Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

some, but on the 1,400-pound basis to use round figures and using 50 cents average per pound, that is $700 an acre. Using Federal crop service basic figures they used to cost $300 per acre expense to grow tobacco. We get that on actual expense in tobacco. Take this $300 an acre from your $700, it leaves $400 an acre net income for labor and capital investment.

The CHAIRMAN. You would want the man who sets that acre aside to get the Government to pay him $400 an acre?

Mr. STANLEY. No; a percentage on interest on this commodity.
The CHAIRMAN. Six percent, $24.

Mr. STANLEY. Six percent or 10 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. You would put a percentage on his income?
Mr. STANLEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Not on value of land?

Mr. STANLEY. That is right, provided he would take this money and use it in soil-building practices set up by ASC.

Mr. COOLEY. Do you think anybody in North Carolina would rent an acre of tobacco to the Government for $24? Certainly not. Nor $44. either.

Mr. STANLEY. I am speaking of the acres in excess.

Mr. COOLEY. I know, but they wouldn't be interested in renting it. Mr. STANLEY. I didn't say 6 percent. I just used that for a figure. You might give 25 percent or 50 percent where it would be less on corn or cotton.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other suggestions?

Mr. STANLEY. On the food bank disposing of the food, if I understand it

The CHAIRMAN. What is that?

Mr. STANLEY. World food bank to get rid of these commodities. Mr. COOLEY. We cannot give them away now.

Mr. STANLEY. I know we have had salesmen in foreign countries. I am a veteran of World War II, served in the southwest Pacific. I have a horror for those people. I know it is the same in Asia and in Europe and so on.

Mr. COOLEY. Did you know that we passed laws in Congress authorizing the Secretary to give the surplus away? All a nation has to do is show a need for it, send a boat in and pick it up and take it home and the Government pays storage, pays the transportation from the place of storage to shipside. We have had that in the law a long

time.

Mr. STANLEY. Does the United States send someone to back this up, to see these people get it and know where it comes from? If you receive a gift from someone in a roundabout way

Mr. COOLEY. We wrote that into the law, too.

Mr. STANLEY. I wanted to make the suggestion. We are very much in favor of these small farmers and, as was said earlier, this soil bank for instance, if it was to be enacted that maybe would go further toward helping the little man instead of the lawyers, bankers, and what have you.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir, thank you.

Mr. Reid, please. Give your name and occupation.

STATEMENT OF H. A. REID, ELIZABETH CITY, N. C.

Mr. REID. I am H. A. Reid, Elizabeth City, a farmer and that is my sole occupation. I think I have a solution to the problem that won't cost the taxpayers anything.

The CHAIRMAN. Give it to us. I am anxious to hear it.

Mr. REID. I believe that if we cut production, just take a certain percentage of the land out of production, completely out, and don't pay anything for it the farmer will receive plenty in return. He will see an increase in income to cover that loss that he takes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think he would do that voluntarily?
Mr. REID. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You want to make him do it?

Mr. REID. As much as I hate to

The CHAIRMAN. You would make him do it?

Mr. REID. As much as I hate for the Government to run it, it won't happen just by voluntary means. I am not going to take it out because I don't think my neighbor will, but if we take a certain amount out of production, 10 or 15 percent, cut down these surpluses, the farmer will get more. I had rather farm 80 acres and make a profit than farm 100 acres and not make a profit. Of course, I realize there are problems in the Midwest and Far West where they don't farm land but every other year, but they know that the farms are set up to raise so many acres of wheat or oats or whatever they raise; instead of raising a thousand acres, let him raise 800.

Mr. COOLEY. We are doing it, now, just what you have been advocating. All these supported crops are controlled.

Mr. REID. Take them down some more.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what we are trying to do, but you will never do it on a voluntary basis and in order to have it down you have to give some kind of incentive, put a little honey under the beehive to get the rest to come to it.

Mr. REID. I would rather farm 80 acres and make a profit than farm a hundred and not make a profit.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Ferbee, give your name and occupation, please.

STATEMENT OF CLAY FERBEE, CAMDEN, N. C.

Mr. FERBEE. I would like to say my bit about the soil-fertility bank. I have heard surpluses, been to several meetings, and one program runs into another. I have made up my mind the only way to cut our surplus down is with the soil-fertility bank. Take a certain number of acres out of production and set it aside. I would do it on a sliding scale. A man running a little farm I wouldn't take, I would take a smaller percentage from him than a big man. I would range from a man with 20 or 30 years, take a little more from a man with 200 acres, a man with 500 take 15 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. We have had that submitted to us today and all through these hearings, just what you are talking about there.

Mr. FERBEE. I would put a little honey in there. I think we do it more voluntarily if we compensate him for the land he takes out. I don't know much about finances to know how to pay him, but we would have to pay him to put these trees in if that was what he

wanted, or soil-building crops or if he just wanted to let it lay and do something he would have to pay him something to let the land lay idle.

I feel we ought to cut it down gradually and also pay him a little to lay it out. I would like to think we could put it up to the farmers and let them vote it themselves and if the majority voted we could make it compulsory.

Mr. COOLEY. They do it on wheat and can do it on corn, and all of the six basic crops. Farmers vote quotas on themselves.

Mr. FERBEE. I would like to vote to take so much land out and when we vote to take it out make it compulsory for everybody. Mr. COOLEY. That is the way it is right now.

Mr. FERBEE. We take it out and put it in corn.

Mr. COOLEY. Taking millions of acres out of cotton.

Mr. FERBEE. I want to lay aside that land and put it in nothing. The CHAIRMAN. You suggest if 10 percent of all acres or 15 percent is put out, you first submit it to the farmers.

Mr. FERBEE. Yes, I think they would vote it.

Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is next?

STATEMENT OF HARVEY C. FAULK, SANFORD, N. C.

Mr. FAULK. I am Harvey C. Faulk, Sanford, N. C. I grow cotton, tobacco, corn, small grain, milk cows, hogs, beef, and children. I think this: We discussed all the different problems, everybody has agreed that farmers aren't getting enough. As a measure to help this:

Whereas, the cost of living is steadily going up, much to the public's discomfort, and whereas our welfare depends to a large extent on public opinion, we as farmers recommend as a measure to strengthen public relations between the farmer and the consumer and to help the consumer better understand where his dollar goes, that each product or article sold be stamped, showing the amount or share the farmer received out of, or for, said product or article.

I don't know if that will solve the problem, but it will, I can't help but believe it will raise our, give better public relations.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say to you as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, I have been having studies made just as you suggest there, had them publicized, made speeches about them and it doesn't work. The great difficulty is to get it to the consumer. The consumer is led to believe he is being gyped and it is the farmer doing the gyping. Of course it isn't true.

Mr. FAULK. How do we tell the consumer? The CHAIRMAN. I don't know. That is something the consumer ought to be interested in and if we could get help from the press and from the columnists and radio people we might be able to get somewhere.

Mr. FAULK. If this article was stamped showing the amount the farmer received

Mr. COOLEY. It fluctuates from day to day and would not be possible.

The CHAIRMAN. The administration of it would be overburdening. Mr. FAULK. Yes.

Mr. COOLEY. Farmers get 30 cents for cotton in a $3.50 shirt, 3 cents for wheat that goes into a loaf of bread. We tell that story wherever

we can.

The CHAIRMAN. I have stated it many times on the Senate floor and that is as far as it went.

Mr. FAULK. In other words, you don't think it would do any good. The CHAIRMAN. We can continue to do it but it doesn't seem to do any good when the farmer today is getting out of the consumer dollar only 40 cents of it. Some time ago he was getting 52 or 53 cents. What we are trying to do is get ways to raise that and that is why we are here today to get suggestions. If you don't have any Mr. FAULK. I was just using that as a suggestion.

The next suggestion is to retain our present acreage, not necessarily our present acreage but looking at a scale of acreage all over, whereas we cut acreage some other country might take on our acreage to more or less sustain that, and to allow agriculture a fair share of the income that the basic product be at all times considered in pricing any finished product, if need be guarantee not only agriculture, but all segments of our economy comparable buying power, that it be made the regulatory factor of the finished product. I haven't heard that.

The CHAIRMAN. That would mean regimentation and fixing prices. That is something that we don't want to go into and maybe end up by destroying our way of life. I would rather keep it going as it ís now rather than destroy our way of life.

Mr. FAULK. I would too. Our price is being set for us.

Mr. COOLEY. I think they are.

Mr. FAULK. What is the difference if you turn it around?

Mr. COOLEY. That is the unfortunate situation the farmer has always been in. He cannot fix his price. He has to take what is offered. The CHAIRMAN. That is because we won't organize and my advice is to organize, but they won't do it.

Mr. FAULK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF J. T. BURTON, NORLINA, N. C.

Mr. BURTON. I am J. T. Burton, Norlina, N. C.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a solution to the problem?

Mr. BURTON. One thing to take production down is child labor doing a lot to produce these things.

The CHAIRMAN. On farms?

Mr. BURTON. Yes; working child labor.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean pass a child-labor law to prevent a farmer from working his own children on the farm?

Mr. BURTON. Hiring them out. The most dangerous occupation there is, and they allow them to work and still he can't go to town and get his children a job.

The CHAIRMAN. Not in a factory.

Mr. BURTON. It is safe in a factory compared to the farm.

The CHAIRMAN. You will never get a bill through Congress preventing a man from working a boy, his own boy, on his farm.

Mr. BURTON. A lot depends on their children, where it would cut production. They keep them out of factories to give people jobs.

Another thing that should be guaranteed-I don't know the average income of the farmer.

The CHAIRMAN. Very low.

Mr. BURTON. But just guarantee him a straight price for everything up to 10,000 or whatever they think it should be, and then figure the average income and pay him back a percentage of whatever he made of that. In other words, if a man, the more he makes the more percent makeup he would get. Put a kind of tax on the product to pay that bill.

Mr. COOLEY. It cannot be done that way. We tried it with processing tax and it was held unconstitutional.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Next?

STATEMENT OF ERNEST CLARK, SHELBY, N. C.

Mr. CLARK. Ernest Clark from Shelby, N. C., Cleveland County. I am going to touch this in the high spots since we put in the whole day and I don't think they have too much suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. I wouldn't say that. We have suggestions.

Mr. CLARK. I don't see that the committee has been helped. I am going to another subject.

I am a dairy and cotton farmer of Cleveland County and I consider it one of my highest privileges to appear before you today. You are the lawmakers of our country and by virtue of being on the Agriculture Committee I know you are interested in the problems of farmers. Before I present one of the problems of our farmers I want to say a personal word to Senator Scott. I believe in giving praise where praise is due to a man while he is living and not wait until he dies and then send him a bouquet of flowers. Senator Scott, we want to thank you for your interest and program to the average and little farmer of our country. Your road program means more than you can ever know to our people your school program means as much, and rewards will come from them for the next hundred years.

My knowledge of your humble and real interest in us caused me to write you for a few minutes before you today.

I am interested in, and our farmers need a Federal crop-insurance program that will take some of the risk out of the hazardous business of farming. As you know, we have had a FCIC program since 1940. It was administered by the old PMA until 1945. During that time it was hard sledding. There were 4,220 contracts in Cleveland County in 1950, when it was turned over to the PMA. In 1954 when it was returned to the FCIC there were only 662 contracts.

In 1948 to 1950 FCIC was on purely an experimental basis and we had a meeting in Winston-Salem. Mr. Cisler, who was head of the FCIC in Washington, was there and I asked him since it was in an experimental stage that Cleveland County be left as it was, and not put back under PMA, because I knew that the number of farmers reached would be reduced to almost nothing. He practically promised me he would, but when it got to Washington, they said, "No." Since the beginning of crop insurance in North Carolina premium income has totaled $6,456,892 and indemnity outgo $5,184,405. So you see this program has not been a drain on the Government Treasury.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »