Изображения страниц

bution. But I did not get any consideration for it on 1935 allotment. I would have planted a little cotton if I'd had it in time. I applied for 3 acres as new grower but along came late March and no returns on my application, so I planted the acreage to hegari. The days after that I got the 3 acres and I returned them for redistribution. Unless a farmer has his allotment at least 2 months before planting time it disturbs his whole program and he stands a chance to lose some valuable time or moisture.

If it had not been for off-the-farm work, I long time ago, would have had to quit the farm. These jobs provided me enough cash to meet my payments on my farm.

Since 1946 I served as census enumerator for the George West School District. And it affords me the opportunity to meet the farmers and observe their manner of farming. Ever since milo maize became a basic cash crop, farmers did not plant much cane or hegari for feed. They harvested the grain and put it in Government loan and let them worry along. Acreage allotment and high parity is just another term for "raising a commodity under contract." It does not benefit the farmer and ultimately the Government is loaded up with high priced stuff it will have to sell at a loss. The taxpayer will have to foot the bill.

Now, therefore in view of all the above said inequities I would suggest or recommend that the farmers be set free to follow their own pursuits of life and happiness according to their own pleasure. Let them plant any crops they please, store them in bonded warehouses and borrow from any private lending agency and stand behind their note or mortgage until it is paid off. That will let the Government reduce losses and in due time strengthen our Government.

Since we seem to have too much land in cultivation, I favor the soil bank policy. Retire a fixed percentage of every farm and put it to grasses or legumes to build up the land.

I also suggest that the Government supervise all State and county PMA offices a little more closely to cut out some of this "patronage" that some of the committeemen's buddies enjoy.

May the Good Lord guide you in your duties and strengthen you in taking a stand that is for the best interest of the Nation.

As it stands down here, farmers have lost their faith in their Government very much and it takes more than high parity to restore it-it takes freedom to pursue their business unhampered.

EARTH, TEX., October 15, 1955. Mr. JOHN WHITE, Commissioner of Agriculture,

Austin, Tex. DEAR SIR: As I will be unable to attend the meeting in Fort Worth of the Agricultural Committee, I would like to express my opinion about our farm situation. I am definitely against the sliding scale support system, Farm people are entitled to 100 percent of a fair price for all farm products, just the same as all the other segments of industry are entitled to a fair price for their products. Personally I don't think there is now or has ever been a surplus of farm products. It has been underconsumption instead of overproduction. I think something like the Brannan plan is our best solution. Your sincerely,


STATEMENT FILED BY GUS J. STRAUSS, HALLETSVILLE, TEX, I have the honor of representing seven rural counties in the State of Texas. Within the confines of this senatorial district there are thousands of farmers who carry on family farm operations. ('nder present conditions, circumstances, and regulations these people are very rapidly vanishing from the American scene as farmers.

The Senate of Texas, recognizing this great problem, during the 54th legislature held this year, adopted a resolution by a unanimous vote, petitioning the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Congress to carefully review all laws, rules, and regulations dealing with our farm program. This was done with the hope that some relief might be obtained for those farm families who have had great hardships cast upon them.

My appeal to you today is on behalf of those people who actually live on farms with their families, operate farms as family units, and their very existence depends upon the income derived from this source. Their only request is that they be permitted to earn a livelihood and to maintain their place in our American society as citizens.

We fully realize that there probably is no perfect solution to our problem, however there are certain suggestions that we would like to make to you for your consideration. We feel that crop allotments should be on a graduated basis, following a plan similar to our present income-tax laws. Cotton allotments should be in lint instead of acreage, and there should be a separate allotment for parity, limited to a certain number of bales per family.

We want to thank you for this privilege of directing your attention to this grave situation, a problem which has grown to such proportions that so many thousands of our families find it impossible to earn a living in agricultural pursuits. We feel that you recognize the seriousness of the situation and humbly ask of you to give due consideration to the plight of the family farmers in your deliberations.


WAXAHACHIE, TEX. This year, the United States Department of Agriculture, under the honey price support program, is supporting honey at 70 percent of parity. Dollarwise, this is three-tenths of a cent per pound lower than the average price support level of 1954, and three-tenths of a cent per pound less than the year before. Beekeepers are being faced with these lowered support figures for their honey ; yet their items of expense incurred in operating bees are higher than they have ever experienced.

As representative of the Texas Beekeepers Association, I am asking that the United States Department of Agriculture support honey at 75 percent parity in 1956, and also make provisions for instituting an export subsidy program on honed in 1956 if a bumper honey crop is produced, and provided, of course, normal markets will not take the honey.

With the Commodity Credit Corporation's records showing a profit on honey handled for the fiscal year 1953 totaling $4,924, and also again for the fiscal year of 1954 a profit of $8,812, it is difficult for us as an industry to see the justification for a support figure less than 75 percent of parity.

In 1946, a comprehensive research project was set up in Utah to study alfalfa seed production. Those studies showed that honeybees were necessary as pollinators to produce a profitable alfalfa seed crop. The State of California, ap. plying these research findings, was able to triple the acreage devoted to seed alfalfa and doubled their production. Consequently, California now produces about one-third of the Nation's alfalfa seed.

Research on cantaloupe pollination in Arizona in 1950 showed that honeybees were absolutely esesntial for production of melons. When bees were excluded from the vines, no fruit was set. A subsequent survey by United States Department of Agriculture personnel in 1953 showed that where growers had bees placed in sufficient numbers in or adjacent to their melon planting, the average crop was increased more than 50 percent over fields where growers left the matter of pollination to chance. Research on almonds, apples, peaches, plums, and other deciduous fruits has indicated that without honeybees for crosspollination, the production of these crops would be unprofitable.

On and on we could go citing instances where bees benefit agricultural crops; yet the beekeeper receives comparatively little for this service, and, in the main, he must depend on the honey produced from the bees for his major source of income.

Every consideration given the beekeepers' needs by your committee will be sincerely appreciated.

SILVERTON, TEX., October 22, 1955. Mr. JOHN WHITE :

I am a dryland farmer in Briscoe County and am interested in farm prices very much. I am asking for your help in getting 100 percent parity for farmers. Thank you,


EARTH, TEX., October 15, 1955. Mr. John WHITE,

Teras Commissioner of Agriculture. DEAR SIR: Not being able to attend the agricultural meeting in Ft. Worth, Tex., I would like to express my opinion on the present sliding scale price support for farm products. I am very much opposed to the sliding scale. It is causing too much margin between what we buy and what we sell.

I think farm products should be supported at 100 percent of a fair price so the farm people could have their share of the national income, and enable us (the farmers) to replace our worn-out equipment. Yours truly,


STATEMENT FILED BY T. D. WILSON, HEARNE, TEX. The present farm crisis grew out of the tariff and other trade barriers that block international trade, causing surpluses and inequitable price relationship.

The first protective tariff act to develop infant industries for national defense became a law in 1815. The factories went into the stockade and left the farmers outside to till the soil and fight the Indians. Many times they wished to give the country back to the Indians.

In 1824 Daniel Webster predicted that high tariff would drive American shipping out of foreign seas. American shipping fell from 90 percent of total tonnage in 1821 to 8.7 percent of total tonnage in 1910.

In 1892 a New York industrialist, after returning from the Midwest where he saw abundant crops, predicted great prosperity for the Nation. He said abundant crops make cheap farm commodities, and cheap farm commodities bring prosperity. Shortly afterward a long depression began.

In 1928 the economists advised Coolidge that high tariff was bankrupting the farmers. The answer was the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act. The same year Coolidge, Hoover, Irving Fisher, of Yale University, and Mr. Whitney, president of New York Stock Exchange, said the stock market was reflecting normal growth. Mr. Whitney said there would be no economic cycles. Then knew how to control it, but the outcome was disastrous. We hear such talk today.

Now tariff has driven our cotton out of foreign markets, directly and indirectly, in accordance with Webster's predictions of 1824.

Tariff bankrupted Austria and Hungary in the 1920's. That was the beginning of the 1929 depression.

Free trade brought Western Germany out of the depression of 1948 to be the most prosperous nation in Europe today.

Will our great American cities have to be leveled to the ground before the American people will understand the evil of our foreign-trade policy? We have the best Government on earth and the best men giving their lives to serve us. Mr. Clarence B. Randall, economic adviser to President Eisenhower, says: "I wonder whether the businessman who sabotages the competitive system is not a greater enemy of our way of life than the Communist that he cries out against."

Now the news reports are that the farm situation is the only dark spot on the economic horizon, but the farm income is only 4 percent of the national income and the farm income could fall 25 percent and reduce the national income only 1 percent. The germ in a grain of wheat is a very small percent of the weight of the grain, but destroy the germ and there will be no more wheat.

The farm program that most of the farmers desire:
I. 100 percent parity price support for cotton on planted acres.

A. Because parity is flexible acting alone.
B. Machinery already set up to handle this program.
C. Farmers are familiar with this system.
D. Program is constitutional.
E. The CCC has made a profit of over $268 million on cotton.

F. Makes possible legal stockpiling.
II. Soil conservation payments or rent equivalent to 100 percent parity.

A. Because parity base of cotton as of 1910 to 1914 was under world price of cotton and was based on total acres farmed at that time.

B. Farmers are mining their soil and water resources as never before.

Yotes : Free trade is inevitable, an opinion shared by the National Association of Manufacturers and desired by the United States Chamber of Commerce, major oil companies, Detroit Chamber of Commerce, and Clarence B. Randall, economic adviser to the President.

As the United States economy adjusts to free trade, parity will automatically decline with cost of living.

Many segments of our economy have been subsidized since 1815. Cotton has been partly subsidized since 1933.

Most segments of the cotton industry desire unlimited production with the domestically consumed cotton price supported and foreign exported cotton sold at world prices. This would be dumping on a major scale. Would be considered as unfair competition by Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, India, Mexico, and other cotton exporting countries.

Although farm prices have declined, parity has remained high because of increased cost of distribution.

STATEMENT FILED BY J. T. Woodson, GOBER, TEX. It is a privilege for me that this Senate group hear me, a farmer of the northcentral section of Texas. The area that I live in is a diversification area. We raise several of the agricultural commodities that are fast becoming a surplus problem both to the Government and to the farmer. There is much concern among farmers about the future of our industry. Certainly, we feel that a program that will permit us to produce our agriculture commodities and market them into a competitive market, instead of having to store them in warehouses at a big cost to the Government would be to our choosing.

If a control program has to be instituted, we in our section of Texas are studying the soil fertility bank method as a program of more freedom to the farmer, as to his choice of agricultural commodities and at a much lower cost to the Government.

We must see world trade expanded to an extent that these surpluses will not be a burden to the Government nor to a healthy, competitive market.

It is the thinking of the farmers in my section of Texas that, if we are to continue to farm for a livelihood, we must produce and sell.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »