Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

leaving me $631 for the year's labor. How long do you think a family of five can live on this sum after taxes, interest and other necessary expenses are deducted? Farm prices are pitifully out of balance with other prices. We farmers do the work and combat weather conditions and insects but some one else gets the profit. Our families are entitled as decent a standard of living as anyone else but under the present conditions we cannot have them.

We want, and are entitled to, 100 percent of parity and a new Secretary of Agriculture.

STATEMENT FILED BY CLARENCE MANDRELL, MAYFIELD, OKLA.

I am a dirt farmer, I live in the extreme western part of this State. A diversified farming section; wheat, cotton, grain, sorghum and livestock are produced. All farming and harvesting done with modern machinery. Of this machinery much should be replaced with new. This we cannot do unless we get back to an income of at least 90 percent of parity. The sliding-scale formula has not and cannot help the farm people to attain a more prosperous way of life. The farmer must continue to produce the food for this great country of ours.

I do not hesitate to say that Congress should be urged to take proper steps at the earliest time to correct this deplorable condition, which if allowed to continue will ultimately and quickly wreck agriculture.

Implement dealers tell me that new farm machinery is very difficult to sell now. We farmers cannot buy this much-needed equipment unless the commodities we sell brings a reasonable profit after expenses are paid. Very little profit is left.

I recommend that we quit farming for 1 year and use up our surpluses ourselves.

STATEMENT FILED BY TENYS PARR, LINDSAY, OKLA.

In this report I would like to express to you facts, figures, and feelings from the heart.

I operate a place of 1,240 acres of which 300 acres I use for cash crops and cultivation. The rest of the land is rented and in pasture. Our principal crops in this area are alfalfa, corn, cotton, broomcorn and small grains. The raising of broomcorn has been taken from the crop program due solely to high labor cost and low prices received on the crop. Wheat allotments are for below normal. Hay prices have broke from 25 to 30 percent since last year. Production cost on crops are continually rising due to labor, machinery, and fuel.

The corn we market through cattle and swine. We do not have the storage area and support for sealing the crop as do the commercial areas. Price support through-livestock has come to a jolting matter. Swine price dip has taken all the profit foreseen in any corn crop.

Last week Choice steers were around $22; Choice barrows and gilts, $13.25. For my own interest and to get a report to you I stopped by the meat counter in my local grocery store, and came out very confused and disgusted in what I found.

[blocks in formation]

Due to prices here someone is getting a share of my pork profits. I must say. too much of my share.

Don't they call him the in-between man?

Another example, I paid $17.50 a hundred for mungbean seed this year. Weather damaged the beans; they brought 4 cents a pound; would have brought 8 cents if beans had been good. But the highest price paid for the good ones during rush harvest was 52 cents. Next year I expect to pay not less than $15 a hundred for the same beans back for seed. Do you think it would cost an excess of 5 cents a hundred to sack them and tag them?

[blocks in formation]

STATEMENT FILED BY O. N. PARRETT, MEDFORD, OKLA.

I believe the farmer is entitled to parity. By that I mean 100 percent of parity on the acreage we are allowed to plant. The way to control surplus is acreage and production control and I do not believe the consuming public can justly condemn the farmer for asking 100 perent of parity on what we produce on our restricted acreage.

Of course there has been some inequities in this program in the past. They should be ironed out. I believe there should be a limit to any payment made to a farmer. The bigger a farmer is the more he contributes to a surplus and the less entitled to parity payments. Especially is this true of corporation farming.

I can't help but wonder what would happen if the Secretary of Commerce (Weeks) went up and down the land telling the people of these United States how much it is costing the taxpayers to subsidize industry and asking a sliding scale on the prices they charge for their products.

Suppose he tells the taxpayers how much the private utilities have been subsidized in quick tax writeoffs in the last few years. How much the newspapers and magazines are subsidized in mailing costs. I could go on and on about industry getting subsidy but the point I want to bring out is, business wouldn't stand for that kind of publicity and they would call for the resignation of the Secretary of Commerce.

Well, that is just what Mr. Benson has done for the farmer ever since he has been in office. He has given the farmer the worst publicity and the worst public relations of any man in history. We are in the minority and we need good public relations, and the Secretary of Agriculture is the logical man to promote good public relations. He has failed. Mr. Benson should resign.

STATEMENT FILED BY B. B. PATTERSON, MANITOU, OKLA.

I am 77 years old today and have retired on the farm I homesteaded 54 years ago.

I have witnessed the farm problem from the time the farmers were known as hayseeds and the downtrodden.

I have sold cotton for 6 cents, hogs at 3 cents and wheat at 75 cents. It was a part of our times and no one was particularly to blame.

Farming has greatly evoluted and now the farmers go to town in the latest automobiles and looking like the bankers.

The good conservative farmers are sick and tired of the continual blatting of the cheap politicians.

I have no idea how far they will go but the more the parity the deeper the country goes in debt and the greater the surplus and the controls.

I have no idea how many of these farm hearings that have been held but they all wind up the same-a Babylonian escapade.

I have no doubt that some farmers are gullible enough to believe that you can press a button and all their troubles will disappear.

I have no remedy for all the farmers' ills and neither has any one else.

STATEMENT FILED BY G. F. POSEY, WATONGA, OKLA.

Wednesday morning October 26 I was watching Dave Garroway's program Today over NBC New York.

A chart similar to this was placed on the screen :

"A United States bargain to Egypt: 200 Jet Planes; A number (?) Army Tanks; A Lot of Military Equipment; 7 submarines.

"All sold to Egypt for a bargain of $80 million.

"Cost to United States above goods $400 millions to $800 millions.

“Egypt to pay 2.8 millions cash-the rest $77.2 millions to be paid to the United States in cotton and rice."

Next news film following above was this:

A film showing new modern village in Egyptian desert. Built with Egyptian capital settled by Egyptian war veterans and their families, reclaiming a block of desert 72 miles long by 12 miles wide using all the latest information and equipment.

Now, Mr. Congressman, my beef is this: we (the United States) spent $400 to $800 million to build things to trade to Egypt at a bargain for cotton and rice so that Egypt can take the money they save to reclaim more land to raise more cotton and rice to trade for more United States bargains.

Now, the poor trampled-on American farmers get the blame for overproducing cotton and rice and get his acreage cut, prices reduced, but his taxes raised so he can help pay for some more goods to be traded at a bargain for some more farm products, for which he is penalized for overproducing.

Instead of trying to squash the little American farmer, why not try to keep out all such bargains, as above and preserve the American markets for the American products.

Of course I know this is not the total answer to the farm problem. It is at least a drop in the bucket and the leak could be stopped.

I am also in favor of giving the farmer an equal chance at life as the rest of the economy. With at least 100 percent of parity.

STATEMENT FILED BY O. E. REDDEN, HITCHCOCK, OKLA.

THE FARM PROGRAM

Being a farmer in Blaine County, Okla., for many years I believe that a conservation acreage reserve program, which would make it possible for farmers to lease their unused acres to the Government, would be a help to the farmer's situation. I suggest the acreage reserve program as part of the total program, needed to relieve, what amount, to a full recession in agriculture.

The Secretary of Agriculture, would figure out the acres of land not needed in the year immediately ahead, for growing crops to be sold, including hay and pasture land. The Government would then stand ready to make contracts with individual farmers who wished to put part of their acres into the national reserve. Farmers would be paid for putting acreage into the reserve, but only, if they used top-soil conservation practices on the idle land. Payments would equal the average cash rent for similar land in the area. If special land treatment were needed, additional agricultural conservation program payments would be made. An annual limitation of $2,500 to any one farmer for placing his acres in reserve, and $1,000 for the top ACP payment is suggested. Full 100 percent parity, marketing quotos, liberal farm credit, and a program to increase consumption of food and fiber, both at home and abroad, international food and raw material reserve, to stabilize world food supplies.

STATEMENT FILED BY ELMER RICE, RALSTON, OKLA.

1. I believe Mr. Dave Foster's plan should be studied very close.

2. Stop unfair public opinion as to we farmers.

3. Removal of Mr. Benson to restore confidence in agriculture.

64440-56-pt. 5-24

STATEMENT FILED BY OWEN SCOTT, OMEGA, OKLA.

I operate a wheat and livestock farm in west-central Oklahoma. Wheat is my only cash crop. A beef cow herd is maintained and some cattle feeding done in most years.

The profitableness of the livestock enterprise is closely associated with the wheat crop in most years from the standpoint of fall and winter pasture. During the past 12 years that I have operated this farm and prior to this time the 28 years that my father operated it, we found that wheat was and is the most advantageous crop, regardless of price.

In preparing this statement I will deal only with the price-support program for wheat and its direct effects upon me as a wheat farmer. Many wheat farmers in northwest Oklahoma in recent years have had their net farm income reduced drastically. Some of these farmers have stated that the present support program coupled with the flexible price for wheat has been largely responsible for their reduced incomes. I have compared my income and costs statements for the current year and 1952 which was the last crop year without acreage restrictions for wheat. It is recognized that the comparisons are limited in their applications but conditions present in both 1952 and this year have contributed much to the situation wherein wheat farmers find themselves today.

[blocks in formation]

My wheat acreage has been reduced 22 percent since 1952; the loan rate has been reduced 12 percent; while the yield per acre was reduced 75 percent. The combination of these reductions in acreage, yield and price resulted in an 83-percent decrease in my gross wheat income from 1952 to 1955. From this information, I believe that the reduction in my wheat income has been caused primarily by the drought and the reduction in the loan price of wheat has least affected it.

What are the other causes of reduced wheat income? The increasing cash expenses involved in farming have further decreased the farmer's income. A further check of my farm records indicate that the cost of farming an acre of wheat has increased 23 percent in the past 3 years. Thus I must conclude that the reduction in my net farm income was primarily the result of the drought and secondly of the increased cash expenses of farming and least from the reduced loan rate.

What are some of the problems involved in the present wheat support program? The ever-increasing surplus of wheat presents a situation which appears almost insurmountable. Statements have been made recently that the surplus of wheat is the result of high rigid price supports. I believe the present surplus of wheat has been created by wheat farmers and that we have never had sufficient courage to seek wheat production control by placing allotments on a bushel basis but have been content to use acreage restrictions, which have allowed reducing the acreage of wheat on each farm without controlling the use of the diverted acreage, thereby creating production problems for farmers that grow oats, grain sorghums, alfalfa and livestock. I believe that the land taken out of wheat should actually be taken out of farm production from a standpoint of harvesting crops or using it for livestock. The "layout" land could be leased to the USDA for a 3- or 5-year term and planted in legumes or grasses to maintain or improve its fertility.

Many interested people are supporters of high rigid prices while others advocate flexible prices for wheat. The case for flexible prices has been that prices could be adjusted upward or downward, based upon supply and thus bring about shifts in production so that we would no longer have surpluses. Some shifts would occur in areas that have alternative production opportunities, however, in the major wheat farming areas such as much of western Oklahoma which have no suitable substitutes for wheat from a standpoint

of income and adaptability, I believe that farmers are likely to continue to produce wheat even under much lower prices. Reducing the price of wheat would not increase the consumption of bread very much because the wheat accounts for only about 15 percent of the retail price of a loaf of bread. Furthermore, the demand for bread as a food in this country appears quite different from that of other foods such as meat or milk. Changes in the price of bread affect the consumption very little while a decrease in the price of meat does increase its demand.

One of the goals of price-support programs has been to assist in attaining equitable treatment or parity for farmers as to purchasing power, distribution of income and maintenance of a prosperous agriculture. With this goal in mind I believe there is much merit to the idea of 100 parity for wheat consumed domestically. It is difficult for a wheat farmer to think in terms other than parity because of his ever-increasing cash costs that result from an inflationary economy.

If wheat farming is to become fairly stabilized we must prevent an abnormal surplus, control the "layout" land and proceed toward correcting the disparity between agriculture and the rest of the economy.

STATEMENT FILED BY HERB SHOUP, RIPLEY, OKLA.

The following recommendations are most earnestly submitted for your consideration. It is my opinion that Secretary Benson's public-relations program has encountered misunderstanding and ill will between the producer and the consumer. This is not a desirable situation. His program and policies have lowered income of farmers. His stated intentions, if carried out, will not be beneficial to farmers and will lower farm income still further. For the foregoing reasons, and others, my first recommendation is that he be replaced with a Secretary of Agriculture who has the interest of rural people as his prime objective. Until this is done, no farm program is going to be successful. To be effective, any governmental program has to be administered in spirit as well as in fact. Secretary Benson has amply proven that this would be impossible for him to do.

It is wishful thinking to believe that the rest of the economy can continue at the present level of prosperity if the trend in agriculture continues. The pages of history record the decline of many governments and empires whose fall could be traced to policies that ignored the importance of a prosperous agriculture. For we, here in the United States, to continue to follow an inadequate farm program, is in my opinion, to assure the ultimate collapse of the entire economy. I am convinced that the members of this committee realize this and are therefore intelligently seeking a solution to this urgent and important problem.

In the drop of cattle prices, millions of dollars were spent. The price of cattle continued to drop, farmers and cattlemen continued to go broke, and the processor of meat products made unprecedented profits. All the time this was happening Secretary Benson was assuring us that everything was lovely. In the current decline of hog prices which is bringing hardship and disaster to so many, $85 million is to be spent.

The price of hogs is lower now than when this program was announced and started. I am firmly convinced that it will be a repetition of what happened with cattle. The producer will continue to suffer and the processor will reap unprecedented profits. The above experiences, and many others which could be recalled, prove conclusively that if we are to help the farmer with the large sums that are being spent in the name of bolstering farm income, some realistic approach will have to be worked out to administer the program whereby the benefits will accrue to those for whom they are intended.

I know in my own case, and that of many of my friends and acquaintances, the products of our labor serve only as a means of profitmaking for the processor. The products that we produce, nearly all of them at a loss the last 2 or 3 years, show a profit for those who handle them after they leave our hands. Considered in this light, we produce so that the ones between us and the consumer may operate profitably. Is it not important that the producer too, operate profitably? To accomplish this, Government assistance will have to be placed in his hands rather than in the hands of the processor as has been done in the recent past. It would be ideal if we could say that the law of supply and demand will solve all the trouble, and eliminate all legislation regarding agricultural supports.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »