Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

get it down to actual figures that we know a little more about and then I cannot agree with that, either, because when we talk about billions of dollars, I do not know a thing in the world about a billion; I cannot imagine what a billion dollars is.

A fellow told me one day, and I thought he was joking, that if a man was 21 years old on the first day of January in the year 1, and started operating a business and lost $1,000 every day since he had been in business, and you would go to him this morning and tell him "Listen, I understand business has been a little rough and you lost $1,000 every day since January 1, the year 1."

He said "Well, that is true."

"What does it look like to you from here on out?"

Well he said the fellow told him "If it does not get any worse than it is I will be here 750 more years," and he felt that if it did not get better he would retire on the few millions of dollars left.

That sounds unreasonable. A man would be over 2,700 years old spending $1,000 every day, to spend $1 billion. I just cannot imagine that. But our net income is off approximately $6 billion a year; the farmers'. That is 30 percent. It is costing us approximately $7 billion a year more to operate.

Gentlemen, that is a price squeeze that we are in. And I certainly think we are all in agreement that the farmers are in a real price

squeeze.

The CHAIRMAN. You are stating the problem. What we would like to have is a solution. You know we have all the statistics to indicate what the problem is and what we have done.

Mr. WINGATE. We all know, Senator, that the costs of everything are up and the big problem is surpluses. That is the big problem we are faced with today and how to work that out.

In the first place, our farmers have done a grand job, Senator, working out and furnishing food and fiber for wartime. We were never awarded any "E's" or anything, but have done a great job, and I want to say that the surpluses we have had going into the wars have been a blessing. But wars cause our expanded farm program and cause a surplus situation. I certainly won't go into that because we know we have the surpluses here.

But, gentlemen, I would like to state just as positively as I can, that there are so many people have said the 90-percent program― that is part of my program-has caused the expansion of the farm program and that is not so. It was the wars that caused it.

Now industry expanded during the war and after the war was over the War Production Board sold over $42 billion worth of surplus war equipment for less than $7 billion. They had to go ahead producing these things; they asked us to go ahead producing food and fiber. We all wound up with a surplus, but those things were taken off the hands of industry. Contractors and laborers got theirs. We asked them, as you know, to remove some of our surpluses and they said, "We are sorry, we are going to have to cut prices, cut acreage," and so on.

The solution, Senator, that I have and that I am recommending this morning is that we continue our 90-percent support program, not the flexible price-support program. The flexible price-support program has us headed downward today and we are going further and

further down with that price program and there is no other way out under that program.

You just can't go up on it. There is only one way you could go up and that is to get into disastrous conditions; and if you didn't have the price-support program it would go up anyhow. It is a question of how low you are going to set your guaranty with the surpluses we have. That means the price today. In other words, Senator, I mean that if we go down to 50 percent of parity, guaranty, corn would go there, cotton would go there, wheat would go there, just as sure as we are sitting here. So I say definitely that flexible-price supports are not the answer.

I am going to say right here that I don't think 90 percent is the whole answer. I have another recommendation to make there, but first, let me say, Senator, about the surpluses that we have before I leave them.

We had surpluses in the thirties, we have had surpluses before, in all wars. We have had them wiped out and always would get back into trouble before we could get our farm program contracted. There is what we are in trouble on. Industry contracted. The Government cleared all things out of their way, everything out of their way, and they were left with a clear road to travel. As I stated, we were left with our surpluses.

Now there is no way that the farmers, with the surpluses they have on hand today, can get out of it except to take some acres out of production, just like industry takes-well, let me say the steel people. They vary every week nearly a little in their productive capacity. They don't turn out 100 percent every time. But a year and a half ago they were down to 65 percent capacity. A year ago last week they were down to 76 percent. We can only attempt this once a year and that is something that we are going to have to do. That brings me up to this soil bank program.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wingate, in the meantime have you anything to offer to us as to how to get rid of these surpluses that we have now. That, to me, is one of the most vexing problems.

As you know, this year we produced on 3 million acres less than last year, 1 million more bales of cotton.

Mr. WINGATE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And 90 percent price support by themselves will not do. We certainly cannot keep on increasing our surpluses and producing at that rate. Something has to take place in between. What is it in between that you suggest?

Mr. WINGATE. Let us be fair about this. We are never going to know what we are going to produce, and I hope we still break records every year. I can go back and say maybe next year we won't produce over 9 million bales of cotton. Some would argue with me on that, but in 1950 we produced less than 10 million bales on 17 million acres harvested. That is a problem; we have got to try to get rid of some of this burden, some surplus first, and then we will have to try to control to keep it in line.

Senator, I will tell you we have to sell some in foreign countries and get rid of it some way. The Government got rid of the surplus war equipment, tanks, trucks, jeeps, tractors, automobiles, everything; electronics of all kinds. They swept it out, sold over $42 billion for

less than $7 billion, a loss of $35 billion; and you haven't heard a crocodile tear yet shed over that.

I want to say this: When we lose a half billion dollars or threequarters of a billion dollars a year, they hold that before the people right in their eyes all the time. I am still not saying that solves it, but I am saying our Government has to step in through some means, subsidize or something, and move some of this cotton and stuff out of our way and get us in a position where we can produce each year what we would normally consume and export.

The CHAIRMAN. You know, when the program was announced last year it was to produce so many bales of cotton.

Mr. WINGATE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. We have exceeded that by about 4 million bales. Mr. WINGATE. The first time we ever exceeded that much in history, though.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, but in your soil bank fertility program that you speak of, what percentage of the acreage would you take out of production? Have you any idea? How would you handle it?

Mr. WINGATE. Well, Senator, I know you know how broad and complex this farm program is. I don't believe anybody knows any more about that and I know you know I don't have the full answer. But we have done enough work on it; I think we can sit down with you, your staff, and some of the fellows in Washington and really make some program on it.

The CHAIRMAN. We would like to have the idea now so that we can begin working right away in January. Because as chairman of this committee, if I can do it, I want to try to have a bill before the Senate and the Congress within a few weeks after we get back there if possible. That is why the whole committee has been going about the country in order to get information so that we can put our staff next week, if possible, to analyzing all this evidence and then writing into a bill methods by which we can settle this situation. We do not want to wait until late next year to do this. We want to do it early.

That is why we are here to get from you specific proposals if you have any.

Mr. WINGATE. So far as we are concerned, I would like to say the American Farm Bureau Federation has done a lot of work on this and are willing to sit down with you tomorrow and work on it. It is not the real plan, but we are at a point where we can sit down and start formulating it.

The CHAIRMAN. You would be surprised at how the other organizations have the same plans of their own; the Grange has a plan, the Farmers' Union, and others.

Now if we take you in and leave the others out, we will never get a bill through.

Mr. WINGATE. I didn't mean that.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand. We have asked all the organizations for their plans and we hope that out of what they say, what the farmers say, that we will have enough evidence to get a spark or so to show us the way.

Mr. WINGATE. I will proceed.

Senator, let me say again I know of no way to get rid and reduce the surpluses other than to take some acreage out of production. I

don't know of any other business but what has to cut back, shut down furnaces, or something like that. I think we just have to make up our minds we are going to do it and how we are going to do it and wade into it.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you given it sufficient study to tell us whether it shall be on the overall acreage?

Mr. WINGATE. Absolutely, and the only way you can do it.

The CHAIRMAN. Shall it be on a selective basis or let the farmer take out the acres he thinks ought to be taken out?

Mr. WINGATE. No, sir; I think you cannot go there and just take out his nonproductive acres. You cannot do that. You have to take at least an average of part of his good and part of the other.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you propose to pay him a compensation for that per acre?

Mr. WINGATE. Yes, sir; and that has been the big struggle in our arguments up in our group. Some of the boys were determined that they were going to force them in there if we got it and take it out anyhow. We are in agreement it will cost something and we must go in and do the job.

The CHAIRMAN. Even in your own organization there is contention? Mr. WINGATE. It is congealing.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope it does.

Mr. WINGATE. The tighter this squeeze the closer together we are getting.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us get it from Mr. Wingate now, the fine farmer from Georgia: How many acres would you set aside and who would determine that, and how much would you suggest that the Government assume the cost of setting aside such acreage as you think or may be determined as necessary to get out of circulation?

Mr. WINGATE. Senator, I would have to shoot from the hip and I don't mind. I would say take at least 40 million acres out of production.

The CHAIRMAN. About 10 percent.

Mr. WINGATE. Ten percent of the land. You can study our surplus condition and we can get at it, but I would say that is about right. I would say that the Government, in the condition we are in today, the Government should lease that land from us at a fair rate and let us put soil-building practices into effect there. Let us lease it for at least 3 to 5 years; not just 1 or 2 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a formula as to how the Government is to reach a figure for payment on these acres that you take out of production?

Mr. WINGATE. Senator, you have different ways. You have values

The CHAIRMAN. What would you suggest?

Mr. WINGATE. It would have to be done back on the local level. It couldn't be done from Washington. That never would work. You have to come down to the local level, the county committeemen that know values and let them appraise it.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you place that on a date of return on the value of the land, plus taxes?

Mr. WINGATE. I would place it on-people in those sections, you will find a lot that rent land and you have different type lands being

rented and you would have a good cross section. I think you could get at it in a very good way.

The CHAIRMAN. Some have suggested that we go so far as to give to the farmer a certain percentage of what we would have produced on that acre. Would you agree to that or do you think we should consider it?

Mr. WINGATE. I would hate to figure in the last 3 or 4 years and give me what I made on mine. I would rather rent it straight out because I have lost money. I just wouldn't get anything. I think to just place it on a rental basis

The CHAIRMAN. Assuming we set aside 10 percent of the acreage, would you have the basics or any other crops planted along the same line we have been proposing?

Mr. WINGATE. Under control?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. WINGATE. You would have to keep the basics under control maybe a good while, but I think maybe a pretty long time, and you might be in and out of them. But our big problem is when we cut the acreage for basics the farmer is going to put it into something else and there is not a crop I know of that is not in a mess. You can plant it in anything and it gets into a worse mess. We have to make across-the-board basics and nonbasics and all.

The CHAIRMAN. Assuming we take out of cultivation 10 percent, what would be your plan for this coming year for the cotton farmers? How much less acreage would you plant to cotton this year if the proposal of, say 10 percent, were adopted?

Mr. WINGATE. I think we should be realistic here in this. I don't think we are gong to be able to get this bill passed in January in time to catch these crops. I wish we could. Do you think we would have if we could

The CHAIRMAN. That is what we are striving for and why we are out here working to get information. We have before us today, before the committee, a bill passed by the House reinstating the rigid 90-percent supports without any changes.

Mr. WINGATE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, as I indicated before the committee, that in itself will not do the job. That is why we are out here trying to get new methods if we can find them in order to make this program work. Mr. WINGATE. Senator, let me be honest with you about this. don't believe it is humanly possible to get this real big job done here in that short a time. You know how things move along.

I

The CHAIRMAN. If we cannot, we are going to have flexible supports, which you say will not do the job. That is the point. We have to act not next year, but this year if the next crop is to be affected.

Mr. WINGATE. We have passed some laws up there that cost your State some cotton acreage. We changed this law every year and got caught in Georgia and didn't get but 73 percent of our acreage planted; and another year we changed it and didn't get but 80 percent planted, and that is moving cotton out. I don't want to see that happen any more that late. I am ready to go to work on it, but I am afraid this big job going back to the House can't be done in time to catch it. As far as 90 percent, we can make that retroactive. You can kill this sliding scale right here if you get the bill passed before the crop is planted.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »