Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

eventually get out of the Government-support program. And the most encouraging sign of our times is the formation of a honey industry council, which has commenced to collect money for research and promotion. This money is collected by the honey packers, who are an important segment of the honey council. The money is then turned over to the council for the administration of a research and promotional program.

he beekeepers pay 1 cent per 60-pound can, and the purchasing packer matches this 1 cent. In this way there are 2 cents per pound collected on all commercially handled honey to be used for promotion and research.

As we come facing the possibility of new farm legislation, I would like to suggest that any new farm legislation to support honey at the rate of 75 to 90 percent, since honey is selling above the minimum support of 70 percent today. We do not feel that the Government will buy too much honey, if at all, at 75 percent.

In the past 3 years, we have asked for a minimum support of 75 percent, but this, so far, has been completely ignored. Then we do not know how long we will need a support program, but it seems to us that we need this so we can round out and perfect our promotional program. Most of us feel that this will not be too long. The program is of great service to us.

We thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. May I point out to you that during the years 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1955, the Government has made a profit on the bee industry of $8,541.

Mr. GIBSON. That is good. I did not realize that.

The CHAIRMAN. Your losses, however, were sustained really from July 1, 1946, to July 30, 1951, wherein, during that period, your losses were $875,969.

Mr. GIBSON. That was the purchase program.

The CHAIRMAN. The purchase program, that is right. I thought that I would put that in the record. The record shows, so that I may complete it, that in 1952 there was a profit of $107. That was the first year a profit was made. In 1953, the profit was $4,924, and in 1954, $8,812 in the black, then it fell into the red in 1955, this year, with $5.302.

This means that you lost on the sales that were made. In any event, I just thought that I would put that in the record, since I put it in for the other crops.

While I am at it, I might as well put it in for cotton. I know all of the cotton growers would like to hear about it.

On the entire program on cotton from October 17, 1933, until June 30, 1955, the Government has made a gain of $267,243,797. Those are exact figures.

Is there anything further that you want to say, Mr. Gibson?

Mr. GIBSON. I believe not.

The CHAIRMAN. You can get along pretty good on the law as it now stands?

Mr. GIBSON. Except that we are fearful of a minimum of 60 percent being imposed upon us next year.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not lost so much. You can get along pretty good, if you can get what you have. I think I would pull for that, but we will consider your proposal.

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. It is now 12 o'clock. May I suggest this to the witness: As I have indicated before, we have a total of 66 witnesses. There are 2 or 3 who have filed their statements. If any of you present desire to file your statements rather than to be heard this afternoon, file your statement with the clerk of the committee at the left here. He will remain for about 10 minutes to give you a chance to do so.

All of those who want to be heard, please return here at 1 o'clock. We will now stand in recess until 1 o'clock.

(Whereupon, a recess was taken at 12 noon until 1 p. m. the same

day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order, please.

Is Mrs. Minnie Fisher Cunningham present? Will you step forward, please? Have a seat, please.

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

STATEMENT OF MRS. MINNIE FISHER CUNNINGHAM,
NEW WAVERLY, TEX.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. My name is Minnie Fisher Cunningham; my occupation is farmer. I operate my own farm of about 400 acres, which was my grandfather's farm, an old worn-out cotton farm, which I am trying to convert to livestock.

Shall I go ahead?

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Mrs. Cunningham.

Mrs. CUNNINGHAM. There is little or nothing in the domestic policy of our Nation which does not affect the people who work on its farms and ranches.

There is nothing in the agricultural policies of the Nation which does not affect our foreign policies. These facts give agriculture a unique position among the problems which the Congress must meet. So it is no wonder that we get tired of being looked upon under this administration as uncertain, petulant, greedy, mentally deficient creatures begging for a stick of candy, creatures, unfortunately, having a vote in 1956.

We work hard, and we produce abundant crops. Are we praised and rewarded for them? The answer is "No."

The very men in the Department of Agriculture who are paid by our tax money to find intelligent ways to turn the abundance to the welfare of the Nation and of the world, turn upon us with angry buzzing, and scold us for surplus production.

It is an ugly, stupid word, “surplus," and dim witted, shortsighted, and an unfair group of officials engaged in destroying the morale of farmers, in setting housewives against producers, and country folk against city labor. The old divide and conquer technique business, that is what they are doing, to hide their own inefficiency.

With more statistics and untrue deductions coming in a stream from the Department of Agriculture, with our reasonable hope for fair relationships between the things we buy and those we sell, being scornfully cleared away as dream world and not expected to last, we

turn to the Congress and earnestly beg that you take a strong hold and save us, not just as individuals, but us, U. S., the United States itself. But it is a strong hold that you will have to take.

You remember the beef-buying program you financed? Do you know that a considerable amount of that money went to buy canned gravy?

You remember the cheese-buying program that Congress financed? Did you read in the paper that the Secretary of Agriculture bought more than $2 million worth of cheese at 37 cents per pound and sold it right back to those companies for 342 cents per pound, without ever having taken legal possession of the cheese?

I see in the paper that Comptroller General Joseph Campbell has ruled that this was unauthorized and improper, and the Government is now trying to recover these illegal payments.

So, if you trust the Department with a pork-buying program, watch out that the Secretary does not simply buy cracklings with the money. Your hearings will, I am sure, cover the whole great field, so I will discuss only the soil- and water-conservation needs so blackly underscored by our continuing drought.

The proposal for a national acreage reserve seems to me a farsighted and practical program.

I hope that Congress will establish such reserve for the future as well as the present good of the Nation.

The building of earthen dams to impound the water from local rains has been a blessing. Often, having that water for the livestock has meant the difference between weathering a drought or having to make a sacrifice sale of a suffering or bleeding herd. I hope this program can be continued greatly enlarged.

Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mrs. Weinzierl, tell us what your full name is for the record, please.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JOHN F. WEINZIERL, RIVERSIDE, TEX.

Mrs. WEINZIERL. My name is Mrs. Marie Weinzierl; I am a housewife and a landowner, and I am a farmer.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you proceed with your statement, please. Mrs. WEINZIERL. Mr. Chairman, I am pleading here today not as an expert in economics nor as a professional in the field of agriculture, but as a member of a small farm population that makes up the east Texas Cotton Belt.

The feeling of the majority of these farmers is that we must have a return to the straight 90-percent parity or better if this segment of farmers is to survive.

The nationwide opinion that subsidizing the farmer has caused the overwhelming surplus may be true, in part. But has not this subsidizing of industry caused similar surpluses?

These surpluses in the agricultural field, as well as in other phases of our American scene today deserve attention and long-range programs and planning of trade and consumption.

We feel that by such planning and return of 90 percent or better of parity, that there would be a much healthier economic outlook than now exists.

[blocks in formation]

The very greatness of America in the past was due to the existence of a healthy middle-class population. We cannot afford to lose that nucleus through the impoverishment of the small farm operator who depends largely on cotton for a cash crop to meet his financial needs. This farmer is not expendable.

The small cotton farmer cannot subsist on the acreage now being allotted to him. He must have a fair share of cotton acreage or he must have financial support in shifting his farm operation to other cash crops.

The small farmer might well question the justice of the vast cotton acreage allotments to penal institutions, when these institutions might profitably use their land and manpower to produce foodstuffs for the entire system of eleemosynary agencies and college-level schools. The small farmer is looking to this Congress for justice and a better place in the sun.

Big business has its rapid tax writeoffs; the railroads, publishers, small business, and endless other enterprises have substantial props. Oil has its 272 percent depletion allowance; the farmer needs parity. The definition for subsidy is a Government grant to assist a private enterprise deemed advantageous to the public. The small farmer is not only a customer, he is the base on which America stands.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you have any suggestions for us to improve the old parity formula or would you enact it just as it was written before the so-called sliding scale came into being?

