Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

CORSICANA, TEX., November 5, 1955.

Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER,

Chairman, Senate Agriculture Committee

Hearing on Commodity Price Stabilization, Hotel Texas:

If possible please record in the records of today's hearing our opinion that the price of that cotton needed for our domestic market only should be supported. But that should be supported at 90 percent of parity or higher. The production of this domestic cotton should be allocated according to the average limit poundage produced on each farm for the past 5 or more years. There should be no restriction on the production of nor any price support under cotton produced over the above that for which marketing quota and price-support certificates are issued. The cotton farmer must be assured of a price for at least a part of his product commensurate with the high costs of everything he has to buy. Thus preventing wholesale failures among farmers and a resulting crash of other segments of our economy, in which nearly all nonfarm prices are now artificially raised by labor union action, by defense spending, and by tariff protection. And which have until recently been sustained by fair farm incomes. The cotton farmer and the cotton States must be assured of a future market for their product. By reentering the world market with at least a portion of their crop at world supply and demand prices. The poundage production and marketing quota is necessary to keep the small dryland farmer on an equal basis with those farmers who can apply relatively unlimited quantities of water and/or fertilizer to their crops. This program is both practical and practicable and can be applied to crops other than cotton. Even if it necessitates two completely separate commodity futures markets world and domestic. We earnestly beg you to designate a group of qualified men to work out the details of this plan and then to enact legislation which would apply the plan.

Respectfully,

J. B. and J. E. FORTSON.

STATEMENT FILED BY CARTER FISHER, FRISCO, TEX.

I am Carter Fisher, a farmer and stockman, living near Frisco, Collin County, Tex.

My position on some of the phases of the present farm problems are as follows: (1) I am in favor of governmental support of prices on basic farm crops, of 90 percent of parity, as opposed to a sliding scale.

It is almost impossible to plan a crop program for a farm, and make the necessary expenditures for equipment and land preparation, including insecticides and fertilizers, unless he has some assurance that he can market his crops at a fixed price.

(2) As to soil conservation. I think that the present organization is very topheavy, especially as to this county.

I think it could be improved by a reduction of personnel and equipment, and letting each farmer carry out his own conservation practices, with engineering advice from county soil conservation.

(3) As to trends. I think it is defeating the very purposes of the cotton program, to forcibly take away acreage from north, east, and south Texas, where the production is probably one-half bale per acre, and give it to west Texas, Arizona, and California, where the production is from 2 to 4 bales per acre, with irrigation.

It creates more surplus, rather than a reduction, the purpose of the cotton program.

STATEMENT FILED BY ESTES HARGRAVE, SULPHUR SPRINGS, TEX.

Folks in my area of northeast Texas think their problems have many causes. In general, the following points seem to us to be in this field.

Surpluses must be moved. A check should be made periodically of the condition of these surpluses. Make public the amounts no longer salable or usable. Any public knowledge of lowering of these vast stocks will help our price situation.

Various approaches to the problem of moving the surpluses into foreign trade have been made with some success. The fact that our State Department often refuses to allow sales to be made on a competitive basis seems very strange to

our folks. It appears that the Government prefers to continue to contribute to the farmers plight rather than risk offending any foreign countries by entering into honest competition with them in the sale of agricultural products.

Fifty percent of our products that are sold to foreign countries must be moved in our ships at considerably higher rates. It seems that this requirement could be suspended at least in times of distress.

We deplore the fact that the solution of our problems often takes a back seat to political expediency. We hope the time has come when the farm problem will be considered for what it is a real problem affecting millions of people.

Self-help programs are helping in some fields. Surpluses still are here and growing, so we can't do it all with these programs.

We think the shifting of production to higher producing areas by Government agencies contributes to our surplus problems. Some shifting is natural, but let the farmers do the shifting.

Either we must devise a plan of crop controls which will lower surpluses without bankrupting farmers or the Government, or we must remove some of the barriers to the movement of our products into foreign trade. We are losing

ground on the former-the latter seems to offer our best solution. Many groups outside agriculture are invited to contribute their thinking toward the solution of our problems.

We sincerely hope the Congress will consider the fact that only farmers have the farmers' welfare as their No. 1 interest.

EARTH, TEX., October 15, 1955.

Mr. JOHN WHITE,

Texas Commissioner,

Austin, Tex.

DEAR SIR: It will be impossible for me to attend the agricultural meeting in Fort Worth, Tex. I would like to take this opportunity to let you know I am opposed to the present sliding scale for farm prices, with prices for my farm products going down, down, and down some more. And prices on what we have to buy going up, up: I can't replace my wornout machinery. I am in favor of 100 percent of a fair price, this is the only way we farmers can stay in business. This is the way all my neighbors feel about the present farm policy.

Your truly,

BRUCE HIGGINS.

EARTH, TEX., October 15, 1955.

Hon. JOHN WHITE,

Commissioner of Agriculture,

Austin, Tex.

DEAR SIR: As is usually asked of one Texan from another, I am asking you to voice my personal opinion at the agriculture meeting in Washington, as follows:

I am opposed to this sliding scale setup that Mr. Benson has enacted, since it does not work. I am, as well as all the farmers in this country, farming under a great handicap, with prices on all our farm commodities, food, and fiber, falling to such low price levels, under this sliding scale law.

I think we farmers are entitled to 100 percent parity support price on our production as well as the majority of the large corporations, as steel, newspapers, magazines, shipbuilders, airplane manufacturers, railroads, etc.-in fact most all business other than agriculture.

At present prices on grain, sorghum, hogs, all are farming at a loss, with taxes and interest rates, machinery and equipment going up, and no support on farm commodities, we are losing all our buying power, and could easily have another depression.

This bring me to an unfair feeling, and may I ask, that you do all you can to restore our price support of 100 percent parity on farm commodities. Thanking you in advance, I am

Respectfully yours,

64440-56-pt. 4- -30

H. F. HODGE.

STATEMENT FILED BY THOMAS HODGES, ALVORD, TEX.

My name is Thomas Hodges, I live in Wise County, Tex., 10 miles from Decatur, where I farm 408 acres of which 105 acres are in cultivation in hay crops, and the remainder is in pasture. I am a dairyman, and I milk 50 cows producing grade A milk. I should like to testify before the committee against the Benson sliding scale, and for 100 percent of parity.

I should like to say that I run my farm with no outside help. I would like to emphasize the fact that I am a family farmer, that is to say that the farm is operated 100 percent by myself, my wife, and my children.

I think my records will show that my farm is efficient in household and farm operations; my family and myself average over 75 hours of work a week on our farm the year round. These facts prove to me that all this talk of hard work and efficiency falls a long way short of the answer to the farm problem. My farm is completely electric, and I think in every way as efficient as it is possible to make it; however this has not solved my income problems.

I would like to enter in the record here the following figures of mine for my farm operation. The capital investment in my farm is over $40,000. As you will notice the income from my farm has been dropping steadily since 1952.

The costs of running my farm have increased over $1,000 since 1952, and though I have expanded my herd my gross income has still gone down over $6,000 in the past 3 years. My records by the way are taken from the annual reports I have filed with the Farmers' Home Administration in compliance with my loan from them.

If the present agriculture policy is continued it will be impossible for me to continue farming.

I don't think that the problems of dairy farmers like myself or the problems of cotton or wheat or any other type of farmer should be solved by plowing the family farmers under.

I think that the only way that the farm problem could be solved would be to remove Ezra Benson from office, and put some one in as Secretary of Agriculture who would put in the Brannan plan with production payments direct to the farmer with an outside limit on such payments.

Abstract of farm accounts of Thomas Hodges, Wise County, Tex., 1952 through

[blocks in formation]

1 Household and farm expense operation do not add to total expenditures, because of excluded items. e. g. debt repayment, capital expenditures and farm ownership payments.

2 Records through October 1955.

STATEMENT FILED BY HENRY D. HYNDS, VAN ALSTYne, Tex.

Senator ALLEN J. ELLENDER,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: My name is Henry D. Hynds and I own and operate a 1,100 acres farm in the blackland belt in north central Texas near Van Alstyne. I have been in the farming, cattle, banking, and cotton-gin business the past 35 years. I have made a study of the farm situation and wish to offer a plan that will, within 5 years do away with our surpluses and at the same time give the farmers parity prices.

Three hundred acres of my farm is in pasture, 200 acres was my 1954 cotton allotment, 65 acres wheat allotment, the remainder in oats, corn, maize, and alfalfa. In the plan I offer, I will use cotton as an example as it is main crop; however, it will work on all the major crops.

1. Make a fair allotment to each farmer in pounds on the past 5-year history average yields and acres (drought and weevil damage taken into consideration) on a basis of domestic consumption, say 9 million bales.

(a) Farmers who do not exceed their allotted amount will receive 100 percent parity.

(b) Those who overplant and exceed their allotment will receive 90 percent of parity on their allotment and the market price on the surplus, 3 percent tolerance allowed.

(c) There would be a tax on all cotton above your allotment as follows:

1 to 10 bales surplus producer, 6 cents per pound

10 to 20 bales produced, 7 cents per pound

20 to 30 bales surplus produced 8 cents per pound
30 to 50 bales surplus produced, 9 cents per pound
50 to 100 bales surplus produced, 10 cents per pound
All over 100 bales surplus produced, 15 cents per pound

(d) Allow no new land allotment of over 1,250 pounds.

(e) To be no Government loans. All cotton to be sold through regular trade channels with PMA marketing card. The Commodity Credit Corporation to reimburse the farmer the difference between the 6 months average of nearest of the 10 designated spot markets and 100 percent or 90 percent of parity for the grade of his cotton. All cotton to be classed by Government on green card system.

(f) The Commodity Credit Corporation to market none of the surplus cotton now on hand until after January 1 of each year. Not over 20 percent in any 1 year. To sell same on foreign markets at market price but to raise tariff on cotton goods to protect American spinners.

2. To qualify to reap the benefits of the cotton parity price guarantee the farmers must take out of production 15 percent of his cultivated land for the soil-fertility bank. Cannot harvest for seed or feed. Must rotate idle land each year. If he will follow PMA practice, he will receive benefits not to exceed $6 per acre on same.

SUMMARY

As you note, this plan should hold our cotton crop under 10 million bales and cotton should advance to parity and allow the CCC to get rid of its surplus in foreign markets with a minimum loss. The tax on surplus cotton will take care of the guarantee. The 15 percent taken out of production for soil-fertility bank will reduce all the 5 major crops and wipe out the large surpluses. As these surpluses are reduced, the Secretary of Agriculture can adjust the size of the 5 major crops and idle lands to hold the markets at parity, while at the same time be building up our soil through the soil-fertility plan.

I feel confident that if this plan is followed that within 5 years we will have no surpluses on hand and agriculture prices will be on parity with labor and industry.

I thank you for your careful consideration of this plan.

HENRY D. HYNDS.

Hon. JOHN C. WHITE,

Commissioner of Agriculture,

PONDER, TEX., November 5, 1955.

and the Senate Agriculture Committee, Austin, Tex. GENTLEMEN: Thank you for this opportunity to bring to your attention some phases of the farm situation actually being experienced by farmers of my neighborhood.

I own and operate 2,310 acres of land; and am barely able to pay my farming expenses and pay my taxes. To operate this acreage, I have had to buy a lot of expensive equipment made by workers, who, when they are not making a living wage, strike for higher wages.

Farmers are badly in need of higher income. Men and women of farm families have to get other jobs to supplement farm income to support families and keep children in school.

Farming land is more and more being owned by business and professional men who are able to pay high prices for land out of money made by other means than farming. Farmers could not pay for a farm by what they can save out of their farming income.

Recently I had a carpenter do some needed repair work on some tenant houses. He charged $3.50 per hour. I paid out $2,000 which is more than I made this year.

Workers of most other industries are continually getting a raise in income, while farmers and ranchers take less each year for their labor.

Heavy insect infestation of late years causes added expense of spraying or dusting crops. Income from our two best paying crops, wheat and cotton, is reduced by reason of acreage allotments. The reduction of acreage is probably necessary; but we should certainly get 100 percent parity for crops raised on our allotted acreage.

Declining prices on cattle and hogs are causing hardship on livestock raisers, who, because of drought and lack of feed, have to sell livestock at a sacrifice. We realize that no one can eliminate the hazard of weather in farming and ranching; but, at least, we could have the assurance of reasonable and stable prices on what we are able to raise.

If we don't get rid of the sliding scale of farm prices, and get 100 percent parity; farmers are all going to go broke.

CHESTER JANUARY.

Mr. JOHN C. WHITE,

SILVERTON, TEX., October 24, 1955.

Commissioner of Agriculture,

Austin, Tex.

DEAR SIR: The farmer needs 100-percent parity to prosper and should small farmer not prosper our national economy will be in jeopardy. Our cotton allotment should not be cut on small farmers but larger farms can stand reduction required without hurting anyone very much. It sometimes seems that we are being deliberately forced out of business. Should small farmers, like myself, be allowed to grow into larger operator then I still say we could stand reduction in acreage, but hope to see justice done for the sake of all. There are actually farms (large) in this country that are being operated by big concerns that would help enormously were they rented to several families each and the landlord would receive far more net income.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR SIR: We urge you to please use your influence on getting 100-percent parity for farmers. We desperately need it to survive and to help our Nation be strong.

Yours truly,

J. E. JOWELL.

SILVERTON, TEX.,
October 24, 1955.

Hon. JOHN C. WHITE,

Commissioner of Agriculture

DEAR SIR: My sincere desire as a down-to-earth farmer is that we are to have 100 percent of parity. I am sure farmers of this district are concerned about labor and management and industry but if we are to continue to prosper and grow as a Nation we small farmers must have a price for our produce that will pay our necessary bills and keep ourselves solvent. I am not opposed to growth either, but certainly think large farmers can bear acreage cuts without hurting national prosperity. There are many instances here in my county where even small farms have been rented out, and landlords receiving more rent than as operator.

Yours truly,

JACK JOWELL.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »