some 25 to 30 cents a pound and now they are from 15 to 17 cents a pound. Yet this beef boner in the Atlanta plant is receiving ten to eleven hundred dollars a year to cut my beef off the bone and I can't make ends meet. You can't raise beef for 15 cents a pound. To equip a farm for livestock raising it requires, that is, for a hundred brood cows, it requires an investment of between $50,000 and $75,000. You must mineralize your land; you must prevent erosion; you must build your fences; you must maintain a herd of cattle, requiring a great deal of care and attention. And with labor at the present price you can't raise beef cattle for 15 to 17 cents a pound. I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Well, that completes the list of witnesses who asked to be heard. Senator RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman, I would not have this record closed here today without undertaking to express the appreciation of all Georgia for the action of this committee in coming here to Macon to conduct these hearings. I know I voice the sentiments of my distinguished senior colleague as well as the members of our delegation in the House of Representatives, leaders of the farm organization and the farmers of this State, as well as citizens generally, who recognize their dependence on agriculture for real prosperity, when I say that this committee at its hearings here made a very great impression on all who were privileged to attend. No one can fail to have noted the patience that has been displayed by the chairman and by the members of this committee, as well as the diligence of the chairman and members of the committee. Of course, it is very evident to anyone who has been here that the chairman never heard of an 8-hour day or 40-hour week but he has been very diligent in undertaking to garner facts that would be helpful in solving the greatest problem that confronts our country today. We cannot long sustain this prosperity that the other segments of our economy enjoys unless we bring the farmers of this Nation into fuller partnership in that prosperity. We tried it before. We should know from bitter experience that we are living in a fool's paradise when we think we can have permanent prosperity when the farmers are only receiving such a small percent of the income because before we know it, before we realize just how it happens, the other interests of the Nation that seem to be so prosperous get into a condition from which they cannot be salvaged. We can salvage the farm problem if we have a will to do it because the farmer is so small a part of our national population that we can take the steps necessary. When I went to Congress farmers were 30 percent of the people of the country. Today the real farmers are around 13 or 14. We have some marginal people included in the figures. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that we are grateful to you for the interest you have displayed and sincerity of purpose that has been evident here, and the determination with which this great committee of the Senate of the United States approaches this problem. We believe that with this work and with this energy and with this intelligence that is being applied to this problem that we can solve it; we can really achieve genuine prosperity in this country that will be available to all our people who are willing to work for it and then enable our Nation to survive in a troubled world and maintain our position of world leadership. We thank you so much for coming and for your diligence and patience in these hearings. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Russell. We are going to lean heavily on you and your senior Senator and I know you will give your best to it as we are trying to do now. I realize that the problems are many, but we can solve them if we will get together and work. As far as I am concerned, if it takes 18 or 20 hours a day I will do it. All right, if there is nobody else who desires to be heard the committee will stand in recess until 9 o'clock Monday morning in Columbia, S. C. (Whereupon, at 5:35 p. m., Saturday, November 12, 1955, the hearing in Macon, Ga., adjourned.) (Additional statements filed for the record are as follows:) COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, WINTER PARK, FLA., November 1, 1955. United States Senate, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: We appreciate the opportunity which is presented by your committee to appear before it in regard to legislation affecting farm people. It is possible that a number of our members will appear before your committee to express themselves on an individual basis. As an organization, however, we are presently in the process of meeting in each of 58 county farm bureaus to discuss the various proposals and to arrive at the opinion of the majority. We will then hold a statewide meeting where delegates from all of these counties will vote to determine the majority opinion there. These recommendations will then go to a national meeting where once again the majority opinion of farmers will be determined. We respectfully request the opportunity to present our position to you after we have gone through this democratic process of accurately determining the opinion of the majority of the farmers of America. We are appreciative of your efforts in behalf of agriculture and your taking the time necessary to vist the farm areas of our Nation. We hope to have finished our policy development process by the middle of December, and will then present to your committee the recommendations of our organization. Respectfully yours, FLORIDA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, STATEMENT FILED BY J. R. KELLY, STATEsboro, Ga. I, J. R. Kelly, having a degree in agricultural engineering from the University of Georgia, having had 15 years' experience with the United States Department of Agriculture, and having been owner and operator of a 250-acre farm in Bulloch County for 8 years would like to submit for consideration the following changes in the national agricultural program: I. That production quotas be established for all allotted crops except tobacco: A. That these quotas be arrived at for such individual farm by multiplying the average yield per acre of the farm by the present allotted acreage. B. That after production quotas have been established for each farm, marketing books be issued to the producer showing his production quota. C. That these books not be transferable. D. That when buyer purchases crop, he will pay the producer 90 percent parity price, and submit vouchers to the local ASC oflice for the difference in market price and 90 percent parity. E. That excess crops may be sold at current market prices. II. That, in order to qualify for a production quota on any crop, the producer must establish a grass or legume sod and remove from row-crop production a percentage of his total cropland. The following is a suggested guide: Up to 100 acres cropland, 10 percent sod and removed from production. A. That 75 percent of the cost of seed and fertilizer to establish these sods be paid for by the Federal Government. B. That these percentages and acreages of sodded crops be checked and approved by the local ASC representative before marketing books are issued to the producer. III. That no changes be made in the present tobacco program. IV. That any producer of allotted crops be permitted to return production, quota or acreage to the local ASC office for redistribution by a specified date from year to year. V. That the Federal Government continue to keep in storage a sufficient supply of all crops to meet any national emergency. Where satisfactory storage facilities exist on individual farms, some of these supplies held might be purchased directly from the farmer and stored on the farm. VI. That the loan program for farm-storage buildings be administered by the Farmers Home Administration, and that the regulations be changed so that the producer may borrow 80 percent of the total cost of the building rather than 60 percent of the total cost under the present regulations. STATEMENT FILED BY STEWART PHINIZY, PARTNER, PHINIZY & PHINIZY, AUGUSTA, GA., C. B. WHITNEY, PRESIDENT, S. M. WHITNEY CO., INC., AUGUSta, Ga., and C. O. DEBEAUGRION, PRESIDENT, LYON, LYON & CO., INC., Augusta, Ga. We know we are speaking for the farmers in expressing our appreciation for the efforts you are making toward working out a most difficult situation. We feel you are going the extra mile in order that the producer may get his fair share in this era of prosperity; you are working in a good cause and where help is badly needed. As cotton factors of Augusta, Ga., we represent firms who have served the cotton producers of this area (of Georgia and South Carolina) for 30 to 90 years. We are vitally interested in the future of the cotton farmer and the farm program in general. While we do not propose to know the answer to the farm problem, we do have some thoughts based on practical experience which we would like to present for your consideration. A very large proportion of the farmers who do business with us are small farmers. We have seen these small producers suffer a great deal through the years of acreage control; the overall financial plight of this group at the present time is extremely bad. We believe in acreage controls but we think there should be a livable minimum acreage established for the small farmer. Unless this is done, it can readily reach the point where he would be forced to abandon the farm and become a ward of the State or Federal Government. An equitable formula of acreage control should be based on a sliding scale similar to income taxes. In considering acreage control, always bear in mind we have an intersacrifice accomplishes nothing in regard to world supplies. A world conference national problem as well as a domestic one. Whenever our farmer cuts an acre, an additional acre is generally planted in a foreign country, and our producer's sacrifice accomplishes nothing in regard to world supplies. A world conference should be held with the hope of cooperation in acreage controls at world levels. Under present economic conditions, with labor having a high support (wage and hour and immigration laws) and the manufacturer being protected by a tariff, we believe the farmer should be protected with a minimum of 90 percent of parity based on middling seven-eighths. There have been two schools of thought; high supports and flexible supports. To have flexible supports for the farmer, it would only be fair to have flexible supports for labor and manufacturer; the latter two are impossible. We are therefore convinced it is not pos Mr. BENNETT. If we got hungry we would be glad to pay it. But cotton can be kept. Corn couldn't be kept long. We could keep these surpluses over a period and gradually work them back in. We can smooth out these ups and downs. We have proven that. Your support under cotton, today's paper shows cotton went up in the face of this last estimate and I don't think anybody would argue if you didn't have a fixed support cotton would be going up in increased production. Fixed supports do work and they do maintain a floor that a farmer can live under. The reason we ask for 90 percent is because we are reasonable and that gives a 10 percent leeway to pay for the storage of this stuff, and there is no reason for the Government to take the loss on this stuff. I realize we are going to have to subsidize some movement into export but cotton can be kept until the time when it will be needed and a time when it will be profitable to sell. So the Government doesn't have to take a loss on that cotton. They will have to store it and you will have expense storing it, but you have got expense in keeping that gold there, too. On perishable crops which you produce, livestock, my main commodity, you cannot store that. The only practical way to move that stuff is to move it into production with some kind of subsidy program. Your present subsidy under hogs is the right approach. It just isn't adequate to do the job. We should subsidize the movement of a temporary surplus like that into consumption and get rid of it like we did with butter and it will work to dispose of perishables in that manner. It will cost some money, but the farmers are entitled to it if we want a stable agriculture. I submit it will cost more in the long run not to do it because you can no more maintain the economy of this country on the level we are and pull down agriculture. We cannot sell anything in quantity. There are a few items we can manufacture and sell in world commerce, but I agree with the Senator that we cannot grow stuff and sell it at world prices with our high standard of labor and living in this country. So when we go to trade in foreign affairs we must step down to be able ot sell it. Therefore, if we have tariffs to raise the level in this country we have to have some way of stepping it down to move it out; and a surplus-disposal program is the only way to solve this problem. There is one other thing and that is the control of money in this country. As you know, the Federal Reserve controls quantity and credit of the country. When you run the price of money up you run the price of goods down. We have a policy going on right immediately now of running the price of money up. Interest rates have doubled in the last 12 months. The CHAIRMAN. Doubled? Mr. BENNETT. Prime interest rates have doubled in the last 12 months. The Government is paying the highest rate on 90-day bills they ever paid. The CHAIRMAN. What the Government borrows? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, and prime interest rates to business, also. It is the policy of the present Federal Reserve Board, which controls that. Now the supply of money and supply of goods must balance. If you decrease supply of money and increase the supply of goods you necessarily lower prices. Therefore, as we increase production in this country we need a money policy that will increase as that production increases. Otherwise you are bound to run into disaster periods like we have. I have a statement: It is a poor government that can't print money faster than a farmer can raise cows. You can increase money faster than you can increase goods. That is what war does, increases money supply in relation to the goods. We do need a money policy that will increase money supply in line with goods; otherwise I don't care what you do, you will reduce your acres completely out of reason to get it down to where it can be sold. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. All right. I wish the witnesses hereafter would confine their testimony to something new, not just stating the problem. We are looking for a prescription. The doctor knows the trouble. You write a prescription. Mr. Tillman. TESTIMONY OF H. YOUNG TILLMAN, VALDOSTA, GA. Mr. TILLMAN. I am H. Young Tillman. I am a farmer, a general farmer of some 36 years. Since the national position of agriculture has been so capably presented at this hearing I will not attempt to dwell upon that or any other phase of agriculture that has been covered here except to endorse some of the things that have been said. I would like to present at this time the problem of a small farmer. I would also like to define, if I may, what in my opinion is a small farmer. I am inclined to believe that since agriculture has developed into a mechanization that large farmers are those farmers that acquire sufficient capital to operate on a large-scale mechanized unit and acquire their capital usually outside of agricultural endeavors. A small farmer, in my opinion, is a farmer that derives all of his source of income from the land alone, regardless of the size of his operation: That is true in Georgia; that might not be true in Kansas. But in the State of Georgia and in my county, the farmers that have been large farmers in that county have become small farmers in recent years. I have this much evidence to prove what I am saying. My base for the production of tobacco was 85 acres at the beginning of the program, the first and second program we have been through you might say. The CHAIRMAN. When was that? In 1937? Mr. TILLMAN. That is when the program began. The CHAIRMAN. 1937. Mr. TILLMAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You had 85 acres? Mr. TILLMAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. How much did you produce per acre then? Mr. TILLMAN. If you don't mind I would just like to complete my statement to this extent The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. |