetings wherever we

could obtain local sponsorship, and there were some held in California and other States.

Mr. ROTTSSELOT. For 1970 you mean ?

Mr. HAGAN. For 1980•in 1975, we spent a great deal of time that

year trying to get citizen input, and this information funneled into

complex mechanism for decisions on what kind of information

people needed.

Clearly, one of the big messages we got from that was the great

need for information on disabilities, health care and things like that.

So, we had a very expanded forum.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. I'm just trying to anticipate what well have to face

as we approach 1980.

Mr. HAGAN. Well, I completely agree with you.

Mr. ROTTSSELOT. Every Member of Congress is affected, and considers themselves immediately an expert when they have 10 constituents comment on how bad the situation is and ask the questions

thev ask. So anvthing you can do will help.

Mr. HAGAN. We certainly appreciate anything Congress will do

to support it. Our goal for the 1980 census is to do everything possible to improve coverage. That's No. 1. Particularly, well focus on

minoritv populations where there was an undercount.

The CHAIRMAN. We're going to get some rough drafts, not only

of agricultural, but of other types of questions in the next 60 days.

Mr. HAGAN. Yes; sir, and the requirements enacted in the law

reporting on subject matter content in a few weeks.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you again, Mr. Hagan.

Mr. ROUSSELOT. Thank you for staying.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a vote coming up. Mr. Weller, from the

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, was scheduled to appear

next. Mr. Weller, the Chair regrets that we will not be able to hear

your presentation todav. We will include your statement in the record and you may supplement it in anyway you wish by communicating that desire to the subcommittee.

Mr. Rousselot?

Mr. ROTTSSELOT. Can you inform the members in your cooperatives

as to the value of this census?

Mr. WELLER. Well, we helped supplv material for that hearing.

Congressman. I might say, in defense of what was said here, I think
55

the marketing and farm supply cooperatives know where that information comes from. They use it every day. I think a lot of farmers

know about it.

[The prepared statement submitted by Mr. Weller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BT PAUL S. WELLES, JR., VICE PRESIDENT FOB PUBLIC

AFFAIRS, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES

Mr. Chairman, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives appreciates this

opportunity to comment on legislation before this Subcommittee relating to the

Census of Agriculture. I am Paul S. Weller, Vice President for Public Affairs

of the National Council, and have personally served as a member of the Agricultural Advisory Committee of the U.S. Census Bureau for more than five

years.

American farmers currently own and control approximately 7,600 local marketing and supply cooperatives doing a gross annual volume of more than

$50 billion. Through its membership, the National Council represents approximately SO percent of this cooperative agricultural Industry.

Farm marketing and supply cooperatives are regular users of agricultural

data collected by the quinquennial Census of Agriculture. Such data, collected

and compiled both by county and by enterprise and farming operation, is critically needed in the daily operations of these vital agricultural businesses. It

would be difficult, if not impossible, for us to maintain increasing standards of

efficiency and effectiveness without factual and relevant data. As a result, the

National Council has been a long-time supporter of the Census of Agriculture,

and has had staff members serve on its agricultural advisory committee for

more than 30 years.

As an active member of this advisory committee for five years, I have been

party to many lengthy deliberations on the issues surrounding this nationwide

Census. And it is on these issues, as brought forth by House bills U.K. 682

and H.R. 688, that I would like to comment this morning.

H.R. 6S2

I would like to begin first with H.R. 682. The first issue to be addressed

here is the reduction of respondents' burden from future Censuses of Agriculture. No one would agree more than I that the burden should be reduced. It

should be•and it will be. But I strongly question whether it should be mandated through legislative action. Especially when the issue is being worked on

at this very time by the staff of the Bureau of the Census, and by the members

of the agricultural advisory committee.

Attached to this statement is a copy of a letter dated November 8, 1976,

and signed by three major farm organizations whose members serve on the

advisory committee. It outlines a simplified data gathering process for the

1978 Census of Agriculture, and for future Censuses. Such a simplified data

gathering process is now being finalized within the Bureau of the Census.

Drafts of a simplified questionnaire have already been distributed to members

of the agricultural advisory committee. Comments have been received from

myself and others who are closely allied with farmers, agricultural Industry,

and data users.

Although neither I nor the Bureau of the Census can report this morning to

this committee on the exact procedure that will be used in 1978, we can report

to you that it will be as simplified as is possible to collect the necessary data.

We anticipate that it will Include a short form to all identified farmers and

farm operations, plus a 20 percent sampling to gather more detailed farm data.

We are hoping that these 20 percent of the farmers asked to fill out a long

form in 1978, will not be asked again for many years. And that the burden,

if any, will be rotated to other farmers in 1983 and beyond. We feel that this

procedure is best worked out administratively by the Bureau and Its professional advisors.

The next issue in H.R. 682 is the census definition of a farm for data collection purposes. H.R. 682 proposes to revert back to the previous census definition indicating that a bonaflde farm is "any place that produces $250 or more

annually on 10 acres or less, or any place that has 10 acres or more and produces $50 or more annually in agricultural goods." We think that this is a

mistake.
56

This census definition of a farm was adopted in time for the 1954 Census

of Agriculture. It was adopted 23 years ago when realized net income per farm

was averaging $2,476 annually, when disposable farm Income per capita was

$880 and when total assets per farm were $24,465. Total farm income that

year was $34,080,000,000.

Times have changed. Today, total farm income is more than $100 billion•

three times the 1954 figure. Prices received for many agricultural commodities

have doubled or better. And it seems feasible to the farmer cooperatives that

similar revisions must be made in the census definition of a farm.

Toward this end, the National Council has participated for more than three

years in a study and evaluation of changing and updating the census definition.

After much debate, the National Council and a majority of the agricultural

advisory committee decided that this definition should be revised to include

establishments selling $1,000 or more of agricultural products annually. This

decision was readied through compromise. Midwestern and western advisors

favored a shift to minimums as high as $2,500 in annual sales. Other committee members advocated changes to $500 and $1,000. USDA economists leaned

toward a $2,000 annual sales definition. Deliberations through 1974 finally

netted the $1,000 compromise to be used for the 1974 Census of Agriculture.

As inflation increases the prices of goods and services, we question the advisability of retaining a definition of working farm that is far below that of a

minimally profitable unit. The 23-year-old $50-$250 definition would categorize

as a working farm any place that produced approximately 18 bushels of wheat,

20 bushels of corn, or 600 pounds of milk during a year. Small urban garden

plots that produced sales of approximately 375 quarts of strawberries, 3,500

ears of sweet corn, or 50 bushels of cucumbers would qualify as working farms.

Data available to us reveals that less than seven percent of all farms produced less than $1,000 annually in 1974, and that these marginal operations

accounted for about one percent of the farmland and about one-half of one

percent of the value of agricultural products sold In that year. Certainly, the

importance is even less today. We could not justify a return to a definition

that would surely mislead our data users as to the real number of farming

operations in the U.S., and we urge this committee to endorse the decision of

the Secretary of Commerce in December, 1976, that ordered future census data

to be collected using the $1,000 per annum production figure.

Another issue raised by H.R. 682 is that of the ownership of farms, and

the collection and reporting of data relating to that ownership. This requirement seems to us to be contradictory to the provision that the Census Bureau

should reduce the respondents' burden, for It would surely add yet another

section to the already over-burdened census questionnaire. But, Mr. Chairman,

I'm sure that the agricultural advisory committee should be pleased to consider

adding this new section.

Finally, H.R. 682 proposes that all data collected by the Census of Agriculture lie published no later than December 31 of the year in which the Census

is taken. We think that this goal is a good one, but we have serious doubts

that such a goal is feasible. To legislate such a mandate would place undue

burden on an already over-burdened system. Let me explain.

Some 3.4 million Census forms are mailed during the last week of the census

year•in this case, during the week of December 25-30, 1978. Farmers are

requested to fill out these questionnaires, and return them to the Census

Bureau as soon as possible. Unfortunately, it has been the experience of the

Census Bureau that the bulk of these questionnaires are not being returned•

if they are at all•until late March or April. Indeed, by July 15, 1975, only 85%

of the required data had been received by the Census Bureau. And this had

been after one or more mailed reminders. This procedure then gives the Census

Bureau less than six months to compile, cross tabulate, and publish the voluminous amount of data. It may be possible to compile and publish county

data in eight or nine months. But we doubt that state and national data can

be cross tabulated and published in that length of time. Indeed, the only

feasible way to speed up the process that we see is to speed up the completion

of the questionnaires by the farmers.

This would be possible by using personal enumerators to go from farm to

farm, a process dropped in 1969 because of the cost and of the desire to give

farmers more privacy and convenience. It would be best done through a

cooperative program with federal agricultural employees from county government centers. This nationwide network of rural community centers Is a pro-
57

posal that the National Council is working on with the U.S. Department of

Agriculture and its Rural Development Service. It is not in place at this time.

H.R. 688

I would like to comment on the major issue addressed by this legislation•that

of transferring the Census of Agriculture responsibilities from the U.S. Census

Bureau to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This bill would in effect eliminate the quinquennial Census of Agriculture. We strongly oppose It.

There are many reasons for our opposition to this proposal. I will outline

several: (a) The Bureau of the Census is the logical government agency to

conduct censuses, and is properly staffed and equipped to do that job; (b) The

U.S. Department of Agriculture is not staffed or equipped to do the job, and

traditionally has opposed assuming this role; (c) Every major farm organization and agricultural data user group opposes such a shift in responsibility;

and (d) Annual sampling will not provide the quality of data that is required

by many data users. Finally, it should be noted by this committee that a 1976

statute change has grouped the Census of Agriculture with other national economic censuses, a move that will enhance the relevance of the agricultural data.

We do feel that the collection of agricultural census data should be left to

a statistical agency, and out of the realm of an agency with as much political

involvement as the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

There are two other areas of H.R. 688 that should receive comment. One is

the proposal to eliminate the mandatory provisions of the census collection

process. We see no reason to delete this provision. Unless data is received from

a wide sampling of the population, it cannot be complete enough to be relevant.

We question whether it can be collected without a mandatory provision in

the law. We do not feel that this penalty clause threatens the average lawabiding farmer. At the same time, we feel that it is desirable to retain for

the Census Bureau's potential use.

The other remaining issue is one that has been around for several years.

It relates to the Census Bureau having access to federal income tax returns.

There are two points here for the committee's consideration: (a) The Census

Bureau must be able to identify bonaflde farmers if any Census of Agriculture

is to be properly compiled; (b) The Form 1040-F from the Internal Revenue

Service is one of the most pertinent sources of names and addresses of U.S.

farmers, and is a critical cross-reference to verifying these farmers from other

sources.

To our knowledge, there has never been interest by the Census Bureau in

obtaining any information from federal income tax returns, other than names

and addresses of farmers. We would oppose any legislative effort to deny

these names and addresses to the Census Bureau for use in conducting the

Census of Agriculture, but if this committee felt compelled to do so, we would

support a provision limiting access to only names and addresses. We do support

the confidentiality of both Census and Internal Revenue data.

Mr. Chairman, these are the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives' comments on the two bills now before this committee. We thank you for this opportunity to express them.

Enclosure.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER COOPERATIVES,

Washington, B.C., November 8,197&.

Mr. ROBERT HAGAN,

Acting Director, Bureau of the Census.

UJS. Department of Commerce, "Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HAGAN : At the Special Ad Hoc meeting held on September 28, the Census Bureau requested comments from those in attendance. We trust we are not too late with our comments, and that final

plans have not been formulated for the 1978 Census of Agriculture.

First, let us commend the Census Bureau for having called a meeting of this type, and for providing an opportunity for each of us

to express our views. We are pleased to offer these comments much

along the line of opinions expressed during the meeting.
58

The 1974 Census of Agriculture was a disaster in most areas. Certainly, the coverage left much to be desired, as numerous farmers

apparently refused to complete their questionnaire. As has also been

stated, there were names of farm operators that were not included

on the Census mailing list. We can only conclude then, that in addition to public relations problems, the 1974 Census can not have complete data, and its value to the farm community is not what we

would desire. . . We all know that farmers were reflecting the general public's attitude toward government. But we must also admit that the volume

and types of questions asked were part of the problem. All of us on

the Advisory Committee must share in the blame.

Farmers will not accept another Census of Agriculture likes the

1974 approach. The next Census, no matter how simple, will need

strong organization support to create acceptance by farmers. And

this support must come well in advance of the 1978 Census. We are

pledged to helping create that acceptance.

An identification survey was mentioned during the Ad Hoc meeting. We did not comment in detail, but lest silence be construed as

consent, we want to point out that we do not support an identification questionnaire in the year preceding the Census. It would

mean that two campaigns would have to be mounted in consecutive

years. It might well fail badly. Our contacts with farmers indicate

that this additional demand on farmers' time might negate the benefits derived from simplifying the Census form.

Here is the Census of Agriculture procedure that we could support:

(1) Farmer identification.•Using your current list as a base, contract with the USDA to update the list during 1977. The money saved

from not doing an identification survey would help here. Encourage

the USDA to utilize the resources of the ASCS as the primary source,

with checks by other agencies as the need arises. Hold USDA responsible for complete coverage, and disarm this major source of

criticism.

(2) General survey.•Prepare in 1978 a general questionnaire to

be sent to all farm operators in early 1979. Use one standard form,

trying hard to get all questions on the two sides of a one-page form.

Ask only for general data• Sections 3, 18, 19, and 20•plus type of

organization. This would require that the farmer supply only general farm data, including major crops and livestock, acres and production, plus several lines for write-in entries to identify seeds, vegetables, nursery operations, etc. At an appropriate place on the

questionnaire, ask the fanner to check a box to identify his level

of gross farm income•less than $500; $500 to $1,000; $1,000 to

$2,500; $2,500 to $5,000; $5,000 to $10,000; above $10,000. This

would avoid the controversial area of "small farms."

(3) Detailed sampling.•There is merit in conducting a detailed

sampling of approximately 2 percent of farm operators each Census

year. This carefully prepared sampling could include more detailed

questions on fertilizer and equipment use, costs per acre, on-farm

storage, and production per unit. Farm operators would have to be

selected to provide accurate sample data by enterprise and geographic

section of the U.S. Extensive promotion would be necessary to tell
59

these farmers of the importance of their data•and that they would

not be asked again for at least 15 years (3 Censuses).

(4) Follow-up contacts.•We suggest that the Census Bureau contract with local-based people•such as ASCS Committeemen•to do

follow-ups for non-respondents. Locally based individuals are much

better able to communicate with their neighbors, and less apt to

cause hard feelings.

In conclusion, we strongly suggest that more effort be put forth

to explain the importance of the Census of Agriculture: that it is

required by law, that its data must be available for developing

farm programs and increasing foreign markets, and that it greatly

assists farm suppliers in their quest to provide adequate inputs for

farmers.

We hope that these suggestions will be helpful to you. We urge

that the planning and conduct of the 1978 Census of Agriculture

be oriented toward building confidence in the government, and toward

better national coverage. Thank you for your attention to our

suggestions.

Sincerely,

ROBERT FREDERICK,

The National Grange.

CHARLES FRAZIER

National Farmers Organization.

PAUL WELLER

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]

THE AGRICULTURAL CENSUS

APRIL 1, 1977

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 1 p.m. in the Farm Bureau Auditorium,

315 North Sixth Street, De Kalb, 111., Hon. James A. S. Leach

(chairman) presiding.

Present: Hon. Tom Corcoran, member of the Committee on Post

Office and Civil Service.

Mr. LEACH. Good afternoon, The Subcommittee on the Census and

Population of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee

will now convene.

I appreciate very much your hospitality, that particularly of

Representative Corcoran, allowing us to meet here in Illinois today.

We are going^ to have one other subcommittee meeting in Iowa, in

the First District at Marengo, tomorrow to discuss the Agricultural

Census.

I might say that it is an honor to be in the first Farm Bureau

Hall in America. I have been in a number of Farm Bureaus in the

State of Iowa and this is the most impressive I've seen. It is a real

tribute to you people here.

It is also good to come on a day when the weatherman says there's

going to be rain tonight. Downstairs in your export office the word

is soybeans have just gone up another 20 cents, so all the signs are

good.

I think that might have something to do with the quality of

representation you sent to Washington. In his 3 months in office Tom

has established a reputation of being the outstanding freshman in

the U.S. Congress, and I think that's something that is a great credit

to this area.

It is our intention to offer anyone who wants to testify that opportunity and then to throw it open to questions.

Anyone, who wants to testify who hasn't done so, should come and

talk to Joe Fisher, who is from the subcommittee staff, or Mike Ferrell,

who is the majority counsel of the subcommittee.

Before proceeding with witnesses, I would like to ask Tom if he

has any comments he wants to make.

Congressman CORCORAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I

particularly, of course, appreciate your kind words in my home

district.

(61)

87-768•77 5
62

Secondly, I, too, want to applaud the fact that the Subcommittee

on Census and Population of the House of Kepresentatives Post Office and Civil Service Committee, on which I am pleased to serve, has

held hearings to examine the issue of whether or not we can reform

and improve the Agricultural Census.

I think Chairman William Lehman of the committee and the

membership of that subcommittee are to be commended for again,

as they did 2 years ago, taking up the issue of how we might go

about reforming the Agricultural Census.

We can well remember the census of 1974. It was the 20th nationwide Census of Agriculture that we have had in this country; and

in my opinion and in the opinion, I believe, of many people, it was

a complete disaster.

I think it is particularly interesting when you consider the history

and the perspective of the Agricultural Census to note that in

1964, 480 questions were asked. In 1969, 754 questions were asked,

and in 1974, 911 questions were asked, and it took 20 pages to comprise the census.

I think that one of the reasons that Chairman Lehman and other

members of the subcommittee are inquiring and taking testimony to

find out how we might reform the Agricultural Census is because

they want to break that trend, and I certainly want to do whatever

I can as a Member of Congress. We are attempting to find out from

the people here in north-central Illinois what suggestions they might

have in order to help us get the accurate information that's needed,

but at the same time do so in a way that does not infuriate the

farmer.

That's what we are going to try to do for the next 1979 census.

I am particularly delighted that the subcommittee has seen fit to

come here to De Kalb.

I think it is also significant that for the first time, certainly in

my memory, a legislative committee of Congress has come to northcentral Illinois to take testimony on public policy questions.

It has been a matter of concern of mine for a long time that too

often the input into public policy comes from Washington and then

the output goes to the country.

I think we have to reverse that trend. It seems to me that taking

testimony on the issue of the Agricultural Census by getting the

input from the people themselves who are, after all, the bullwark

of representative government makes possible the kind of cooperation between the Government and the people that we all want.

So I am delighted that we are here. I look forward to the testimony

of the witnesses.

Mr. LEACH. The first witness will be Jeffrey W. Gain. Mr. Gain

is Director of the Commodity Programs of the Commodity Division

of the Illinois Farm Bureau.

You must be doing something right. For the second straight year

Illinois has out produced Iowa in corn.

That's an impressive accomplishment, but it will not happen

again.
63

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY W. GAIN, DIRECTOR OF THE COMMODITY

PROGRAMS OF THE COMMODITY DIVISION OF THE ILLINOIS FARM

BUREAU

Mr. GAIN. Thank you.

Congressman Leach and Congressman Corcoran, we appreciate the

opportunity to present some views here this afternoon. I extend

greetings from the Illinois Farm Bureau and our president, Harold

Steele, and Len Gardner, our director of legislative programs. They

both wished they could have been here, but it wasn't possible to fit

into their schedule.

The Illinois Farm Bureau, as I am sure you know, is a general

farm organization representing over 240,000 members here in Illinois.

I would like to make just a few general comments about the

census, and then I would be happy to take any questions that you

might have.

The American Farm Bureau Federation testified, I am sure you

are aware, on March 17 with regard to H.R. 688 and 682 and this

testimony has basically covered the three major points primarily opposing the transfer of the responsibility for the Agricultural Census

to the USDA; second, opposition to a 50 percent reduction in the

respondent's burden as defined therein; and third, in support of the

definition of a farm as contained in the census.

I think basically these would be our positions as well on these

matters.

I would like to background my comments a little bit with a recognition of the fact that the Agricultural Census•or the census of

1974 was perhaps somewhat of a miscue, as I understad it, with

some attempts being made to delay the census to 1977, and at the

last minute that decision made apparently by the administration

being changed by the Congress, and so I think some things were

done and put in motion perhaps before they were really ready to

It's our impression and feeling at this time that some of those

problems perhaps were well recognized at the time, but it was a matter of timing and of necessity that may have caused some of the *

problems, hopefully which have already been addressed 6ince that

time and some partial solutions found.

We certainly appreciate your concern looking at these matters and

want to encourage you to do everything possible to upgrade the

census system.

I think it is essential for agriculture to have good, basic, factual

information. It is my opinion and the opinion I think of most of the

fanners that if we did not have a census program for gathering this

kind of information, that other organizations with whom farmers

must deal would have this information and they would be at a disadvantage if they did not, in fact, have a system similar to thi6,

which, of course, would bring up the point of saying if we did not

have the census as we know it, we would be forced to set up some

sort of program of our own.
64

Obviously it does not only service agriculture. We do support the

census. We feel it is important.

It provides not only good, basic information to us, but it does give

us an opportunity to verify and update and upgrade the various

TJSDA reports that come out over the years.

This is an opportunity for us periodically to check where we are

and make sure we are still on target and on track and can catch

up- . .

I think it needs to be emphasized, also, that these report forms need

to be made as simple as possible. I think the point has been made

here and I think we will hear from others about the complaints

that were voiced with regard to the 1974 census.

The forms need to be as simple as possible, easy to understand, and

I think every care needs to be given to how the questions are

designed and how the forms are designed so that, in fact, it is not

a major burden and one which offers a great deal of opportunity

for confusion.

I think, too, we need to emphasize that the census function remain

in Commerce. There has been suggestions made and currently is

being discussed the possibility of shifting the census to the USDA,

and we feel this would not be in the best interest to shift it in that

manner.

I think there is a certain opportunity perhaps for not necessarily

misuse, but opportunities for conflict that may arise if that kind of

situation existed, and we would prefer to see it stay as it is presently

structured.

I think, too, there has been some concern raised in the past and

there was an attempt made a few years ago to utilize some of the information gathered in the census by other agencies of the Government, which would have been on a personalized basis.

I think it is important that the information collected for the

census be in a total and summary-type form, that individual, personalized responses to census information should be guarded as confidential. It should not be made available to the IRS or any other

agency of the Government.

This is something that we would like to emphasize.

I think, too, that we should use care in designing these questionaires so we know what our objectives are, what kinds of answers we

want to publish and provide, what fashion they would lie meaningful so that we don't get burdened down with asking a lot of unrelated and, maybe in some cases, too personal questions just for the

sake of having a broader base and having information on the respondents.

I think we need to clearlv define what our objectives are and make

sure the questions are restricted to areas related closely to achieving

those objectives.

I think this is particularly true with relation to financial information.

Tin's is just kind of a quick summary of some of our thoughts. T

am sure we would be most receptive to further discussions or questions you might have regarding questions you might be looking at

with regard to structures and questions and things of this kind.
65

We do appreciate your interest very much, and the fact that you

recognize the grassroots importance and the importance of knowing

the attitudes and advice and opinions of the people with whom the

census process deals.

I personally thank you for the opportunity to be here, and that

will conclude my testimony.

If there are any questions about something I might have said, I

would be happy to try and answer them.

Mr. CORCORAN. I have one question. You talked about the information requested on the 1974 census and your concern that we might be

able to narrow it down a little bit with respect to financial information.

Could you elaborate a little bit on what questions contained in the

1974 census having to do with financial requests or financial information you would like to see

Mr. GAIN. This was a comment that we picked up from a number

of people that we contacted. I personally can't tell you.

I am sure with a little research I would be happy to provide this

information. The general comments were that the questions were

too specific. There was too much information about amounts of

money in certain areas and financial returns in investments and this

kind of thing.

It was too detailed and too specific. But to give you a specific

question in this specific area, I didn't bring that information.

Mr. CORCORAN. I think one of the concerns I have heard about is

information requested on the financial condition of a farmer, his

assets, liabilities and net worth. That offended a lot of people. They

wonder why that kind of information is needed.

Since you are with the State farm bureau, I would like to know,

-and maybe you could provide this at some later date to the subcommittee, just what kinds of specific complaints have been received

about the financial information requested in the census; in other

words, if it turns out that the big concern is with the requested information on the financial condition of a farmer, I think it certainly

would be possible for Congress to determine, A, what the use of that

information is and why they feel they need it; and B, if it turns out

there is not any legitimate need for purposes of achieving the objectives of the census, we could restrict the census in the future to

eliminate requirements going into that kind of private information.

Mr. GATN. Yes. This ties into one of the recommendations I made

about defining objectives; and I think, too, that we won't object

certainly to a certain range of information regarding finances, conditions or levels, investments and returns, but it would need to be

done, in our opinion, on the basis that it isn't specifically identified

in too much detail for that individual.

Mr. CORCORAN. One other concern I have, and I think many people

have, is the need to get cooperation on the part of the farmer if we

are going to continue with the census. I think that the information

that's being developed now through the census is questionable as far

as its accuracv is concerned.
66

They ask for data which maybe is no longer available inasmuch as

the census only occurs every 5 years.

Some of those records might not still be available with an individual farmer, and some people give that as a reason why the full

cooperation of the farm community is not given to the completion

of the census.

Would you have any ideas as to what might be done in order ta

get more cooperation from the farmer in completing the forms?

Mr. GAIN. We run into this same problem-type situation with regard to USDA reports in some cases. There are periodic reports.

I think it is an educational process, and I think here again this

would underscore the need for clearly defining the objectives as to

how this information was going to be used.

I think if we can provide information through the media and

certainly our organization through Farm Week and our other publications, this can be helpful in this regard. We can do an educational

program with the respondents so that they do understand and are

more willing to comply.

But I think the real question in many of their minds is do they

really need all this much information and what good am I possibly

going to get out of it.

Mr. CORCORAN-. The Farm Bureau like other farm organizations

publishes periodic newsletters and magazines.

Would you anticipate that your organization might be in a position once Congress were to clearlv define as a matter of policy what

the purpose of the census is and then to delineate what the actual

form of the census might be, that once that were to happen, in

order to prepare for the next one could we expect that the Illinois

Agricultural Association would be willing to help in the educational process of the farm communities?

Mr. GAIN. Yes. I think I can sav without reservation that we would

be most responsive to this kind of request.

We do publish information of this kind and of a similar educational-type nature throughout the year, and not only through our weekly publication, but we have various other types of programs, individual meetings and various other TV and radio programing.

Bnt T think if we had the right kind of information available, why,

certainly we would be happy and pleased to extend the information

to our members.

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gain.

Mr. LF.ACIT. One of the bills before Congress today is submitted by

Neal Smith of Iowa which would take the agricultural census out of

the Department of Commerce and put it into the Department of

Agriculture. You testified that you didn't support that principle and

that you felt there could be certain conflicts which might arise if the

census were transferred to the Department of Agriculture.

Could you delineate what some of those conflicts might be?

Mr. GAIN. Well, I think that there are indications where when

people work closely with a certain area that they tend to look at it

from a certain prearranged set of views, and this might•it might

mean, for example, that in designing or interpreting questions, they
67

wouldn't be designed as impartially or as objective as they could

be.

It might also mean that certain privileged information that might

be gathered in the census would be available to those who are in posts

of making decisions which affect our marketing decisions and things

of this kind. This is a rather broad example, but I think you could

think of many examples.

Mr. LEACH. IS the second part of it more important than the first ?

Mr. GAIN. In my opinion.

Mr. LEACH. Certainly, I have received strong feelings from farmers, that sometimes big institutions and organizations have earlier

access to agricultural information than the farmer does.

Mr. GAIN. I hear the same things occasionally.

Mr. LEACH. YOU also testified that you wanted to be clear that

information from the census should not be transferred to the IRS.

One of the issues that the committee is currently considering is

whether the IRS statistics should be available to the census. That is

the reverse of what you were concerned with.

Does the farm bureau here in Illinois have a position on that; for

example, should income statistics gathered by the IRS be allowed to

be used with this census?

Mr. GAIN. I don't know of the position on this matter. I don't

know that it's been discussed, so I really couldn't comment on it.

Mr. LEACH. I would be appreciative if other people who will

testify would consider that as an issue and express their judgment.

Mr. GAIN. I would be happy to take that back to our board and

suggest that they do discuss it and we will respond to you.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much, Mr. Gain.

The next witness will be Mr. John Hart, who is the president of

the DeKalb County Livestock Feeders. I might say that the subcommittee has no intention of providing any incentives for people

not to use the local grocery stores, but in this building you can buy

beef and the price looks pretty good. "We are pushing beef. We

sympathize with your situation, and you are one of the poorest farmers in the room, I am sure.

STATEMENT OF JOHN HAM, PRESIDENT OF THE DE KALB COUNTY

LIVESTOCK FEEDERS

Mr. HART. I thank you both for inviting me here. I can't speak

for the group. Our monthly meeting is the third Thursday night of

every month, but I do know that to my memory•and if I am wrong,

I want to be corrected right away•there were two forms sent out,

and I speak in a family way, not as the organization, because my

brother-in-law got one form and I got another form. Is that correct,

there were two sent out the last time, two different forms in 1974?

Mr. FERRELL. That is correct. There was a long form and a short

form. In fact, there is some indication that some farmers received

even three and four forms as followup as well. Two was the general

rule.
68

Mr. HART. That's the first thing I questioned. Everybody is a little concerned and disgusted with it.

We have the cattle on feed report that we fill out, and that comes

out in 3 weeks or 3 weeks and 3 days; and we have filled out the

1974 census and to my knowledge I have never read anything about

it. Am I improper in saying that?

Mr. FERRELT,. That is correct. The 1974 census has not, to date,

been published.

Mr. HART. If you want to help us and we want to help you, we

need to know what you are•I think this is the concern. There is a

lot of questions. Yes, there's a lot of questions and some could be

modified a little, but I don't think you would have near the resentment

if you would get some information. We like to know where we are.

The cattle on feed report is discussed about 6 to 8 months later.

It is many times closer than what we are doing.

As an individual, I say that these reports are not all harmful.

They are not all wasted, but we would just wish that you would

modify the questions and mainly get back to us equally in time with

the feed stores and the fertilizer companies.

Many times the bigger businesses get the first report a few days

ahead. It would affect some markets. But mainly this idea of being 3

years without an answer, it just looks like we wasted all our time,

and it takes time. We have to get our record books out or else just

guess. But I think a lot of fellows really, sincerely filled it out and

probably the most disappointing thing about it is we never hear

from it.

Like the grain farms in the neighborhood, they are about 3 weeks

ahead; and I know the cattle on feed reports come out four times a

year. You fill the form out and about 3 weeks later it is out.

Whether you disagree or agree, it's still out. You get an answer. But

here we come up and we answer this whole page, a small catalog, as

I have heard many of them call it, and we never get an answer.

That's all I have to say. There's several here, and I don't want to

take up a lot of time; but to be real blunt, we would like to hear

back from it, not just be left with a lot of work and no answers.

Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might, as Congressman Lehman

pointed out in the previous testimony, there have been two bills

introduced which would reform in different ways the current agricultural census. One of them is H.R. 682, which was introduced by

Mrs. Schroeder of Colorado, and one of the provisions of her bill

is that "The information obtained in each such census shall be published not later than December 31 of the year in which such census

is taken."

So that means, I think, then there's certainly a recognition on her

r>art of the concern that you expressed, that the census information

is not getting out in time; and as the chairman pointed out, although

that information was initially requested more than 3 years ago for the

last census, we still do not have any published data on what was

found. ' *

Here we are now preparing for the next census, and we still dont

have the information from the last one. So I think it is a valid point.

I certainly want to associate myself with your concern, and I would
69

hope with respect to whatever else we might do that one of the things

that's contained in a final package would be legislation that Congress

would mandate•than the Census Bureau publish by the end of the

year, in which it is taken, the findings of that current census.

Mr. HABT. Thank you. I am sure that's the feeling of our group.

We make cattle on feed reports and we hear something from it, give

or take, like or dislike what you hear or what you write down, you

do hear back and that helps.

Thank you very much.

Mr. LEACH. I would like to comment briefly. We received testimony that even though the census has not been published, certain information from it did come out; and the United States owes an

apology to cattle feeders for the inaccurate 1974 information, indicating 8% million less head of cattle in existence in this country

than actually was the case. That's the type of signal that goes out to

an agricultural community, which is very bullish, not to make an

unfortunate pun.

My major concern with the Department of Census or the Bureau

of Census is simply that it hasn't given a high priority to the agricultural census taking; and if nothing else, the Department of Agriculture does give it that priority.

I think one of the hopes of this committee is that we can arrive

at a shorter, more manageable census. Because it is shorter and more

manageable, it can be filled out and compared in a much briefer

period of time.

While the committee is concerned about the burden of paperwork,

it might even be equally or more concerned about paperwork that

leads to nothing, and the 1974 census, unfortunately, has not led to

very much. What it has led to has been used inappropriately; and I

think that's the great thing we want to avoid this coming year.

Thank you, Mr. Hart.

Mr. HART. Thank you.

Mr. LEACH. The next witness will be Mr. Gordon Jameson, President of the LaSalle County Farm Bureau.

STATEMENT OF GORDON JAMESON, PRESIDENT OF THE LA SALLE

COUNTY FARM BUREAU

Mr. JAMESON. Thank you very much, Chairman Lench. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today. Also, I might say we are

looking forward to having you at the LaSalle County Farm Bureau

tonight. We are not quite as affluent, but we are alive and kicking.

The procedure I followed was to call a few farmers who I thought

might have some comments. I didn't have much time and no material

to check, so I just got a few comments from them. I might say I

can subscribe to what has been said previously. One gentleman said

he thought the material was overlapping and frequently it is outdated. By the time they collect the material many times it is outdated. It could lose some of its effectiveness by that situation.

Another claim is the description of farms is not always accurate.

Detailed records are not kept by most of the farmers, for example,
70

on herbicides, insecticides, this kind of thing. They want poundage

per acre and so on. This requires much bookwork. A lot of times

farms don't have this information.

One suggested maybe a warning letter to be sent out the year of the

census so they could try to keep these records. Larger farms would

probably have more secretarial help.

The big issue is invasion of privacy. Mr. Gain talked about con-,

fidentiality. I definitely feel that's very important. In the financial

part of it keep it as brief as possible, to the point, don't get too

personal in finances. Also, again, I would underline make clear the

purpose of this census material, how it is to be used. You will get

better cooperation from the majority of farmers if this is done.

Basically that's all I have to say.

Mr. CORCORAN. I certainly am pleased to have the benefit of your

testimony. You mentioned about the confidentiality of the census information and it has been brought up before.

In previous testimony before the committee the Associate Director

of the Bureau of the Census, Miss Shirley Kallek, pointed out the

law provides that the strict confidentiality of the data be protected,

and 6he points out that in title 13 of the United States Code this is

provided for. I think what you reflect now is a concern that a lot of

people have who really question whether or not the information is

confidential.

I think that perhaps one of the byproducts of the hearings that are

being held and the ultimate action that probably will be taken to

make changes in the manner in which the agricultural census is conducted will be that some of the misconseptions about what goes on

and why the census is being taken may be laid to rest; and certainly

one of the things that I believe is crucial in order to have more

cooperation on the part of the farmer in the taking of the agricultural

census would be some strict assurance that the information being provided•especially if there is continued inquiry regarding financial

matters be absolutely confidential.

I think one of the provisions I would suspect in any legislation

might well be dealing with that particular consideration.

Mr. JAMESON. I would agree.

Mr. CORCORAN. One other question that I have that hasn't been

brought up yet deals with sampling. Presently every farmer is mailed

a census form to complete•but what would be your reaction to

employing the more modern teclinique of survey sampling in order

to get the information that we want? While I realize, Gordon, you

nre not an expert on opinion-survey techniques, would you think

that a farmer might be more willing to cooperate if it were on a

Sampling basis rather than the present system?

Mr. JAMESON. I can only speak for myself.

I don't know. I should have said at the beginning I haven't had a

chance to talk to mv Board, so I am speaking just as an individual.

I definitely feel I would.

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you.

Chairman LEACH. Gordon, if you can stay 1-second.

You raised something that no one raised at this hearing or in

Washington, and that is the concept that maybe a warning should
71

.go out the prior year that the census is coming up; I might just ask

if a farmer could feel comfortable in being able to answer all these

questions without first going to his accountant or someone trained in

accounting, and I am also, wondering in the last census how many

farmers filled them out without anyone else's outside help or if they

just turned them over to someone else. Would you have any feeling

for that?

Mr. JAMESON. I think it takes a lot of time, if you are going to

answer them as accurately as you should answer them.

The long form is what I am familiar with; and, you know, I have

no idea how some•how much time you give to it, how serious they

take them.

I would guess most of the farmers would take them serious enough

to do a good job, and I know it is a difficult thing to do a good

job.

Mr. LEACH. I am interested in your thoughts on this. Do you think

most farmers would ask their accountant for help?

Mr. JAMESON. I couldn't say that most would.

Mr. LEACH. IS the Government then imposing a cost burden on

them, as well as a time burden ?

Mr. JAMESON. "Well, I think in some cases they are. The time is an

important factor as well. Most of the farmers are very busy.

Mr. LEACH. Perhaps it is not overly important. Anyone involved

in farming knows the average farmer gets paid something under 80

cents an hour.

If you worked in a large factory, it would be a great burden. I

meant that humorously.

Mr. JAMESON. One thing I might say that I did hear, a number of

older farmers•I believe they are older•for example, went to the

Triumph Bank for assistance because they needed help. Whether

they had to pay for it or not, I have no idea. I do not bank there.

Mr. LEACH. We have some bankers testifying. I think that will be

an interesting question.

Thank you.

Mr. JAMESON. Thank you.

Mr. LEACH. The next witness will be Mr. Ray Grommes, who is

president of the Kane County Livestock Feeders Association.

STATEMENT OF RAY GROMMES, PRESIDENT OF THE KANE COUNTY

LIVESTOCK FEEDERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. GROMMES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Corcoran.

This morning when I was sitting at my breakfast table I wrote

down a few thoughts. I didn't have any idea what other people might

say.

I thought there is just so many acres of farmland in the United

States. It has crops grown on it if it is economically feasible to do

so.

So there's just so many acres of farmland and it will be used unless there is a government set-aside program, and the only thing that's
72

going to determine what crops are going to be grown will be the

price.

The cotton people will switch to soybeans and what-have-you.

Some farmer will plant wheat instead of corn. It all depends on the

price.

I filled out the long form, and I really didn't care to fill it out because it did take a lot of time because I did try to do a good job.

Well, anyway, getting back to these acres that we put down, I

really don't think they are that important. The land is going to be

used.

By the time everything gets back and it is analyzed, it is out of

date, because the profit margin in the livestock industry will determine if they are going to farrow some more sows and so forth.

It just gets down to supply and demand will dictate what's going

to happen; and by the time we write something down, that's all past

history, and to me it is irrelevant really.

That's what I thought about it.

Anyway, for instance, like down in Florida, we were down there,

and we talked to some fellows that had an orange grove.

If they spend about $70 an acre for fertilizer, the prices for

oranges aren't very good. He probably won't spend that much for

fertilizer.

I see they have a place for your trees and everything else. I really

can't see the information they gather, that it is worth it.

These are my own personal thoughts.

Well, I thought the form was too long and that it wasn't worth its

cost either to the Government or myself, the information they received.

I also thought that it was an invasion of my personal privacy. I

don't think that the Government should•you have to account quite

so closely.

I think a 1-page form, they could get the information that they

would need, not such a long form as what we had.

I think what's more important is we need to know what the land

use is, because there's a lot of it going into highways, housing, airports and forest preserves.

Like the Aurora School District built a new high school. They

bought 90 acres of good farmland.

I think we need an accounting of our farmland in the census.

Somehow maybe that could be incorporated into it.

"We need to know onr inventory of farmland.

These are my own personal views and that's nil I have to say.

Mr. CORCORAN. I want to thank you for coming here this afternoon.

Mv. Grommes.

One of the things that attracted me especially to your testimony is

the fact that, obviously yon didn't porticiilnrlv like comoleting the

form, but you indicated you took sufficient amount of time to complete it. I think that, based on that observation, plus, I think, the

comments that I have heard this afternoon so far and from people

at other times concerning this matter, people are willing to act and

cooperate with the gathering of the data, if they feel like it's got

some purpose.
73

You mentioned two purposes that you think are valuable, which

would suggest if it were a better form from your standpoint you

could see some value in it.

One you mentioned was land use so you would have some idea of

how much land there is, and related, of course, is the inventory for

farmland.

Can you think of any other uses to which this information might

be put?

Mr. GROMMES. NO. I really question its actual value. I think it is

nice to know the number of farmers, how many people in the

household, if you have a hired hand. That type of thing is nice, and

how many acres are included in the farm and so forth.

When they get down to asking how many tons of fertilizer you

used last year, I think it is irrelevant.

Mr. CORCORAN. Even if you go back 3 or 4 years, which is the case

of the 5-year agricultural census, I think you would find very few

farmers, except in big operations, who would be able to tell you

exactly how much fertilizer per acre was put on; so that when you

gather that kind of information and then use it as some sort of

basis for other business and manufacturing decisions, I think you've

got some invalid data on which to make those judgments.

Mr. LEACH. I just want to pursue one thing. One of the interesting, philosophical question is what use the farm census is to farm

people. You have testified it is fairly irrelevant to you.

From your knowledge and personal perspective•and this is the

*20th census we've had•was the farm census more relevant, to yourself as a younger man, to your grandfather, to your father ? That is,

is the census itself less relevant than it once was?

Mr. GROMMES. Well, I filled them out because they were sent to

me, and this is actually the first time I ever sat down to actually

really try to put some thought into just how much good it was

since I received a notice of the hearing, and that's the first time I

really did spend a lot of time.

I filled them out before because they were sent, and I really didn't

think that much of them then.

Some of these reports that we fill out•I don't happen to fill out

a cattle on feed report because

Mr. LEACH. YOU are not a farmer. You don't have any cattle.

Mr. GROMMES. I've got some, but anyway I feel that some of these

reports that you fill out, the figures come back that the supply is

large, it is like a hammer over your head; and what happens when

the price is down, that means everybody got them, and when the

price is up, that means only a few people have them.

So I think with these reports you do more harm to a lot of people

than you do good to just a few people.

That happens to be what I think of some of the reports. I am not

against progress or anything, but I think that sometimes our markets

are influenced more than they should be by reports.

That's kind of off the subject of the census there.

Mr. LEACH. But that's very, very helpful. I appreciate that very

much. Your statement will be in the record at this point.

[The statement follows:]
L_

74

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAT GBOHMES

My name is Raymond H. Grommes and I am a full-time farmer and President

of the (Cane County Livestock Association. I farm, with my son and another

tenant, 700 acres.

We grow corn and soybeans, and our livestock consists of raising 800 head

of hogs and feeding 450 head of cattle per year.

I would like to question the value of the farm census on the following basis:

1. There is only so many acres of farmland in the U.S.A. and it will have

crops grown on it if it is economically feasible.

2. There are only two things that will affect the number of acres in any

one crop and they are a government set-aside program or a shifting of crops

due to a more favorable price.

3. In the livestock industry the profit margin directs whether there will bea decrease or expansion in numbers.

4. I feel that current supply-demand situations will dictate the direction for

the use of our agricultural land. The land will be utilized, and the market,

not the census, will effect its use. Profitability alone will say if the orange

groves are fertilized or not, if new trees are set out, if more gilts are heldback to increase the hog herds, et cetera.

Therefore I feel that the census is outdated before it can be analyzed.

I also feel that the last census was much too long, not worth its cost, and

an invasion of our personal privacy.

There is need for Information on land use. We need to know what is happening to our land. How many acres are used each year for housing, schools,

highways, forest preserves, airports, et cetera. This is the area where I think

our efforts should be concentrated.

Mr. LEACH. The next witness will be Mr. Ralph Freebairn, president of the LaSalle County Livestock Association.

STATEMENT OP RALPH FREEBAIRN, PRESIDENT OF THE LA SALLE

COUNTY LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION

Mr. FREEBAIRN. I had a prepared text here, and pretty much what

everybody ahead of me has said was what I was going to say.

The only one point different, I am not sure that the census is

needed in the first place. I don't know if there is a published figure

as to what it costs, but I am sure if I heard that I know I would

be opposed to the reason for the census.

Second, as far as grain, livestock, herbicide, fertilizer and all of

those commodities, each one of those, for instance, the fertilizer industry, the cattle industry, has reports, has to furnish reports to the

government, I would assume, as to the movement of stocks and that

type of thing.

My opinion is someplace in Washington they have all of this information in the first place; and probably if there was any interaction between departments, it would be a lot less expensive than going

out again and collecting all this information from a firsthand source.

I don't know.

One question: Is there a published figure as to what it cost to

collect the census in 1974?

Mr. CORCORAN. Mike just handed me that figure. The cost for the

1974 census was $20 million. The expected cost for the 1979 censu9

is $39 million.

I don't know whether that strengthens your position or not.

Mr. FREEBAIRN. It does mine. That's my point. Everything that is

said in there can be collected in another way that is being collected'

anyway.
10

To avoid being repetitious, that's about what I have to say.

To reiterate the point about the older fanners in the community•

wliich there is a bigger majority than any other group•the banker

that I talked to said that was a real problem in a lot of cases.

A lot of these guys when they got that form didn't understand anything on it, because it is my understanding that 1971 was the first

mailing census that was taking place.

Every other one had been on a personal basis; is that right ?

Sir. CORCORAN. I think the one oefore that was the first one, but

I am not sure.

Mr. PRTTCHARD. The first one was 1969.

Mr. FREEBAIRN. That was a concern the banker made to me. There

would be an influx of a lot of people wanting help.

Mr. LEACH. Did the banks charge for this ?

Mr. FREEBAIRN. I don't believe ours did. I would imagine if it

got to be a third-of-a-day job, they would.

Mr. LEACH. I might first say, if you would like to give us a copy

of your testimony, we would be happy to put it in the record. That's

up to you.

You can just see my afterwards, and we can do that.

Do you have any questions?

Mr. CORCORAN. Ralph, I certainly understand your testimony up

to this point, but assuming it could be developed to your satisfaction and to the satisfaction of most of the people that there was a

valid need for the census, there is still a question as to what size farm

ought to be covered. What is our basic unit of information here;

current law provides that the figure be any farm operation with

sales of $1,000 or more.

There is some discussion about reducing that to $250 or even as it

was in years past to a lower figure.

What would your reaction to any change in terms of the basic

definition of what a farm is as far as dollars of sales be?

Mr. FREEBArRN. I would say that it would have to go up instead of

down. I can't hardly visualize what would be less than $1,000 a

year.

One acre, if you have done gross sales, you could take $400 an

acre off of it.

I would say a lot of these, what they call, farmettes anymore in

the rural areas where they come in and buy a house and a few acres,

you would be classifying all of those as farms and they are not.

Their concerns aren't the same as somebody who is making a living

off of it, which they are not making a living off of that farmette.

Mr. CORCORAN. The reason I asked that question is before the

hearing began the subcommittee counsel and I were talking about the

character of the farms in this part of the country.

He asked whether they were small farms or big farms, and I

thought we ought to get into the Record that from the standpoint of

what would be valid and meaningful in this part of the country,

farms based on sales of $1,000 or more would certainly be a minimum.

Thank you very much.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you.

The next witness will be Mr. Milford Bjelland, president of the

Grundy Farm Bureau.
76

STATEMENT OF MUFORD BJELLAND, PRESIDENT OP THE GRUNDY

COUNTY FARM BUREAU

Mr. BJELLAND. Well, I, too, want to thank you in that you have

taken the time to come out to the country. I hope that is an indication

that we are giving the Government back to the people.

If this is, this would go a long way in helping with farmer acceptance. Of course, the 1974 census came out at a time when Government reputation wasn't the best and, hopefully, we are healing that

up.

A lot of my points also already been expressed; however, I think

I can address myself to two of your questions.

The one is in our farm bureau building there we do a lot of tax

work; and, in fact, our executive secretary does a lot of tax work,

and there were several of these censuses brought in to him.

I don't know if it was as bad as people thought it was. When they

opened it up and looked at it they just decided that was too much

for them to tackle.

I think probably in most cases the people were not charged for it.

It was more or less figured a farm bureau service to its members.

The other question of yours on the IRS, in other words, taking information from our tax forms for census, I would like to think the

only reason for IES is to collect the money due to me•or due from

me, I should say.

If they are to be used as a census, I think that this should at

least be published to every person that files the tax, that not only is

this your income tax, it is going to be used for a census, because I'd

like to think that anything I sent to Washington is used for the

purpose that it is pretended to be used for.

I also would agree with the opinion that the census should not be

open to anybody but people in the census bureau where it is supposed to go.

One thing I don't think anybody could accuse the census of is

affecting the soybean market. I was really surprised that none of

this data has been published yet. I didn't realize that.

To me, we did waste any time we spent on that census because the

way agriculture is changing, we are 3 years down the road now.

Apparently it was in early 1974; right?

Mr. CORCORAN. Right.

Mr. BJELLAND. We are 3 years down the road now. The way

agriculture is changing I can't see too much value of anything that

came out of it now other than possibly whether the number of

farmers went up or down or the size of the farm, whatever value that

has.

But after 3 years I am sure that a lot of this is useless information.

Also, I am sure that there is a very fine line between effective

census and invasion of privacy, and I am sure I don't know where

that line is.

This is one of the complaints, as has been said here today, people

have, the personal nature of some of the questions. They didn't

feel it was anybody's business other than their own.
77

I think the point was brought up before. An educational program

is very important. Possibly as soon as farmers become convinced that

this census is going to be used for the reason that it is taken for

and that it is going to be used to their advantage and they are not

being taken again by their government, why, they will probably be

more apt to be agreeable to filling it out.

I think that basically is all I have.

Mr. CORCORAN. I have a couple questions.

First of all, being the president of the Grundy County Farm

Bureau, I am sure that there are some of your members who are not

grain and livestock farmers.

Would you be able to give us any idea what the attitude of

some of those other farmers might be on this subject?

Mr. BJELLAND. Would you be more specific?

Mr. CORCORAN. Well, the poultry farmers, and you've got some

trucking operations there too.

Mr. BJELLAND. Yes; and unfortunately, I can't answer for those

people. Most of the people, not all of them, but I should say a lot of

the people in this situation are also grain farmers besides.

There are a few like east of Morris that are strictly in the vegetable

business.

No, I can't answer that.

Mr. CORCORAN. I think we will be keeping the record open on

this hearing on the inquiry that the subcommittee is making generally

into the subject of the agricultural census; and I would say within

the next 10 days or so if you have the opportunity Milford, to

contact any of those people and to get a reaction whether or not their

views would be somewhat different or whether or not they might

want to get into the Record something with particular reference to

their specific farming operations, I think we would be quite open to

receiving that kind of information.

Mr. BJELLAND. IS there any of these people that weren't fully

covered in the last census, do you feel?

Mr. CORCORAN. My information is all of them would have been

covered. -

One other question I have: you were talking about something

that's been brought up before having to do with the confidentiality of

the information and in particular with reference to the cross-reference between the agricultural census information and the Federal

income tax returns.

The Form 1040-F, according to the testimony of the census

bureau, is quite important in order to identify the names and addresses of U.S. farmers.

They feel that in order to identify the fanners, they need to use

this form.

What would be your reaction to a specific provision giving the

•census bureau the authority to go to the 1040-F as long as they are

limited and as long as it was very clearly provided that all the information they could get would be off the top of the form?

Mr. LEACH. YOU mean the name?

Mr. CORCORAN. The name and occupation.

87-786•77-
78

Mr. BJELLAND. I don't believe I would have any objection to that.

I don't know how you would do this. I would hope that it would be

done by a listing from the IRS or something rather than them

actually looking at the form, which I am sure is what you had in

mind.

Mr. CORCORAN. Assuming it is technically feasible to restrict the

census bureau in that respect, you would be agreeable to allowing

them to use that source of information as a means of identifying who

the farmers are?

Mr. BJELLAND. If you are talking about my name and Social

Security number as having filed an F, yes.

Mr. CORCORAN. Yes.

Mr. BJELLAND. Yes.

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. LEACH. I just have one question, sir. Do you feel that as a

reaction against the Government, that estimates which are submitted

are apt to be, in some areas, overestimated or underestimated?

For example, we have heard testimony from a cattleman who believes that some of the cattle projections are likely to be lower simply

because of the general feeling if they are high, the cattle market is

apt to go down.

Is that thinking generally pervasive or not?

Mr. BJELLAND. Unfortunately I think it is if you are talking about

among farmers I am in contact with.

Mr. LEACH. Would this apply virtually to all livestock?

Mr. BJELLAND. In our area livestock is a minor thing, so I don't

have a handle on the livestock as much as the crop reports.

Mr. LEACH. Would the crop reports be subject to the same thinking ? If one guesses, and we all guess in many of these types of tilings,

would one be apt to guess low or high?

Mr. BJELLAND. Who is one?

Mr. LEACH. I mean a farmer.

Mr. BJELLAND. If it was his estimated yield, he would be apt to

guess low. I am sure he would.

Mr. LEACH. One of the very interesting things that is brand new

in the whole statistical reporting area and which raise a question on

the need for some of these statistics, is, the use of satellites, which are

now proving to be incredibly accurate when it comes to estimating

two things.

One is what crops have been planted; and secondly, what yields

are apt to be in a given period of time.

The yield thing is not nearly as precise. Some of our satellite

people tell us they can come within 20 percent of gross projections

of actual yield.

We in this country are using satellites very widely in projecting the

rest of the world's yields particularly in the Soviet Union and

China.

We also are using satellites to look at our own crops.

One of the factors that does come into play with this new technology is whether there will be much of a need to go to the individual farmer? Something else that I have heard almost no comment
79

upon, is whether the individual farmer feels a little bit as if he is

being spied upon up there in the sky.

Is there any concern in that direction?

Mr. BJELLAND. It would strictly be a guess because I haven't heard

any concerns expressed, but yes, I would say they would have the

feeling that they were, yes.

When it came right down to asking them the question if they were

for or against it, they may not say thy were definitely•it should

definitely be stopped, for instance, but I am sure they would feel

that they were being spied upon.

Mr. LEACH. It is helpful in looking at the rest of the world. Somehow we have a different feeling in looking at ourselves.

Because of military concerns, we have put in a tremendous amount

of resources into making technological improvements in our satellite

capacities. The ability to make crop estimate is one of the possible

spinoffs from that.

Thank you very much, sir.

The next witness is Mr. Carl Heinisck, who is the vice-president

of the DeKalb Bank.

Welcome, Mr. Heinisck.

STATEMENT OF CARL HEINISCK, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE DE KALB

BANK

Mr. HEINISCK. Thank you for inviting me, and I would like to

commend you for coming out in the country.

I am a country banker. I am no great world financier, to get the

record straight.

Mr. LEACH. I might say that what Carl is saying is that in the

United States today we have large money-center banks in New York

and Chicago. They are filled with some very, very smart MBA's

who have bought a lot of New York City loans, bonds, and they

have made a lot of real estate loans.

By comparison, country bankers have proven to be a little bit

like the countiy lawyers. Watch out. They speak softly, but carry a

smart walking stick. They know what they are talking about. They

didn't make the mistakes the big banks have made.

Please go ahead, Carl.

Mr. HEINISCK. Thank you.

I also filled out the 1969 report as a farmer, too, and I have a copy.

I have some idea of the detail and so forth and some of the information that went into putting it together and the personal experience of so doing it.

It is by no means a simple report and it is lengthy. It requires a

lot of time.

I think the comments about the results is one where our farmers

are interested in; and I sit in a position of being able to hear, you

know, many people and can reflect the thoughts and feelings of

the community.

I think that agriculture is a very diverse industry. It is a big thing

in this country.
80

In an industry of this size and its input to our total well-being to

the total contribution of our country, we need to plan.

I know that you gentlemen before you went out on the campaign

you researched the facts because you ]ust didn't go out helter-skelter

and carry on a program, campaign. You tried to identify a base, a

base of facts, of needs, and then you tried to react to those needs,

those facts.

You tried to find the support of information.

I think the industry needs to have facts for the benefit of the

consumer, for the benefit of the agribusinessman and for the business

of the farmer, because we are all in this thing together. We are in

it together.

I think in terms of planning the needs of agriculture•and I am

not going to list a whole long list of them, but there are many, many

needs, needs in terms of education, one of the reasons our agriculture

is great.

I spent two years in Nigeria and there we did not hare an extension program, an education program, to help the farmers about

modern methods and production. We have that here and that is as

the result of planning.

I think our own lock and dam issue that we have in this community

or in northern Illinois, which I know you gentlemen are concerned

about, is a result of what has happened.

In terms of in the last, what, 10 years or something like that we

have doubled our corn production, and I can assure you I think

we've got the technology where we could increase that more; and

rf we don't have the transportation facilities necessary now to meet

our needs now, what are we going to have when we double or whatever, you see, and so, we need facts in order to base a plan upon.

I think another thing•and I really feel this. I really sense this.

I think what you have here with every farmer that's sat in this

chair is the farmer's concern about confidentiality. It is a real

concern. I think another concern they have is how the information is

used in terms of confidentiality. They are concerned about taxing and

how they will be taxed and, of course, you could answer that back in

two ways.

They are concerned about using the information that would tax

them in an unequitable way. But you can counter and come back and

say if you have all the facts, they could be taxed in an equitable way,

because we are citizens of this country and we all have to support

this country. Farmers, no different than anybody else, want to support

this country, and taxes is one of the ways we do it.

The means of regulation and control, they are very concerned

about this. We've seen this come with environmental people and so

forth and more and more of this is coming.

The people in the feed business, more and more regulations; in the

bank industry, a tremendous amount of Government regulations on

policies.

Part of this, I think, has been brought up about these regulations

because the facts aren't there or perhaps it is maybe the Government

trying to find more jobs for people in Washington. I don't know,

but it is frustrating.
81

A means of affecting management, this has heen brought up a

couple of times. I think in northern Illinois you've probably got

some of the sharpest farmers in the country; and if, you know, we

have a reporting system, farmers are concerned about the USDA

reports that come out, and it is my understanding that these are

samplings. These are samplings and their margin of error in grain

hasn't been too bad. They have been pretty good. But the livestock

has left something to be desired. So when you have facts coming out,

one of the things that this census does do is it is a means of substantiating. It is a means of substantiating all these spot things, spot

surveys that go on throughout the country. Maybe we can do that

with the satellite. Maybe there are other ways we can go about

doing it more efficiently and more accurately.

The other thing I would like to address myself to, and again it

comes to planning and establishing facts, this is one that I have come

to appreciate only in the last couple of years. In the last five•let's

say 1970 we went from total agricultural debt•the total national

agricultural debt went from something like $45 billion to 1976 which

was in excess of $100 billion. Now, that's 6 years what it took almost

a century and a half to achieve.

The point I am trying to make is again there is a set of facts. Now

it comes back to say what's happening in agriculture.

It says if you project that we are going to need a tremendous

amount of capital pumping into that agriculture, to go out and get

that, to develop programs, for Congress to develop programs, that

would reinforce moneys being pumped into agriculture. That requires a set of facts, a basis upon which to make that legislation. If

you don't get the facts back very fast, how are you going to create

legislation based on the facts?

That's all I have to say.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much.

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you very much, Carl.

I was delighted when you took the witness chair. I know that those

in the audience who farm for a living were delighted that you were

here testifying because, after all, their prosperity depends on the

kind of involvement with the financial community that I know exists

here in this county.

I think, also, that the quality of your testimony certainly confirms

my belief, and I suspect that of many others, that we are far better

off in this country, going out into the country to find out what

Eublic policy initiatives ought to be taken and what changes ought to

e made. Certainly the testimony we have received has certainly

shown the value of coming here to find out how the program is

working and what might be done to make it better.

One specific question I have that deals with the capital requirements, because you have injected a new factor into the need for the

census, would you care to elaborate a little bit on what reactions

there might be in the banking industry based on the findings thai

could be developed as the result of the agricultural census?

Mr. HEINISCK. Well, we haven't•I don't believe that we have

really tapped the beginning of what we can produce in this country,

and the production that we are going to achieve down the road is, I
82

•don't believe, going to result from new land or from necessarily

new farmers, new people, new bodies, to any great number.

I believe that the increase in agriculture that we are going to

achieve down the road is going to be a combination of the skills of

the farmers we have today in combination with private industry providing increased goods and services to the farmer, you know, through

research, through investment, more efficient plans and so forth. So

I think that the thing that is going to determine how much capital

is pumped into agriculture is going to be the result of whether agriculture is profitable or not.

It is pure and simple. If agriculture is profitable, I think people in

finance will find the money to pump into agriculture because the

money will go to the opportunity that will pay the greatest return. That's our system. That's what makes our system great.

I think that when people try to arrive at a decision as to how

much money to invest in barges for the river, for example, they are

going to want some idea of what the capacity or potential production of our land is out here. It is all tied together. You just don't

go out and build barges and so forth without trying to find out what

its needs are going to be.

Is this the question you are asking?

Mr. CORCORAN. Yes.

Mr. HEWISCK. I see this as a correlation, how it is tied together,

because a company when it is going out to ask for money has to

establish how they are going to use it, how they are going to pay it

back.

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much.

The next witness is Mr. Malcolm Whipple, vice president of the

LaSalle County Pork Producers and vice president of the farm

bureau.

Malcolm will be the eighth of 16 witnesses and after he is through

we will have a stretch for a few minutes.

STATEMENT OF MALCOLM WHIPPLE, VICE PRESIDENT OP THE LA

SALLE COUNTY PORK PRODUCERS AND VICE PRESIDENT OP THE

FARM BUREAU

Mr. WHTPPLE. I hope I am not the cause for the need to

stretch.

It is nice to see you here in Illinois and not always in Washington.

After only a couple of days of thinking about this•I wish I had

more time•I think I have more questions that I would like to ask you

than comments to make on this subject.

We are talking about a large industry here, and it is varied from

coast to coast or from State to State and actually from country to

country. Farmers are farmers by definition in a way. What a farmer

is here may not be a farmer elsewhere. That may sound a little facetious. Here you call us farmers. If you hold a hearing in Montana,

don't even call them farmers.
83

Some of these questions that we have, we received in the same

way. The question that I read here may not mean the same thing

to me as a man in Montana may interpret it. The long and complicated forms we have to fill out don't mean the same thing.

Again you talked about the old farmers. That made me a little bit

concerned when he talked about the old farmers. I submit that we

have as many young farmers, by the definition we use, who don't

understand the forms either or the questions. They may not understand the difference between 022 and 24-D.

I am not sure just where the post office, as such, fits in this except

as a vehicle for the Commerce Department to get the census; is that

correct ?

Mr. CORCORAN. Yes.

Mr. WHIPPLE. And I would agree with the previous speaker who

talked about wanting the census, assuming it is beneficial in the first

place, to remain in the Commerce Department rather than shift it

to the USDA and the labor census being in the Labor Department

and so forth. I think the census makes sense not only of agriculture,

but of other industries or segments of the economy; and we make one

about every year for some group.

I think we have a better base from which to operate if there is

some uniformity and means more to not only the farmer, but to

other industries. Other censuses would mean more to agriculture if

we have a common starting point.

I am a little concerned at times about who benefits in the census,

and maybe that should not be a concern if they are not even published after 3 or 4 years. I am wondering at that point what the

value is, and I Mould like to ask you at sometime does anybody have

the figures or some of the figures that we turned in 3 or 4 years

ago.

Let's say a farmer here, a small farmer. Does the big grain

industry have some of the things that we turned in, or the big

machinery industry, do they have some of the figures that we turned

in ? Apparently the farmers don't.

I would like to question, also, do records show that the census is

more accurate than the previous surveys surveyed by the university

or land grant colleges? Who has access to these returns? IRS has

been mentioned. I think perhaps in the future a greater concern

might be OSHA or EPA or some other new group that's apt to

come along.

I believe that there is a resolution in the IAA resolutions that

they are encouraging the farmers to be accurate in making reports

and try to do a good job of it in presenting the figures. The figures

are no good to anyone if you try not to be accurate. I really don't like

to think that kind of resolution is necessary. I would like to assume

that farmers are basically honest and would answer questions, but

there is that resolution.

Mr. LEACH. Where was that resolution?

Mr. WHIPPLE. In the IAA resolutions. It doesn't mention specifically the census. It does mention various reports.

The farmer's benefits are very indirect. I think they come, but

through education.
84

The educational channels like the colleges and extension services•

even that lias to be a little farfetched if after 3 years we don't have

the results of the last census; and I would submit that perhaps if

you can devise a simpler census form and method of taking it once

every 10 years and get it out much sooner, we certainly have the

technology to get this out almost immediately if we wanted it.

That's kind of a rambling report.

Mr. LEACH. Very thoughtful.

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you very much.

First of all, I am not surprised that Malcolm's presentation is

thoughtful. I have known Malcolm for a while now and particularly

when it comes to the subject of agriculture and its relationship to

the rest of the economy, I think Malcolm is among the more thoughtful people I know.

The previous witness commented a little bit about the value of the

census in order to establish the facts to develop the financing that

will be needed to gear up the productive capacity of farms in the

coming years.

I am aware of your involvement to some extent in the banking

business. Would you mind commenting on how you see that interrelationship, Malcolm ?

Mr. WHrppLE. From census figures?

Mr. CORCORAN. Yes.

Mr. WHIPPLE. I am not sure that the census figures are very appropriate when they are so much delayed except as a base mark from

which to compare industry-type figures.

The industry figures, whether they are from the bank or agriculture or certain commodities groups, which I supposedly represent

today, are very, very much up to date and very useful.

Mr. CORCORAN. Doesn't that raise another question that I think

you touched on and I believe other witnesses have also, and that is

the acceptance of the census by the farmer. I think that one of the

difficulties in this respect has to do with the cooperation of farmers

in completing the information requested. This raises the question, is

the information gathered for the benefit of the farmer or is the

information gathered for the benefit of those who provide goods and

services to the farmer?

I'm not sure that either you or I know the answer to that question,

Malcolm, but what is your perception of that? What do you think

people today feel is the purpose of the agricultural census, people

you talk to?

Is it to benefit the farmer or is it to benefit the people who provide

goods and services for the farmer!

Mr. WniPPLE. I would have to say I would hope it is for the good

of all.

Turning that around, I would say then that I would hope the

survey or the census you take of industry would benefit me, and I

think it does, perhaps more than my census benefits anybody else.

I might make this comment, and I remember clearly trying to fill

out the form 3 years ago. I think I called the enumerator twice and

she finally came over and got the form.
85

Mr. CORCORAN. One other point just in passing, you touched upon

the relationship that the Census Bureau has with other Federal agencies and the confidentiality of the information.

There is, I am told, a specific provision in the law today which prohibits the Census Bureau from sharing that information with other

agencies such as OSHA or EPA or others.

There is, however, a special arrangement, I am told, with IKS and

it may well be we might want to define that a little bit better in the

law in order to define that relationship and then make aware to

the farmer and the public generally just what that relationship

is.

Thank you.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Whipple.

The subcommittee will stand in recess for 5 minutes.

[Whereupon a recess was had, after which the taking of the hearing was resumed as follows:]

Mr. LEACH. If the subcommittee can reconvene, the next witness

will be Robert Pritchard, president of the De Kalb County Soybean

Association.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PRITCHARD, PRESIDENT OF THE DE KALB

COUNTY SOYBEAN ASSOCIATION

Mr. PRITCHARD. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you.

I feel a little bit at home with this committee. I am now living in

Congressman Corcoran's district. Previously in the past years I

was an Iowa resident in your area. I feel at home talking to you

both.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. Many people who can't quite make it in

Iowa come out here to Illinois, so we feel very close. Illinois may

be the second best State to live in.

Mr. PRITCHARD. By way of a little background, the comments I

will be making are primarily mine as an individual farmer, but are

touched with a lot of experience with media usage with promoting

the census and using some of its output.

As has been mentioned by other speakers in testimony, I think

there is a real need for some of the type of information from the

census. I think it gives us valuable benchmark data that can be added

to the more legitimate surveys that the USDA is taking.

I must say the census is something of a paradox because it is only

as good as benchmark data if the information is accurate.

I seriously doubt the information is accurate because of the

attitude of the respondents to the census form.

I see several problems which have been mentioned. The forms

themselves are complicated. They are involved and oftentimes may

contain information that is irrelevant, at least in the eyes of the

respondents.

The forms seem long. You asked the comment would a farmer

take the form to an accountant. If the farmer has to pay the accountant, I would say no.

The farmer certainly is investing time in responding to this, and

I don't think they want to invest any out-of-pocket costs.
86

I think some of the questions in the census form, as others have

mentioned, are too personal. Along with this, I am not certain that

the Government has a need to know the income information or the

investment information that they are asking on the current census

forms.

I don't see any other segment of society being asked these types of

detailed information, and the only use that I can see of this type of

information is for regulation. Perhaps to some degree to the taxation

to the latter point I see a legitimate value for this information, but

IRS is supposedly obtaining accurate information.

I also think there is a poor attitude of the respondents to the

census form because everyone is asked to respond. Certainly in the

larger farmer category everyone is expected to respond.

I think we could get by with less than a hundred-percent sample.

Perhaps we might even be able to get by with less than every 5 years,

perhaps a 10-year census benchmark would be as valuable and reliable as a 5-year is.

If we look at these types of attitudes and wonder how we could

respond to them, I think in my view I come up with a number of

ways to change it.

I was only able to ascertain the 1969 census form and that only

after a great deal of scrambling.

Perhaps I should note the Government is very volumimous in the

paperwork they have in the actual census form. Fortunately, they are

trying to cut paper, but they are cutting paper by not making

samples available; and in a hearing like this having those copies is

certainly essential.

I think if we can look at the 1969 census form there are several

pages where the page itself is easier to read than other pages.

To me that is coming down to the point and this might be more

specific than what you want in this hearing, but it is a case if you've

got one column of information on a page or two columns on a page,

I think there are specific sections that are irrelevant that could be

omitted or perhaps could be summarized and made more compatible

with other Government reporting forms.

For example, the section on machinery inventory, on pesticide information, on production expenses and on the market value of farm

production, it certainly could be made compatible with the income

form 1040, schedule F, so that information could be directly related

from one form to the other and you could state on the census information simply take line such and such on 1040 to fill out this information.

If we look at the market value of crops produced and also specific

production expenses, I question whether this type of detailed information is essential.

I think this is too detailed. I think this is to a degree, an infringement on privacy.

I think if we look at the degree of motivation that a person has to

respond to this form, I question the appeals that the Census Bureau

has used in the past. They often threaten farmers that they must fill

this out under violation of the law.
87

They impel the farmers to respond to this more or less out of a

condition response attitude, and I think one of the appeals that they

use is this is done every 5 years and this is the fifth year, so we need

to fill the form out this year.

I think it would behoove the Census Bureau to stress the value,

the need and the use of the census data, and perhaps there would

be more accurate and more complete information obtained from the

respondents.

Congressman Corcoran referred to the growth of the census form

over the past 10 to 15 years. I was not aware of the size of pages that

have grown. Just looking at the 1969 census in relation to the 1964

census I was amazed at the amount of increased information in

that 5-year period.

I think the census form now is seeking out information on production expenses, detailed production expenses, on the value of income on

farm-related income.

The census form is now interested in the organization of the farm,

whether it is a partnership, corporation or what have you.

The census form is now involved in land ownership, in the use of

chemicals, just as a few examples of the growth of the census form

from 1964 to 1969.

I think if we look back perhaps a hundred years or whenever the

first census form was taken we might form the original purpose,

which was to enumerate the number of livestock, the number of

acres and the types of crops that were grown.

Now we are more concerned with production information and

costs•I should say production costs and types of chemicals that we

are using than we are in finding out how many livestock we have

or how many acres of various crops.

In summary, I would like to see us perhaps restrict the census to

a more needed original purpose of enumerating these types of production, acreage and population figures, rather than the cost figures

that we seem to be moving towards every 5 years.

I would like to see us reduce the cost of the census from $39 million projected to something more realistic. I think we can do this by

perhaps cutting down the amount of information that's requested

and the number of people that are required to follow up and get

a response from every farmer.

Finally, I am not certain that it is appropriate for the Government

to want to anticipate its financial needs or any other needs in the

agricultural community. I think we should let free enterprise respond

to the needs in agriculture, and, therefore, restrict the amount of

regulations the Government is getting to do.

Thank you.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much.

Mr. CORCORAN. HOW long have you been here?

Mr. PRITCHARD. I am a native of this area.

Mr. CORCORAN. Since you did mention the speculation you have

about the change in character of the information requested let's review its history. Looking back at the agriculture census let me just

point out that some of the research we developed shows that in the
88

1910 Agricultural Census the requested information was the following: name, color, country of birth, tenure, acreage, acreage of woodland, character of timber, value of farm and improvements, number

and value of livestock on farms, number and value of domestic

animals, the acreage of crops planted and to be planted during the

year of enumeration, acreage of crops and quantity and value of

crops for the year ended December 31, which I think corroborates

your position that in the early period of the agricultural census the

kind of information that was being sought was a more quantified

type. Now what appears to be happening is that the direction in the

line of information requested is toward production costs. This is

really going into management considerations in farming and into

the determination of how profitable farming is as well as comparing

the profitability of one type of farming with another.

All of this, I think, further excites in people the concern about possible regulation consequences or other possible uses to which that

information might be put.

So I particularly appreciate your detailed testimony because I

think it brings out something important, and that is the changing

character of the kind of information that's been requested.

Mr. PRITCHARD. I might just add I was going to mention if you

look at some of the specific information desired on the machinery inventory list, it is a very incomplete list; and I raise the question if

you are asking for incomplete information, what value is that information. If you are not asking for complete farm machinery inventory, why ask strictly for tractors, trucks, combines.

It may be a substantial part of it, but it is not a complete list of

crop production machinery.

You asked the question earlier, too, about whether we felt it

would be appropriate to get some type of information from IRS

and for them to get information from you. I can appreciate your

problem of trying to find out who is a farmer.

To that extent IRS records are easily accessible detailed information that you need to know, but again I point out the suspicion when

the IRS is looking at your figures and you perhaps are looking at

their complete list of figures, whether the Government is maybe crosschecking information that's inputed to it, and this has an impact

on regulation.

Mr. CORCORAN. And an impact on the attitude of the respondent.

Thank you very much.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you.

The next witness is Mr. Allan Aves, president of the DeKalb

County Farm Bureau.

STATEMENT OF ALLAN AVES, PRESIDENT OF THE DE KALB COUNTY

FARM BUREAU

Mr. AVES. Thank you.

I. first of all, would like to tell you I am happy you did come out

in the country and use our Farm Bureau company building and we

are real proud of it.
89

I represent DeKalb County. We have about 4,600 members here.

Probably the thing that concerns me the most about the census•

I certainly, first of all, would like to say I am in favor of the

census. I think vre need to keep it up.

Probably the thing I am concerned with the most, most of the

people here today•in fact, all that have testified so far•have been

presidents or representatives of some commodity group, which is

probably better than the average farmer.

I am not saying that the average farmer isn't as smart as we are. I

am not intending to make that kind of assumption. But in my attempt this mornmg to find out something about what I was going

to testify to here today, I went to a local place of learning, the

local coffee shop, and visited with some of the guys trying to find

out what their feelings were.

I would say probably about 40 percent of the people that I talked

to would say, "Let's not have a census. Let's close it off. All it is, is

giving other people the advantage over us because they are finding

out what we are doing."

I can't really agree with that, I myself personally. I feel we need

these things because I personally cannot find this type of statistics

myself without the Government or someone doing it for me.

Someone in the big corporation, of course, they have the advantage of having statisticians of their own to do this, and they are

certainly going to find out on their own.

For example, the market traders, the people on the Chicago Board

of Trade and places like that, they certainly have their own statistics.

Many times we out on the farm sit there and think how come the

Government is coming out on these long reports on grain when we

know it is dry out here. Someone should let them know.

The thing comes down to the wire. The agricultural statistics

are probably correct, but I wonder sometimes maybe some of the

things you are wanting to find out is maybe better found out by

visiting with the man on the street or the farmer in the country.

Many times we listen to the people who come into these meetings

and are the ones willing to go out and be heard, and I don't necessarily feel that maybe we are the ones that really know.

We represent these people. We try to do the best we can. Sometimes

we maybe are giving you our opinion, what we feel is best for

them.

You made the comment, Congressman Leach, earlier about the

accuracy of the satellites. You thought about 20 percent accuracy.

20 percent probably isn't close enough.

We are trying to get this thing on an even balance and probably

20 percent isn't close enough, although maybe that is closer than

what our statistics show. But the statistics are pretty close.

Someone asked also about the accountants. I think many of us

farmers depend upon our wives to be the accountant.

I know the last one my wife filled out everything which she

could and then I took over. I would say probably the things she

put down were more accurate than mine.
90

In some cases wondering about the amount of fertilizer, how much

was used on the farm, instead of going through and figuring out

exactly what it was, I would kind of put it in a box and figure it

out. You know, you use so many pounds and you figure how many

acres you've got and mark it down.

I think probably it is nearly enough accurate, but I think probably

sometimes it is just kind of a long shot.

I have a few notes I marked down here. A lot of the things have

already been covered.

Probably one of the other things that kind of concerns me a little

bit, too, is maybe some of the personal involvement that we get into

with farming. Many times in the census they will cover the area of

the farmland's worth, the size of the farm, things like that.

The average size of a farm in DeKalb County, I believe, is around

300 acres.

I don't know how many farmers own their land. If you say half of

them do, you could also say they own 150 acres. I don't know if

this is a proper assumption or not.

If we say that it is, I think many times the people who are not

concerned with farming basically only would read statistics. They

probably know what farmland is worth, but they really don't know

what is involved in farming.

Sometimes they could get the assumption figuring 150 acres of land

per person, $3,000 an acre, that amounts to $450,000. This is an

awful lot of money.

Of course, this is all money that the farmer cannot readily turn

into cash. The only way to do it is to sell out; and when he sells out,

he pays all these other different expenses and that kind of equalizes

everything.

They say the farmer lives poor and dies rich. That's pretty well

the way it is. You go all through life trying to put a farm together.

This may be one of the things that might be wrong with it, getting some false assumptions, getting it to people who understand

part but do not understand all the information.

Thank you. That's all I have to say.

Mr. CORCORAN. I want to take the opportunity to say how much we

appreciate the courtesy and the opportunity to use the Farm Bureau

building here in DeKalb for the meeting.

One question I have relates to a new suggestion I think you made,

and that is the idea of sampling the man on the street.

We have talked a little bit about the value of a sampling technique to get the information rather than having to have every

farmer complete the form.

Do you think that the farmer generally would accept the technique that might be developed by a good•say A. C. Neilson or Gallup

or Lou Harris or whatever•professional opinion survey company?

Mr. AVES. I would think they would. The comment was also made

it cost $38 million. How many respondents are there?

Mr. CORCORAN. TWO and a half million.

Mr. AVES. That's running $16 apiece. I am certain we would gain

that much from it. I won't be surprised that they would.
91

I know the comments were made earlier, the feelings, that the

farmers were maybe not being honest in filling out these questionnaires. Maybe if we make it a little shorter, it would be to our advantage.

I don't think as a whole that happens. There might be the odd one,

but in general I think farmers have always been born and raised

honest and they fill it out honest. I have faith in them.

Mr. CORCORAN. "Whatever inaccuracies would not be intentional.

Mr. AVES. No; definitely not.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, and also thank you for the use of the

facility.

The next witness will be Mr. Bob Hutcheson, Jr., DeKalb County

Farm Bureau.

STATEMENT OF BOB HUTCHESON, JR., DE KALB COUNTY FARM

BUREAU

Mr. HUTCHESON. Thank you. I certainly would like to extend a

thank you for coming out to the country. I think it is a good step

in the right direction to talk to people about what they feel about

certain governmental agencies and regulations, and I think it is a

step in the right direction to come out and hear what the grass roots

have to say.

I think we are in a society when we are talking about a census, we

hear people say there's too much access by other interacting agencies

to gam people's personal knowledge. I think that's one of the things

that probably is the first and utmost in people's minds, is what has

been already stated, the confidentiality or the cross reference in which

people gain access to other information.

I think that's one thing why people are rather reluctant to fill it

out. I know in about two or three words I can tell you what my dad

would tell you to do with your forms, and I think there's a number

of people in that position who would probably do the same thing.

It's already been stated that some of the people fill it out because

it happens to come to them. So I think you have to have a real sell

job on the part of your Census Bureau to prove the need, the accuracy by which it is given and why a person should take the time

out of his busy schedule to fill it out.

I myself am much like Allan. I handed it to my wife and she

looked it over and said, "Holy cow. That's too much. You take care

of it. I don't want to mess with it."

So I think you have to take a look at simply streamlining it, because when a farmer such like my dad in his late 60's would take a

look at this and he would be swamped by the complexity in which the

1969 form was filled out, in which I happened to take a look at it.

I did happen to dig and find a form which was preliminarily sent

out in about 1972 and supposedly, by the cover letter, it might be used

in the 1974 census.

It was a real short form. There was some things I liked about it.

I think it is very well put together.

In particular one area, when we were talking about getting into

the money question, its need to be jotted down to the exact dollar, in
92

the case of this one when it talks about corn or grain, mark the

number sold, less than $5,000 or $5,000 to $9,999.

I think something like that people might be more willing to respond

to where you can kind of speak in generalities.

They've got the figure. They are not trying to go into my business

because they don't know the exact dollar.

So this might be a possibility that might be utilized.

As has been stated before, farmers are very protective because

they are individualists. They do not want anybody else knowing

what their business is, and I think probably this is one of the biggest

downfalls.

I do feel when they resign themselves to the fact they've got to

fill it out, they do the best job they can and fill it out the most accurately as they can.

So I think, kind of in summarizing, we need sort of a sell job on

why we need the census, the advantages to the common farmer to fill

it out and shorten the thing up so it doesn't•I think mine took

about three nights to complete. I would work on it after supper and

so on.

So you need to get it down to a shorter time and possibly not be

quite as worried about honing it down to the dollar.

I think the response could be better that way if it was not honed

down quite so close, but I do think the census has a great value.

As I try to find out information from the Government to find out

how many farmers are engaged in agriculture, what type of goods

and services do they buy if we are trying to make a program to go

before the urban audience, I think that's the first place I look for

the Government's statistics. I think they do have a point of value in

them.

So that pretty much concludes my testimony, and a lot of it"reiterates some of the things other people have said; and I agree with most

of the things that were said by other people before me.

Mr. CORCORAN. Bob, I have one question. You mentioned that it

took three nights to fill out the 1974 form. Would you estimate how

many hours were involved?

One of the things I think we need to know is how many man-hours

were involved.

Mr. HUTCHESON. I suppose probably

Mr. CORCORAN. Including your wife.

Mr. HUTCHESON. I would ]ust guess probably about three hours, a

total of, what, nine, somewhere in there.

That 1969 census, which is the one that I was able to get another

copy of, it took you at least a while to go back and read it.

As you read everything, you find out, "OK Some of these things

don't pertain to me."

After you got into it and got into the swing of the thing, you

could go a little faster.

But as someone was to open up this first page, "Holy cow. Look

at all that writing." As you started reading if you dont produce anv

hay, you answer no and go on to the next question. This is helpful.

I think it is that first impact upon people which gives them a
93

negativism and yon wanted to put it up on the shelf and forget it

until you have to come back and ask three or four times.

Someone mentioned there might be a need of a presell job or a

type of thing where you say you are going to be getting this. Be on

the lookout. You might need to use mass media, but some kind of

momentum to get people motivated to take part in a program and

become part of a program which could be of benefit to them.

I think it all comes back to them, to try to generate them to fill it

out and make it simple enough for them to be able to fill it out and

not be inundated with a whole ton of material.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you.

The next witness is Mr. Robert Bridge of De Kalb.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT BRIDGE, DE KALB, ILL.

Mr. BRIDGE. Thank you, Congressman Leach, Mr. Corcoran, and

I appreciate being here.

As far as the census is concerned I have here my copy of the

1974 census. I feel that census material is something entirely different from livestock and crop reporting services because they are not

really related at all.

Census material is reported for statistical purposes and does not

come into the news media for any special effect on the market or

anything else in my opinion.

As far as the confidentiality of the census is concerned, there is a

notice here on the front page that indicates it is not used for taxation investigation or regulation, and this satisfies my concerns in

that regard.

Carl Heinisck mentioned the census could be used for the purpose

of establishing financial needs in the future, and I think in that

regard the census every 5 years is certainly worthwhile inasmuch as

agriculture is undergoing such fast changes that I don't see how

anybody can keep up unless we have information within the last 5

years.

It is unfortunate that the results of the 1974 census was not printed

until September of 1976, as I understand it, and the extension and the

ASC office, as far as my information is concerned, are the only ones

who have received it.

In regard to this census here, my copy, I have the remarks that I

wrote after filling out the census in 1974, and this copy was sent back

to me as a direct result of my criticisms. I shall read you the remarks

that I made at that time. They are somewhat leftover material.

This la an extremely confusing census form. First of all, there Is no provision for a file copy. In 1969 and 1971 I, at least, was provided with a file

copy.

How else can one provide sustained continuity if he has no record of what

was reported before.

The information asked for here has little resemblance to the IBS 1040, yet

all of crar farm recordkeeplng systems are geared to Federal income tax reporting.

I find no provision for inclusion of Social Security on Labor and no provisions for including interest costs except in the block 'All other expenses not

included above.'

ST-788•77-
94

I feel much like the budget planner who often adds 20 to 50 or even 100

percent for contingencies for someone to pick on.

Tou folks use this information for statistical purposes and the true condition cannot be reported in this form. Any cattle feeder on a cash income reporting basis usually has two crops of cattle involved in any one year, yet you

ask only for those purchased this year, 1974.

Feeder cattle costs two to three and a half times as much In 1973 as some

purchased in 1974, yet many were carried into '74 sales but not included in

'74 purchases.

Another confusing feature is that in our case I must report as a partnership

since that is the way we record our business. Though we report income tax as

individuals.

Here again a file copy is Important in that we could keep the messed up

one whereas it is you folks are going to get it. I have tried to offer constructive criticism.

Thank you.

Mr. LEACH. Those are very constructive comments.

Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could ask the witness

to give us his 1974 document on the assurance that we will give him

a copy.

Mr. BRIDGE. Oh, sure. Do you want the whole thing?

Mr. CORCORAN. Whatever you would prefer.

Mr. FERRELL. At least the statement.

Mr. BRIDGE. I will give it to you because it's served its purpose now.

Mr. CORCORAN. Bob, I would like to draw you out a little more on

the comments you made, especially the difference between livestock

and crop reports compared with the census report. There is a concern

that many people that have that agricultural census information has

an influence on market pricing and things of that sort.

As I understood it, you testified that it should not and you do

not believe that the census informatio7i does have that kind of

direct effect on farm market prices: whereas, livestock reports, crop

reports, and others do have some indication into the future which will

ultimately affect what the prices are.

Mr. BRIDGE. Yes; I am convinced with that. Census information,

for one thing, you are reporting at the end of the year. It is something that has alreadv occurred. The livestock and crop reporting: is

something that is taking place now as of a certain day, and they

want it within 2 or 3 days, so that they can compile all this information, get it out just as quickly as possible.

Census information has no relation to that whatsoever.

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you.

Mr. BRIDGE. This is my opinion.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much, Bob.

The next witness is Mr. Stanley Durin, a farmer from Steward.

STATEMENT OF STANLEY DTJRIN, STEWARD, ILL.

Mr. DTXRIN. Congressmen, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to share the frustrations I experienced in 1974.

We operate a family corporation of 380 acres on a part-time basis,

and the first recollection I have of that census form was the statement on the front that if I didn't fill it out, they would put me in

jail. I thought that was dumb. They are not going to put all the

farmers in jail.
95

I tried to fill the thing out. I opened it up and got about halfway

through. I put the form in the bottom of the tile. I got very frustrated. I think I got a reminder and finally I got another copy of

the census form. I decided they might not put all the farmers in

jail, but they might put one farmer in jail. So I tried to fill the thing

out.

It is a very cumbersome form and very confusing. There were some

questions in the form that I thought was nobody's damn business. I

put down some extravagant answers. As I plowed through the form

I had to refer back to my income tax, and I thought somebody else

might, so I went and changed most of those answers.

It is quite hard to split out the different categories from your income tax forms as they apply to the census form. I think the gentleman before me mentioned there should be some correlation between

the two forms.

I do remember that if, indeed, somebody does look at these things,

somebody might wonder how I managed to raise 4,000 bushels of

apples on four apple trees, so I do question the value of some of the

answers. I would suggest that we correlate this with our tax forms,

if we could get it at the same time and have the answers correlate with

the tax form, because this is the time most of the farmers do their

bookwork. It would have been very helpful to me if I could have

done it at the same time.

You were asking about the value of these census forms. It crossed

my mind that I doubt very much the food value of a bushel census

form, but I do know what the food value of a bushel of corn is.

If the man-hours are right, if the amount of time is right, I

probably could have raised 200 bushels of corn, certainly not in

January. At I remember, I spent the better part of a Sunday afternoon on that. I could have easily farmed a couple acres in that period

of time.

I want to thank you gentlemen for coming to the country. I think

it is a healthy sign.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. We want to make it very clear it is not

our hope to hold the next hearing at the Illinois penitentiary visiting all the farmers who refused to fill out the last form.

I would like to put the rumor to rest that Continental Bank is

buying all the land around that pen.

I am impressed with a part-time 380-acre farmer.

Mr. CORCORAN. I appreciate your forthright testimony and I do

have one question.

If you were convinced that there was a valid purpose for the

information being gathered and if the census form was streamlined

and sensible and would take about an hour to complete, would you

be neutral, negative, or positive about completing it?

Mr. DURTN. I think I would be quite positive. This form was really

quite awkward.

I think by the time you got done, you understood a little bit about

what you were trying to accomplish. Yes; I think all farmers realize

the necessity for accurate information, but I really question the value

of some of the information you got on this, the complexity of some
96

of the questions and the fact that some 3 years later nobody knows

what you really got.

Mr. CORCORAN. Thank you .

Mr. DURIN. Yes; a very short, simple form that could be prepared

in an hour or less and get the results, I would be very much in

favor.

Mr. LEACH. Very good. Thank you.

The next witness will be Mr. John Emerson of the DeKalb Corn

Growers Association.

STATEMENT OF JOHN EMERSON, DE KALB CORN GROWERS

ASSOCIATION

Mr. EMERSON. It is a pleasure to be here today. I didn't know I was

going to be here until the other day when somebody called me up. I

think he said "Washington, so I dug through my mail. Yes. I did get

a letter. So today I came over- here and I wrote on the back of a

telephone bill what I was going to say.

Mr. LEACH. I think Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address on the

back of an envelope, too. This is the land of Lincoln.

Mr. EMERSON. That was just what the gentleman I was sitting

next to told me.

I have quite a few more questions to ask more than give you

information.

The 1974 census, you should look back and see why that isn't out

instead of looking ahead at the next one. If you have to spend $38

million out of your own pocket, it wovild be more accurate than

that. As long as you are spending my money I have paid you in income tax•and there is not a farmer, I don't believe, that criticizes

your income tax setup•but I know for one, I don't agree with what

you do with it all the time, and that is just one little example. Who

is this made available to? I don't know.

I remarked to myself as I wrote down the 80 cents per hour that

you said we made as a farmer, you said that sometime this afternoon,

80 cents an hour, that's ridiculous. But we are still doing it. We

love it.

Mr. LEACH. Unless vou are a cattleman.

Mr. EMERSON. I used to be a cattleman. Thank goodness I couldn't

figure out on paper in 1967 how to figure out any money. That year

I had to fall down from the barn and fell on my head.

One thing I would like to just kind of bring in here, mv wife and

T have been farming 520 acres. How are we going to be able to turn

this farmland over to our children without•the Continental Bank

is not going to get it, but somebody is going: to get it, the Government, and we worked all our lives for that. The law is not right.

Thank you.

Chairman LEACH. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CORCORAN. Mr. Emerson, would you wait just a second?

I appreciate your testimony for two reasons. First, I think that

you have pointed out who it is we must keep in mind when we are

asking for this kind of information; and I think if we have in mind
97

who the respondent is, we will have perhaps a better idea of what

kind of information to get.

Second, while the focus of this year is on the Agricultural Census,

I think you have touched on a couple other points, one of which is

the estate tax which you alluded to, which needs to be corrected.

Let me just simply say I think there are some changes taking place.

I think you are going to find the Government is a little more responsive, and one of the ways to do this is to give people like you an opportunity to express yourself, and I appreciate your coming here.

Mr. EMERSON. And I appreciate you gentlemen coming out here,

you know.

Mr. LEACH. The next witness will be Mr. Howard Andres, cattle

feeder from Clare, 111.

STATEMENT OP HOWARD ANDRES, CLAIRE, ILL.

Mr. ANDRES. I hope she doesn't check my attire.

Mr. LEACH. I appreciate you wearing your Kent garb. Kent is

headquartered in the first district in Iowa.

Mr. ANDRES. My testimony is going to be altogether different from

the others.

I didn't fill out my first one, first census. They send it to me, and I

felt that it was greatly infringing on my right to privacy. I didn't

fill it out.

I got all of the letters. I was like the gentleman before. I guess I

was getting ready to go to jail.

Finally I got a phone call and I filled it out over the telephone.

I disagree with some of the people that testified ahead of me that

they were accurate. I don't think•I think the percentage of accuracy

was very small.

When I came to the second one, I thought this time I am going to

<lo it right. So I sat down and it took me 6 hours to fill it out.

After I was all done I never did hear of what became of the

thing; and you said today it was published in 1976 or it was put

out in 1976 or something like that.

So I am questioning whether we should spend the time on it.

That's for what it is worth.

Mr. CORCORAN. Let me just comment. The reason we are here is

because we are questioning the same thing.

Mr. ANDRES. I hope so.

Mr. CORCORAN. And I think the testimony we are getting here and

I suspect the testimony that's been provided to the subcommittee and

other quorums probably raises a sufficient degree of doubt that unless

we make some rather drastic changes in the present manner of handling the agricultural census, we are going to get not only less cooperation, but probably more faulty and invalid information, which

makes the whole thing worthless.

Mr. ANDRES. That's right.

I thought at first I was the only one that wasn't turning it in.

After visiting in the coffee shop, I found out that I wasn't the only

one.
98

Do you know the percentage that didn't turn in the first one!

Mr. CORCORAN. Counsel may have

Mr. FERRELL. The respondent rate nationwide was very low, but I

don't have the actual percentage figure.

That was one of the concerns that the Bureau indicated to us, the

response of the farmers like yourself.

Mr. ANDRES. Because I know in my particular area there is a

much higher percentage of them that didn't turn it in, and most

of us got our call from Indiana.

Mr. FERRELL. Can you give us some idea what was the general

ientiment?

Mr. ANDRES. They all felt like I did. It was so detailed.

Mr. FERREIX. This is the 1974 census?

Mr. ANDRES. No. This is the first one. 1969.

I was thoroughly upset with it; and I thought•well, I felt strong

enough about it that I was going to go and see what happened. I

kept getting letters and everything.

I thought, well. I would try it out and see what could happen.

Mr. FERRELL. What would you think about filling out the next

one?

Mr. ANDRES. If it was very simple and we knew what it was for,

I wouldn't be opposed to filling one out.

I guess I was more opposed to the length of this one.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. ANDRES. OK.

Mr. LEACH. The next witness is Mr. David Wirsing, Sycamore,

president of the Pork Producers.

STATEMENT OF DAVID WIRSING. SYCAMORE, PRESIDENT OF THE

PORK PRODUCERS

Mr. WIRSING. I would like to thank you for inviting me. This is

my first opportunity for something like this; and I'm nervous, I

have to admit that, sitting here this afternoon.

Of course, there are several things that I had in mind to say that

have already been pretty well covered.

I called some of our board members to get some ideas, and the

general first impression from them was, "Let's just forget it."

After some conversation they said. "Well, there's some valid reason

for taking a census, but not to the length we have."

It needs to be simplified. I think, for the reasons of accuracy.

I know when I rilled out the census in 1974 that after sitting in the

office for 2 or 8 hours, you are paying out money for a good set of

books, and you can't simply pull things out of the set of books to

enter into the census.

After a while you say, "Why do T have to be that accurate," and

the other people I have talked to say the same thing.

After you've spent an hour, an hour and a half, you didn't really

care if vou got that accurate or not. So I questioned the accuracy of

it.

As far as simplifying one, I like multiple choice. I think that's

the best way to go.
99

I've got one wife, but I had a multiple choice before I selected

her.

The question of IRS using their information and crossing, I am

totally opposed to that.

Some of the board members I've talked to, we got to talking about

this possibility, and it just seems to me there is a fine line there as to

what the census people can look at as far as the IRS and vice versa.

It is a pretty fine line. I feel it can cause some problems.

You can get some individuals who have something he did to

them and maybe use it the wrong way.

Very simply, that's all I have. That concludes what I have to

say.

Mr. LEACH. I would like to just comment on your notion of multiple choice. I think that's a very good one.

I am not sure just what percentage of the census can be done in

that fashion, but I suspect a good deal.

Mr. CORCORAN. Dave, I think you have touched on a situation

which certainly we have heard here this afternoon and perhaps has

not yet been considered by the Census Bureau in actually implementing the design of the form. I am sure they will be made aware

of this.

One other comment, though, why the opposition to the IRS crossreference? Is it because of doubt or is it because you just really don't

believe that we can restrict the IRS on just getting that information ?

Mr. WIRSING. Well, yes. There's a sense of doubt there; and granted, if regulations are set up to say, '"OK. This is all that may be

used," and if somebodv goes beyond those boundaries, it becomes an

illegal situation and all this, even 60 I can see some problems there

with this little sense of doubt in my mind.

It is a pretty fine line when you are presenting a sheet of paper

and you say, "Well, you can only read the top half."

What prevents them from kind of glancing down at the bottom

half, you know, this type of situation.

Mr. CORCORAK. I think technologically it is possible for the Census Bureau to be able to achieve a rather substantial savings by

virtue of computerizing the returns. Then you can extract certain

information from the tax returns and if that information is just

the name, address and occupation, and then you get that into the

computer and that is all that comes out. I am speculating, but I think

it is possible that the result of that might be a rather substantial cost

savings in the cost of taking the agriculural census.

If you can cross-reference, get those names and addresses and

occupations, and thereby identify your population, that is all the

farmers that you want to get to, there could be a significant savings;

and the cost, which is projected to be $39 million, might be something

a good deal less.

If it could be determined without any doubt that it is possible

technically to get that information without in any way physically

going down to the other parts of the 1040, then what would be your

reaction ?
100

Mr. WIRSING. In other words, what you are saying is to determine

who is a farmer.

Mr. CORCORAN. Right.

Mr. WIRSING. From the records?

Mr. CORCORAN. That's all, just the 1040-F.

Mr. WIRSING. OK. Yes, I could be positive of that.

I've still got the sense of doubt.

Mr. CORCORAN. You'd want to see what the savings were?

Mr. WIRSING. Yes.

Getting back to the multiple choice, granted you can't use

that all the way through a census and really get meaning out of it

in total, but to me you can get a lot of necessary information on that

basis and it is just a simple matter.

It seems like farmers are always filling out things either on the

telephone or getting some type of form in the mail from private

companies or whatnot.

Like the hog operation. You sell x-number of hogs a year, and

you'll have between 500 and 1,000, 1,000 and 5,000, 5,000 and 10,000.

In my mind why does it have to be any closer than that?

Mr. LEACH. Thank vou very much.

The final witness will be Mr. William Mullins of the Illinois Corn

Growers Association.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MULLINS, SECRETARY, ILLINOIS CORN

GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. MULLINS. I want to first thank you for the opportunity to

express myself and thank you for coming out in the country and

listening to what we have to say.

I might say that I am very familiar with Iowa because the

Illinois corn growers have been working very closely with the Iowa

corn growers. We appreciate this opportunity because they are the

second largest corn producers in the country.

If you don't mind, I would like to read some aspects of my

testimony and in no way do I mean to infer just because you are

from Iowa that you can't read it.

Do you want a rebuttal?

Mr. LEACH. Please go ahead. Don't consider this a test.

Mr. MULLINS. I received notice of this hearing on March 29 and I

do not have a formal statement that has been approved by either

group, by the State or national corn growers.

I would request that notice of these hearings of this type be

sent far enough ahead so that the topics can be discussed by our

organization and a firm recommendation can be made.

This would eliminate the very many and varied solutions and

remedies that you received today, and it may consolidate an answer

to the problem.

I spoke with a few of our State board members, and for the most

part I would say that we agreed that the forms are too long and

they seek too much information, and a lot of this, we feel, is too

personal and too detailed.
101

I also question the accuracy of the information received, not saying the fanners are trying to give false information, but I don't

believe due to the length of the forms that they go back and look

up their records.

I think they try to put it down from their memory, which undoubtedly isn't quite as accurate.

One of the possibilities that might work would be to select, say,.

10 percent of the people that you are going to survey, and wi,th the

money that you save from paper and clerical help in processing these,

possibly you could compensate the people who are willing to fill out

the forms.

I think Congressman Corcoran mentioned this possibility earlier^

I would also recommend that only information that is pertinent to

the general public be released.

It states on the form that it is confidential. I think this is important.

There are people who can take figures, pieces and parts, and

make accusations that aren't necessarily true; and I think that could

defeat legislation that is needed for a strong and productive agriculture.

I also believe that there is some merit in letting this particular

census in the Census Bureau and giving us a cross-check along with

the USDA surveys.

I feel that the information from surveys is needed by our government officials and agencies in order to establish plans for the

future, but I don't necessarily think that we should share some of

the personal information with the rest of the world, and let maybe

some of the foreign countries come into our agriculture and know

what we know plus they know what they know. They would have

quite an advantage.

Maybe we are a little too free with some of this detailed information.

In closing I would just like to thank you for the opportunity;

and if we can, I think it is important that we communicate with

each other.

I believe commodity groups such as the corn growers and farm

organizations such as the Farm Bureau are a means for communication.

The corn growers have been in Washington on a couple occasions,

primarily just to open the communication line up and to educate ourselves to some of your problems and difficulties in making certain

decisions.

I again would like to thank you for this opportunity.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much.

You have raised something very serious about whether or not

it would be appropriate to pay someone who would fill this out.

What type of compensation would you have in mind?

Mr. MuLLrxs. When I wrote this, I had in mind a similar survey

that I am making to a private seed corn company. They have a little

training exercise that you go through and a pledge that you do it

timely and accurately. "
102

For this they give you a small token gift. I don't think it has to

he, you know, so much an hour or anything like that. Maybe a token

and have some training or some involvement before this big, long

sheet of paper comes out.

I do feel our records aren't necessarily based on the same format

that the census form was based. It is pretty difficult to pull the

particular information out.

I think if you start•say, you selected a certain group, maybe

interviewed them and got the sizes that you wanted and so forth,

and they knew that they were going to be filling this form out

maybe on a yearly basis or whatever.

They could keep that information throughout the year. It would

be much easier for them, and you would have a better set of records

for yourself.

Mr. LEACH. That's an interesting proposal.

I might comment you also said•and I think you are very right•

that you can prove almost any position by using figures out of

context.

There is a great Missourian, Mark Twain, who once said, "There

are three kindly lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The census has a lot to do with that observation.

Mr. CORCORAN. I am learning more about my colleague Congressman Leach, as the afternoon progresses here; but, Bill, you've commented on something else by virtue of what you have introduced into

the testimony here, and that is the notion of some control on the

information that would be released.

Would you care to comment on who you think ought to be involved

in making the decision about what information gets released and

what information does not?

I am not looking for particular agencies or something like that

because I don't think either one of us at this point would know the

appropriate agency other than the Census Bureau itself, but what

kind of standard, what type of entity would you have in mind?

Who would you have involved in the decisionmaking progress to

say this information gets released and this information remains

within the Bureau of Census?

Mr. MUIXTNS. With that kind of question, I think you people

would be better qualified to know the answer.

Mr. CORCORAN. What I was getting at, do you think the Department of Agriculture ought to be involved in that decision?

Mr. MTTLLTNS. I think they could lend some good thoughts along

those lines, just, say, the cost of production and so forth, how the

information should go to the world market and foreign buyers coming in and so forth.

Mr. CORCORAN. The reason I asked, one of the two bills before the

Congress at the moment, at least before the Hou?e of Representatives and in this subcommittee, is a bill introduced by Congressman

Neal Smith of Iowa which would transfer the administration of the

agricultural census from the Department of Commerce, the Census

Bureau, to the Department of Agriculture. There's been some testimony against that on the grounds that the Department of Agri-
103

culture might not be completely objective in developing this kind of

report; they may design a way to look for information that would

support export programs or something of that type.

Considering that do you think the Department of Agriculture

would be helpful, from the standpoint of deciding what information would be used and what information would not be used?

Mr. MULLINS. I think that the Department of Agriculture could

maybe say to what degree certain questions should be asked.

I say in here there is merit in leaving it in the Census Bureau as

a cross-check, just alleviate the problem that you•this is one thing

when I was in "Washington. I felt like I was in a little vaccum with

business and activity that was going on around me, and I heard about

this before I went out.

After being there a couple days, I felt that.

This is why it is good that you people take this time to come out,

and I think it is important for us to go there.

Mr. CORCORAN. Right. Thank you.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, sir. Your statement will appear in the

record at this point.

[The prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MULLINS

I am William Mullins of Shabbona, Illinois. I am Secretary of the Illinois

Corn Growers Board of Directors and also on tbe Board of Directors of tbe

National Corn Growers.

I received notice of this hearing March 29, 1977, and do not have a formal

statement that has been approved by either group. I would request that notice

of hearings of this type be sent far enough ahead so the topic can be discussed

by our organization and a firm recommendation can be made on the subject.

This would eliminate the many and varied solutions and remedies that you

will receive from the many individuals that reply.

Speaking with only verbal contact with a few members of our State Board,

I would say that the forms that farmers are asked to fill out are much too

long and they seek information that is too personal and detailed. I question

whether the present survey represents accurate information because of its

complexity. I believe the information would be much more accurate if only a

select ten percent were asked to supply the information and use the savings

on paper and clerical help needed to process the results as compensation to

the people that fill out the forms.

I would also recommend that only information that is pertinent to the

general public be released. Many times only parts of the numbers are used

by our bureaucrats to prove certain points they want to make. We all know

that you can prove most any position by taking figures from certain areas or

short periods and comparing them with other select times and prove most any

point you wish. Sometimes urban congressmen use this to defeat legislation

that is needed for a strong and productive agriculture.

I also believe there is merit in letting the Census Bureau make this

particular survey. This gives us a comparison with survey figures compiled by

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

I feel the information from the survey is needed by many of our governmental agencies but question to what extent we should be asked to share our

personal information with the rest of the world.

In closing I would like to thank you for this opportunity and hope that we

can further communicate on this subject and others that might need to be

discussed by our government officials and by fellow Corn Growers.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Mullins is the last witness.

T would like to put into the record a statement from Mr. Brooks

Whitney of McNabb, 111., who has written us on this subject.
104

STATEMENT or BROOKS WHITNEY, MCNABB, III.

I offer for your consideration this written testimony on your hearing to

discuss the problems associated with the Agriculture Census.

I farm in Putnam County, Illinois, where I raise corn, soybeans and feed

hogs.

My thoughts and suggestions are as follows:

1. Our township assessors gather much of the same information asked in

the Ag. Census. This information should be available to the Census Bureau.

2. The format of the Census is complicated and long. Because of this fact,

few farmers take the time and effort to fill it out accurately. I would suggest

that the Census Bureau utilize a "farm committee" to help formulate this

Census.

8. If the Census Bureau does not see fit to improve the format of the

Ag. Census, I would be in favor of eliminating it The reasons are quite clear;

the information gathered presently is not accurate. And secondly, inaccurate

information is quite costly to gather. If we are to gather and use this information, let us do it accurately.

Thank you for allowing me to express my views on this subject. If I can

be of any help, feel free to contact me.

Mr. LEACH. I would like to open this hearing up to comments from

anyone in the room, particularly from individuals who have not

testified. If there are no further comments, I would like to thank

you

Mr. BJELLAND. I wanted to give a chance to those who hadn't

testified.

There are only two comments I have in listening to the rest of

the testimony now that are of a little bit of a concern to me. One is

the magnitude of the growth of this thing. It reflects the magnitude

of the growth of the Government, when Congressman Corcoran

pointed out the 1909 or 1910 census and compared it to today. It is

just one indication of the big balloon we've got that I hope is not

ready to burst.

The other thing is on the confidentiality. I think even some things

that are released legally such as, for instance, statistics which would

say that Illinois and Iowa or the Midwest corn farmers are now

using root worm insecticides on 90 percent of their acres, could this

be a red flag to an organization like OSHA. While I am sure OSHA

is not all bad, I haven't decided what good they are with the

quality of some of the 6tuff they have come out with. But this is

another concern I have, even though this information if it was kept

confidential does no good. Some of this stuff where they get into

the management aspect in getting away from the old format and

getting into the management aspect could throw some red flags ta

more regulation.

That's all I have.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. If that's the last comment, I would like

to thank everyone for coming. This has been exceedingly helpful.

I think Tom and I are both very hopeful that the next census

that is produced will be more sympathetic to actual needs, and maybe we can do something symbolic that reverses that trend towards

bigger government, have something that is actually more concise^

shorter, more responsive.

Mr. CORCORAN. I agree and thank you very much for coming.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. The subcommittee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]
THE AGRICULTURAL CENSUS

APBIL 2, 1977

U.S. HOUSE OF [REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CENSUS AND POPULATION,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met in the Marengo, Iowa, Courthouse, Hon.

Jim Leach (acting chairman) presiding.

Mr. LEACH. I would like to welcome you all here. I might say

that it's a particular honor to hold a meeting in this courthouse which

is one of the oldest and most beautiful in Iowa. In fact, my wife did

sa survey of all Iowa county homes years ago and this particular

courthouse is her favorite building in this county.

We have convened this hearing, as you know, to examine the

concept of the next agricultural census. As you know, a lot of concern,

has been expressed about the last agricultural census.

Before beginning, I would like to introduce Mike Ferrell who is

counsel to the committee; Joe Fisher and Warren Geurin who are on

the staff of the committee. Anyone who would like to testify is welcome to. We have a list of those who intend to testify. At the conclusion of the testimony, we will open it up to any comments that other

people might have.

I might just begin by noting that a number of people have indicated to me three or four concerns about the last census. It was quite

long, quite complicated, and quite burdensome. Begun in 1974, it has,

to date, not been published, and if censuses are to have much value,

presumably one wants to get the information out on a timely

basis.

There is also very real concern that some of the information

gathered was inaccurate and subsequently used by the Department of

Agriculture in a counterproductive manner, particularly with respect

to cattle numbers. There was an underestimate of something like

8V2 million head of cattle. In 1974 with that type of information

being circulated in the agricultural community, the implication was

very real that one should be bullish on cattle obviously the message

was not welcome at that time.

Second, there is a feeling in this country among farmers that the

census invades the privacy of individuals•partly, because of the

depth of the information that's asked for, partly due to the fact that

the IRS is involved, both in terms of furnishing the census with material and also in terms of whether the Census Bureau should give

material to the IRS. Many of us are concerned that the Internal

(105)
106

Bevenue Service is an agency for taxes and the Census Bureau for

other statistical information and the twain shouldn't meet.

Yesterday we held hearings in central illinois and DeKalb with

Congressman Tom Corcoran. Congressman Corcoran was to be with

us today but we made a decision late last night, based on the weather

forecast, that he should not plan to fly over this morning. Thus

Congressman Corcoran will not be with us.

I might say one of the major problems with regard to the last

census is that no one made any effort to have farm input and the

meeting today is an effort to get grass-roots input into the census.

I think it's very symbolic. I told people in DeKalb yesterday that

it was an honor to bring the hearing to the second greatest agricultural State in the country, and today it's an honor to bring it to the

first. With that as an introduction, let me call the first, witness, Mr.

Thatcher Johnson who is the deputy secretary of the Iowa Department of Agriculture. Mr. Johnson, you are welcome and we are

pleased that you brought some advice from home with you. His

daughter is with us as well.

STATEMENT OF THATCHER JOHNSON, DEPUTY SECRETARY, IOWA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, REPRESENTING HON. ROBERT

LOUNSBERRY, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. JOHNSON. Chairman Leach and the U.S. House of Bepresentatives Subcommittee on Census and Population, it's a privilege to be

here this morning. My name is Thatcher Johnson and I serve as Iowa

Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, and in the following testimony I

am representing Iowa Secretary of Agriculture, Bobert H. Lounsberry. Incidentally, can you hear us all right?

Mr. LKACH. Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON. Our office is extremely cognizant of the need for

accurate statistical data. This necessity stems from the realities of

producing and marketing. Only by having information that is

isolated from the private sector can we have any significant degree of

credibility in crop and livestock statistics. This is an important agricultural production mechanism which is in the best interest of all

Americans. Only by knowing where we have been, and where we are

going, can we chart a course into the future. Statistics give farmers

another tool with which to plan.

Governmental statistical figures are important but it appears the

current system can be improved upon. This general evaluation surfaces from our offices close relationship with U.S. Department of

Agriculture's Statistical Service in Des Moines, Iowa, as well as from

our constant communication with farmers and the farm leadership of

Iowa. We do not profess to have mastered the expertise of the statistical discipline but we harbor a compelling mandate to speak out for a

large number of disgruntled farmers. We received many complaining

telephone calls and letters during the last 5 year census conducted in

1974 by the Bureau of Census.

Frankly, in Iowa, our department funds an annual State farm

census which yields a magnificent reservoir of information relating
107

to county acreage yields and total production of the various agricultural commodities. The responsibility to collect this data rests with

the various county auditor offices. We recognize the fact that most

States do not have such an abundance of information available on a

yearly basis, but few States can compare with Iowa in crop and livestock production. Perhaps some of this information can be utilized

in States that have an annual State farm census as we have in

Iowa.

One of the major complaints voiced by farmers to our office reveals

a strong feeling that there could be a dramatic reduction of the

respondency burden on farmers. This could be achieved by eliminating duplicity and by changing sampling techniques. These changes

could most easily and economically be realized by moving this

statistical responsibility from the U.S. Department of Commerce to

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The 1974 Census of Agriculture contained 38 sections of which

data for 16 of these sections had been collected previously by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Additionally, 8 other sections

display partial duplication. This leaves only 14 sections of the entire

questionnaire which pertains to new information. The sections that

are duplicated deal with crops and livestock.

The second major area of complaint concerns harassment. Many

farmers were told that if they failed to complete the census form

they would be held culpable and that could result in a heavy fine or

jail sentence. Much of this type of coersion was via telephone. This

forceful approach is not acceptable. i,

Let's consider a surrey, of perhaps one of every five farmers, on

strictly a voluntary basis. Positive participation could be expanded

by stimulating those chosen with a small monetary payment and by

employing a system of participant rotation.

My appearance here today is part of a continuing effort on our

part to gain the changes mentioned herein. Last June, Secretary

Lounsberry offered a resolution pertaining hereto at the annual

summer meeting of the Midwest Association of State Departments of

Agriculture at Springfield, 111. The resolution was unanimously

adopted. Subsequent to that time, in November, at the fall meeting

of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture at

Phoenix, Ariz., a similar resolution was presented by Secretary

Lounsberry and, again, it was unanimously adopted. Needless to

say we will continue to take a strong stance to attain our goal of

improving this situation.

In closing I will reiterate the need for accurate and timely statistical figures; and feel that end can best be realized by lessening the

respondent burden and utilizing scientific sampling techniques.

These are important ingredients of a viable collection gathering

system regardless of where the final responsibility of collection rests;

but we favor the collection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. I would like to pursue your last point.

As you I am sure know, Congressman Neal Smith has a bill before

the committee which would transfer the census to the Department of

Agriculture. All of the major farmer organizations have testified
108

against it and have argued basically two things: One, the Bureau of

the Census performs the survey, it will serve as a check on what the

USDA has done before; and two, there was some apprehension that

census information within the USDA might be released at varying

time periods for potential users and the farm organizations felt it

was better protected within the Bureau of the Census. "Would you

comment on this?

Mr. JOHNSON. I would have no fear in this regard at all as far as

the release of the information regarding the census. This information, as I understand, hasn't been released yet from the 1974 census

and if this type•this responsibility were transferred to the USDA,

hopefully of course I basically take the approach I would not like

to see a census and a census in my mind I guess is an every person

type of thing which I think is going a little further than need be.

But just the same, regarding the use of the USDA by these figures,

I think the inference is in an improper way. I don't feel an accusation like that is justifiable because I feel there are many, many security precautions taken as these figures are gathered. They are not

let out in a program manner and I feel that the agricultural community has been very well protected the way they have been released. I just don't see how that would pose any threat by transferring it to the USDA.

Mr. LEACH. Well, I appreciate your judgment. One of the arguments that Congressman Smith also made was that no census could

have been done worse than the last one the Bureau of Census did.

You can't help but improve it, he argued and you might as well give

it to the Department of Labor. In any respect, the Bureau of

Census does a whole series of different censuses in this country and,

as far as priorities are concerned, they appear to give last priority to

agriculture which is clearly evidenced by the fact that the last census

is yet to be published. In fact, it won't be for another month or two

and that's a very strong argument for change.

Mr. JOHNSON. I would really concur with that and I think it's

rather evident that that's the approach they take. They evidently

have too many responsibilities in the area of census taking and perhaps this is one that they shouldn't have, and when you consider the

tremendous importance of this census to the agricultural community,

it should be given a really high priority and I am confident that the

USDA would do that.

Mr. LEACH. We are considering on the committee whether it

should be given to the Agriculture Department or not, and whether to

mandate a time period for which the results must be published. In

fact, one of the ideas under consideration is that information must be

published by the end of the year of which the initial questions are

sent out.

The Bureau of Census has argued that's putting an unreasonable

restraint on them. Would you like to comment on that? Do you think

that's a feasible thing?

Mr. JOHNSON. I would certainly think so and it just stands to

reason, after all, these figures, even though they are not available

say in the current cases to 2 or 3 or 4 years down the road, they are

still helpful and serve a purpose, a benchmark type of thing.
109

Nevertheless, the sooner it*8 available to the public and to the

agricultural community, the more helpful in our planning because

we will use those, farmers will use those as planning tools and farm

organizations will use them and whatever. So certainly the time

element is extremely significant.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much.

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you for being here.

Mr. LEACH. The next witness is Mr. Duane Skow, statistician in

charge, Iowa State office statistical reporting service for the USDA.

Good morning: welcome.

STATEMENT OF DUAHE M. SKOW, STATISTICIAN IN CHAEGE, IOWA

STATE OFFICE, STATISTICAL EEPOETING SEEVICE, U.S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. SKOW. Good morning, Congressman Leach, it's especially a

privilege to be here after some much needed rain we received last

night.

Mr. LEACH. I wish I could claim responsibility. This is a day of

good news with beans up the limit and rain coining down.

Mr. SKOW. We need a little bit on pork and beef and we will be

real happy.

My name is Duane Skow. I serve as statistician in charge of the

Iowa State statistical office, statistical reporting Service, USDA.

Statistical Reporting Service is regarded as the statistical arm of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and prepares estimates of crops,

livestock, poultry, dairy, prices, and related agricultural topics, and

issues some 550 national reports. Approximately 200 of these reports

which are of particular interest to Iowa residents are released by

the Iowa SSO. The remainder concern minor items or items not

producd in the State, such as flax production, goat inventory, and

so forth. The estimates are the basis on which farm programs are

made but the primary responsibility is to farmers and farm industry.

The SRS agency is composed of the national office in Washington,

D.C. and 44 field offices, one of which is the Iowa State Statistical

Office. The original purpose of SRS as stated over 100 years ago remains today, being to provide producer and agribusiness accurate,

timely estimates so that all sectors of the agriculture industry would

be equally informed.

Information for the timely estimates is gathered from agricultural

producers, agribusiness, and other available or published data from

regulatory agencies in an effort to reduce respondent burden and

maximize use of collected data. Of course, these same sources are

extensive users of the SRS estimates. Their cooperation is absolutely

essential in formulating a workable and usable program. The attached Crop Reporting Board calendarl

shows the date each report

is released nationally; you may note that the frequency of a report

will vary from weekly to anually, depending upon the item for which

estimates are compiled.

1 Retained In the subcommittee files.

87-706•77-
110

The SRS estimates are based upon information gathered from a

small 6ample of respondents with a very short timespan from survey

date to release date. The estimate refers to a particular date such

as the first of the year, first of the month et cetera. There are several ways of gathering data including sampling and complete enumeration, census. Sampling reduces the number of people contacted

and results in a reduction of data gathered and summarized. Along

with this, a measure of statistical accuracy is possible. The accuracy can approximate each other depending on methodology used.

Data from the two sources, U.S. Dept. of Commerce and U.S.

Dept. of Agriculture, serve different purposes in that the USDASRS estimates pertain to a current particular date and are used

in planning current production and marketing operations, whereas

the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture census of agriculture pertains primarily to enumeration of all farms in much greater detail, such

as production by size groups, type of operator, production, inputs,

costs, et cetera. Thus, identical information is obtained for all

counties and States across the Nation. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture census of agriculture results are utilized in a historic evaluation

and include changes that have occurred over time and details of

operation not available from other sources. The USDA-SRS also

uses this information in evaluating the estimates that had been

prepared on a current basis.

It is for these reasons that the Statistical Reporting Service has

cooperated with the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,

in preparing for the 5-year census of agriculture as well as in the

evaluation of the tabulated results.

That concludes my prepared statement.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. I might ask how wide a sampling do you

take when you say you sample ? Is it one-tenth ?

Mr. SKOW. NO, generally•well, we have several types of data

gathering samples, and one is a probability sample and nonprobability. For instance, on crops we use both types, but in our random

nonprobable sample we will contact roughly about 15 percent of the

farmers. Of course, we don't get returns from all of those. The

probable sample where we select the sample and have a response

from all, this is only about 1 in 80.

Mr. LEACH. YOU mentioned that you could come up with a sample

and release the information in a fairly short time frame. What is

that time frame?

Mr. SKOW. Well, it depends on the size of the sample and the accuracy which you designed the sample for. In order to cut variance

in half, you have to increase the sample size by four. So the cost and

the time is in direct relation to the accuracy demanded. Where we

say now on a State level for hogs, for instance, the State estimate

is within 3 percent accuracy, regionally within 2, and nationally

within 1 percent. We start gathering the data on about the 24th of

the month and it will be released by the 20th of the next month.

Mr. LEACH. That's very impressive. From your background in

farming, do you think there is any reason that" the Bureau of Census couldn't produce a result in a year?
Ill

Mr. SKOW. Well, I believe the census has used sampling in the

past on a number of items.

Mr. LEACH. Yes, they have.

Mr. SKOW. For example, a one-fourth sample, a census, within a

year, that would be a big task because the data gathering, you get

in 80 percent rather fast but it's the last 5 percent that really takes

the effort in making a complete tally count, and I think there are

ways of estimating for the last portion or sampling of that last

Iiortion. I think there would be avenues to use, but a complete tabuation census I think would be real hard pushed, from our experience.

Mr. LEACH. DO you provide incentives for people to respond?

Mr. SKOW. NO, we do not.

Mr. LEACH. If census people were to design a system of incentives,

would that make your job more difficult?

Mr. SKOW. Well, it's a difficult question to answer and these are

my personal opinions only, and that is that you can offer somebody

$2 an hour to sit down and fill out a questionnaire which is minimum

wage level and

Mr. LEACH. Given the hours farmers put in, many make for as

little as 80 cents an hour.

Mr. SKOW. And they would say thank you. The other person you

ask for over $2 an hour and it's an insult. Well, if my time isn't

worth more than that, I don't want to be involved. Some jobs, the

only pay that's adequate is thank you. That's the way I feel.

Mr. LEACH. Well, we have received testimony in Illinois at variance, but some people have proposed the concept of providing incentives to fill out a form. One of the problems, though, is that

when the Federal Government institutes a new technique, especially

one involving money, it ends up having a significant effect on State

programs, and county programs where that type of advantageous

approach is not available, and my concern is that with all of the

volunteer efforts going on, does this create difficulty at other levels

that might be an advantage solely to the census ?

Mr. SKOW. My impression, all of them don't agree with the statement I am going to make, but I think one of the things that I have

experienced on interviewing people and gotten refusal to give data,

and all of our data is voluntary with us with several exceptions,

where I have gotten a refusal, they didn't want to cooperate and

then we will say that's entirely your right, you know, this is collected voluntarily. Then they say, oh, that makes a difference and I

get the data.

Mr. LEACH. Yes. That's a profound observation with regard to the

last census with the very firm mandatory penalty of $100 which was

so resented. I heard personally from a number of farmers who were

most upset. The threat was there, and, even though it was unlikely

to be used, it was still a threat and I think personally that the next

census ought to be as voluntarily oriented as possible. I would bet

a nickel that the response would be better. When you do your State

sampling, do you have any threat of any nature?
112

Mr. SKOW. NO, it's strictly voluntary and especially when we have

enumerators going out and contacting respondents and we will tell

them this.

Mr. LEACH. From the point of view of cooperation, do you think

that a case can be made that the person taking the census would be

more apt to cooperate with the USDA rather than the Department

of Commerce and the Bureau of the Census? Might there be an

argument for USDA administering the census rather than the

Census Bureau?

Mr. SKOW. That's a difficult question, almost impossible for me to

answer that. Of course, government opinion has greatly suffered

the last few years and just mentioning that you are from the U.S.

Government is almost to get refusal in some areas.

Mr. LEACH. Especially in 1974, of course?

Mr. SKOW. Right, but we have enjoyed a very strong volunteer

cooperation. We have surveys where our refusal is about 2 percent,

and other subjects we will have as high as 11, 12 percent, and a lot

of the surveys where we have 10, 12 percent refusal won't be for

the entire questionnaire, but for certain items within the questionnaire such as personal income and things like this.

Mr. LEACH. Yes, that's understood.

Mr. SKOW. But the general production items, we have very strong

cooperation.

Mr. LEACH. One of the issues before the committee is what size

farms one measures. Recently the USDA established a definition of

a farm, as a place where over $1,000 worth of agricultural products

are sold, whereas the former definition was $250. In the state of

Iowa, the number of farms, is about 129,000, with a little over

3,000 being under $1,000 in total goods. Do you have a position on

whether you think that definition should be $1,000 or should be more

or less?

Mr. SKOW. NO, I don't have a position there. We like to take the

same definition as the census of agriculture does for obvious reasons

so that the data can be compared and so that the detailed information published in the census of agriculture can be related to official

estimates of production or counts that's being estimated on the

State level, and this is the reason that I think the census and agriculture has always been the same definition.

Mr. LEACH. There has been concern indicated that if you skip

smaller operations, perhaps less so here in the midwest than in the

South, you will be overlooking a number of people who might dewribe themselves as farmers, and we have had testimony from

southern representatives particularly, that this is a serious issue in

their state. I'd like to get an indication for the record, from someone

from Iowa, of your feeling of the consequence of leaving out of the

census peple that are very small by way of farm income. Do you

think that's a very serious concern or would it not be overly important from this State's perspective?

Mr. SKOW. For total production, it's rather insignificant and you

have to say that with tongue in cheek because to the person on the

small farm, it is significant. So with due respect in that category,
113

mo6t of the production is on the large farm and increasing on down.

Iowa is quite uniform in the size of farm operation. In the absence of

real large farms like in other States, we have a growing number of

people that live in town and have a small acreage and have a cow

and a couple pigs. These are not commercial farms, especially as we

refer to them here in Iowa and these are the hard ones to get onto

the list that we use for sampling purposes.

The assessor doesn't refer to them as farms and this is one source

of names for our sampling. In Iowa, the total production of corn,

soybeans are major bread for the State and would be insignificant

from 250 to $1,000, the definition change.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Skow.

Mr. LEACH. The next witness is Maynard Long who will be representing the Iowa Dairy Association and the Poweshiek County

Farm Bureau. Welcome, Maynard.

STATEMENT OF MAYNARD LANG, REPRESENTING THE IOWA

DAIRY ASSOCIATION AND THE POWESHIEK COUNTY FARM

BUREAU

Mr. LANG. Hello. Well, I received a call from the Iowa State

Dairy Association in Midland to come and represent them, and I

asked for some guidelines and they said that 6ince they were not

particularly invoTved in legislature and haven't developed any opinion on the census that I was on my own, and then the County Farm

Bureau president asked me to take Poweshiek County's point of

view and come out and I asked what the view was, and he says you

are on your own, and I was flanked back here by two persons who

might have some official stand with respect to the farm bureau.

The first thing I would say that the census•I am 6ure you heard

this every hearing•was very cumbersome, long, boring, very personal in its nature, and it was a duplication of a lot of information

that we are asked to give periodically from agricultural statisticians, private poling groups, private information groups.

Now, number one, it would seem to me that somehow, some way

in the day of IBM machines and calculators that instead of making

the forms and the information more cumbersome on the census, and

I didn't have time to go through it, but I think it was a couple

years ago that I filled that out but it seems to me we would go from

one page to the next in a repetition of the same information almost.

It seems to me that somehow somebody can simplify that thing and,

if we could pick up a form that was two or three pages long rather

than a book that had to be gone through, that we would be more

inclined to fill it out voluntarily.

The question came up here a while ago with regard to some remuneration for filling it out. I think that at $10, $20, $100, as far

as the farmer is concerned, it's kind of like spitting in the wind. You

eat that up in inflation in a little while. I really don't think it

would help. I think it's got to be the honesty and integrity system.

I think this was so long that a person was inclined to get somewhat

careless by the time he got to the last page.
114

You just threw something in and got rid of it as quick as you

could and my wife keeps all of the books and she has got to keep

after me to fill that sort of thing out, and after so long, you know,

you get through a few pages one night and then your income tax

records and your inventory records and you try to get the thing

accurate, and the next thing you are just throwing figures inaccurate

within 5, 10 percent.

So it's not totally accurate especially in a large livestock operation

where numbers vary, bushels of corn in a crib in storage, bushels

sold can vary from month to month by several thousand bushels. So,

Jfo. 1, I would say simplify it any way possible.

The second thing is, isn't there some way we can stop the duplication of information going to the Federal Government? I realize

that the census comes out only periodically and some of these others

want a more constant update, but I feel that the people that are

asked to fill them out are the ones who have the least to gain by the

information. I, as a farmer, have very little to gain by the information that comes out on that as against certain business organizations

and certain people who are suppliers of agricultural products.

So, in essence, I would say that on both standpoints, simplify it,

try to attempt to reduce duplication and, to me, any kind of pay or

threats both fall on deaf ears. I can remember when I was a little

boy there was this corn sealing that first came up and the Roosevelt

administration, they gave you a seal to put on there, and said under

threat of penalty, and in the day of 10-cent corn my father told me

don't you touch that because this was the first experience of this

kind that we had been confronted with and I always remembered

it, and I just come off and I realized there must be some sort of hold.

I just finished up a year on a zoning commission in zoning our

county and on land use and we had some people who wanted to take

out the penalty and I realize it's got to be there because otherwise

what have you got to hold people in line.

I would like to add one more thing, you asked the definition of a

farm. I don't think $1,000 is practical in 1976. In our county, for

the purpose of keeping urban people from scattering all over the

county like we have seen in some counties in Iowa, Indiana, and

others, we indicated unless they build on the land they must own 75

acres and actively operate that land. The reason 75 acres was determined is because there are few 80 acres because of highways and if

you want to get down to technicalities, the average 80-acre farm,

even when you buy it, is 77-point something or other. I think it's

impractical, the definition of a farm.

Of course, I will have to say that with regard to the south, I am

not very knowledgeable as to some of the small operations or sharecrop operations that might still exist down there. I think that concludes my statement.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. We received a lot of testimony from husbands who have indicated that their wives filled out the census

forms. You indicated that you couldn't necessarily speak for Farm

Bureau. Can you speak for your wife?

Mr. LANG. She wouldn't fill it out for me. She does my income

tax.
115

Mr. LEACH. I am impressed with your statement that pay or

threats fall on deaf ears, and I think that's a pretty good reflection

of the attitude in Iowa, and hopefully in the country, but I think

we're terribly lucky in this State. The issue of simplification is the

major issue, I think, for this next census. It's my strong opinion that

people open the census form with every good intention, and just

scratch their head; and then they put it at the bottom of the file. I

think we can do much better in designing the next census. I hope

the people who design the next census consult with those both in the

private and other parts of the public sector, who get better results

than the Census Bureau does.

Mr. LANG. One way I could see to simplify it is that the average

farmer now, as I sat back here in the light, I know some on one side,

there is a fellow quite large in cash grain and hogs and another fellow might be big in cattle feeding and dairy, and most farmers are

in one of the two categories. I wonder if this couldn't be simplified

that rather than going through this whole thing and thumbing

through page after page of fruits and vegetables if you can't get

some indication, pages this and this pertain to cash grain and dairy

or beef, livestock, and save you going through the whole form and

then coming back to the back page and there is a half dozen more

little things you could have just as well put on the pages pertaining to

your farming operation.

And another thing, if this is an agricultural census, we can build

a very strong case for the person realizing a $1,000 a year. It does

not represent agriculture in this day and age. I definitely think it

ought to be upgraded. If anything, I think it ought to come up to

$10,000 to be practical because, even that, by the time you take out

your profit, you are eligible for food stamps so why fool around with

$1,000 ? It's not sensible. I think a very strong case could be built for

upgrading that and getting it to the people who are actually farmers.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. The next witness will be Marlyn Jorgensen.

STATEMENT OF MARLYN J0RGENSEN, BOARD MEMBER, REPRESENTING THE IOWA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. JORGEXSEN. Thank you, Congressman Leach. I give you greetings from our president, Dean Grettler, who regrets he could not be

here this morning for the testimony on behalf of the Iowa Farm

Bureau Federation.

We appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the Iowa

Farm Bureau Federation in regard to making the agricultural census more acceptable to farmers and more meaningful to everyone

who uses them. You are to be commended for coming out into rural

areas to seek opinions and for your efforts to improve the process in

advance of taking the next agricultural census.

Undoubtedly the Census Bureau realizes there are farmers who

are not enthusiastic about cooperating in providing census information. In fact, many look upon this process as an invasion of their

privacy. Consequently, there is a real need for the Census Bureau to
116

conduct an educational program to explain the value of gathering

the census information and to make certain every farmer realizes

that information he provides is kept in confidence. If farmers are

convinced the information is of vital importance, cooperation will

improve.

Some are asking if other businesses are subject to similar inquiries.

If so, this should be made known. Most of us are naturally reluctant

to review our economic status beyond what is required to complete

our income tax form. In other words, assurance must be given as to

the confidentiality of census records and why it is valuable for others

to have this data.

Still another concern of farmers is the tremendous amount of information that is requested. Answering the questions is time consuming, ilany require considerable checking before they can be

answered accurately. Could some questions be eliminated by the use

of more sampling techniques and by the use of satellites? It is our

understanding that the use of satellites has become much more sophisticated in recording such items as crop acreages even though

they may not be as suitable in checking on crop yields and livestock

numbers. We appreciate the fact that it is more difficult to develop

reliable county data and information on characteristics of different

types of farms than it is to develop State and national estimates of

crop production. But we urge use of new techniques to reduce the

need to answer long questionnaires.

We doubt if legislation should mandate a certain percent of reduction in questions to be asked by the Census Bureau. Even though

this is a worthy goal, it may not be practical to accomplish. When

simplifying the forms, care should be taken not to predict they

will be simpler if in reality they do not turn out that way as has

been the case with our Federal income tax forms.

The credibility of the Census Bureau could also be improved if

the results of the census were printed and released as early as possible. Data is just now being published for the 1974 census. We

realize the amount of information that is assembled is tremendous

as it includes so many items such as farm size, operator's age, crop

acres, livestock numbers, et cetera. Perhaps if fewer questions were

asked, the results could be printed sooner.

We understand it is proposed that the agricultural census responsibility be shifted from the Secretary of Commerce to the Secretary

of Agriculture. At first glance this may seem logical, but we aren't

convinced this would be the best procedure.

Perhaps there is merit in keeping all census gathering responsibilities in one agency where it can concentrate on improvements,

where results can be coordinated with other economic census, and

where the material can be used in an objective way in checking the

accuracy of the USDA's statistics.

We are in favor of the new definition of a "farm" which was

adopted for use in the 1974 Census of Agriculture. The new definition is "any place from which $1,000 or more agricultural products

were sold, or normally would have been sold during the census

year." It appears to us this is a substantial improvement over the
117

previous definition which included some units as low as $50 per year.

Inflation and technical changes, such as mechanization of agriculture, have outdated the old definition.

We thank you again for inviting us to present the Iowa Farm

Bureau Federation's views on the agricultural census.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. You speak of confidentiality. "Would you

have objection to the principle in the next census, whoever takes it,

Agricuture or the Bureau of Census, of using IRS statistics to get

the names of farmers?

Mr. JORGENSEN. That's really, really a tough question because it

borders on the whole process of what is confidential when you return

IRS statements, and I guess in my best judgment I, personally, not

as a farm bureau member, but I, personally, would have some real

concerns about going to IRS forni6.

Mr. LEACH. I would as well, and that's a very difficult issue because one of the problems with the last census was that they had a

difficult time in defining who they should send the forms out to.

Many people were hit several times; many people were left out of

the census. Part of the hope for improvement in the next census is

that the Census Bureau can use USDA's current list rather than the

old list from 1974. I, personally, would be hopeful that they wouldn't

go to the IRS. We will be considering legislation in that regard.

Mr. FARKELL. Mr. Jorgensen, we heard you amplify the need for

the census to conduct an education program. I am wondering if

you could tell the subcommittee what efforts you have done, what the

federation has done to encourage participation in the agriculture

census and have you been contacted in regard to the upcoming census as well?

Mr. JORGENSEN. Currently, we are looking as a State federation,

we are looking at what we might do. Frankly, today, the efforts that

we make in educating the farmer is going to be directly related to

what happens to the census•is it going to be simplified, is it going

to have confidentiality, that type of thing. We think if some of these

tilings are done•in other words, one area that I frankly refused to

answer on the last one was how much of my production is produced

under contract. You see, that's, to me, a gross invasion of my privacy. Is General Motors asked, the executives from General Motors

asked that, Congressman Leach? Being in former business, was that

asked in the census ? We are talking about census and we are needing

to compare the agricultural census and other censuses as a uniform

basis. If some of these things can be done so we can assure our

people of their confidentiality so we can get them to a point where

we have some confidence in them, then I think you might see some

more effort.

Mr. FARREIX. With regard to the 1974 census though, was there

any major effort conducted by the federation?

Mr. JORGENSEN. NO, not that I am aware of.

Mr. FARRELL. Thank you.

Mr. LEACH. Is there any feeling on the confidentiality issue that

perhaps the census information is not used for the benefit of farmers?

Mr. JORGENSEN. I think Maynard hit it very well, very well, in

the fact that we wonder, frankly, a lot of times who this information
118

is going to benefit, the farmer or somebody else down the road. Is

it going to benefit somebody that is going to be able to predict with

more knowledge and more expertise and who have available access

to computers and so on what our production is going to be 10 years

from now, thereby determining what some company concerned

ought to do in the area of building storage and production plants

and that type of thing and, if that is done, will that affect our

market in some way, affect our prices ?

Mr. LEACH. On types of things that might be used to cut back the

census, do farmers find any benefit whatsoever in questions, for example, relating to the amount of chemicals used?

Mr. JORGENSEN. We absolutely see no need for those kinds of

figures because it's relatively easy for anybody to go to the Iowa

Cliemical Association, the Iowa Fertilizer Association, the National

Associations and these groups and find out the total amount of

chemicals used, you know, of certain chemicals used in the last year

and they have a far better, it seems to me, a more accurate record

of the amount of chemicals and counts used in agriculture.

I am sure that most farmers that fill out the census do it the same

way, the amount of fertilizer, for example, that I use on my farm,

I total the dollars I spent and divide it by the average price per

ton and say that's what I use, you know, because for me to go back

through 12 months and 150 invoices from my fertilizer company and

to add up, you know, the odd pounds and tonnage on everything

that I use would take my wife 2 weeks .

Mr. FERRELL. We heard yesterday, and also in other hearings,

that the questions asked in the census forms are very difficult for the

farmer to extract that information from other forms, income tax

forms or other forms that he may fill out. Do you find that true in

this situation?

Mr. JORGENSEN. Very definitely. Very definitely. In fact, we had a

bookkeeping service. Ours is on a computer and thereby we know or

hav some of these figures more readily available than some farmers

and, even with that, we have to go back and manually break out

dollars and pounds and tons and split it off because we have a total

purchase price. To do that with the service company is not necessary

like fertilizer, it could be chemicals, could be for LP gas or several

other things and that actually means manually going back through

every invoice we have got in order to provide perfect data and, after

all, if the data is not going to be statistically significant, it's not

worthwhile to gather it and it could be gathered more readily and

accurately elesewhere.

Mr. FERRELL. Do you feel as a result of its being complicated to

gather, that there is a lot of guestimating ?

Mr. JORGENSEN'. Absolutely, absolutely.

Mr. LEACH. Would the more accurate information be through the

associations ?

Mr. JORGENSEN. Yeah.

Mr. LEACH. One of the arguments in favor of the census is that it

covers such a wide number of people that you're apt to be more

accurate; but I wonder if farmers start making guesstimates the sum
119

total becomes a guesstimate and the people that might better have

the precise figures might be the associations anyway?

Mr. JOKOENSEN. In my opinion, that's absolutely correct because I

think that the estimates that farmers start with, plus or minus the

error involved there and the fact that you multiply that over a large

number, see, if everybody was 3 percent, 4 percent light, multiply

it by the total farmer and you might be well over the mark of what

the industry record shows was actually used.

Mr. FISHER. Do you recall how long it took you to fill out the

1974 form? Just take a guess. We heard testimony, for instance,

from some of the witnesses who said it took them 3 hours, 6 hours,

9 hours.

Mr. JORGENSEN. I could give you an answer. I sat down and

started on it one evening about 7:30 after eating the evening meal

and I worked until about 9:30 and decided that it was absolutely

ridiculous, put the census in my desk and left it there for a matter

of 3 or 4 months until I got several phone calls. Even then I refused

to send it in, and finally gave the answers to a lady who requested

them over the telephone and I would guess she had about a 45-

minute phone call with me to get the answer, and the 21/2 hours

that I did spend went about halfway through the form.

Mr. FISHER. Thank you.

Mr. LEACH. I just have one final question, how many unproductive

hours of cursing did you

Mr. JORGENSEN. There was a rather strained relationship between

my wife and I for some period of time because she thought we were

going to be in tremendous trouble with the Federal Government.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, sir.

Mr. JORGENSEN. Thank you.

Mr. LEACH. The next witness is Mr. Ingwer Carstensen representing the Iowa Cattleman's Association.

STATEMENT OF INGWER CARSTENSEN, REPRESENTING THE IOWA

CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. CARSTENSEN. I am Ingwer Carstensen, I am secretary of the

Iowa Cattleman's Association. I feel for Mr. Lang and I am sure he

feels for me because we got this call a couple days ago to appear

here and, not having a staff of people to get this information ready,

contrary to Mr. Lang, I brought my wife Dorothy here with me.

Mr. LEACH. Dorothy, would you like to appear as well ?

Mrs. CARSTENSEN. NO, I will fast listen, thank you.

Mr. CARSTENSEN. I am sure she can relate to the feelings of Mr.

Jorgensen as to how he became entangled with filling out this form.

So with that, I will proceed. Mr. Jim Leach and fellow farmers, I

am Ingwer Carstensen, secretary of the Iowa Cattleman's Association. I am from Jackson County and I am here as a liaison man with

the Iowa Cattleman's Association.

I am here also to represent my fellow farmer friends who are here

to protest these long census reports we are expected to fill out. Somehow I believe these reports go too much in depth. I was sort of caught
120

off base when the State office called me to appear on behalf of the

association. I told Kay Papoon, our executive secretary, that I would

call my county extension director and get some information and

complaints. I couldn't get a copy of one of these reports to familiarize myself with. I couldn't even find out how often these reports

were required. I couldn't get this information from Jim's assistant,

but I could very quickly get my wife's knowledge of how long the

report was, how inquisitive it was and the statement if it wasn't

filled out properly and accurately we could be subjected to a $10,000

line and sent to prison. I am real sure that knowing farmers and

.ranchers that are of the rank and file category, not 1 in 50 could give

this detailed information. Then once this information is obtained, I

am quite sure it would take 2 years for it to be completely evaluated.

How much of this census report is a complete duplication of other

monthly reports and how many jobs are we trying to create.

We have filled a monthly cattle and crop reports now for 15-20

years I guess, suddenly we have a man driving up to our door as of

January 1 and asking us this same information. How much duplication of reporting is necessary? This concludes my testimony.

Mr. LEACH. Well, thank you very much, sir. I must say that one

thing which would surely wake the census people up would be if they

get a report from a cattleman showing a negative income.

Mr. CAKSTENSEN. Well, I guess we can go back 3 years to show

that.

Mr. LEACH. Yes. I might ask, do those farmers you know who

filled out the report within their family, do they go to a local banker

or could they go to their accountant?

Mr. CARSTENSEN. Well, in my case, we keep a detailed record report but you go through this, and Mr. Jorgensen pointed out that

after a while, you just take some of these figures from the top of

your head and round them off and keep a going because they hardly

pertain to your business. I mean, after all, we feed cattle mostly. We

have lots of cattle on hand and something like 300 hogs on hand all

the time. We put in 200 acres of corn and so we can't have just all

these figures broken down consistently. You can understand that, I

am sure. Unless you have some complete breakdown of all these

figures, you wouldn't be able to come up with a very accurate answer but, after a while, you know that there is no pay for doing this

job so you sit down and you go through it and you take these figures

off, you round them out to the monthly figure and try to get it done

and get on to the next question.

Mr. LEACH. Would there be greater sympathy in filling out the

report if the form were substantially shorter?

Mr. CARSTENSEN. Well, of course after listening to the testimony

this morning, I feel that like many in Iowa, maybe we are blessed

with a lot better reporting system than other States.

Mr. LEACH. Yes, we are.

Mr. CARSTENSEN. And like in my case, we fill these reports out

monthly for the Iowa crop reporting service, and consequently we do

this and then here comes this census report and I haven't found out

yet, is it every 5 years ?
121

Mr. LEACH. Yes: initially we had 20 censuses. They started in

1840 and were taken every 10 years. Then there was the general feeling in the agricultural community that because of the rapid change

in agriculture we should go to every 5 years. Now, we have had

some testimony saying we ought to boost it back up to every 10

years. Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. CARSTEXSEX. Well, I am sure that I feel the same as Mr. Jorgensen who previously stated that who gets the benefit of this? Does

the farmer get the benefit or does somebody else get the benefit of

of what we do, and here we are going through all the effort and, as

he stated there, I can sympathize with him. I mean, I had the same

problems in filling it out.

My wife brought it out for me to fill out. I sat down and worked

on it awhile then I filed it like he did and then we got continuous

calls and such and letters and then we went back to it.

Mr. LEACH. Let me ask yon on the accuracy of the survey, do you

feel that crop figures are apt to be more accurate than livestock?

We received some testimony yesterday that if anything, a farmer

might be inclined to underestimate his livestock.

Mr. CARSTENSEN. Oh, I am sure of that. Livestock, basically he

has probably got the figures at hand on livestock, numbers and dollars, cents, but as Mr. Lang pointed out, we don't know how many

bushels of corn is in that crib. I mean, 1 have got say 30,000 bushels

of storage on hand, corn storage. Well, for me to say today how

many thousand bushel of corn I have got on hand when that one bin

holds 1,000, a couple others hold five and another one holds one, then

you have got a cone in there, so consequently maybe we have got

15,000 or maybe I have got 18,000 bushel of corn on hand. So we

aren't very close on the amount of bushels on the crop reports, I

don't think.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. The next witness is Lambert Elwood who is a member of the Iowa County Board

of Supervisors and representing the Iowa County NFO. Welcome,

sir.

STATEMENT OF LAMBERT EIW00D, MEMBER, IOWA COUNTY

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND REPRESENTING THE IOWA COUNTY

N.F.0.

Mr. ELWOOD. Thank you. I want to welcome you, Jim, on behalf of

the board of supervisors for the county and extend our appreciation

for your efforts here.

Mr. LEACH. We are honored to be here.

Mr. ELWOOD. I, too, got ahold of this kind of late. In fact, I don't

have what you call a prepared statement. I did do some calling

around to some of the people I know on the farm and asked them

what they felt about the census. I can give you my personal impression of it when I filled it out and what they felt about it and what

some of the things they suggested are.

My personal impression was that it is a long form which may be

necessary for the continental United States, but I don't raise that
122

many apples, pears, cherry trees, that sort of tiling. I don't get involved in cotton, tobacco and that sort of thing. This sort of thing;

was very confusing about the form. I did fill it out. I don't remember

how long it was, but it was over a period of a week or so and I think

roughly it might have been 5 to 7 hours or somewhere in there.

I remember I had to go back and erase it and start over a couple

of times because we were supposed to go to the next page and, if

you didn't do something, you would see it three or four pages later.

The farmers I called, one of their comments wasn't so moeh the

form as it was what they thought the information on the form was

being used for. This is what I felt was one of their greatest concerns

and it is one of mine.

I will quote you what one gentleman said, he said,

When they find out the number of hogs and they are taken and announced,

when the amounts are announced the markets react and they go down or up.

If they go down, 6 months later what actually happened is announced as far

as the number are concerned and then they say well, if we had announced the

right numbers, well, the market would have been better, fellows, but sorry

about that.

But this is kind of the feeling I got from most of the fellows I

^-talked to. They felt that the numbers are being made available not

to the people that are producing the commodities. They are the ones

that are buying and trading and selling and whatever else they do

with them. On the statistical reports, I fill one of those out every

week or month or whenever they come around and it had been an observation of mine and some of the people I talked to that planning

intentions normally come out around March 15 to 25, somewhere in

that area. Sometimes they come out between April 15 and the 25. It

seems to depend a lot more on whether the major grain buyers have

bought long or short than whether the farmers need to know the

information or not.

The farmers don't get the information back that fast. The real

planning intentions or what is actually being put in the ground

seems to come out every year about somewhere between May 15 and

May 25. Again, it doesn't seem to have too much to do•the timing

on it doesn't have too much to do with anything that will benefit the

farmers because most of those people have grain pretty well sold off

that are going to sell and the actuals usually come out somewhere

between May 25 and June 25 of what they estimated was actually

put in the ground.

Again, it doesn't seem to have too much to do with how much is

actually there as it does have to do with whether the traders are

long or short on their buying, and so I am sure that there is no one

farmer who can jump up and prove all of this, but I think it's something your committee should look into. That type of thing does not

benefit farmers out here and the end run on this thing is I am sure

that the traders and the commodity people have people in Washington that do study these things and are able to understand them, and

I don't know how many farmers have someone in there collecting all

of this out and I would like to make a suggestion concerning the

possible way of gathering this census, if it comes up and can be

shown that the farmers are not being jeopardized by it, I don't think
123

it would be that much of a problem finding out what they are raising,

the fertilizer they are using, and this sort of thing.

I think it's a shock to bureaucrats, but there is a thing called a

plain sheet of paper and a lot of us can still write on one and we

can fill it out and send it in to our local ASC office where people can

be trained to put it on these forms and everybody would be perfectly

happy if everybody would like to give the information to the census

in the first place.

So it's a suggestion and it's one that I didn't think of, but it came

to me and I think that would be roughly the sum of my comments

now.

Mr. LEACH. Well, perhaps we should pursue the distinction between

a 5-year census as opposed to the USDA's yearly crop estimate type

surveys. Many, many farmers have indicated to me real concern with

the timing on the release of the information when other people

might have had a day or two or a week advantage in securing the

information. There is another issue here with regard to the 5 year

survey of how confidentiality is protected, not only for respondents,

but for the ultimate recipient, of whethter there is greater protection

in maintaining the survey within the Bureau of the Census or whether

it should be transferred to Agriculture. Do you have any feeling on

that?

Mr. ELWOOD. NO, I don't. I really don't. I mean, I don't know

either department well enough to make an intelligent answer to that.

Mr. LEACH. Well, thank you, I Rave no further questions. The

next witness would be Ed Augustine of the Washington County

Farm Bureau, but he is not here so we will pass on then to Stan

Geikew of the Benton County Farm Bureau.

STATEMENT OF STAN GEIKEW OF THE BENTON COUNTY FARM

BUREAU

Mr. GEIKEN. I am representing primarily myself and maybe my

wife, too. I am the president of the Benton County Farm Bureau,

however there has been no official position taken by that group that

I am specifically representing, so these are primarily my own feelings and indications as I derived them from other farmers and neighbors, and I did spend part of this week on the telephone and at different places as I would talk to people getting their reactions.

I would also like to thank 3

Tou for taking the effort to come here

to try at least to establish some kind of a common basis which we

have some input on.

As an aside or not specifically with this meeting, I would recommend that congressional hearings and so on in general try to establish

the times that do not conflict with farmers particularly those issues

which directly affect us. Even at this date it's rather marginal in

this area whether or not we would be in the field, had it been

Mr. LEACH. That's a good pointMr. GEIKEN. Had it been nice the last few days. We had rain or

we would have fewer people than we have today.

Mr. LEACH. Yes. In fact, one of the reasons why we hurried this

date up, is that we thought it might be the last possible date. We

would have liked to have been here several weeks earlier.
124

Mr. GEIKEN. I am not criticizing this one, but both at the county

level and otherwise, at times I question whether or not it's planned

or just accidental. Who knows? Well, to proceed, I was sort of interested in Maynard's comment after he started filling out his form

that he began to get a little careless, and Jorgy said the same thing,

not estimating these figures quite as accurately, getting careless, and

I think you could probably insert the word "aggravated." This is on

my sheet, you are burdened down and a little aggravated at doing

the whole thing. People in general•excuse me. People in general on

the farm mistrust what's going on with this census. I don't really

think it has anything to do with where it's coming from. Now, this

is personal observation.

I think that they either don't want to fill it out, they don't fill it

out accurately, or in some cases I have had several individuals since

I contacted them individually just tell me as a point of fact that they

lied and I don't know how wide spread this is. I know I contacted

people that I knew, you know, who were sort of upset with the thing

so I think probably that tendency would be greater then with the

people I talked to.

However, I think it's just a general feeling of mistrust, who uses

these figures and how they are used, and I would raise a question,

not knowing, just simply asking a question of whether or not even

though it says this information is confidential, if individuals can

be pinpointed from this information to follow-up at a later date, in

other words not use this specific information but saying hey, there

is maybe something that could be checked.

Mr. LEACH. That is specifically prohibited by the law and I think

even firmer prohibitions can be enacted. It's also specificnlly prohibited to use these for regulatory purposes. Frankly, some of the

information asked for in total can be used by regulatory agents.

For example, one might reach a conclusion based on the fact that so

much herbicide of a given nature is used, or whatever, and question

whether we shouldn't try to regulate that. That's why there has been

a number of indications of concern that the general information

might have an effect on other agencies of the government that it

wasn't originally designed to have.

Mr. GEIKEN. This would be just a question. I think one of the

other points that I would speak on that several of the other people

have given testimony this morning would be the search involved to

do an accurate job. Almost without fail, a number of these items

require a conversion from your own records to some other form, a

dollars per acre figure, tonnage, pounds to tons, and if you really

got to do a good job, you need to sit down and go through these figures so I think what happens is you do get to this good old thumb

rule and quesstimates, which immediately detracts from the usefulness

and accuracy of the material.

Now, in some of my statistic courses over a large sampling, some

of these things tend to average out and I think that is true, but I

think that is a problem we do run into. One thing that I can't validate, however, it was told to me and this was told to me by an

extension director, that at the time the census went out he began
125

receiving calls, you know, just after this time period and this is

where he couldn't pinpoint who or what office and so on requesting

information on specific individuals. They wanted numbers of heads

of livestock, this type of thing. Now, I assume it could have been

his next-door neighbor calling, I can't pinpoint this, but it seems

B little ironic to me that this would occur at the same time the census

was going out.

I know individuals I talked to, and some have already testified

this morning, they were called repeated times, repeated letters went

out to try and get this information over the phone if possible or however they could get it, and I wonder if these tactics were used even

going to some other area.

Mr. LEACH. I would like to pursue this a minute. You mean it's

one thing to be called yourself about your farm, but are you saying

you might have been called about your neighbor's farm?

Mr. GEIKEN. I am not saying that I know of any farmers who

were.

Mr. LEACH. But you heard reports to that effect?

Mr. GEIKEN. I heard reports to that effect and I know in point of

fact that at least one extension director was called, but I don't know

who called him. See, I can't isolate it off. It could have been anyone

calling in. I don't know that. I am saying this might exist and it's

something that could be checked to see how they are trying to derive

this information.

One other thing I would echo the use or lack of use of threats

or money, bribes or whatever you might want to call it. I don't

think this is going to add to any type of information. I think it's

just a good way to get people involved without really affecting the

validity of what they are saying.

The threats of penalties, fines, and so on, I think realistically

never will be enforced and so I think it's an idle threat and I

think I could name, if I wanted to, you know, several handfuls of

people I talked to within the last week who still have that form

laying in a drawer or who have thrown it in a trash can.

I had one wife tell me, as a matter of fact, she got the seventh

notice the other day and threw that in the trash can, too. I think

it's sort of an idle threat.

One other question, I would like to know specifically what the law

requires of an agricultural census. Now, I know the law requires

that one be taken, but I would like to know what the real intent of

that law is trying to find out. As I go through it, I have got some

specific examples here.

I got a form from the agricultural teacher in the local school

just to find out several things that I went through, and by no means

are these the only things I would question even having in the report

because I do feel that others have stated a number of these things

already reported in other governmental agencies and there is no

point in duplication. If they really want that information, they can

go to the USDA or some other branch and get it from there and

not bother us one more time. These are things that I feel have no

business in a census report, and in section 28, for instance, storage

87-766•77 0
126

in total bushels on your farm, I don't personally see how this is related to agricultural production and so on. I think that's a figure

someone wants to know how much is stored on farms whether or

not you use futures in those commodities you used them on. I don't

feel other people are asked this and that market is open to anyone.

Section 33, total indebtedness in amounts, and what type of debt

this would be. In other words, who is the loaner, I don't see that

this is, you know, pertinent to that particular information and that

could be secured I am sure through other means. I don't know the

exact accounting procedures for banks and loan companies, but I am

sure this is reported somewhere else, the total amount of outstanding

farm loans and this type of thing.

I don't remember the section, but they asked operators rates.

This doesn't have anything to do with the farm question, but I find

it interesting in our governmental procedures anymore that this is

worked on with such a great deal of•I don't know, I can't think

of a word I want to use to describe it, but wanting to know your

rates here and it's becoming almost illegal to put this on forms and

so on.

For instance, applications for jobs and so on, I find that incongruent in the system. Section 35, I am curious why they need dollar

amounts of products. I think we have already given them the total

bushels, total number of acres and their guesstimate on average

price is probably as accurate as anything else you might derive. I

don't think you need this on an individual farm basis. If they

wanted it, they could derive it.

Section 36, I don't remember specifically the question, but I wondered at that time why they didn't just use yes or no answers. Do

you, or don't you? Oh, here, I have it, dollar amounts, custom work,

regional facilities, and so on. If they are concerned if people do

that, why might this not be a ves or no type of question rather

than a dollar type amount question, these are some of the specifics

and by no means are they all of them, but I think in general.

I would conclude by saying that people must trust who is using

this regardless of who might take it or we tend to get inaccurate information because you end up guesstimating and then sometimes just

not telling them or lying about it rather than giving them accurate

figures. This would conclude my testimony.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. Stan, do you think there might be greater

willingness to fill out the census form if in as many areas as possible questions involved yes or no responses or there were multiple

choice type boxes that would indicate estimates rather than something very specific?

Mr. GEIKEN. I think this would probably help as much as anything just because the total form would be shortened. I don't recall

how much time I took specifically. I am sure I didn't take enough

time to do it accurately just because I refused to do that, so I took

some best guesstimates. Yes and no questions, I am sure, multiple

choice questions, unless they are really well thought out, have a

tendency not to fit your situation. All four answers or whatever it

is, you know, A, B, A and B, all of the above types of things, I

don't know. If it is well defined, possibly that would work.
127

Mr. FERRELL. I have two questions, Mr. Geiken, how long did it

take you to fill out the form ?

Mr. GEIKEN. I don't specifically recall. I would say no more than a

couple hours just because I didn't take the time3 realizing if I

really wanted to give an accurate report it was going to require a

lot of time and I began guesstimating right from the start.

Mr. FERRELL. My second question, vou talked about many questions

that you feel the information could be found from other sources and

we have had a lot of talk about that and that might be one way to

reduce the duplication, but by the same token, and like your reaction

to this, would you be willing to allow the Census Bureau to extract

that information from other sources? For instance, you mentioned

indebtedness, that might be found in a bank report or maybe an

income tax form. Do you think there would be any adverse reaction

to that if we could insure that confidentiality would be protected.

Consequently, we might reduce the form and, by the same token, we

could get that information from other sources?

Mr. GEIKEN. It's sort of a double-edged question. By the very fact

that you are allowing someone to look at these other types of information, not only are you leaving out at least one or two other

steps of finding information as a crosscheck, you are reducing or increasing the access anyway to that information and therefore reducing the confidentiality of that information, but by the same token,

if•and this is a big if•I think in your question you said if the

confidentiality could be maintained, if that could be maintained, I

think this would provide in my own mind anyway at least as accurate an information and not requiring a bunch of extra forms and

time not only on the part of the farmers, but the total governmental

time in the Census Bureau.

Mr. FERRELL. I might mention that in the history of the Census

Bureau confidentiality is a basic problem not only for this one, but

for the 1980 census, and the economic census as well. The Census

Bureau has a pretty good record in that regard and I think in its

history it has had only one instance of where an employee attempted some years back, attempted to breach that confidentiality.

So I think on the information, they have a proven record of

keeping things within themselves.

Mr. GEIKEN. I wouldn't question that at all, as far as we know;

however, I think this underlies, as I see it, the primary concerns

of farmers and people in general in this day and age the total confidentiality of all information, who gets it, who uses it, how it is

used.

Mr. LEACH. Plus I think we can add here that we have developed

new systems no one in history has ever developed with computers,

and all sorts of advanced information retrieval technologies. Every

time we develop a new sophisticated system we ought to have a

system of checks and balances. Putting up barriers to transfers of

knowledge is something which I think always has a purpose. I

think it's to the credit of the Bureau of the Census that in general

there hasn't been severe problems. However, the fact that's been the

general history doesn't mean you don't always worry about it and

devise protections to insure against potential abuse. Thank you. The

next witness is Don Gingerich. Welcome.
128

STATEMENT OF DON GINGERICH, DIRECTOR OF DISTRICT 7, IOWA

FORE GROWERS

Mr. GINGERICH. Congressman Leach, we are real happy you are

here today to give us this opportunity to testify in front of you

some of the opinions that we have. I am representing Iowa Pork Producers. I am a director from district 7 which involves Iowa County,

Benton County, Poweshiek, Tama, Jasper, Black Hawk, Grundy,

and Hardin Counties. I am here because Paul Quick called me and

asked me to be here. We are a volunteer organization. I am sure I

don't have to tell Jim about the Iowa Pork Producers because he

knows most of the information we have in our organization. We are

voluntary and we only hire one field man and this is why Paul has

called me and asked me to come because I live in Iowa County and I

am on the Legislative Committee for the Iowa Legislature, and Paul

himself said that he has never filled out an agricultural census and

so I have done some calling around to find out and get some opinions, and we thank you for this opportunity.

We are also glad you are in office and we are supporting you, as I

see it, and that this census being agricultural, which will help you

legislators enact and pass laws and whatever is necessary, and I see

this as a long-term process where you can, you know, look way ahead

and see what is happening in our business of agriculture.

I have called people the last few days but I haven't had time to

research this like I would have liked to, and I made an effort to

get a copy of it and because of the weather and the bad roads and

everything, it got lost and I got it 5 minutes ago so I can't be very

specific about some of these things, but one thing that I have found

has been unanimous, as I talked to Mr. Quick, he has talked to

producers and called them and I also called some Iowa State University people to find out their opinions.

I think we are all aware of what the purpose is of this and we are

all in sympathy towards its purpose, but everyone seems to think

that it is too long a form, too complicated a form to fill out which

undoubtedly you have already heard this morning, and there is

probably some questions in it that are unnecessary.

I wish I could be more specific as to which ones, but I felt that

way as I filled it out. It took me about 2 hours to fill out my last

census and I think I possibly could have taken 4 or 5 hours if I

would have done it very accurately, if I would have referred to the

bookkeeping system, and I think we have a pretty good one so

that it would match the questionnaire that we had.

Farmers, in general, don't feel as though the information is confidential. I suppose here is where I would disagree with most of

them, I assume if you say that it is, that it probably is, but I wish

there was some way that you could assure us and assure the farmers

that these things are very confidential. I thought maybe some of the

newer equipment that you have like computers and so on, that this

would help, but I have also been informed that that's also an easier

way to pick out an individual.

So if we could just get more assurance, this wotild make the farmers more at ease. Also the item of threats have just tended to make a
129

few farmers rebel. Your last speaker spoke about some of the things

which I also have had some people tell me they just didn't fill it

out just because there was a threat of fine or imprisonment, and so

on, and they didn't do it because they knew it was an idle threat

and this isn't really very ethical, I think. This isn't the way the

system of our country should be on.

If it is this important, it should be enforced and, since it isn't,

it probably shouldn't be there at all. I would like to ask you two

questions so that I can be sure this next point is valid, how long

does it usually take after a census is filled out before you get a report back?

Mr. LEACH. That is a good question. The 1974 census will be published hopefully in the next month or two and that gives you a

pretty good idea of the time period for the last one. We are very

hopeful that the next census can be published close to within a

year after the initial forms are sent out and we have received a lot

of testimony indicating that the longer the time period, the less

useful it is, particularly for farmers. Back to your question of who

uses it, it's of some help to legislators; but an agricultural census

that first and foremost is not a benefit to the people that fill it out

is the type of census that should not be taken; and if it's to benefit

farmers, it's got to be timely. It might be a benefit to historians or

sociologists for years later, but it's not a benefit to farmers. There

should be great pressure put upon the next census taking body,

whether it be the USDA or the Bureau of Census, to get it out

quick]}', recognizing that because it is so comprehensive it can never

come out as quickly as the USDA crop projections and the shorter

censuses that the State of Iowa does. But certainly if it's not out by

the following winter, it's of no benefit to farmers in making their

decisions about what they might be planning for the next crop year.

In addition, decisions on cattle and hogs and other livestock demand information on a timely basis. Statistics that are two or three

years old are useless.

Mr. GINGERICH. I guess this is why we feel we can't use it effectively that way. Projections like the USDA crop report is much more•

Mr. LEACH. Yes, much more useful.

Mr. GINGERICH. And this has always been told me by the people

of Iowa State who make these projections, they feel this is much too

late for their benefit. I can see that there is a large amount of figures

to be compiled and this is why, this is why it takes so long and then

what I think I would like to urge you is to simplify the form and

maybe this would also be able to make it easier to have this information back quicker.

If you reach your goal of getting it back in a year like you just

suggested, that would be a considerable improvement. In the first

place, I see where you could simplify it. By simplifying it, you

could have it back within a year and also possibly reduce the cost

m\d so I would make those points, to simplify it, not to ask questions

that aren't necessary, and that you would prove to us in every way

possible that it is confidential. These are tho things that people

have asked.
130

Mr. FISHER. TO follow-up with one question, would you be in

favor of trying to specify legislation that this information would

have to be made available at a time certain, of a specific time when

they would have to complete this? Would you be in favor of this?

Mr. GINGERICH. Yes; I think we need deadlines in things like this

so it doesn't keep getting pushed to the bottom of the pile. Frankly,

I don't think much of people who don't fill it out. I think their excuses are invalid. If you send it out, give us a time when it should

be back and I think it's our responsibility to get it to you at that

time. This of course would help you get the report back on time, too.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much.

Mr. GINGERICH. Thank you.

Mr. LEACH. Our next witness is Milver Hora, president of the

Johnson County Farm Bureau.

STATEMENT OF MILVER HORA, PRESIDENT, JOHNSON COUNTY

FARM BUREAU

Mr. HORA. I don't think we need to take a good amount of time

again because of the good job the previous witnesses did.

Mr. LEACH. It's difficult to be towards the end of the list. The first

person gets to make all of the points.

Mr. HORA. But Stan had some things here about filling it out and

everything and it's been quite a concern in our county.

It takes too long to complete the census and get the information out

to where it belongs. I know that it is a tremendous task to gather

and compile all of the information in this day and age of quick decisions and fluctuating markets. It is outdated before the final reports are out and makes a distorted picture. That's one of the things

we are having pretty strong emphasis on down in our country. We

have several agricultural colleges that are able to compile this information and more up-to-date. You can get it out and it can be•it

doesn't do us any good if we get it 3 or 4 years later. I mean, it

isn't even worth reading and the forms are too long, complicated,

and some questions are contradictory to others asked and I doubt

their accuracy because some people fill it out in part and don't

understand the question, and some people leave it all out. I feel that

when the final report is out and shows a big increase or decrease in

production of a commodity, it always has a bad effect on the market

and times when it comes out late, probably that time is gone already

but it's confusing to people. There are other criticisms mentioned to

me but of less importance. There are some good things about it, I

guess, but it is gratifying to know and encouraging to know that you

are doing something about it and maybe it will be better and everybody will like it a little better.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you. I might just ask you a couple, of questions. That is why it is misunderstood in Washington and that's not

totally unnatural because most people don't represent agricultural

areas. But when you think of this census, there are' very few census

in America that have as dramatic an effect on the market as an agricultural census does. Farmers know this very clearly but census
131

people don't appreciate its comparative importance. Otherwise they'd

be more sensitive to farm concerns and publish it on a more timely

basis.

I might comment on one of the things that is brand new in terms

of technology in America today•our satellites. One thing that satellites are now doing, to some extent, is monitoring crop developments

around the world. Particularly they are playing an important role in

making crop projections abroad, especially in the Soviet Union and

China. Do you sense any feeling among farmers that satellite observations are an intrusion on their privacy? For example, today,

satellites can very quickly tell you what crops have been planted,

and to some degree, the various stages of development. They can

within various degrees of accuracy predict what the likely yields

will be. Has this been a subject of conversation among farmers?

Mr. HORA. It has to a certain degree in the part that I heard most

about is that if some country reports their crop wrong and all of a

sudden they really have to import a lot, probably some people feel a

depressed price before and where it had been accurate, the farmers

here would have to know what more to expect. I feel that!6 the

thing, if it's accurate, it's all right; and if it isn't accurate

Mr. LEACH. It's a very dangerous thing.

Mr. HORA. Right.

Mr. LEACH. One thing bothers me a little bit. I can understand the

importance of observing other countries, but I have a problem with

attempting to assess and observe our own, when it comes to satellites

taking pictures of Johnson County, for example, and then releasing

the information about it. I am not sure what the citizen reaction in

Johnson County would be. Is this something that would disturb

you or would it be of no particular consequence one way or the

other?

Mr. HORA. Well, they know too much about you already, let alone

being able to take a picture and know everything.

Mr. LEACH. You know, I recently attended a classified hearing

given by the Department of Defense and it was about monitoring

Soviet missile siloes, and the development of the Soviet missile

capability. The information given was classified, but they gave a

couple of examples of pictures in which they were able to observe,

from the sky, individuals working on construction, in this case

missile siloes, and it was truly an incredible experience to look right

down and visualize yourself, working on construction, and to have

a photograph of yourself being taken from a distance of hundreds

and hundreds of miles without your knowledge. This is something

that may have military security implications, but I think with regard to crop reporting in this country, it may not be of great

validity.

Mr. HORA. I don't think so.

Mr. LEACH. And we of course, Milver, will be taking these pictures

and handing them out to your wife, to let her know if you are working on a Sunday afternoon or not.

Mr. HORA. She is no satellite, but she knows quite a bit.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Mr. LEACH. The subcommittee will reconvene. The next witness is

Mr. John Rockwell representing the Iowa Farmers Union. Welcome.
132

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROCKWELL, REPRESENTING THE IOWA

FARMERS UNION

Mr. ROCKWELL. The Honorable Mr. Leach and other prominent

persons: Congressman Leach, this convenient opportunity to discuss

the agricultural census question is appreciated. I shall speak briefly

on several aspects of concern to me as a Henry County farmer and

to the Iowa Farmers Union of which I am a member.

First, I may say it is felt that the customary type of census with

voluntary responses from all farmers should be continued but not

to the same extent as in 1974. That last census was made needlessly

confusing by putting all commodity question blocks in a single form,

some of which in almost every farmer's case were not applicable.

There were explicit instructions to skip over such blocks, but by the

time they had worked through some 20 pages of the form, a good

many respondees simply gave up.

Unfortunately, the confidence climate at the time was not very

good for obtaining replies on so many details of one's farming operations. Doubts arose as to whether any information thus furnished

would be kept confidential. There had been a Presidential order in

early 1973 to make Federal income tax returns available to the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. This order caused considerable concern

because the USDA security regulations were not thought to be as

.strict as those of the Census Bureau. The terms of that order were

not carried out.

It appears that the census people learned something from that

1974 experience. Word has now come that the 1978 forms may be

only about six pages long. There is talk of requiring from an individual farmer only such information as relates to his county level.

More broadly based information will be obtained through selective

sampling methods.

In the past, there has been some talk of turning the agricultural

census job over to USDA. We are not inclined to favor this. Agriculture should be included along with all the other major segments

of the American economv in a single coordinated statistical operation. The facilities of USDA's Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service could, however, be quite helpful on the sampling

phase and should so be considered. It would help, too, if the Census

Bureau made well known in advance approximately what kind of

reference file to keep in readiness on receipts, volume of marketings

and so on. Now, Mr. Chairman, I didn't look when I started but I

don't think I took over 5 minutes.

Mr. LEACH. NO, you may continue, please.

Mr. ROCKWELL. I have two pages of individual opinions I would

like to express.

Mr. LEACH. YOU may express them.

Mr. ROCKWELL. Thank you.

The Iowa Farmers Union is in favor of the replacement of Lock

and Dam 26 at Alton, 111. It is a bottleneck on river barge traffic.

Right now it takes 10 hours to get a tow through.

The shipping of grain for the export market has been a great

benefit to farmers all up and down the Mississippi River Valley. It
133

is also of great benefit to oil, coal, fertilizer and many other industrial businesses. It benefits the farmers of central Iowa as well as

those in the eastern third of the State because the grain exported

out of the State is gone forever, increasing the value of the corn

that is left. It does not harm the environment; nor does it hurt the

railroads. They never have enough cars to haul a bumper crop

anyway. Corn, at the river brings 10 to 20 cents more a bushel. I am

opposed to the imposition of a user's fee on barge traffic. The barge

companies wouldn't have to pay it, the farmer and other shippers

would.

A few other obvious facts. We fanners are now paying John

Deere workers $12 per hour. Other companies wages per hour probably comparable but unknown. We farmers probably are paying

most of the wages of these companies also: Hudson Auger, they

make augers; Oliver or White, Mew Holland, Ford Tractor, AllisChalmers, New Idea, Massey-Ferguson, Minneapolis-Moline, Mayrath, J. I. Case.

Other companies where we pay part of the employees: Firestone•

I have a note here these tires cost at least $50 to $600 per tire on

bigger ones and probably more•Goodyear, Caterpillar, U.S. Steel,

Bethlehem Steel, Wheeling Steel, Swift, Armour, Morell, Rath,

Massey-Harris, Conrad Grain Bins, Behlen-Bins-Steel Buildings,

General Motor (all automobiles), International Harvester, Dow

Chemical, Monsanto, Farmland Industries, Detroit Diesel Allison,

Chevy Trucks, Ford Trucks, Dodge Trucks, Ag-Rain, Inc. (irrigation), WeyHauser Lumber Co., Ciba-Geigy, Eaton, Lubbock Mfg.

Co., and GMC Trucks.

Okay, we farmers also pay part of the dividends of these companies. Tractors and combines now cost $50,000, plus, each. We pay

taxes on more acres than any group in the United States. We also

buy everything the average worker and homeowner does.

Steel is a basic industry. We 2,500,000 farmers use 40 times as

much steel as the average homeowner. Equal to that used by 100

million homeowners. Our implements are so big we cannot cross

many of our bridges because of weight or size. If you are consumer

oriented you will keep the farmer healthy financially or millions of

consumers will be unemployed.

We resent USDA grain reports that always seem to come at a

time when prices are starting to rise and most always depress the

grain markets causing us to lose millions of dollars on the cash and

futures markets in net worth. Because of the weather, no report

can be accurate until September and then 10 to 20 percent of the

corn crop could be lost because of a wet fall.

Times have changed. Most fanners can now store most of their

grain on the farm and do. We will sell it when the price is right.

We are opposed to embargoes on grain exports. How long has it

been since we had a famine in these United States? Fear of a short

crop causing starvation in this country is absurd and unrealistic.

We have as much right to have a 27-percent depletion allowance

as the oil companies because farming is a high risk business. We

gamble our financial future on every crop year. We have to, because
134

the weather is uncertain. We are the only business that cannot set

a price on our products or wages. I am about through. I have a five

point modern farm program: (1) no Government embargoes; (2)

-a minimum price on corn, $3 per bushel net at farm; wheat, $3.50

per bushel net at farm; soybeans, $7 per bushel net at farm; (3) it

shall be established by law; (4) a floating Government subsidy on

exports to bring export grain prices in line with world prices, so

our price will be competitive with other nations, payable to the

exporter; and (5) no Government storage or reserve.

This will not lose our foreign markets. The farmer will not get a

grain subsidy. It will help our balance of trade. It might be cheaper

than other farm programs. Looking to the future and at inflation,

it might not be long before the world price hits $3.25 per bushel.

At $3 per bushel on the world market, the cost to our Government

would be minimal. That's the extent of my statement.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you, Mr. Rockwell. I would just like to make

one comment. You are so completely right that farming, more than

any occupation I know of, is a gamble and when the U.S. Government enters into the picture with statistics, the only way the farmer

can best be protected is that those statistics be absolutely accurate

because if you add on top of a very risky enterprise statistics that

themselves are inaccurate and risky, you do nothing but jeopardize

the marketing mechanism. The U.S. Census Bureau and the USDA

very probably have a greater obligation than other Government

statistical agencies to do their level best to provide as timely and

accurate statistics as possible. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROCKWELL. Thank you very much, Congressman.

Mr. LEACH. The next witness is Mr. Dave Kozishek representing

the Iowa National Farmers Organization. Apparently Mr. Kozishek

is not here so why don't I, first, take a minute to see if he arrives.

Let me just open it up to any comments or questions that other

people might want to make and maybe Lowell, would like to come

and make some observation especially regarding the extension service. Lowell is with Iowa County Extension Service.

STATEMENT OF LOWELL McKEAN, REPRESENTING THE IOWA

COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICE

Mr. MCKEAN. Thank you, Mr. Leach, for this opportunity to jot

down a few notes here. I am really not organized. I didn't come

with the thought of speaking at the hearing or expressing any

views, but I thought there are a few questions that came up during

the hearing and references were made to the extension service and

I would like to make this clear that I am expressing more of my

own thoughts, but I thought a few thoughts should be interjected

into the record as far as the farm census was concerned.

Now, many of them made mention that inquiries were made to

the county office and when the inquiries were made, I could show

them the books. I could show them the 1969 books, the 1970 book,

and the 1974 books were not out. I could show them the form. Now,

I work closely with many departments and many organizations. I
135

talk to many farmers and I value their counsel and I hope they

value my judgment, and I also would like to say I think we are

blessed in the State of Iowa with an educational system and a

statistical system second to none in the Nation as far as getting

agricultural information out to the local farmer.

Currently the demands and use made on our service of statistics

usually comes from the Iowa Crop and Livestock Marketing Service

or the statistical department because they come out with yearly reports that are current and usually by the time we receive he census

report, usually as far as current use or current value to the county,

I would say it's almost nil.

Now, as far as the benchmark, I think it's very good. We have

to have some references to recheck the projections that are made in

our outlook information. I think from a long-range standpoint, they

are very valuable.

One other thing I wanted to add, I do not recall receiving any

calls from any census taker during the period of trying to receive

any individual information. If they had, I am sure they would not

have received it because I do not feel that I am in a position to give

even a guesstimate of what any constituents that I work with in the

county would have.

Now, one other thing that I did want to just touch on is that I

am sure that this enumeration was not done or we did not have any

statistics, that I am sure with my experience in industry, that big

industry, big companies would gather this data if it was ont available. It might not be as accurate, but at least from my experience

they would gather it some way and I am also sure that the information that would be gathered would not be released for public dissemination and I am also sure that if we had no information available, we would return to the days when, sure, we might not have

the market fluctuations that we have on the release of some information, but we also may return to the days when no information was

available to the supplier or the farmer and he was more at the

mercy of the user or the buyer.

So I think we need to kind of put this into perspective in this

area. Now, as I said, I am currently in the fields of information and

education and I would like to keep informed what is going on in the

county. One thing that we do have is a very good working relationship with Mr. Skow who was on the program earlier and he has

appeared before us as a State group, also an area group, to inform

us of how he gathers his information, how he takes his sampling,

and he also sent us a copy of the form that they are using and

informs us so that when farmers call us he says, well, we obtain a

letter and say we are going to take the pig and crop report and this

is the. general format, so when the farmers call us and ask is this

a valid report, we can say "yes, it is," and we have had first-hand

knowledge of what it is all about and we can answer some questions.

To my knowledge, since I have been in the office, I do not remember ever receiving a long form of the agricultural census to see it

or have had anyone come out from the national office to explain to

us what it is all about. We could answer some questions, we could
136

assist some farmers in the education field if we had some prior

knowledge to this and I think it would be a great assist in getting

tliis information back first-hand in a voluntary manner, and I think

it would somewhat get away from this thing that we have heard of

the complaints that we have heard earlier, that of harassment and

also the implications that if it is not sent back that you are going to

be punished.

One last thing, the other thing I think that's been brought up,

and this is something many of the farmers have expressed concern

about, is the confidentiality, and so I won't go into this but I think

1 would like to reiterate it is necessary to safeguard this information, especially with the computer banks that are out that I think we

need to review. It only takes about one or two individuals in the

present system to be able to pull out any information if those present

safeguards are not built into the law, so this is about all that I

have. I thank you again for the opportunity to speak.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much. Mike has a question.

Mr. FERRELL. Mr. McKean, I take it it's a monthly crop report

that the State conducts and then they send you a form?

Mr. MCKEAN. Well, this ie something different as far as the crop

reports, we have a weekly report that we send in from the county,

but I think as far as the State reports, they are done periodically

and whenever they are conducted, we are informed or sent a copy of

the form and also Mr. Skow has met with us or one of his representatives has met with us periodically or maybe yearly or whenever

big changes are made and he keeps the directors informed of what's

going on and we appreciate that very much.

Mr. FERRELL. You mentioned that you answered questions over

the phone that farmers might have about the State questionnaire.

Do you also serve to help fill them out, if necessary? Do you serve

as an assistance center?

Mr. MCKEAN. I have never been asked to do this. I think most of

the forms they would prefer to go on their own, but if they have

some specific questions, I guess maybe even in the area of

guesstimates, what rule of thumb would you use for finding corn

in the crib?

Mr. FERRELL. The reason I bring it up, in the 1980 census there

are assistance centers in specific areas and I was wondering if that

was

Mr. MCKEAN. I would be glad to work with anyone if they came

in, but I think most of them prefer to fill it out. I think they consider it a private matter and I treat all of my clients this way, that

it's of a confidential nature and it never leaves the office as far as I

am concerned.

Mr. LEACH. Thank you very much.

Mr. GINGERICH. If I may, may I bring up some other issue on

behalf of Iowa pork producers? We have a new disease problem in

Iowa and in the midwest and it's sort of exploding in this area, and

that is the pseudorabies problem. \

Mr. LEACH. I tell you what, Don, since it's a different subject,

why don't I talk to you later. We are very much on top of the
137

pseudorabies problem and, in fact, I recently testified in Washington on it. We are working very hard to get an immediate emergency

appropriation for research as well as an ongoing one. This is possibly the biggest problem right now here in Iowa agriculturally, but

because this committee is dealing with the census, why don't we just

hit this afterwards, if that's all right with you?

Mr. GINOERICH. That's fine.

Mr. LEACH. But please stay.

Mr. GINOERICH. OK.

Mr. LEACH. All right, are there any other comments? If not, I

would just like to say that I want to thank everyone here for

coming. The testimony we have received here is very different from

that received in Washington. Quite frequently, with regard to Government, the outputs of Washington are very different from the

inputs of people that are most affected. I, for one, would like to see

this process reversed and I am very, very grateful to all of you

for coming. If you have any followup, please feel free to call me in

Washington. If any of you come to Washington, you are most

welcome to come to our office on this or any other issue. We have

three district offices, one in Iowa City, one in Davenport and one

in Burlington, so feel free to drop by with any views that you

might have. For the several people that didn't make it, we will

keep the hearing records open and allow them the opportunity to

submit statements for the record. Is there anything further, Mr.

Counsel ?

Mr. FERREIX. Not a thing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LEACH. Well, thank you then. This will conclude the meeting

of this subcommittee. Thank you again.

[Thereupon the hearing was adjourned.]

[The communications which follow were received for inclusion

in the record:]

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE,

Washington, D.C., April 25, 1975.

To: House Committee on Agriculture, art: Carol Forbes.

From: A. Barry Carr, specialist, Food and Agriculture, ENRPD.

Subject: Use of census definition of a farm.

Last spring you asked me to survey CSDA and other cabinet department

programs for situations where the farm population as determined by the

Census Bureau was used to allocate funds or administer programs. Since that

time I have spent considerable time in reviewing the authorizing legislation

for various programs and in talking by phone with program managers. The

attached list contains the only programs for which I was able to determine a

use of farm population based upon Census definitions.

Enclosure.

FEDERAL PROGRAMS USING CENSUS DATA ON FARM POPULATION

7 u.s.0. 861o

Provides that 28 percent of the Hatch Act funds for Agricultural Experiment

Stations be allocated among the States In the same ratio as the farm population of each state bears to the total farm population of all the states as

determined by the last preceding decennial census.
138

7 U.B.C. 390(c)

Provides that one-third of the funds for financing research facilities at

State Agricultural Experiment Stations be allocated among the States in the

same ratio as the farm population of each State bears to the total farm population of all the States as determined by the last preceding decennial census.

PUBLIC LAW 92-419, SECTION 503(B)(4)

Provides that one-third of the funds for rural development and small farm

research and extension programs be allocated among the States in the same

ratio as the farm population of each State bears to the total farm population

of all the States as determined by the last preceding decennial census.

PUBLIC LAW 92-419, SECTION 503(B)(4)

Provides that one-third of the funds for rural development and small farm

research and extension programs be allocated among the States in the same

ratio as the farm population of each State bears to the total farm population

of all the states as determined by the last preceding decennial census.

7 U.s.c. 903 (c) AND 913

Provides that 25 percent of certain rural electrification loan funds be allocated among the States in the same proportion which the number of farms

not receiving central electric service bears to the total number of farms of the

United States not receiving such service. The term farm shall be deemed to

mean a farm as defined in the publications of the Bureau of the Census.

7 u.s.c. 1988(E)

Provides that 25 percent of the sums authorized for direct loans to individuals

for agricultural real estate loans (FmHA) be allocated equitably among the

States on the basis of farm population and the prevalence of tenancy as

determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.

42 U.s.c. 1471(B)(1)

Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to extend financial assistance

through FmHA to owners of farms to enable them to provide decent, safe and

sanitary housing for themselves, their tenants, lessees, sharecroppers and

laborers. Defines farm as an agricultural unit which produces or is capable of

producing for sale and home use commodities with a gross annual value

of not less than the equivalent value of $400 in 1944 as determined by the

Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture shall determine what

constitutes a farm for the purposes of this program and his determination

shall be conclusive.

Note•This definition is not tied to the Bureau of Census definition of a

farm.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS,

Washington, D.C., April 22, 7977.

Hon. WILLIAM LEHMAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Census and Population, Committee on Post Office

and Civil Service, Bouse of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : In your recent hearings in Marengo, Iowa, on April

2, Dean Quirin, a member of my staff reported that one farmer raised a

question regarding telephone calls having been made to county extension

agents early in 1975. These calls requested information about individual

farmers' agricultural activities. The Bureau of the Census first became aware

of telephone calls such as these with the mailing of our March 14, 1975, followup letter. A number of respondents advised us at this time that they had already provided information regarding their farm activities over the telephone^
139

The Bureau's telephone data-collection program was not scheduled to start

until mid-April 1075. Mr. Quirin, at that time, attempted to trace the source

of the telephone calls referred to by these farmers. He found that farmers

bad been contacted in at least four states: Iowa, Illinois, Oklahoma, and

Texas.

One farmer in Texas reported that he had declined to furnish the information by phone but had stated that he would consider filling out a report

form if one were mailed to him. This farmer was the chairman of an "Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Services County Committee." He stated

that the written material received by him indicated that it was a private firm

located in Alabama doing a special nationwide agricultural survey. This firm

stated in their telephone contact that they were doing a census of agriculture

but also in questioning, they pointed out to this farmer that it was not the

U.S. Census of Agriculture.

Mr. Quirin also determined that if a farmer failed to provide the information

requested, calls were then placed to the county agricultural agent by the

firm to obtain information.

We hope that this Information will be of assistance to you. If we can be

of further assistance, please contact us.

Sincerely,

(Signed)

Robert L. Hagan

ROBERT L. HAGAN,

Acting Director.