Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Mr. LOVELACE. Quite a cut.

The CHAIRMAN. It certainly was, and we did it by using the law we had on the statute books.

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes; that is all very true, but that does not change the fact, as see it, Senator, that under the present conditions we have got our cotton priced out of the market. It would not move in foreign competition.

The CHAIRMAN. You are exactly correct in that, but you and others have said that under any 90-percent price-support program, you cannot sell your cotton abroad. How in the world can you sell it if you are going to reach 100 percent, as many are saying, that the flexible price-support program will bring to us? That is the goal of Mr. Benson; that is the goal, according to those who want the price flexed. They say they are going to bring you 100 percent at the market place. Mr. LOVELACE. I do not think it will.

The CHAIRMAN. That is our goal.

Mr. LOVELACE. As a matter of fact, until we do put our cotton on a world market basis, we are not going to regain our markets. The CHAIRMAN. And you are never going to put it on a world basis if our farmers get 100 percent of parity; you never will.

Mr. LOVELACE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Because you cannot sell it.

Mr. LOVELACE. I agree with you.

The CHAIRMAN. You would have to subsidize it some way.

Mr. LOVELACE. That is all right. That is what we propose here. The CHAIRMAN. When you pass that on to the consumer, your method will be one of two ways: by the tariff and by the excise tax. If you think you can do that and get it through Congress, please show me how it can be done.

Mr. LOVELACE. It would not cost what it is costing now.

The CHAIRMAN. Not in taxes, but in the additional amount that the users of those commodities would have to pay.

Mr. LOVELACE. They are paying for it twice now.

The CHAIRMAN. I cannot see it that way.

Mr. LOVELACE. Their cotton goods are costing them when they go to buy a sheet or a pillow case. It is costing them, based upon current prices of cotton; is it not?

The CHAIRMAN. Let us put it this way: This shirt that I am wearing right now has about three-quarters of a pound of cotton in it. Mr. LOVELACE. Not very much.

The CHAIRMAN. What does the maker of the shirt care about the difference in the price of 2 or 3 cents a pound he pays for cotton? This shirt, as I said, cost me, or would have cost me $2.50 5, 6, or 7 years ago, and today $4.50.

Mr. LOVELACE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And the cotton has not gone up in proportion. Mr. LOVELACE. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course not. So do not blame the price of cotton. Mr. LOVELACE. We are not blaming the price of cotton on that, but I was trying to answer your question, that you said it would cost the consumer too much. It would not cost him any more than it is costing him now.

The CHAIRMAN. It will cost him more because he is apt to pay an excise tax on that, whereas the income tax may be cheaper for him.

You take the people who really need help, the people who really want to use all of these cotton goods, are the poor people, many of whom do not pay an income tax, but you would want to put a sales tax on them.

Mr. LOVELACE. You have misunderstood the program.

The CHAIRMAN. No, I have not. What you want is an excise tax. Mr. LOVELACE. The excise tax would be the difference between what the cotton sold for and 90 percent of parity. The farmer would not get more than 90 percent of parity, which he is getting now. The CHAIRMAN. Who pays for the excise tax?

Mr. LOVELACE. The consumer. Is he not paying now?

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, but the consumer does not pay an income tax necessarily.

The farmers today are paid out of the Treasury from the taxes that are collected from those able to pay. That is where he gets his pay from, but if you put an excise tax on cotton, the man who may not pay an income tax would be bound to pay it.

Mr. LOVELACE. That is true, but he is paying it now, because his cotton is costing him.

The CHAIRMAN. I will not argue with you any further. If you have any further statement to make, proceed.

Mr. LOVELACE. No, sir; that concludes it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Is Mr. Copeland present?

STATEMENT OF JACK COPELAND, NARA VISA, N. MEX.

Mr. COPELAND. Mr. Chairman, I suppose that I would be classed as a rancher, although I do have a small farm.

The CHAIRMAN. That is because you are in New Mexico. We would call you a farmer in Louisiana.

Mr. COPELAND. Senator, many people have gone down several lines that I certainly agree with today. Some of those lines I do not agree with.

I am a strong believer in 90 percent of parity. I have no desire to see the farmers and the ranchers of this great Nation have their standard of living lowered to where we can meet the world price, the world market.

I do not say at this time that I am in favor of a price support on my cattle, although we need it, but until this farm price can be worked out until it is 90 percent or 100 percent of parity, perhaps we rancher folk can get along.

I do not want my statement to be misunderstood or misinterpreted. I am not a rugged individualist. I never claimed to be one. In fact, I am not-I do not say that 100 percent of parity is the answer, but I know in my own mind that flexible support is not the answer.

You might say, if you are a rancher why are you in favor of giving the corn boys and the grain sorghum boys, or the boys that raise the feed, 90 percent or 100 percent of parity? I contend that the cheaper the grain gets, the more we will feed to the cattle, the more cattle we will have.

We have a big advertising campaign that no doubt has increased the beef consumption. But on the other hand, pork is fed on feed. We cannot do that, and get in more deeply.

I would like to say that I would like to see some kind of a program that every time the Secretary of Agriculture made some statement it did not run our commodity prices a little bit lower, and I think that this group will agree with me that in most instances that has been the

fact.

I am president of th State Association of Soil Conservation Districts here in New Mexico. I am not making these statements for my association, as we do not have anything to do with price supports. I want that clear on the record that I am here only as a rancher.

I am a strong believer in the soil-bank fertility program. I have no idea as to what the price would be. It needs a lot of deep study.

I think that you, Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, have done very fine work; that you and Senator Anderson, and the other Senators, did fine work for us last spring in our appropriations in Washington. I was there at the time, but I did not get to sit in on your hearings. I arrived a little late, and got there just as you were adjourning.

The people in New Mexico do appreciate that.

I believe you have asked a number of the witnesses here today if they believed in 90 percent of parity for all farm commodities. I do believe in 90 percent of parity for all commodities, as soon as the base can be worked out, as soon as it is feasible.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the basics?

Mr. COPELAND. Yes, sir. I do not think they should be, until those are worked out. I am a strong contender that our surplus is not as large as a lot of us might think. I think that we did a pretty good job of being sold down the river, and sold ourselves down the river.

On a recent trip to San Diego, Calif., I did not see acres, but I saw sections of airplanes and jeeps. I visited large warehouses full of parts for the different things in the War Department. Do not misunderstand me. I have no resentment to industry or labor for what they have gained. I think the farmers have been asleep at the switch. We should have had the same thing, to have a high standard of living. That would be one of the things that it would do.

Labor has to have the wages to consume the things that we grow. The CHAIRMAN. In order to buy the commodities that you produce, the laboring man is the person who eats and wears the things that you produce must earn a living.

Mr. COPELAND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. As to whether they ought to have less or more, I am not here to argue with you. We had some evidence that showed that a workingman today who goes to a factory to work, his only way or means of transportation may be his own automobile, and sometimes he must pay as much as $1.50 a day just to park his car. That is something he has to pay. Many of the things that the laboring man has to pay add up, and is the reason why he must, or should, have a high rate of pay.

Many of us have striven to give to the farmer the same advantages as other segments of society, but up to this moment, we have not been able to reach that point. That is what we are seeking now.

Mr. COPELAND. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. If industry, labor, and the farmer could walk hand in hand and get the same protection all around, you would not be here today.

Mr. COPELAND. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Somehow it is rather difficult to give to the farmer what you give to labor and to industry. We seem to be working in a different way. Industry can calculate within one-half of 1 percent how many washing machines will be sold next year. They can also say how many automobiles will be sold within maybe one-half of 1 percent.

When the farmer puts out 1 million acres of wheat or 1 million acres of cotton, what have you? The weather will tell whether he will make it big or small. It is a different approach altogether. That is what makes it so difficult.

Mr. COPELAND. That is right. As I said before, we are selling ourselves down the river. We are producing hybrid grains now that will probably produce more in the Western countries than hybrid grain sorghums produced in the North.

An automobile dealer, if he has something that was going to increase his sales 50 or 60 percent would wait until he got rid of the surplus before he would put that on the market, but we are not waiting. And for those reasons that is true. I believe that is all I have to say. I just wanted to say that I am a strong believer in 90 percent of parity. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Has Mr. Hartwell come in?

Mr. GLEN HARTWELL (Texline, Tex.) Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I have anything to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Is Mr. Engler present?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Porter?

Give us your name in full, and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES P. PORTER, LEWIS, COLO.

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Senate committee, my name is Charles P. Porter. I live at Lewis, Colo., in Montezuma County, which is the four corners county of Colorado, and part of the San Juan Basin. I am a native of that area and have participated in the transition up there from sagebrush and freight wagons to extensive farming and stock raising and big trucks on the highway.

I own a very modest farm and stock ranch comprised of about 400 acres on which we plant alfalfa, grains, silage corn, pinto beans, cattle and sheep. And 300 acres of nonirrigated land which is adaptable only to a very few crops, namely, pinto beans and wheat.

During the years after the depression and up until about 1952 I made money, not much, but just enough to get used to a bathroom and a fine car-not a fine car, but a nice car-and time to spend a little leisure with my family, but something is wrong now.

And if this present trend continues, why I am headed right back to the standard that my father knew as a scale of living.

My boys want to farm. I want them to farm, but my honest counsel to them is that higher wages, better opportunities and set hours await them in some other segments of the United States economy.

Please do not entertain the idea that I am not tickled to death that I am an American and that I am free to live in Montezuma Valley where I do, or any place in the United States or that I live under a

Government where the Senate Members will come out and ask the farmer his opinion

I am truly thankful for that, even though I know that the economic condition of the country right now is not fair to the farming class.

I came down here, Senator Ellender, with the express purpose of telling you that we needed some old-fashioned horse traders in the Agriculture Department and the State Department. Other people here, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Abbott, and some others, and Senator Anderson, I was very much interested in what he had to say about it. He kind of stole my thunder, but I am still wondering if you, the Senate of the United States, and the House of Representatives of the United States, cannot do something about trading our burdensome surpluses, as they are called, to these people in the world who need the food, and we might stop a bit of communism just that way, too.

The CHAIRMAN. You know, as Senator Anderson has just stated to me we have already done that. We have the law Public Law 480, which gives the Secretary of Agriculture the power to dispose of $1,700,000,000 of surpluses, but in disposing of that he has to go to the State Department. Senator Anderson pointed that out.

All we do is pass laws, and the Executive-that is the President and his coterie of officials-execute them.

Mr. PORTER. I understand that. That is where the trouble is.

The CHAIRMAN. You might cut the President's salary down, cut out the expenses for the Secretary of State-we might take drastic action that way, but we do not want to do that, because we are living in a Government where the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary are supposed to be separate, one from the other.

Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We want to retain it that way. All we, as legislators can possibly do is to say, "Gentlemen, here is the law that gives you the authority to do thus and so, period"—that is all we can do. If they do not do what we say, of course, there are drastic things or steps that we can take, but I do not want to do that. You get what I am talking about.

Mr. PORTER. Yes; I do.

Senator ANDERSON. Could I say a word to illustrate how difficult the situation sometimes gets? When I headed the Department of Agriculture we did not have 11 million bales of surplus cotton as we have now, but we had 7,500,000 bales. And it was the cheapest of ragtag cotton. It was what was left after everybody had picked over the cotton under the loan.

I tried to export that cotton. The State Department said “Oh, no." I tried to ship it to Japan and to Australia and to Germany. They did not like that idea, because the people of India and particularly Ceylon wanted to put their cotton in Japan.

I arranged with General MacArthur to receive it if I sent it. I got only a scratch of the pen from him saying he received it there. The State Department never did approve my sending it to Japan, but the Japanese made it into cloth.

We used it in the Philippines to get copra and we used that to get margarine for people that were starving in the Near East and in all areas like that.

The State Department never did give up. The only satisfaction I had was that I had the cotton afloat before they were able to stop me. And then it was too late.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »