Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

THE PRESENT PROGRAM

When the present program started it probably was the best that Congress could devise and it has done much to hold America as the strong Nation it is today, but like machinery and transportation it is outmoded and got into the hands of the few big producers through control of the committeemen of the program. Politics has been played in the farm program just as it has in businesses of the country. When the farm program first started it was to help the little man but he was soon forgotten and corporate farming has taken over with the big farmer swallowing up the little farmer. The new farm act must be completely revised.

FARM INCOME

Farm income is the lowest since 1947. There are two ways to measure the farmers income by the money you are taking in and what your bank statement shows down at the bank. Farm parity prices have slipped 28 points since 1951; production cost has jumped 30 percent above 1947 and farmers have had only 1 percent increase in cash receipts to meet these bills. Typical commercial farmers in all of 21 different regions of the country got less than 50 cents an hour for their own labor last year after paying expenses and getting interest on their investment. Farm income reached an all time high in 1947 $16.8 billion net but it has been declining every year since except for 1951. This year it will get down to around $11 billion, but there is 18 percent fewer farm people than in 1947; farm debts have mounted steadily since 1947; mortgage debt has almost doubled from $4.9 billion in 1947 to $8.2 billion this year; farm debts on other than land have almost tripled spurting from $3.6 billion in 1947 to $9.8 billion this year; this makes a total farm debt of $18 billion. The condition is gradually growing worse. Increase in the farmers cost contributes to his indebtedness while his production gradually decreases.

PRICE SUPPORT

Price support is the farmer's only hope to remain on the farm with his family and he cannot stay for less than parity for what he grows and parity means that his dollar will buy as much as the dollar of industry and labor; 100 percent parity is what industry gets, industry cannot operate for less than parity. Farming is an industry and how can it operate for less than parity, many are leaving the farm because of low acreage allotments and declining prices. The farmer cannot break even under the present agricultural program, the farmer is entitled to 100 percent of parity and he cannot exist for less than 90 percent of parity for the major crops.

ACREAGE CONTROL

Reducing the major crops under the present formula is a failure, instead of reducing the production it is increasing production. The amount of agricultural products are steadily increasing with high production per acre. Production is

at an alltime high for all major crops. The big farmer is transferring the allotments on the small acreage to high productive land with irrigation, in some cases the land is transferred more than 100 miles; this formula is destroying hundreds of the small farmers. The transfer of the little farmers acreage is tripling the production instead of decreasing production, as was intended by the agricultural act.

Only fortunate farmers can use irrigation. There are far more dryland farmers than irrigation farmers, yet the irrigated farmer is increasing the surplus that accumulates; the rich land also contributes its share of the increase. The 1955 agricultural census will show that there has been a vast increase in the size of the farms and fewer farmers. The farm population is decreasing too fast-can industry absorb the farm migration to the cities, can industry provide the jobs that this displaced farmer must have if he lives-the cause is the present formula of acreage control. The only way that production can and will be controlled is to use a formula that provides that each family unit can sell for parity so many pounds and bushels of the major crops on a farm unit that is sufficient to support a family decently. There must be a formula that will hold the people on the land, the decrease in farm units must be stopped, the family farms must be more farm families on the land. The present formula of transferring one allotment to another land unit is destroying the individual farmer and fast bringing to America the Russian form of agriculture-cooperative farming.

In writing the new farm legislation, stress should be placed on the family farmer, committeemen are given too much authority in setting up the rules and regulations. In administration of the farm program Congress should spell out what can and what cannot be done by committeemen who administer the law; in the beginning of the present farm act there was no transfer of the allotted acres and the production was held down; the laxity of the law give the administrators authority to change and remodel the act and the result is too few farms and too much production. In writing the next farm act the act should be written so that no acreage could be transferred from one farm to another, that the acreage could not be moved from one farm to another, or farm units.

There should not be any combining of farm units that would move the allotted acres to the better land from the poorer land, but each survey of land should at all times carry its own acreage allotment; the act must specify what the county and State committees can and must not do on the acreage allotment per farm unit. There are too many loopholes in the present law, the present act gives the committeemen authority to do pretty much as they please and they do it in handling the allotments.

Advice from farm journals and our own Department of Agriculture is: Plant on the richest land, using fertilizer and irrigation where possible to increase the production, therefore production is raised instead of decreased. We are advised to raise more cattle, hogs, and sheep to use the idle acres of land taken out of production; this will increase the cattle, hogs, and sheep of which there is now an overproduction. It just does not make sense, the average farmer does not know what it is all about, he cannot understand why one force asks for reduction and another asks for increased production.

It is the corporation farmer that is creating the overproduction, the little farmer has never created a surplus and never will; my opinion is that acreage controls should not apply to the farmer of 160 acres of land or less, he cannot overproduce and take care of his land. Many farmers are buying land with poor production, moving the allotted acres to richer land and are accumulating more and more land, in a few years there will be few owners and the many displaced farmers will be sent into town to compete with labor that is organized, can the welfare take care of the hundreds that will be homeless and without a job, can the taxpayers stand more and more taxes to support the welfare load that is being created by the trend in the consolidation of the farms.

THE FAMILY FARM

America is the greatest Nation on this planet, its rural population has made it the power it is. From the farms has come the progress and economic stability. When you have destroyed the little farmer you have destroyed American greatness, its leadership in world affairs. America depends upon its people to work and live upon and from the land; the more people that are on the land, the greater is our Nation. Our wealth and influence among other nations will be determined by how this country handles its own agricultural affairs, how its farm families live, how many can remain on the farm. In the past farmers have adjusted production to consumption; new methods of production has increased production. How will production meet the demand and the demand consume the production? Will the proposed land bank solve any of the farmers problems? Will such a program keep the people on the land, or will it too drive them away to the overcrowded cities, where work is becoming harder and harder to get? Can industry take care of the millions that will move to the cities, displaced by an unhuman program an unnatural program?

On these wide prairies of Oklahoma you can drive miles and miles without seeing a farm home. The land that once was a farm home is now consolidated with other farms making one farm unit farmed with hired labor by a corporate farmer, a man who farms large acreage of land. The landlord moves to the city or village and travels by auto or truck with the hired hand each day to his master machine to farm the land. In my opinion pounds and bushels control is the best way to solve the predicament we are in and that the family farm family be given consideration that he be given enough allotted acres to maintain a decent income for himself and family. Many farmers on 40, 80, or 160 acres must quit if the present formula is used in determining production. Less than 160 acres which is farmed by one farmer should not be penalized as to drive the farmer off the land but given incentive to remain on the land with his family.

The passing of the family farmer will mean the destruction of our way of life as we have known it. It has reached the point where the Congress must set up the rules and regulations that the administration that administers the farm program must follow, and in the future will people determine what to do or will the administrator say "this is what you have" and "this is what you get"; write into the law what must be done and make it a "shall" instead of a "may"? People cannot live on an idle dream, but a reality is the life of all.

CONCLUSION

Having served in the Oklahoma Legislature almost 20 years I know what you have in the Congress is little different from the legislature; the same procedure is followed, there is as many ways to do a thing as there is members of the legislative body, but an agreement will be reached and an act enacted into law and what you do will determine what America will be. You will either take care of the family-type farmer or give in to corporate farming with big farms. I hope that in considering this vital legislation that you realize that the farmer must have his cost or he will fail, and when the family farmer is gone America goes with him. Why fight the isms in Europe when we are creating the same kind of isms in America. If we are to remain the leaders in world affairs then we must do what we preach to other nations. I hope that I have said something that will be constructive to you and the committee, and that you take my word that what I want is to build a better and stronger America with a satisfied people. I hope that I have not made my article too long, or repeated too often, but I do see the end unless the situation is changed in order to keep people on the land.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Richard, please.

STATEMENT OF VIRGIL E. RICHARD, WAKITA, OKLA.

Mr. RICHARD. I-am Virgil Richard from Wakita, Okla. I represent a section of Oklahoma where the only crop we can successfully grow is wheat. Lack of moisture holds us to this. We feel that we have been sold down the river in regard to parity on wheat. Also cattle and hog prices have declined to the point where we are lucky if we break even.

Our farm mortgages have gone much higher for this year than the previous year. With machinery and repairs taking another 5 percent hike, it is forcing many of our farmers to quit. We believe we are entitled to 100 percent of parity on our allotted acres to wheat.

I and many of my neighbors have put every acre to wheat in protest against the cut in parity prices. We aim to place this excess wheat in bond on the farm because if something isn't done at once we believe we will be in a depression much worse than the last one.

If this comes, wheat in the bin, although not worth much, will help to pay taxes, interest, and save us from bankruptcy. Any plan which will help us will be greatly appreciated. We are in a terrible squeeze. I believe that teeth should be put in the Agriculture Act to make each farm on 160 acres stand on its own and lay-out ground be made to stay on this 160 acres. In other words, much of our surplus is raised on $40,000 land and the lay-out ground is put on $10,000 land. Also I believe the man who only farms 160 to 320 acres should be given an allotment when he can operate and make a living. The best place for this man is on the farm rather than on a soup line when hard times come. This man is not the man who is making our surplus. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Richard.

We now have almost a hundred more witnesses to hear from and we are 5 minutes overtime. I am going to ask again that witnesses

limit their testimony to new matter, if they will, or file their testimony with the clerk sitting at the table to my left.

Mr. Loosen? Give your full name please.

STATEMENT OF EMIL C. LOOSEN, OMEGA, OKLA.

Mr. LOOSEN. I am Emil Loosen, and I am a rancher. I am going to limit my statement to the facts as I think this problem can be solved, but I don't think anybody brought it up that every farmer up here was the man making the overproduction. He is the man that should be loking at himself each morning when he gets up. He is the man who makes overproduction. It isn't you people or the corn man. I think also your hybrid corn, stilbestorol, in feeding cattle has made overproduction and we can only put it on bushels and pounds. Our know-how has gotten so great we have to do something and the only way we can do it I can see is give me a hundred percent of parity on my domestic allotment, and take 10 or 15 percent of my total acres out of production.

The little farmer, there must be a solution. Mr. Davis said that he thought it would be nice to give them 6 percent. I think I would quit farming and go fishing because I think I can get around $20,000 at 6 percent on my investment and that is more than I have made in a long time.

I think we will have to take 10 to 20 percent out of production. The little man has to be protected. I don't know how.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what we are looking for.

Mr. LOOSEN. I was trying to give the solution of the commercial man by taking 10 or 15 percent out of production.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Polson, please. I notice you have a written statement. Have you anything new to add?

Mr. POLSON. I believe I have something a little different.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; let's see.

STATEMENT OF HENRY F. POLSON, EUFAULA, OKLA.

Mr. POLSON. I am Henry Polson, from Eufaula, McIntosh County, The first thing I would like to ask is what has happened to the farmer who cut down or completely quit growing surplus crops following the war in accordance with recommendations of USDA? Because of voluntary reduction he is now by law forced to stay out and give all of the acreage and all of the Government price support to the noncooperator. At the same time he has no vote or voice in what they do and his products are selling far below parity in competition with this same farmer who is favored with a nice allotment because of his failure to reduce acres voluntarily.

We have a forgotten man who has gone all the way and he even though he doesn't want to grow supported crops, the other man comes along and competes with him unfairly-and he has no support of any kind. I don't believe that statement has been made today. Personally, I am farming 780 acres; I have no allotments because I have found my allotments too small to be economically feasible to farm. I am a sharecropper and one of the few here from my county. The CHAIRMAN. What do you grow?

Mr. POLSON. I am trying to grow hogs and cattle and watermelons and alfalfa and seed crops, but I find 50-cent watermelons, 10-cent fescue, 14-cent hogs, it is tough to give the landlord his half of it.

Since acreage control is, and will always be, unfair and unworkable, I would suggest that we put our support on a dollar basis with noacreage control. Let us try a two-price system with 100-percent support up to our domestic consumption and normal carryover and our surplus going on the world market. Make the consumer pay the bill. Except for administration, I don't think the Government should pay the bill.

Let every farmer have equal opportunity for support with an upper limit, in dollars, on any individual farmer, landowner, or corporation. This will stop large farms from getting larger at the expense of the Government and the small operator.

The small farmer did not have the land or capital to expand during war prices as did the large producer. Now he has been required to cut his acres proportionately to the large grower and in most cases his allotments are too small to be an economical unit. They are being forced out of the business. Make the necessary cuts from the large growers who are responsible for the surplus.

There is no longer an opportunity for a young farmer to start unless he is fortunate enough to marry or fall heir to a farm. If one does buy a farm he not only pays for the land but the crop-history Government allotment.

If I have a corn allotment I can sell my corn to the Government and go to my poor neighbor who was not so fortunate and buy his corn for about 50 percent less to feed my livestock. Is that fair?

McIntosh County has only 15 percent of its total cropland in allotted crops. Average farm in McIntosh County is allotted 8.5 acres of cotton and his total allotments of cotton, peanuts, and wheat is only 11.2 acres. We are not planting our total allotments because 1 acre of peanuts and 5 acres of cotton is too small to farm profitably and as a result we are cut further each year in allotted acres, and as a result our acres are being taken away from us on the county level.

Gentlemen, I believe that any man should have some protection, one or more crops, and I think that unit should be an economical minimum unit. He can't own a combine for 15 acres of wheat. He has to do it all with his hands if he grows 1 acre of peanuts. Let's give him one protected crop on some minimum unit and some protection for the man who has gone all the way with you trying to conserve his lands and cut down production.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Dolezal?

Do you have anything new, because we are getting late?
Mr. DOLEZAL. I don't know that I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Won't you file your statement for us, then?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM DOLEZAL, EL RENO, OKLA.

Mr. DOLEZAL. I do want to make this one statement because I haven't heard it mentioned.

In this new farm program you are going to formulate you will have to have some incentive to attract young farmers back into the field. I live at El Reno. There is a 5-mile radius where there isn't but 2

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »