<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Agricultural relief</title>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt />
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <msIdentifier>
            <idno>1831934515</idno>
          </msIdentifier>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <body>
      <div>272 AGRICULTURAL RELIEF : 
main staple crops in certain years is the main cause of the present farm situation 
n that the surplus production has made the price on the entire crops. The facts 
stated above as to cotton substantiate this, and the same is true with reference 
to other crops. Because of weather conditions and insect and other enemies, 
the farmer is not able to control his production and adjust it to the reasonable 
needs of consumption. In years of good weather and low insect injury large 
crops are produced and low prices are obtained. In other years of unfavorable 
weather conditions and high insect injuries low production results and better 
prices are obtained. The farmer is not able, because of these uncontrollable 
Factors, to adjust production to the needs of the world for varioug staple crops. 
Manufacturers are able to do this reasonably, and because of this ability they 
have had reasonably stable prices for their products. 
The proposals for farm surplus control legislation, or farm relief, are directed 
toward handling the surplus in years of overproduction and distributing it into 
years of underproduction so as to prevent surplus in years of overproduction 
from having the disastrous effects they have had in the past. In the McNary- 
Haugen bill the surplus of cotton in years of overproduction would be bought, 
stored, and held until there is a reasonable demand for it. A Government 
revolving fund to be used as a loan fund is proposed for financing such purchase, 
withholding and sale. In case of loss incurred in handling the cotton in this 
way, the equalization fee assessed against each bale of cotton would be used to 
take care of such loss. The equalization fee used in this way is equivalent to 
the producer buying back and holding his own surplus production until there is 
a need for it in world consumption. National devices of this kind have been 
furnished manufacturers, labor, railroads, and banks for either preventing or 
handling surplus in their several lines. The farmer is the one big group of citi- 
zens which has not had such help in preventing surpluses or handling them when 
they occur. It is believed by those who have given careful study to the McNary- 
Haugen bill that it will work as experience is obtained in operating it in the 
handling of farm surpluses so as to prevent them from having the disastrous 
effect on the growers that they have in the past. It would prevent the wide 
swings in prices that have occurred in the past, and which the cotton growers 
have experienced with the last three crops, and periodically heretofore with 
cotton. This would bring about stability in prices such as has been done already 
reasonably in manufacturing, with organized labor, with transportation, bank- 
ing, and with other business groups. This is the principle involved in the 
McNary-Haugen bill for farm surplus control. Farming can not be put on a 
reasonably safe basis until stability can be brought to the farming industry by 
some measure or device which will make this effective. 
I say this went out in practically all of the State organs of the 
cotton cooperatives. 
Mr. KiNCHELOE. Doctor, in view of our varoius and divergent 
views on this bill, that is a good statement. 
Mr. KercuaM. 1 can only see one improvement that can possibly 
be made. Of course, modesty prevents my suggesting what that 
improvement would have been. 
Mr. AsweLL. I could give him a suggestion that would help him 
a good deal. [Laughter] 
. Mr. KiLgore. Mr. Chairman, my only reason for reading that 
: Wy 1s to show that this matter has been presented to our people in 
he press, at meetings, reasonably, soundly, based on economic prin- 
Tiples. We have not appealed to the prejudice of the farmer; we 
ave not fried to excite him, because I have known—and that is the 
oe on N at the group I work with takes—that if it is to be effective 
and th De practical, it must be sound, it must be economically good; 
and itl 1S my purpose In presenting that to you gentlemen here, 
and par y as a result of the suggestion of Doctor Aswell that I do 
hich sen very many farmers—that they do not know about it. 
Bi ASWELL. did not say that they do not know about it. I say 
4 oF hoe roptesent a large proportion of the growers, and they have 
anything much except about the Haugen bill.</div>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
