Page images
PDF
EPUB

it possible to have an expansion of agricultural production during the war, an expansion which never could have been accomplished without this legislation. I doubt if anyone will dispute that statement. The farmers have learned, long, long ago, that they can put themselves out of business by producing too much without any protection.

Therefore this amendment has made a great contribution to the winning of the war, and has and can be expected to continue to make a great contribution during times of peace.

There is one constructive suggestion I would like to make—and I do not know that it has originated with me. In watching the program administered, I think the Secretary of Agriculture takes the same position-and that is that possibly there should be something put into the law to protect the Secretary of Agriculture himself. What I mean by that is this: As far as perishables are concerned, up to this time, it has always seemed to me, from watching the administration of the support for perishables, that there has been a feeling that the Secretary of Agriculture had to take everybody's perishables the day that the farmer thought he would want to market them. I personally do not feel that the committee had that in mind when the original legislation was passed. I think they anticipated an orderly marketing of the crop. And I think the Secretary of Agriculture is right in making that proposal before some committee over in the Senate-because the administration of the program for perishable crops has been a good example of what might occur. The whole support program will be jeopardized if some part of the support program is ineffectively and inefficiently administered.

First of all, we must have due respect for the Treasury of the United States. We do not want to put our Secretary of Agriculture in the position of having to support a commodity just because someone happens to want to sell it a certain day. We do not want to use public funds to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to support surpluses way beyond the normal production of the crop. What I am trying to say is that this program should be based on the fact that, in the public interest, we want to see the agricultural products produced which are necessary to the people within the confines of the United States.

I do not want it to appear as though I have all the answers, but I do think that with the interest which has been shown by this committee, consultation with the chairman and members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, a few words could be put in the bill that would enable the Secretary to follow the law and still do what is right by the taxpayers of the United States so far as the administration of these programs is concerned.

I do not think I have anything to add, Mr. Chairman, any more than to repeat that it has been very gratifying to me to see how many people opposed this program when it first came up-people in high places. You might be interested in knowing that the directors of the experiment stations in the United States came out boldly against it. They ridiculed the farm price-support program. Well, I get into enough arguments without taking on more, so I never became too involved in it, but it has been interesting to watch the effects of the legis lation, and to see how these groups have gradually changed their posi

tion. I do not believe there is a member of this committee who does not believe that a year ago, when this market started down, if it had not been for the Steagall amendment, that many of the farmers of this country would have lost their shirts. I think every member here appreciates that fact. It is so easy to lower prices after they start on the downward grade.

You noticed that when wheat got down to about the support price, it stiffened. It did not go down further and discourage everyone from raising wheat. As a result, everyone in the United States has enough flour and evidently we are going to have sufficient next year, according to our crop estimates.

If you will allow me to express my humble opinion, since I introduced by first bill on this program, certain things have happened. I did not want to make it for 1 year, because I do not like legislation passed on the basis of putting it over until after an election. I wanted to see it passed. I did not want either party to be disturbed to the point of putting it in their platforms, because, while I have great confidence in both parties, I would rather see it in the law than in a platform.

But since I introduced my bill, we have passed the Marshall plan on a 4-year set-up. I only asked for the legislation for 2 years, for the reasons just stated, so that it just would not be an act passed until after the election. I felt it had merit and, therefore, it should be passed.

But I do think my colleague, and a distinguished member of your committee, Mr. Talle of Iowa, is justified in asking for the set-up for 4 years, and that we are under just as much obligation to the rural people of this country, as well as to the general economy of our country in this respect as we were with respect to the authorization of a 4-year program under the Marshall plan.

I do not have to tell this committee, because they know the need of continued support.

Mr. BROWN. Well, you know, Mr. Murray, my bill would make it permanent.

I

Mr. MURRAY. I will not oppose making it permanent, Mr. Brown, but there have been times when I would thank the good Lord if it would just be passed for 1 year. Because there was a great deal of opposition against the philosophy of the price-support program. know the distinguished gentleman from Georgia had very much to do with the original amendment and that he appreciate the benefits. We did have at one time much opposition. People did not understand. They blamed the Steagall amendment for prices being high. That is a sore spot right at this time. There are many consumers who think that somebody is doing something to them. They blame the Steagall amendment. Yet after you analyze it and show them that 90 percent of parity are not high prices, they then see that the farm price-support program, in most cases, does not bring high prices.

Mr. BROWN. I think the distinguished witness had a great deal to do with getting the Steagall amendment through Congress.

Mr. MURRAY. I would like to think that, but I do not really feel that I had too much to do with it. I was sure we were going to get production during the war through the Steagall amendment. Almost anyone in the rural sections knew that. The amendment prevented a postwar rural depression, too.

I saw an example of it in the fall of 1941, when the farmers in my State were promised, without any authority of law, that they were going to get so much for their milk. I sat in at the meetings and did not make any comments, but I wondered who would or could promise it. That was before we had the Steagall amendment. The figures sound pretty low now, but the farmers were promised at least $2.10 a hundred. A little later, some 90 days, milk was selling at $1.65 a hundred. Those who promised it were a little embarrassed.

I made what contribution I could to get this farm price-support program on the books and have it administered in keeping with the law and the only reason that I suggest that you make some little change in the act in connection with perishables is that I do not like to see the Secretary of Agriculture, whichever party he might belong to, criticized for carrying out a program as nearly as he can to the spirit and letter of the law and entail unnecessary losses.

There is a way of doing that very easily, by just adding one sentence. The Secretary of Agriculture would not then be in an embarrassing position. He has had to accept a lot of criticism which I personally feel he should not have had to accept if some provision had been made giving him some basis to take the position that he has taken.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nicholson.

Mr. NICHOLSON. Have you a milk-control board in Wisconsin?

Mr. MURRAY. No. We do not control it. We just see how much of it we can produce, and, due to the Steagall amendment and other reasons-patriotic desire to produce to win the war-Wisconsin jumped from 12,000,000,000 pounds of milk up to 15,000,000,000 pounds, and produced one-eighth of the milk of this Nation which would never have been done but for the Steagall amendment.

Mr. NICHOLSON. We have a milk-control board in Massachusetts which sets the price of milk and protects Massachusetts.

Mr. MURRAY. Yes. I understand that 29 percent of the milk before the war did have a legal support set-up in your milksheds. But that did not apply to the other 7 percent of the milk produced in the United States going into manufactured dairy products. The only rack they have had to hang their hat on has been the Steagall amendment. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Patman.

Mr. PATMAN. First I want to congratulate the gentleman for his long, persistent, and constructive fight on behalf of the farmers. One statement you made attracted my attention particularly. That is that the national economy is usually seven times the income of the farmers. That is over a period of how many years?

Mr. MURRAY. Twenty-five years. It varies a little. Those are not my figures, however.

Mr. PATMAN. I know. I have heard of them. But I think they are of essential interest now, in view of the fact that we have such an enormous national debt, and it is so necessary that we maintain the farmer's income, so that the national income will be maintained, so that we can pay off this national debt with the least inconvenience. Therefore, I think it is highly important that we give to the farmers this measure of security in order that they might continue producing as

they have in the past. I think the farmers made a great contribution to the winning of the last war through this Steagall amendment. Mr. MURRAY. There is no argument about that.

Mr. PATMAN. Food was just as important in the winning of the war as bullets, because the boys could not use the bullets unless they had the food first. So the farmers made a great contribution, and this amendment was very helpful to the farmers, through stimulating them to produce and giving them the security which they needed in order to produce. I think we are going into another emergency now and I believe it is more important than ever that we continue this amendment, as the gentleman says, not for 1 year but for more, and possibly for 4 years. I would like to see it continued indefinitely, as the gentleman from Georgia suggests. Certainly we ought to give them a measure of security for several years to come and I commend the gentleman on his general attitude toward this legislation and his constructive help to the farmers of the country.

Mr. MURRAY. I thank the gentleman from Texas.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions of Mr. Murray? (No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. If not, thank you very much, Mr. Murray. We are very grateful for your contribution. You may extend and revise the

remarks in the record.

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. H. Carl Andersen of Minnesota.

STATEMENT OF HON. H. CARL ANDERSEN, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Mr. ANDERSEN. Mr. Chairman, members of the Banking and Currency Committee. First of all, I would like to join with Mr. Murray in paying tribute to a great committee and to the work this committee has done in past years toward assuring the farmers of the Nation, and, through the farmers, the people of the Nation adequate national

income.

This problem, gentlemen, in my opinion, is the most important problem facing agriculture. To me as a farmer, it means nothing to have soil conservation, Rural Electrification Adinistration, or anything of that nature, unless I can be assured of a decent price for what I produce.

I remember back in 1937, 1938, 1939, and 1940, putting four entire crops of corn on my farm under seal. I had 16,000 bushels under seal. Now, had I been forced to sell that corn when I produced it— and I would have been forced to do so, gentlemen, had it not been through the loan program of the Commodity Credit Corporation-I would have had to take about 45 to 60 cents a bushel for most of that corn, whereas finally, when I did sell out, when the loans were called, I did obtain approximately 90 cents a bushel. That meant all the difference in the world to me as far as making a profit on my farm during those 4 years was concerned.

Therefore, I maintain that the general farm price-support program, gentlemen, is the one basic necessity for agriculture. I cannot pay too much tribute to this committee for assuming, as you have done in the past, regardless of party, price support for the farmers of the Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to back up Mr. Murray in his desire to see the Steagall amendment renewed. I would like to see it renewed for 4 years, if it could be done, but I certainly would like to see it renewed, at the very least, for 2 years. Of course, none of us knows what the new long-range farm program will bring out, but I am extremely fearful that unless your committee gets something accomplished at this session of Congress, that perhaps the farmers of America, and, through them, I repeat, the people of America, will find themselves in a desperate hole next December 31, with a possible tobogganing of farm prices.

We cannot afford, gentlemen, to allow the income of the farmer to go down to a disastrous level. As Mr. Murray has stated, there is ample proof of the fact that if you take a dollar away from the farmer, you are taking 7 dollars away from all the people of America collectively, as far as gross income is concerned. How are we ever going to finance the great budget necessary to run this Government during the next 10 years, without the people of America having a large income subject to taxation. To do so, we must maintain a fair basic price on anything that comes out of the soil; anything that comes out of the mines; anything that comes out of the forest-after all, these constitute our new production, and that is where the new dollars start to roll-and we want to see to it that the producers of that new wealth get reasonable returns-and by reasonable, I mean parity.

Unless we do keep up this general price level, gentlemen, the entire Nation is going to suffer. You know that. I need not tell you. It is not simply a problem concerning the farmer. It is incidental, whether or not I make money on my farm back in Minnesota. But if I do not, the people in my village do not, and pretty soon we see unemployment all the way up throughout the land. It is certainly cheaper, in the long run, to see to it that the farmer gets a decent return, rather than to see our Nation's income decrease to a point where WPA again becomes necessary.

Personally, I would like to reiterate that you gentlemen have here before you the one most important problem, as far as agriculture is concerned, and that is the continuance of the farm price-support program, through the making available of loans by the Commodity Credit Corporation.

That is all, Mr. Chairman. I do not desire to go into details, but I do know that in our Subcommittee on Appropriations for Agriculture this particular problem was gone into very thoroughly this spring and it was generally conceded by all who appeared before that subcommittee that this legislation must be passed. We cannot take a chance on the long-range farm program perhaps not being adopted before the termination of this session of Congress.

When Mr. Murray and I conferred on this subject in January, we decided to introduce the bills at that time, hoping that something would be done this session, gentlemen. I have nothing further to say, Mr. Chairman, beyond that I appreciate very much this opportunity to appear before you.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very grateful for your contribution, Mr. Andersen.

Are there questions of Mr. Andersen?

Mr. BROWN. I agree with Mr. Andersen that the Commodity Credit Corporation has done more for the farmers and the consumers of this

« PreviousContinue »