Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

I find in these hearings, as I do on the Washington level, that many people come to us and say, "Well, we would like to have 100 percent on everything."

When we ask the question "How would you do that?" we are told, "I do not know, that is up to you. It is up to you to do it."

We do not want such answers as that if we can help it.

If anybody

has any concrete information to give us, that is what we are looking for.

All right, is Mr. Boodry here?

(No response.)

We will call someone else until you are ready.

Is Mr. Stephen L. Brock here?

Will you give us your name in full, and your occupation?

STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEPHEN L. BROCK, ROY, N. MEX.

Mr. BROCK. Senator Ellender, my name is Stephen L. Brock. I live on and operate a small cattle ranch in Harding County, which is in northeastern New Mexico. We are most grateful to have this opportunity to appear before you gentlemen, and to express our view on one important problem which we feel that you can do something

about.

Last year a very intensive study was made by our agricultural organizations in New Mexico, as well as our banking people of New Mexico, as to the type of financing that we needed in the livestock industry to overcome this withering income we have experienced here, brought on by the depressed prices as well as the drought.

As a result of that, you provided us with this Great Plains emergency loan. Our recommendation to you this morning is that the area be extended whereby that loan can be made available to more of our people. It is our understanding that the Department of Agriculture determined where those loans would be made, and only 12 counties in our State have been included in that area.

The CHAIRMAN. Is not that an administrative problem-could not the Secretary of Agriculture, under the law, extend the area, if he is warranted in doing so?

Mr. BROCK. Senator, I cannot answer that question, because the ruling, as I understand it, came through the Department of Agriculture, and I do not know if that authority rests with the Secretary or if new legislation is needed. Certainly that kind of a loan is very broad in its scope. It certainly will fill one of the needs of our people here. We strongly recommend that it be made available to every county in New Mexico.

Senator ANDERSON. To put a little background in here: You are a member of the New Mexico State Senate, are you not?

Mr. BROCK. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. You are an official of the Farm Bureau Federation of this State?

Mr. BROCK. Yes, Senator.

Senator ANDERSON. And you have been actively identified with your county farm bureau?

Mr. BROCK. Yes, sir; that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. When you said you would like to broaden this law, would you make it apply regardless of whether there is a drought condition or some other special situation? Would you limit it to emergencies?

Mr. BROCK. Senator, this is the type of a permanent financing program we need, because of the fluctuation of our prices and because of the weather conditions we have in this country, that is, in this section of the country.

What I mean by broad in scope, this loan enables debts to be consolidated. That is what many of our people have been needing. We need that. It is going to answer one of our needs.

We feel that the loan certainly reflects the thinking of agricultural men and livestock men, who have been in the business in this section of the country for many, many years.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask this: If the law that is now on the statute books will permit the Secretary of Agriculture, or whoever administers it on his staff, to expand it if conditions warrant, would you be satisfied with that law, or would you want to make it, I repeat, apply aside from an emergency?

Mr. BROCK. Senator, it seems to me that we ought to consider these things more from a point of view of what is a permanent answer to our needs rather than what will take care of the temporary requirements. We feel, because of the high production costs, that it is through low rates of interest and long-term loans that will enable many of our livestock people to continue in business.

To try to answer your question, we think it is a permanent type or method of financing that we need."

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the law that is on the statute books now, as I understand it, is a permanent type legislation, but only applies in case of emergency.

I am wondering if a permanent law such as you suggest were enacted, whether it would or would not be advisable to give credit only to those who cannot obtain credit locally. The point I am trying to emphasize is that why should the Government go into the business of lending, if a farmer can get it locally.

Mr. BROCK. We feel if that need is taken care of by the Government, to provide where the local credit cannot be made available, that it will take care of it; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator ANDERSON. In other words, you are not trying to tear down the banking business. It is only when your local banker, who is your good friend, is not able to take care of you that you would like to have the Government put it on a permanent basis?

Mr. BROCK. That is right, Senator.

One more statement I would like to make, that is, Senator Anderson, we are most grateful for the stand which you have taken in voting on the agricultural program in the Congress, and the support that you have been giving these programs across the country. We feel certainly that you have been voting on them the way that you think is good for the whole country, not a way in which you think it will get you the most votes in the next election. We commend you for it.

Senator ANDERSON. I did not rehearse this witness. He is a longtime friend. But I do think you would be justified in ruling any further remarks of that nature out of order. [Applause.] The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boodry, are you ready now?

Give us your full name and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF DAVID E. BOODRY, LYMAN, NEBR.

Mr. BOODRY. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is David Boodry. I own and operate a small farm in Goshen County, Wyo. As an American farmer, I see nothing wrong with agriculture, from an agricultural standpoint.

Price supports are more of a deterrent than a help. Parity prices mean nothing to the farmer who loses his production by floods, hail, and acts of God.

Prices, of course, we know were all forced up during the war. The demand, not only from our own country but from our allies, brought these prices up.

As in all wars, the cry was, "Food will win the war."

The scarcity of farm labor brought on the demand for mechanized equipment. The horse was too slow. A man with a tractor could accomplish more than 3 or 4 men. Tractors, combines, and all sorts of power machines replaced manpower. The average farmer is proud of the part he plays in the economy of our country, the land of free enterprise and free people.

The average farmer has chosen his line of endeavor because of the freedom it entails. The average farmer tries to adjust his ups with the downs. To explain further, in times of good prices or plentiful production, he provides for those years of drought and famine, as do all of us who believe in the precepts that gave and preserved us as a nation.

I speak of the average farmer, of which I believe I am one, for in the community in which I live about 95 percent of them have about the same income. We discuss our crops, our finances, our production and prices. The average farmer realizes he must adjust his wartime production to a peacetime economy.

At the present time, he is caught in the squeeze, not of his making. For several years, legislation for special interests and organized groups has been enacted into laws and rulings which have reacted to the detriment of agriculture. These laws and rulings have increased the cost to the consumer of manufactured goods over the raw products as much as 90 percent in some instances. Agriculture is a consumer as well as a producer.

I recall a purchase I made a few days ago. It was an ordinary 10-tine silage fork. Ten years ago I bought this fork, one like it, for $4. Now it costs $9.50.

A belt for the blower on my feed grinder could be bought in 1944 for $3. Today it costs $8.50.

Tractors, combines, hayrakes, and so forth, have advanced in the same proportion. These raises in prices, according to the retailer, are costs reflected in the raises given to the steel manufacturer, or because of raises he gave to labor, because of his cost of living, and so forth.

Should American agriculture, one of the noblest of all vocations be placed in the embarrassing position of being a recipient of doles and

subsidies from the Federal Treasury, when it is capable of feeding the world?

Should we, as agriculturists, be deprived of our rights of liberty and justice to all, because other segments of industry have sought to get the lion's share of our national income?

Should American agriculture relinquish its freedom, its American way of life, for a rule book, on which to plow and what to plant?

There are no 36- or 40-hour weeks in a livestock or irrigated farm. And many of us are quite content in the freedom we enjoy if we can do our work in 120 hours. If that were not true, we would not be farmers.

When you are asking for grassroot opinions that would enable you to enact laws suitable to agriculture, your pursuit is really and truly laudable.

As I stated in the beginning, I am a small operator. I own my own farm of 240 acres. I came to Wyoming over 32 years ago with my wife and $200 borrowed money. Ten years prior to that I was an auto mechanic.

Since coming to Wyoming, I have engaged in nothing but agriculture. I have 70 head of cattle in the feedlot; adequate feed supplies to finish them out for market; 20 head of hogs, which happen to be slipping a little right now.

I have plenty of cash assets and bonds to take care of my future, I hope. I do not owe anybody a dime. I have one daughter. She is married now, but I sent her to college for 4 years.

I still have the same wife I married over 35 years ago. I never have been in jail.

What I have accomplished was not done sitting on my haunches, and howling about the ills of agriculture, because agriculture can take care of itself if left alone. I think Secretary Benson is doing a fine job.

If there are any farmers hollering about agriculture, I advise them to quit the farm for there seems to be plenty of more lucrative jobs. And if revisions in laws are to be made, I would suggest that revisions in other lines of industry be made which are causing so-called squeezes in agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Boodry, as I understand your formula, it is to get everybody to start back at scratch, which would include industry, labor, and so forth. In other words, if labor, industry, and farming were put on the same basis, you think the farmer, of course, could well take care of himself.

Mr. BOODRY. I think that agriculture could well take care of itself. The CHAIMAN. Suppose that we cannot do what you suggest. Suppose that labor remains with these high wages that you have indicated, Congress is unable to cope with that situation. If that be true, is there anything that you would offer, anything that you would suggest to maintain this balance which you say is now out of balance, because of the laws that are now on the statute books that help labor and industry?

Mr. BOODRY. I cannot quite understand how we can keep advancing the price of labor.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that. The question I am asking you is this: If Congress will not do what you suggest, if Congress

will not pass laws taking away from labor the powers that they now have, the rights they now have under the law, if we are unable to cope with the situation as to industry, and all of that, would you still want the farmer not to be protected in any way?

Mr. BOODRY. Perhaps I am taking a selfish point of view of thisThe CHAIMAN. You have indicated here that you are all right. You have worked hard, and during the war, I suppose you made plenty of money by selling commodities high and saving it. It is not every farmer who did what you did. On these trips, I find that some formers, went too far in debt. The fact that they bought radios and television sets and a lot of equipment is probably what caused industry to keep on advancing as it has. That has kept the pocketbooks of the laboring man flush.

Mr. BOODRY. I will have to be frank with you, Senator, and answer that I could not give you that answer, because I have made no study of those things.

The CHAIMAN. Thank you.

We will next hear from Mr. Brown.

(No response.)

Next is Mr. Chitwood.

Give your full name and occupation.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW CHITWOOD, CLOVIS, N. MEX.

Mr. CHITWOOD. Mr. Chairman, and Senator Anderson, I am Andrew Chitwood, a rancher and farmer from Curry County, N. Mex. I have been a lifetime farmer and rancher, if you please. I was born and reared on the farm and still have my interests there.

I am a member of the New Mexico State Legislature, having served two terms in the house of representatives. I also am the chairman. of the agricultural committee.

The CHAIRMAN. You can give us a solution to the problem, I am

sure.

Mr. CHITWOOD. No, sir, I am afraid not.

I appreciate the opportunity of being here, and I will attempt to give you, not only my views, but the view of many of the agricultural people that I have contact with throughout the State of New Mexico. I have this prepared statement here that I will present. I will start with the statement and anytime you want to ask a question, I will be happy to try to answer it.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. CHITWOOD. I am Andrew Chitwood, a dry land farmer and rancher of Curry County. My son and I own and operate 2,400 acres of wheat and grain sorghum land in Curry County in addition to my grasslands and livestock raising activities.

Having gone through 5 years of severe drought and crop failures at a time when prices were good, we now find ourselves at a point of no return, due to drastic cuts in acreage allotments, the high cost of machinery, repairs, fuels, labor and other costs of production.

The present price of agricultural products times the reduced acreage that we may plant, plus the fact that we must protect our diverted acreage, just will not pay the high costs of operation, interest, and

taxes.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »