Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

feed and with a soil building cover crop; one-third of the land to cotton, onethird to feed and one-third out of commercial production unless there is a shortage of some crop which could be planted on this one-third of the land.

I believe that there should be a high tariff on beef and beef products shipped into this country. The revenue from such tariff to be used as a subsidy to ranchers here. Sincerely,

ABCHIE BRAWLEY.

SILVERTON, TEX., October 21, 1955. Hon. John C. WHITE,

Commissioner of Agriculture, Austin, Tea. DEAR SIR: Will you kindly present my views to the Ellender committee when they visit Texas. If parity is a fair yardstick for all concerned then we should not be satisfied with less than 100 percent and put forth a greater effort to barter and trade and exchange our products to the extent we will accept allotments and incentive payments, but not cross compliance. In a Christian nation it should not be necessary to make food and fiber scarce and people hungry in order to force up the price justly due us for our efforts and investment. Sincerely,

R. E. BROOKSHIER.

STATEMENT FII.ED BY J. C. BURLESON, WHITEFLAT, TEX. I have been asked to give a brief summary of my operations for the past 5 years, 1950-54 inclusive. In partnership with my son, W. E. Burleson, we own and operate a 17,000-acre ranch, known as the Mott, located in Motley and Floyd Counties, Tex. In connection with our ranch operations, we run between 600 and 700 head of mother cows. In addition to the partnership operation of the ranch, I own and operate approximately 3,500 acres of other ranchland and own and operate approximately 1,381 acres of cultivated land which is devoted to farming.

In 1950, I had a net income of $15,333.76; in 1951 my net income was $30,952.56 ; in 1952 my net income was $31,293.10; in 1953 my operations showed a net loss of $716.20; in 1954 my operations showed a net loss of $3,716.20. There was no change in my operations during this period of years. By that, I mean that we endeavored to operate economically. I attribute the decline in our income, varying from a net income of over $30,000 in 1952 to a net loss of almost $4,000 in 1954 to the declining price of cattle and farm products and the increase in the price of machinery and other items which we had to buy in connection with our operations. The drought which we have had in this country has, of course, been a factor, but I honestly believe that if cattle prices and farm prices had remained in line with the price of machinery, feed and other things that we had to buy, we could have shown a profit in our operations in spite of the drought.

LANCASTER, CALIF., October 25, 1955. Hon. John C. WHITE,

Commissioner of Agriculture. DEAR SIR: Being a Texan of 67 years and being reared on the farm, I am deeply concerned as to bettering conditions of the small farmer. The present setup of crop control discriminates against the small farmer, and by so doing is not only driving the boys but many of the parents to the towns and cities. By so doing, the backbone of Nation is broken. It is he who has a community interest, not the big farmer that uses hired help and farms hundreds of acres whose sole interest is profit.

I was farming in early days of controls; just on small scale, trying to make a living for my family. So when I got same cut as the hundred-acre fellows, I was forced to resort to other means of making a living.

I wrote Secretary Benson that the only just way was to allow a maximum of any one crop and make the cut above that. No one can claim or hold the small farmer responsible for surplus of farm products. Then why make him the goat?

I think it's time those in power use some commonsense, and not so much theory. Yours truly,

0. W. CARTER, Dublin, Ter.

CANYON, Tex., October 26, 1955. Hon. John C. WHITE,

Commissioner of Agriculture, Austin, Ter. DEAR SIR: The probability that price support for grain sorghums might be withdrawn entirely has caused grave concern in this area. The reductions of the past year have cut us to the bone. We can see no reason for discrimination between maize growers and corn growers.

In this area, the production of maize has become a large part of our economy. We grow almost no cotton, and wheat production has been almost nil the past few years. Maize is about the only remaining cash crop we have to fall back

You can see what maize production means to us. In coming discussions and legislation, we shall appreciate your every effort to protect our interests. If price support means acreage control, let us have it. Yours very truly,

E. R. CLEAVINGER.

on.

STATEMENT FILED BY BOB COLE, DENTON COUNTY, TEX. The farmers in my area are very disturbed with the present farm program and that we feel the plan of the soil-bank plan concerning overall acreage production would be very beneficial at this time, that the freedom for the individual to choose what to plant without having an overabundance of interference from agricultural committees in our county. The group of farmers I represent think it folly that the politicians play on the farmers with the idea of increasing farm income by restoring support prices to the rigid 90 percent and not advising them that they will have to receive acreage controls at the same time. This is a gimmiek of acreage controls when surpluses are bountiful that eliminates additional income to the farmer because productive acres are restricted and gross income declines as net cost increases. The soil-bank plan would allow freedom yet would accomplish the job of assisting in solving this farming problem, as it deals with all farm commodities together rather than individual crops and acres.

STATEMENT FILED BY JRs. JUD COLLIER, MUMFORD, TEX, Thanks for giving the “man on the farm” a chance to be heard in this our greatest economic crisis. Let's face facts.

The farm problem in its present form is a problem of American poverty since most American poverty is on the farn The har hit victims of sliding-scale philosophy are the young farmers and their families. The older farmers of us who have paid off our debts operate at a loss but manage to dig in our savings and hang on. Yes, it is the beginners, our young men whom the Nation needs most to encourage and keep on the farms, who are being plowed under by the Republican planned policy of ruin.

The prosperity that is everywhere except in agriculture continues at a booming recordbreaking rate. Corporation profits after taxes were $16.1 billion in 1952. Now they're estimated at a yearly rate of $21.1 billion. In 1952 the net income of all farmers was $14.3 billion. At the same time the farmer's debt jumped 10 percent in the past year. In the meantime the Agriculture Department announced it lost $799 million in disposing of surplus farm products in the last fiscal year as of June 30. Uncle Sam still had over $7 billion tied up in price-support operations on which storage charges alone amounted to $967,000 a day. Yes, the farm program cost as much in 1953–54 under the Republicans as it cost in 1933–52. Poor business. Just think of the hungry in other lands as well as in ours.

Let's look at the cause of this. The farmer's products have always been forced to compete on the world market while the products which he needs to operate on his farm were purchased by him from protected domestic market. He has had to sell low and buy high.

Hence we see subsidy 1, the tariff. 2. Subsidy for United States airlines this fiscal year would be $48,500,000.

3. Tax amortization : a corporation can charge off the cost of new plants and equipment in 5 years instead of 20.

4. Franchise subsidy.
5. Bank subsidy : Government guarantees cash money on CCC loans.
6. Oil subsidy 2712 percent deductible.

Mr. Chairman, since it is immoral for the farmer to be granted subsidy, please clarify to the world that the policy of subsidy has been a policy of the United States since the beginning of time. Yes, take away subsidies from all enterprises before attacking and then we can have free enterprise.

THE FARMER: SOLUTION OF THE FARM CRISIS

1. Support prices of basic commodities and other major farm commodities at full parity.

2. Abandon Benson's flexible support policy now in effect. 3. Protect the family-sized farm operation.

4. Give production payment to farmers directly, the difference between average market prices and parity prices for milk, eggs, beef, hogs, cattle, and chickens and other perishable commodities.

5. Uncle Sam rent the farmer's surplus acreage, taking it out of cash crops and putting it in soil-building crops with direct payments to the farmer.

6. Expanding consumption by increasing funds for school-lunch program and a food-stamp plan to provide adequate diet for needy people.

ODEM, Tex., September 17, 1955. Hon. John C. WHITE,

Austin, Ter. DEAR SIR: It will be impossible for me to attend the cotton meeting with Senator Ellender this autumn. I am quite certain you will be there and heard from according to the press. Recently a man of note from Texas spoke to the western cotton people and stated that our export market will be lost completely unless something is done quickly. We deserve a better deal than we have in prospect.

I am strongly in favor of the two-price system. We deserve 100 percent parity for our domestic consumption and then let the other go at world prices. It would require import duties on finished goods to protect our millowners and operators, and a lot of other details to work out.

We are buying our machinery, medical servies, cars, and practically all else on a union-scale basis, which is way above the world average. If I could be protected on a guaranty for say two-thirds of my crop I would be willing to compete with peon labor to produce the other one-third.

I own between $15,000 to $20,000 in farming equipment and the greater portion is adapted to cotton production only. None of us in the cotton production can go on reducing our acreages every year and still operate.

I believe Congress should be called in session to work out something for the 1956 crop in the way of moving our surplus. Yours truly,

0. A. EHLERS.

Vigo PARK, TEX., October 21, 1955. John C. WHITE,

Commissioner of Agriculture, Austin, Tex. DEAR SIR: We do not believe that farmers are better than any other class, profession, or trade; but we do think we as farmers should have 100 percent parity for our products. Yours truly,

GILBERT A. ELMS.

CORSICANA, Tex., November 5, 1955. Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Chairman, Senate Agriculture Committee

Hearing on Commodity Price Stabilization, Hotel Teras: 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,

H. F. HODGE. 64440_56—pt. 4- -30

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »