Agriculture: Farm Progress, February-August, 1970

In his letter to Representative John N. Camp, John C. Pearson urges the lawmaker to do everything in his power to preserve the proposed level of limitation on farm program payments at $110,000. Pearson argues that such limitations would force productive farmers out of the program, and that this would neither limit the amount of commodities produced nor save very much money on the payments.

The letter discusses the farm bill that is being worked on by the Agriculture Committee. There is difficulty with the bill, and Chairman Poage's comments are enclosed. The letter writer expresses the need for a fair and equitable farm program, and asks the congressman to support it.

The National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) is asking for a postponement of the 1971 wheat referendum in order to consider alternative legislation. This comes after the House Agriculture Committee approved a bill extending the final date for the referendum. NAWG President Hatcher stated that neither of the alternatives (a 'yes' vote or a 'no' vote) is economically acceptable under current conditions. The House Agriculture Committee will meet on Tuesday, July 21 to vote on farm legislation. This vote is crucial to the maintenance of wheat grower income. If all goes well, a final vote on wheat, feed grains, and cotton legislation will be held on July 23. Meanwhile, the threat of retaliatory action against U. S. wheat exports by our trading partners has increased due to the House Ways and Means Committee's approval of restrictive trade legislation (the Mills Plan). This could damage the U. S. wheat market if enacted. Secretary of Agriculture Hardin warned the Ways and Means

The House Agriculture Committee has reached a tentative agreement on a three-year subsidy program for dairy, wool, wheat, feed grain, and cotton producers. The cost of the new program is estimated at just over $3 billion per year, and it will include a limit on subsidy payments to individual producers of $55,000 per year.

Constituent correspondence from a constituent to their congressman, urging them to vote against a proposed farm bill. The constituent argues that the bill's payment limitations will harm farmers, and that the land retirement program is not satisfactory. They express hope that one day farmers will be free of government controls.

The text discusses the farm subsidy program in the United States and how it has been misused by big corporations. It argues that the program should be reformed in order to help small family farmers.

The attached statement provides general information on the objectives of the proposed Agricultural Act of 1970, and explains why it is important to both rural and urban America. The Act is designed to meet the needs of farmers, consumers, and taxpayers, and to prevent an upward spiral in farm program costs. It will also keep farm program costs at acceptable levels and provide a reasonable ceiling on payments to individual producers.

The text contains a telegram from Emil L. Griesel, President of the Oklahoma Sheep and Wool Producers, to Happy Camp, a member of the US House of Representatives. In the telegram, Griesel urges Camp to support the Farm Bill (H.R. 18546), which includes the Wool Act, when it comes up for a vote.

The Oklahoma Farm Bureau is urging Congress to vote against the version of the farm bill that is scheduled to come up for a vote tomorrow. They believe that the bill as it is currently written would be bad for farmers in the long term, and would depress farm prices. They believe that the government should not be penalizing farmers for cooperating with its regulations.

The text contains a proposed amendment to the Agriculture Act of 1970 which would prohibit subsidy payments to anyone who does not comply with the minimum wage and maximum hours provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and certify that they are in compliance with all applicable employee health and safety laws. The amendment is carefully limited, and would only affect a small percentage of producers.

The House Agriculture Committee has no meetings scheduled on the farm bill, and none have occurred since Committee Chairman W. R. (Bob) Poage (D-Tex.) adjourned the meeting after rejection of the Nixon Administration proposal on wheat and feed grains. The National Farm Coalition is asking USDA officials for a meeting on the wheat referendum that must be held by Aug. 1 if no farm bill is passed. The CCC selling price for grain sorghum was raised by the USDA 7 cents per cwt. over that previously announced. Hearings on increases in social security and Medicare and Medicaid will begin June 17 in the Senate Finance Committee. The Administration welfare proposal includes health insurance for the poor, adding to Medicare a new plan that would include, on a voluntary basis, all families with incomes below $5,620 per year. Backers of a strong clean air bill were defeated Tuesday when the House turned down a series of amendments that would have strengthened HR

The text contains a letter from a farmer to John Happy Camp, expressing the farmer's views on the need for a decent farm bill. The farmer argues that farm prices are too low compared to the prices of other goods and that the President should not decrease the meat quota.

The Senate has voted to limit individual farm subsidies to $20,000 per year, and has also approved a $500 million increase in food stamp appropriations for needy families. The House Agriculture Committee is expected to approve a similar measure today. If enacted, the measure would cost the nation's big cotton growers $48.2 million in annual federal payments.

The text discusses the need for wheat legislation and the fact that the House Committee on Agriculture has approved the Wheat Research and Promotion Act. It also mentions that the Omnibus Farm Bill has been approved and that John Happy Camp is a member of the committee.

The text contains a letter from M.L. Retzlaff to their congressman, thanking them for supporting the Wheat Research and Promotion Act, and asking them to also support the Omnibus Farm Bill.

The text contains a letter from a farmer to Camp, expressing concern about the farm bill and the effect it will have on farmers. The farmer argues that farmers need to be able to plan ahead, and that the current bill does not allow for this.

In his letter, Roy Schober outlines his criticisms of the current farm program and offers some suggestions for reform. He argues that the program has been a failure because it has tried to hold down production by allocating a certain number of acres per farm. He also argues that it has only made the rich richer and the poor poorer. He suggests limiting subsidy and acreage diversion payments, phasing out farm programs over the next five years, and setting up a long-range land retirement program.

The text discusses the possibility of changing the legislation for the Agriculture Conservation Program so that projects can be completed over a three-year period instead of just one year. This would be beneficial for farmers and communities in terms of solid waste disposal.

In his letter to Senator Bellmon, Carl G. Eling expresses his concern about the future of the Farm Program, and asks for information on pending legislation. He argues that agriculture is not the source of inflation, but the victim of it.

The author of the text is a farmer who is urging Representative Camp to support a good farm bill. The author argues that the current bill being proposed is not adequate and that it would be better to extend the current bill for another five years. The author also argues that prices for farm products have not increased significantly in the last 20 years, while production costs have more than doubled.