Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

eventually, it seems maybe it is ideal thinking but nevertheless on the long-range picture we still would like very much to hope that eventually our entire farm-production machine could be put to work for its maximum efforts. I mean by that, of course, that we would put each acre that is productive and can be in production to some good productive purpose. There would be certain acres to take out but to accomplish that we realize, certainly, that our own people must across the board be better fed and clothed and we should make diligent effort to dispose of these as far as we can through export to the other parts of the world that maybe are not quite the free world, I may add-that are not as fortunate as we.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Would you feel it might be necessary to reduce these surpluses, because we want this to be as painless as possible, and even though we have to take a jolt, a lot of my people would rather take a jolt the next year or so than 5 or 6 years hence.

We may have to get rid of some surpluses locally within the United States. Do you, as a banking group, see objection to that? I know it will dislocate some segments of the business economy, but do you not think that is a practical approach?

Mr. KIMBRELL. We are inclined to think very much that doubtless none of the jolts will be any worse to any other segment of the economy than it is at present to the farm segment. We think maybe some of the other segments that are indirectly and directly related should help to share this shock in disposing of these surpluses.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. If we could get rid of from 200 to 350 million bushels of this wheat that is going out of condition in a sense that it is not good milling wheat, easing it into trade channels and feed channels, it might aleviate the situation very, very quickly and yet not do too much damage?

Mr. KIMBRELL. While you are accomplishing that, Senator, we should also like very much to see at least one other thing accomplished and it seems that it might be included, and that is some kind of restriction on the amount of this low-grade wheat that is going to be produced or certain varieties that would be taken out of production and insist that emphasis be given to the better varieties.

We have the same situation-though I am not in the area-the tobacco people certainly are having a tremendous amount of low-grade tobacco that the tobacco companies do not want. They aren't interested in having it. It is largely 1 or 2 varieties that if they were taken out of production we would not have nearly the surplus building up of poor varieties or poor grades that we now have.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. I am glad to hear you say that because those of us in the wheat area are fully aware of this and we regret it.

In my own State of Kansas, greatest wheat-producing State in the United States, we have varieties of wheat being produced that the millers do not want.

In other sections of the country they have gone to certain types of wheat that produce in volume and yet they get the same support price, or did get it, and they get the same guaranteed price. This has contributed to the surplus.

Emphasis now is being put on better milling grades of wheat, in the form of different loan values. In other words, the loan values are up on those good milling qualities and I think it is a step in the right

direction. If it applies to wheat it can apply to tobacco and also to cotton.

[ocr errors]

Here is the difficulty. You talk about exports. Fine. What did we find out? Within the trade itself, in the small grains, some scandals developed. In wheat that was shipped from Commodity Credit stocks due to poor inspections and the injection of foreign material, when it got overseas what happened? When those people looked at it, we got the biggest black eye we could have possibly received.

Our Canadian brethren and others shipped good grades of their grains which made the foreign purchaser say "Why the Americans gyp us" and they charged that indirectly in their thinking to the great agricultural industry, when as a matter of fact, the wheat that comes from the combines and soybeans from the farms, it certainly does not have injection of completely foreign type of materials in it.

This was done within the trade in the country by some sharp operators who wanted to make a fast dollar. This is obviously an administrative problem.

Excuse me for being long winded but this is what I think.
The CHAIRMAN. Anything else?

Mr. KIMBRELL. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear. We like to repeat, the banks are interested in this and we recognize the farmers are not asking for guaranteed annual wage and are not on strike. They are simply asking for just a reasonable slice of the economy. We think their position is reasonable.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bazemore, do you have anything?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. BAZEMORE, GEORGIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION, WAYCROSS, GA.

Mr. BAZEMORE. He was our spokesman.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree with what he stated?

Mr. BAZEMORE. Yes, sir, and I would add we are fully in accord with Mr. Wingate's soil bank if he would just add some pine trees in there with that.

Mr. WINGATE. It is in my recommendations. I didn't get it in there but it is there.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sam Nunn.

STATEMENT OF SAM A. NUNN, MACON FARMERS CLUB, MACON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PERRY, GA.

Mr. NUNN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Sam A. Nunn. I am here as a representative of the Macon Farmers Club which is the agricultural committee of the Macon Chamber of Commerce. I live at Perry, which is some 28 miles south of Macon.

The CHAIRMAN. As has been stated on several other occasions, I am truly glad to note that the businessmen are taking a little more interest about the farmer's plight. I wish there was more of that all over the Nation.

Mr. NUNN. The purpose and scope of the Farmers Club is to advance agriculture and animal husbandry and the best interests of all persons engaged therein.

The Farmers Club serves as the agricultural committee of the Macon Chamber of Commerce.

Its membership includes farmers, bankers, merchants, manufacturers, and professional men.

Macon is located in a very fine agricultural section; and while Macon has a large number of industries, it is estimated that not less than 60 percent of its trade and business is directly related to agriculture. Many of its industries handle, process, and manufacture products produced and used on the farms in its trade area.

In testifying briefly before this committee, I do so primarily as a representative of the Farmers Club of the Macon Chamber of Commerce, however, I might add that I have also been actively engaged in farming for some 30 years. I am also a member of the board of supervisors of the Ocmulgee Soil Conservation District and a member of the Farm Bureau Federation.

We desire to make to this committee the following points:

1. The financial condition of agriculture in this area is bad, and rapidly growing worse.

2. Many farmers in this area will have great difficulty in financing the production of another crop in the coming year.

3. The farmers are struggling under an almost insufferable financial burden. The price of what they buy constantly rises; the price of the products they produce and sell is constantly falling.

4. The farmers of this area have been more prosperous under the support of prices at 90 percent of parity than under so-called flexible support.

5. We recognize that support of the price of farm crops at 90 percent of parity or even 100 percent of parity is not the ultimate answer to the quite distressing condition of the farmers.

Coupled with rigid support at 90 percent of parity, it seems to us that there must be a more determined effort to get rid of the surplus crops in storage. These surplus crops will have to be sold in world markets at world prices, or below world prices. We believe the efforts of the Department of Agriculture to dispose of these surplus crops have been weak, slow, and perhaps fumbling. It seems that we are too much afraid of being accused of "dumping" these surplus crops by countries which produce and sell these same farm products in world markets.

6. We believe that under the flexible support plan which is now playing havoc with the agricultural economy of our country that the Secretary of Agriculture should be limited by law in the percentage by which he can reduce supports in any 1 year. If prices are supported at 90 percent of parity this support should not be permitted to drop to 75 percent or even to 80 percent in any 1 year. The shock and crippling effect is too great.

It seems to us that if the Congress would restore the 90 percent support for 3 years or even 2 years and provide that thereafter, if the surpluses are still burdensome or are depressing prices, the Secretary could reduce support prices by not more than 5 percent in any year, coupled with a corresponding reduction of acreage allotments, this would result in a much sounder, safer program of aid to the farmers. 7. One of the plans suggested by the Secretary is for the Government to rent a percentage of the cultivatible lands, and for the farmer

to plant such rented acres in grasses or soil-building crops. This plan seems to have considerable merit provided:

That the land rented be not the least productive acres on the farm; that restrictions be placed upon such rented acres planted to grass so that the livestock segment of our agriculture be not jeopardized further; that due consideration be given to land capabilities in determining the acres to be taken out of production. Technical skills now available through our soil conservation districts should be utilized in determining the use of the land for which rent will be received. Provision should be made upon a long-time basis for the reforestation of a considerable portion of the rented acres.

We believe that any sound program for the relief of the farmers should first of all make adequate provision for the protection and preservation of our two most vital assets-soil and water. Our Soil Conservation Service, which is doing a marvelous job with inadequate support, should not be treated as a stepchild but as a vital, indispensable member of the agricultural family.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Where you say some of these acres should be taken out of production you mentioned grasses and reforestation. Do you think that all the farmers could stand that expense themselves or would they have to have some Government assistance?

Mr. NUNN. I do not think the farmers could stand that expense themselves.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Therefore we would have to have something included in a program to assist in that respect?

Mr. NUNN. Yes, sir.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any formula to submit other than what has been already stated by previous witnesses?

Mr. NUNN. No, sir; I have not.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Next is E. W. Brooks, R. C. Neely, and Mr. W. J. Estes. For the purpose of the record will each of you state your names in full and your occupation?

Mr. BROOKS. I am D. W. Brooks, general manager of the Cotton Producers Association. We market raw cotton for our members. We have approximately 125,000 producer-members.

Mr. ESTES. I am W. J. Estes, farmer and ginner.

Mr. NEELY. I am R. C. Neely, farmer and ginner.
The CHAIRMAN. Who will be the spokesman?
Mr. BROOKS. I will.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF D. W. BROOKS, GENERAL MANAGER, COTTON PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION, ATLANTA, GA.

Mr. BROOKS. I am going to devote my remarks entirely to cotton unless questions come from the committee otherwise.

Cotton is in the most desperate situation it has ever been in the history of this country. Production at the end of the present season will probably be between 14 and 15 million bales, which is an alltime high. We will produce approximately 17 million bales outside of

the United States and almost 15 million bales in this country, or approximately 32 million bales, which is also an alltime high by approximately 3 million bales.

The carryover last August 1 in the free world was nearly 20 million bales, which means that for the first time in history the total supply in the free world will exceed 50 million bales.

Let us see what has happened to us in cotton and what are some of the possible solutions. Our problems really started in 1951. In 1951 export quotas were placed on cotton producers in this country and at the same time a ceiling was placed on the price of raw cotton. We were prevented as farmers from exporting our cotton out of this country except by permission of the Government and consequently we held in this country a sizable amount of cotton which we could have sold into foreign countries at a tremendous price to cotton farmers. The CHAIRMAN. In that connection I have before me the statistics that show that in 1951-52 the carryover was 2,166,000 bales. Mr. BROOKS. That is true.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it not that which caused the Department to put these export controls on?

Mr. BROOKS. That is correct. On the other hand, as a matter of actual supply we could have sold probably at least another million bales and survived. Now what happened was this: That immediately when this happened to us in this country and we stopped exportation of cotton and put a ceiling on the price of cotton in this country, the price in foreign countries went to 96 cents per pound. For example, a farmer just across the Rio Grande in Mexico could sell his bale of cotton at 96 cents at the same time we, as farmers in this country, were selling our cotton at 45 cents.

Now the reason why I am saying that is because of the fact that there has been a great deal of discussion and a lot of comments about subsidies that are going to farmers. Now there have also been great subsidies that have gone to the consumers of this country because if we had let the price level go as it went in other countries, instead of the consumers paying on the basis of 45 cents for cotton there is certainly direct evidence they might have paid 90 cents because the price of cotton in foreign countries and the price foreign producers received went to 96 cents per pound.

So I am saying that somewhere along the line the reason I am building this is to get some balance here and show all of this has not been for the benefit of farmers and all against consumers-there has been some balancing on both sides.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not mean to argue with you. I just wanted to show the facts and the reason why it was done.

You have stated just a moment ago that the situation has been aggravated by more and more cotton on hand. Is it not true that this huge surplus has developed only in the last 4 or 5 years?

Mr. BROOKS. That is right. It has been developing. But the thing that started tremendous stimulation of production in foreign countries was 96 cents a pound. When that 96 cents a pound hit foreign producers and particularly cotton firms in this country who had some money which they had made off of cotton farmers in this country and they took that money and ran across the border and began to finance and help produce cotton in foreign countries; that is the thing that cranked it on.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »