Изображения страниц


Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Yes, sir. I want to mention these figures.
But other costs are shooting up while farm prices go down.
Farmers now pay 72 percent more in interest on money owed on land.
Taxes on farmland are 51 percent higher today than in base period.
Farm wage rates have increased 20 percent following city wages up.
Trucks, tractors, other farm motor vehicles have jumped 25 percent.
Gasoline, oil, diesel fuel, and so forth, are 16 percent more expensive

Farm machinery has increased by 34 percent over the 1947-49 average.

Building and fencing materials are up by 23 percent over base period.

Farmers costs are still rising.

I have tried to show, from quoted figures, the lack of justification for any policy on the part of the administration being advocated that would bring the farmer down to the level of his present income in the midst of advancing prices to all other segments of the Nation and that would apparently indicate an attempt to destroy agriculture's present program without having anything effective to offer in lieu thereof.

I have also tried to indicate the actual seriousness from statistics of the farmer's present position in the national economy. It is our belief that the prosperity of the Nation is geared closely to the economic well-being of our farmers. These farmers constitute our tremendous market for the industrial output of our highly mechanized productive system.

When prosperity comes to the farmer it is reflected in business establishments all over the length and breadth of the land. It is apparent that we cannot treat the economic life of the farmer as an isolated factor to be viewed in and of itself. It must be considered in light of its relationship to our whole economy and that relationship is close and inseparable.

The CHAIRMAN. You are stating the problem. What we want is a solution.

Mr. SCARBOROUGH. The problem is this, immediacy and urgency.
The CHAIRMAN. And do what?
Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Do this: Give us 90 percent parity.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Then if you wish to, then have the soil bank or the acreage rental and then have it so, of course, in no instance can you partake of the advantage of the program unless you enter into and make them obligatory and make it so that the acreages that are relieved from the program cannot be put into the other programs.

The CHAIRMAN. Competing, cross compliance ?

Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Yes. Let's say this: That this program has worked and it will continue to work. Of course, I believe in fitting and tailoring certain programs to suit certain commodities. In cotton it will work, absolutely it will work. But the thing is it is impossible on a permissible act like you have to pass to get an administration that is not in sympathy and then have it properly administered.

That is the thing in a nutshell. The thing has been handled as to bring disrepute upon it. This thing has many gadgets. It is a wellrounded picture like the solution to any of the problems. You have to see the whole picture. The fact is, it had to have encouragement of exports, orderly marketing of domestic and foreign. They have had these surpluses. They missed Brazil sales and things of that kind. Redtape. Similarly, in cotton. Likewise, it has to have a heavy amount of money expense for research, new increased uses, new markets. What I mean to imply is this: Something is needed and needed quickly. Why in the name of commonsense couldn't you have held to this program, the administration? Because under the 1948 act he was athorized to raise these things. He did it on wool, did it on sugar, could have done it under these others. Under an emergency he could have done it. My thought is that maybe you had better amend these laws and make them minimums and things in the requisite, or make them mandatory. I think, if this program can get back and we can get going, you will have time for amendments and make any change, not after the house is destroyed but while the fire is burning.

Senator JOHNSTON. Your position is that after the war in reconversion we paid billions to industry of the United States?


Senator JOHNSTON. We got in this trouble because we were preparing for war and then the Korean war. Now the farmers ought to have some help here to reconvert them and get them back on a stabilized program.

Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Yes. The national welfare demands it. The last thing is this: Inconsistencies in administration. Your Japanese importations coming in. Bringing in European raw cotton to compete with American cotton because the American manufactured items are not sold and he can't buy our stuff, practically paralyzing, throwing out 25,000 workers this fall from the textile industries and cutting down on our industry.

Vast inconsistencies. Absolute unwillingness to see moneys that are thrown away and the fallacy followed. The method indicates an attempt, almost a conspiracy to scuttle our program.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. Chappell, please. Give us your name in full.


Mr. CHAPPELL. J. H. Chappell. I would like to be
The CHAIRMAN. What is your occupation?

Mr. CHAPPELL. Cotton farmer and I farm for a living. I have 8 boys and 1 daughter. All except one is farming on the farm and in that community. I would like to be a little critical of the program from the standpoint that we have let substitutes under this program take a great deal of our cotton consumption, some in the form of pulpwood, which is agricultural, but it has impaired our lumber situation and we can't hardly buy a decent board, any of it is cut immature and in South Carolina, as I understand it, we have lost a lot of acres.

Last year we allotted, I believe, 888,000 acres of cotton in South Carolina. Now this year from some cause or another we have lost maybe some 40,000 of those acres which has gone—this is hearsay, I am no authority on it—has gone to the West. As you know, South Carolina doesn't produce an average of any 2 or 21/2 bales per acre, which California in obtaining our lost acres, instead of cutting our bales down to our programs, quota has added a lot to it and are adding more bales, which has put us in a position to have to take more cuts.

I am not arguing from my standpoint any more than I am from the individual little farmer who has a family and you know that 3, 5, or 7 acres for 12 months annual income to support those families and keep the standard of living up and send them to school is mighty small.

The CHAIRMAN. What size farm have you?
Mr. CHAPPELL. I have a rather large farm. I have about 3,000


The CHAIRMAN. How many in cultivation?

Mr. CHAPPELL. About 1,500. I have about 150 people on that farm working and to be paid.

The CHAIRMAN. Are they tenants ?

Mr. CHAPPELL. Yes, sir. Not that many units but I am just talking about the population of the families on that unit. It works rather a hardship on me. I don't know what is the solution. I don't know what you all can do about it but South Carolina is allotted 880,000 acres we should still maintain or be able to keep our 888,000 acres and not let it go from three-quarters of a bale per acre to 2 or 242 bales in the West.

I don't think the program will be able to ever give its full benefit under those conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. We have been working on that for quite some time. The only thing is we are short of votes, as I pointed out a while ago. Any program like that needs a majority of the Members of the House and of the Senate,

Mr. CHAPPELL. I never have gotten from the agricultural office the reason for taking acres out of South Carolina and sending them somewhere else, when they try to curtail bale production.

The CHAIRMAN. Before the war and during the war there were no marketing quotas, nor any control program and because of that everybody planted all the cotton they desired and the West of course planted quite a bit and then we went back to the historical basis and they added more acres as time went on. That is the way it happened.

Nr. CHAPPELL. Since the program last year the program was in effect and had been in effect and why would South Carolina lose those acres to the West? That is something I don't know.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know. It may be because some of your people, as you heard here today, didn't use the acreage allotted to them. We have had 2 or 3 witnesses come here today who testified that, 1 of them in particular who said he went into peaches, he lost his acres because he did that, because he didn't plant them.

Mr. CHAPPELL. It wasn't taken out of the State. The ground was still here.

The CHAIRMAN. To maintain your historical basis it was necessary for somebody to plant those acres and since they were not planted, they were lost.

Mr. CHAPPELL. How would the West win them?
The CHAIRMAN. They planted it.
Mr. CHAPPELL. They couldn't plant but their quota.
The CHAIRMAN. We had no quota at that time.
Mr. CHAPPELL. This is the third year we have had no quota.

FROM THE FLOOR. That is caused by dropping a year and picking up a later year.

The CHAIRMAN. It is fixed on what you plant the last 5 years.

Mr. CHAPPELL. It looks to me like if the acres were kept in South Carolina with a three-quarters of a billion production it would eliminate some of the surplus.

The CHAIRMAN. You can't do that unless you plant them and since you farmers didn't plant them you lost them. That is how it happaned. If everybody had planted like you, you would have retained it but they didn't do it.

Senator JOHNSTON. They were increasing when we were decreasing,

Mr. CHAPPELL. Something else. You know that pulpwood, and rayon and nylon is substituted for cotton. I never have seen anything that anybody said anything about quota or anything on that.

Senator JOHNSTON. It is not protected.

Mr. CHAPPELL. No, but it seems to me since this is a great competitor of cotton it should be protected.

Senator JOHNSTON. Our free-enterprise system lets people do what they want to almost, in that respect.

Mr. CHAPPELL. We are in the same free enterprise thing in agriculture, farming, cotton farming.

Senator JOHNSTON. You are being protected and they are not.

Mr. CHAPPELL. I want to see why they couldn't protect pulpwood, put it on a program and give the cotton the protection. That is the part, if it takes that to get it I think we need protection. I don't think curtailing cotton acreage ought to let substitutes take our American industry away from us. We are getting stuff shipped in here, rayon, you take the Celanese Corporation of America is importing their basic stuff from South America, I believe.

Senator JOHNSTON. What is that? Mr. CHAPPELL. Timber, pulp, and the Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. of Cincinnati, Ohio, recently built a $15 million celanese plant in southern Florida and will be in competition with cotton. Something else to consider is this Anderson-Clayton has developed a lot of area in Mexico, irrigating area. I have a son in this diesel-motor business in California and one of his friends left there to go to Mexico to work on this project they are going to develop, just a vast territory down there. And Anderson-Clayton promised them they would give them so much for this cotton delivered to our border.

Senator JOHNSTON. Of course, Anderson-Clayton are not the only ones doing that. A lot are doing it in Peru, some in Brazil, Argentina. How to stop that I wouldn't know. You stymie me now.

Mr. CHAPPELL. That is why I am here. I don't want to take up more of your time but I wish we could get these competitive substitutes under control and give cotton its place in industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Now that concludes the witness list that I have before me unless there is somebody that I called and who didn't answer. Is there anybody else?

Senator Thurmond, I understand you have a statement you want to make. We still have about 10 minutes before the hour.



Senator THURMOND. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I want to take this opportunity to welcome you gentlemen here to South Carolina. We are delighted to have you here. I want to thank you for the attentive ear you have given to the farmers of our State.

I would like to express my gratitude to you for this opportunity to express my views on the most perplexing economic problem confronting our Nation. This problem is to provide our farmers with a fair income for their labors. During the congressional recess, I have had the privilege of addressing a number of farm organizations and discussing farm problems with hundreds of farmers and farm leaders from border to border in South Carolina.

Every meeting and discussion has led me to the inescapable conclusion that onr farmers are dangling from the horns of a twin dilemma-rising production costs and falling agricultural prices. The farmer's livelihood is constantly endangered by this dilemma from which no escape has yet been found.

Our nation's agricultural leaders and experts are—I believe-earnestly trying to come to grips with these problems. But thus far, no one has been able to come forward with an adequate solution to them.

I cannot today provide a cure-all answer to the problems which beset our farmers. I do believe, however, that I have some ideas that will aid the Senate Agriculture Committee in drafting legislation during the coming session of Congress.

Our farm problem must not be kicked around like a football for political gain by either party or any person. My sincere hope is that both political parties will work together in the best interests of the farmer. Political gain cannot be considered when the welfare of the Nation's farmers is at stake. Any man of any political party who is willing to capitalize on the suffering of our farmers for political gain is not worthy to be a public servant.

Permit me to suggest seven major points which I hope that the committee will consider:

I might say most of these now have been mentioned, but I have a few facts I would like to bring out in connection with them.

1. Support of basic farm crops at not less than 90 percent of parity: Even if this is done, our farmers still receive, on the average, less than one-half as much income as persons engaged in other lines of endeavor. If producers are willing to make an honest effort to adjust production to consumption, there appears no sound reason to refuse the farmers this consideration. Let it be said to the credit of the farmers of South Carolina, that they have voted overwhelmingly for the acreage reduction program-over 97 percent for it. We should continue to favor 90 percent of parity on the basic crops until someone comes up with a better idea of insuring our farmers against price drops for their money crops such as cotton, tobacco, corn, wheat, peanuts, and rice,

At the present time tobacco is the only crop on a permanent 90 percent of parity basis. You have a House-approved bill not before your committee that would restore rigid price supports for a period

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »