Mr. BOLES. That is approximately, as near as I can tell, 90 percent of parity. In other words, it was approximately 5 percent less than we received in 1954. Senator AIKEN. That is 90 percent for your area? Mr. BOLES. Yes; for our area. Senator AIKEN. That would make a difference. Mr. BOLES. These cost figures are not just my figures, they are the average taken of several hundred farms by the Farm Management Association. This proves to you that at the present price of grain sorghums, we farmers cannot expect to make a living. As you all know, our prices have risen on the things that we buy. Now, gentlemen, I wish to remind you that in 1953, milo was $2.25 per hundred or $1.26 per bushel, and in 1954 it was $2.14 per hundred or $1.19 per bushel, which is approximately a 6-percent reduction. Then again in 1955 came the big blow, the big cut all at once from $2.14 per hundred to $1.54. All this cut came in 1 year. My wording is not very good. Senator ANDERSON. Mr. Boles, do you have any idea how this rate in Liberal, Kans., is figured? Is it based on any particular figure? What I am trying to get at is this Mr. BOLES. Yes. It is 70 percent of parity at the present time. Senator ANDERSON. Or is it based on a Galveston figure? Is the base Galveston less transportation to Galveston? Mr. BOLES. No. It is Kansas City less transportation to Liberal. Senator ANDERSON. What I am trying to get to is, is the rate around Clovis, N. Mex., and around Lubbock, Tex., based on $2.50 or something like that at Galveston! Mr. BOLES. That is right. Senator ANDERSON. Less the freight? Mr. BOLES. Less the freight. Senator ANDERSON. And by the time they get through, they get just about the price you do, $1.50? Mr. BOLES. Their price is almost exactly the same. 1 or 2 cents. That is surprising. It might vary Senator ANDERSON. Is it any failing of theirs that they are that far from Galveston? Shouldn't the support program be fairly level throughout the country? Mr. BOLES. Yes; I think it should. Senator ANDERSON. If we would correct that one item alone, it would raise the price in the Lubbock area and the Hereford area, across into the Tucumcari area and Clovis area in New Mexico, to about $1.90, and they could do pretty well with that. Mr. BOLES. That is right. Senator ANDERSON. Now, what would your base be if they gave you the same base that the farmer around Kansas City gets? Mr. BOLES. I think it would be almost exactly parallel. Senator ANDERSON. You can get around $1.80 or $1.90, somewhere up there, and you can begin to breathe again? Mr. BOLES. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, sir. Mr. BOLES. That interpreted into bushels would be $1.19 per bushel in 1954 as against 86 cents in 1955. This is over 27 percent reduction taken in just 1 year, mind you. Now, let us check to see what other prices are that we farmers have to pay. These are just a few items: Take a tractor which we have not bought in the last few years, or combines, or trucks. In 1953, a tractor was $3,600; in 1954, it was $3,937, while in 1955, it was $4,381. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the same make, model, and size? Mr. LAMBERT. That is right. Mr. BOLES. The same tractor. Mr. BOLES. And these are the dealers' figures at Liberal, Kans. Mr. BOLES. And the same way on combines: $5,250 in 1953; $5,350 in 1954; and $5,525 in 1955, while a truck would cost $1,759 in 1953; in 1954, it would cost $1,765, while again in 1955 it would cost $2,145. The CHAIRMAN. Can you account for the difference in price, let us say, of a common make tractor, from $3,600 in 1953 to $4,381 in 1955, while a combine increased just about $100 between 1954 and 1955? Mr. BOLES. You mean, the difference in price in the 2 years? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. BOLES. I think it was the cost of steel. The CHAIRMAN. The cost of steel? Mr. BOLES. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. There is less steel in a combine? Mr. BOLES. You mean the difference in cost between a tractor and a combine? The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Mr. BOLES. The explanation I would give is the fact that combines are not mass-produced quite like a tractor. A tractor is very efficiently built, and there are many more tractors. The CHAIRMAN. There are more in use? Mr. BOLES. That is right. There are more tractors used than there are combines. I did not quite get your question. Just before we left home we stopped in and priced some commonly purchased repairs from our dealer there at Liberal, Kans., and these were the prices: A muffler for a tractor, $4 in 1953; $4.80 in 1954; and $6.80 in 1955; a clutch collar, $4 in 1953; in 1954, $5.10; in 1955, $7.65. Senator THYE. Now, Mr. Boles, if you do not mind an interruption there, a muffler you can get along without, but a clutch collar you cannot? Mr. BOLES. That is right. Senator THYE. I just wanted to point out the importance and significance of a clutch collar. Without a clutch collar, on your tractor, the power unit would not transmit to your so-called traction unit, and, therefore, your tractor is dead to you without a replacement? Mr. BOLES. That is right. Senator THYE. Now, a muffler can leak and everything, and it is just the inconvenience of the noise. But the clutch is an absolute must if you are going to operate. Mr. BOLES. That is a necessity. That is right. And then tractor tires, this is a popular size, 15-30, 8-ply, cost $183.84 in 1953 and $195.92 in 1954, while in 1955, it is $209.22. For truck tires, 8.25 by 20, 10-ply, they cost $69.05 in 1953; $71.97 in 1954; and $84.02 in 1955. Senator THYE. Now, Mr. Boles, if you do not mind another interruption, if you took all of these figures and went back 10 years, your income would show a surprisingly larger return to you? Mr. BOLES. Yes, it would. Senator THYE. But your so-called machinery or equipment costs would be down a much larger amount than this illustrates, because this $3,600 tractor in 1953, 6 or more years ago, back to 1947 and 1946, thereabouts, you would be buying that tractor for just slightly over $2,000? Mr. BOLES. It would be under $2,000. Senator THYE. I was giving the liberal side of it. Mr. BOLES. You are exactly right. Senator THYE. I was giving the liberal side. Mr. BOLES. You are right. Senator THYE. And then you had not as great a tax burden on your real estate. Mr. BOLES. That is true. Senator THYE. Nor as great a cash rent on your real estate at that time as you have today? Mr. BOLES. That is right. Senator THYE. And you are paying this amount. Now, you took the last 3 years. Mr. BOLES. Yes, sir. Senator THYE. But if you went back 10 years, back to 1945 or back to 1947, which would only be 9 years ago, you would see a vast difference in what the machine or the repairs and the equipment cost you in relation to what you received for your product? You have taken a very conservative 3 years here to figure the increase from 1953, to 1954, to 1955. Mr. BOLES. Yes, sir. Senator THYE. If you had said 10 years or 8 years, and, "Let me show you what my cost was and what my returns were 8 years ago in comparison with this past 1955," you would show a glaring rise in the cost there in your equipment, as well as a drop in your net returns. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The examples put in the record show what we have been hearing about, or heard about throughout these hearings in the fall. Senator THYE. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Here the farmers received in 1954, $1.19 per bushel for their grain, and 86 cents in 1955. But as he pointed out, the cost of the muffler rose from $4 to $6.80. Mr. BOLES. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. The clutch, from $4 to $7.65; the tractor tires from $183 to $209, and the truck tires from $69 to $84. Mr. BOLES. That is true. The CHAIRMAN. So he has been caught in that squeeze of which the farmers have been complaining so much. Senator THYE. Yes, sir. But the biggest squeeze Senator HUMPHREY. Was before. Senator THYE (continuing). Was actually before that time, you see. This is getting the last drop out of you, but you had had a lot wrung out of you before that time. Mr. BOLES. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir. Will you proceed? Mr. BOLES. We are trying to prove that we could get by on the 1953 figure. However, we were not making very much profit, but we were barely getting by, but in 1955, as you can see, it is impossible. We are not asking that our cost prices be reduced, we want the man that is working in the manufacturing plant to make a good living, we want the manufacturers to make money, but we also want to make a living. The farmers in our area are not in a position to take a parttime job in town because farming in our area is a full-time operation. Therefore, we feel that we must have around $1.95 to $2 per hundred, or in terms of bushels approximately $1.10 per bushel or better. We feel that this should be supported at a price level that would give us these minimum prices. Based upon present parity, this would be approximately 90 percent of parity. Senator THYE. Mr. Boles, would you encourage many more to go to the city or the town looking for a job? Mr. BOLES. No, sir. Our farm operations are built up to as large as we can handle, that is, a family sized farm. Senator THYE. Isn't there some need for us to concern ourselves with whether we want to induce a bigger shift to the cities? We have full employment now, but you just let some little turndown or a little downward trend come in, and see what you would be faced with, with this high population in the cities. On the farm they can have a place to live; they can grow a garden; they can do numerous things to supplement and make possible a living. Mr. BOLES. That is true. Senator THYE. But in the city, when you are out of a job, you are out of a job, and when the unemployment compensation check is exhausted, you are sitting inside the walls of that apartment, or that house, and the bare steets are in front of you. You do not have a thing to turn to. You just let some unemployment occur this day, with your national debt where it is, and then see what you are going to do in a city, trying to care for that unemployed person. I went through that experience in the thirties. We tried to make all kinds of jobs for people in order that they could earn a little bread and butter. I saw them wheeling dirt in the middle of the winter, when they were picking it out of a frozen bank, just to give them some kind of a job. I saw that in the thirties. You just crowd your city streets with a lot of young families and have unemployment arise, and see what happens to America. Therefore, I am not in accord with the idea that you should force them into the cities. I am for the idea of reconstructing a farm economy that will permit our young families to stay out in the country and make a living. And that is my philosophy, and I shall fight for it as long as I am in the Congress, or afterwards, for that matter. Mr. BOLES. That is mine, too, Senator. Mr. LAMBERT. That is a good point. Mr. BOLES. Our younger farmers are the ones that are leaving first.. Senator THYE. Yes, sir. Mr. BOLES. And a lot of them have already left. Senator THYE. Yes, sir. And you let them go unemployed on the streets of your cities for a matter of 6 months, and see what the fiber and the heart of them will be with respect to their country. They will have lost faith; they will have lost confidence. That is the thing that I fear, filling up our cities with young families that should rightfully be out here on these farms. Mr. BOLES. Yes, sir. I thoroughly agree with you. Excuse me. Are there any further questions? Senator SCHOEPPEL. Mr. Chairman, I know these gentlemen. I know this area. It is in the upland area. They have a problem down there, not only in my State, but in the surrounding States and surrounding areas, which has been aggravated by drought conditions, as these gentlemen will know. Now, Mr. Boles, I would like to ask you this. As you pointed out a while ago, we have a two-crop area in a lot of sections of our western upland areas. Mr. BOLES. Yes, we do. Senator SCHOEPPEL. You pointed out here that it is either wheat or the sorghums, or milo referred to. Now, you recognize, do you not, that if some guaranteed price is figured out, you cannot expect them to plant all the acres that you have, or you could get, say, in milo, just as you cannot now do it in wheat? Mr. BOLES. That is true, yes. Senator SCHOEPPEL. Now, if you get a guaranteed price or a price factor, do you realize, or would you agree, or how do you feel about acreage allotments, then? Mr. BOLES. The farmers in our area would be willing to take acreage allotment. We had a little meeting of the milo producers, and it happened to be just before Christmas, the 15th of December, when all their kids were in Christmas programs, and their wives had parties, and everything else. But we had that building filled with about 400farmers, and it was just because they had settled up for their milo, and they had not paid the banks off, and I went to the banker and he confirmed that statement. He said: We made conservative loans to lots of these farmers, and a large percentage of them, we are going to have to carry over to another year. Senator SCHOEPPEL. But you do realize that if the Department or the Congress in its wisdom makes some shift or readjustment on this. program for a guaranteed price that an acreage reduction program would have to be coupled to it? Do you realize that? Mr. BOLES. Yes. We are willing to take an acreage reduction, and acreage control in the form of a soil bank or conservation acres, or something like that. We know that. We did not clutter the desks of you gentlemen with a farm program. We know that you have had several of them, and we feel sure that you will figure out a plan that will be satisfactory to all of us, and I was scared when I first came in here, but I find that I am among friends, and I do not know as I need 64440-56-pt. 8- -20 |