Mrs. WEINZIERL. Well, I think the majority of the farmers with whom I have been in contact are in favor, Senator, of the old rigid price; but there seems to be no complaint particularly if the surplus could be well handled, and that could be done by a well-planned disposal of surplus instead of piling it, stockpiling it, and manipulations that do not benefit the farmer.

The CHAIRMAN. In that regard, have you any solution to it? We have been wrestling with it for quite some time, and under Public Law 480, the President is authorized to dispose of as many as $1,700 million of these surpluses?

Mrs. WEINZIERL. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any other gadget or any other method to offer than what we have already done?

Mrs. WEINZIERL. I believe that in your agricultural field and in your Department of experts and economics, that there should be men and women more qualified to give you the answers to that question than I as a small farm owner can so do.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I was just looking for light.

I have been in the business myself for quite some time. I have been on the Senate Agriculture Committee now for 19 years. Mrs. WEINZIERL. Yes; we appreciate that very much.

The CHAIRMAN. We are simply trying to get some ways and means of bettering the old program.

As I indicated several months ago when the House enacted the reestablishment of the old program of 90 percent, unless we could add some new blood to it, the chances are we might fail to get it approved even before the Senate, and that is why I am asking for suggestions to improve it, if possible.

Mrs. WEINZIERL. Well, Senator, I believe that these hearings are a very healthy thing. I think that you will get a wide scope of opinion

from the people who appear before you and that, in your overall evaluation of these programs, that should be an aid to you people who are more experienced than those of us who are the small farmers from these impoverished cotton belts that are in distress.

The CHAIRMAN. It is my hope that these hearings will stimulate the thinking of the people who are not present here, but who might read from these fine stories these boys are going to write, and in that way we might get some ideas as to what to do.

To say the least, the problem is a vexing one, and it is one we have been wrestling with for many, many years. In fact, it was the No. 1 problem on the agenda when I came to the Senate and, of course, when the war was on, and we were producing all we could, and the prices were fair, there was no complaint.

Now that we have our cupboards full of food and add we can use, why, that is when our trouble comes.

Mrs. WEINZIERL. Well, I believe that the long-range planning of the disposal of the surplus might be a solution in a way, and I think you are decidedly correct in stating that the press will be of great aid. The CHAIRMAN. There is no doubt in my mind that any program we inaugurate, be it the old or the new one, will not succeed unless we can get rid of these surpluses that are now dangling over the market and are depressing prices.

Now, that is the first problem, and my hope is we can find some solution to that.

Mrs. WEINZIERL. Thank you, Senator; that certainly is encouraging.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you ever so much.

Is Mr. Hogge present? Will you give us your name in full, please, and your occupation?

STATEMENT OF J. R. HOGGE, PRESIDENT, TEXAS WHEAT PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, AMARILLO, TEX.

Mr. HOGGE. My name, Mr. Chairman, is J. R. Hogge. I am a farmer, as were my father and grandfather before me.

I live on, operate, and do my own work, taking care of a 640-acre, dryland farm located in Potter County, near Amarillo, Tex., and for the past 25 years I have been operating this same farm and that is my source of livelihood and means of support for my family.

I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, of appearing before this committee, with the idea that it will be helpful in the general discussion of the problem that is common to us all.

We are pretty well agreed here today that agriculture is basic and the taproot of our economic tree, and without such supports our whole economy would be imperiled, as well as the health, welfare, and national security of the Nation.

Each report that comes out from time to time, and especially do I call attention to the report of the last business quarter, indicates that there is an increasing rise in volume of business and in corporate profits and business profits of different sorts, while, at the same time, the reports show a downward trend in the farmer's share in the national income, which is not only detrimental to the future of the present farmers, but, at the same time, is detrimental to the possibility and probability that our youngsters, our sons, will remain on

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »