they will be in really developing our agriculture. A special effort should be made to work out such plans for farms especially needing credit. If such plans could be made as a basis for such loans, the work of the Farmers Home Administration would be much reduced. It would then consist more largely of making the advances and collections. A majority of such loans should be made by commercial banks. No loaning agency would of course be compelled to accept any farm plans as first worked out as a basis for a loan, but ordinarily they would be only too glad to have such a plan.

As for sil-conservation district operations, the usual procedure would be for the Extension Service and the SCS technicians to work together on a plan for a farm. If they did not agree, the farmer would ordinarily be the one to make the decision. The local association would of course always be looking after such planning operations and discussing all the issues arising.

An important feature of the farm plans being made in New England is the large number of cases in which the plans include the purchase of additional land now being rented, or long-term leases on additional land. Some of the farms are made up of the good fields and pasture plots of what was formerly two or more farms. Such consolidation is just beginning in the South and in the border States. It needs to be helped in every way. The income supplements provided for earlier in my statement could be used to pay the interest on loans for the purchase of such land. The resulting farms, it may need to be made clear, are still family farms, but they are big enough to afford tractors and modern hay-making equipment, or at least to hire it.

It thus appears that this farm planning is almost the key to effective coordination of the work of different agencies.

For these several types of farm-and-home planning, and for especially the A type, a fairly large scale program of assembling and analysis of data, and of training workers for it, would be required. This training needs to be of the on-site type mostly. It could advantageously take the form of planning teams composed of a farmmanagement man, a soil-conservation technician, and a farm forester. working with the local county agent. These teams should include both Federal and State workers at the start; later, State workers could take it over largely. The Federal Office of Extension will need to organize this program and furnish the leadership, and will need additional staff for this. If this not not provided for, progress in farm planing will be as slow in many of the States as it has been in the Tennessee Valley counties under the test-demonstration program. The State extension services will also need further assistance if they are to carry their share of the work in this planning.

Given such a program of farm-and-home planning, the nature of the activities of the State extension services would be changed considerably, and in a direction much needed. The State extension services would find themselves working hand-in-hand with farmers in groups and individually, engaged with them in the process of actual replanning of farms. The State experiment stations would at the same find themselves directing their efforts toward supplying the kind of information that is needed in farm planning. This will be far better than spending their time getting farmers together in meetings and talking to them about conservation and the like. Three

million more dollars spent on talk about conservation will be of little avail.

Senator AIKEN. What are your reasons for feeling that we should not place a 2-percent limitation on the Extension Service funds?

Dr. BLACK. I think that you should work out a budget that will permit the Extension Service to take the kind of part in agricultural programs that it needs to take.

Senator AIKEN. Before you go, Doctor, do you think that the National Council should have any authority or be purely advisory?

Dr. BLACK. I think it should have the authority which is indicated in the bill which you have set up and I would give it just a little more authority on one point.

Senator AIKEN. What is that?

Dr. BLACK. I would have the Secretary of Agriculture bring before it each year his recommendation with respect to production goals and a schedule of prices to go with them, even a sliding schedule suited to each particular product. I would have this Council review these recommendations very carefuly.

In other words, what you propose with respect to parity would extend to these other functions.

,

Senator AIKEN. Would you require their approval?

Dr. BLACK. No, I would not require their approval.

Senator AIKEN. But you would require him to submit his plans to the Advisory Council?

Dr. BLACK. Very much so.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Black, for a very interesting statement.

Dr. BLACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now adjourn and meet again tomorrow at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 11:30 a. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, April 20, 1948.)

AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1948

TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1948

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,

Washington, D. C. The committee met pursuant to adjournment at 10 a. m., in room 324, Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur Capper (chairman), presiding.

Present: Senators Capper, Aiken, Young and Thye.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

This is a resumption on the hearing on Senate bill 2318. At this point in the record I wish to include an amendment to S. 2318 which amendment was proposed by Senator Magnuson and introduced by Senator Lucas.

(The amendment to S. 2318 is as follows:)

[S. 2318, 80th Cong., 2d sess.]

AMENDMENT

Intended to be proposed by Mr. MAGNUSON to the bill (S. 2318) to provide for a coordinated agricultural program, viz: On page 46, line 11, strike out “SEC. 404" and insert in lieu thereof "SEC 405," and insert before the new SEC. 405 the following new section:

SEC. 404. Section 22, as amended, of the Act entitled "The Agricultural Adjustment Act," as added by the Act entitled "An Act to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and for other purposes," approved August 24, 1935 (U. S. C., title 7, sec. 624), is amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 22. (a) Whenever the Secretary of Agriculture finds that any foreign agricultural commodity is being or threatens to be imported into the United States in such quantities and under such circumstances as to interfere materially with any agricultural support, diversion or soil conservation program, including any marketing agreement, or with the profitable marketing of any like agricultural commodity produced in the United States in quantities sufficient to fill domestic requirements, he shall so certify to the President, with his recommendations. If the President shall be satisfied that such importation exists or threatens, he shall undertake the negotiation of an agreement with any country or countries from which any such commodity is imported into the United States, which agreement shall provide such fees on the importation of any such foreign agricultural commodity or such limitations on the total quantities of such commodity which may be imported, or both, as the President determines are necessary to prevent the existing or threatened interference. and he shall then by proclamation impose such fees or limitations, or both. as the agreement provides: Provided, however, That if the President determines that no such agreement can be concluded or that substantial hardship might result to domestic producers of any such commodity pending the negotiation of any such agreement, he shall by proclamation impose such fees or limitations, or both, as he determines are necessary in order to prevent such interference.

227

"(b) The fees and import restrictions imposed under this section shall become effective at such time and shall remain effective for such time as provided by the President in his proclamation, and such fees and restrictions may be revoked, suspended or modified at any time by the President if he finds, upon certification by the Secretary of Agriculture or otherwise, that such revocation, suspension, or modification is warranted and is consistent with the purposes of subsection (a) hereof and any agreement entered into hereunder.

"(c) No limitation shall be imposed under this section on the total quantity of any commodity which may be imported into the United States which reduces the permissible annual importation of such commodity from any country to less than 50 per centum of the average annual quantity of such commodity which was imported from such country during the period from January 1, 1929, to December 31, 1933, both dates inclusive. No fee imposed upon any commodity under this section shall be in excess of 50 per centum ad valorem, and all such fees shall be treated for the purposes of all provisions of law relating to customs revenue as duties imposed by the Tariff Act of 1930.

"(d) Any decision of the President as to facts under this section shall be final."

The CHAIRMAN. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. J. M. Jones, secretary of the National Wool Growers Association, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Mr. J. B. Wilson, legislative chairman, National Wool Growers Association, Washington, D. C.

STATEMENTS OF J. M. JONES, SECRETARY, NATIONAL WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH; AND J. B. WILSON, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. JONES. My name is J. M. Jones, secretary of the National Wool Growers Association, with headquarters at Salt Lake City, Utah. We would like to discuss this morning the sheep-industry problem. in connection with S. 2318, a bill providing for a coordinated agricultural program.

The domestic-sheep industry is deeply grateful and highly appreciative of the work and accomplishments of your committee with respect to providing stop-gap legislation in the first session of the Eightieth Congress for the continuation of the wool-support program. We are also grateful to Senator Aiken and his colleagues for including wool in S. 2318, and for initiating a long-range program now rather than to rely on continued stop-gap legislation.

Since November 1945, the Congress of the United States has had the problem of the domestic-sheep industry under discussion and deliberation. Your committee is well aware of this industry's problem.

So that the committee may have before them, for ready reference, a group of exhibits are attached to this statement which are pertinent to this discussion.

Exhibit A: Stock sheep on farms and production of domestic wool. The reduction of stock sheep numbers since the high of 1942 is 38 percent as of January 1, 1948.

(The exhibit A is as follows:)

EXHIBIT A.-Stock sheep on farms and the production of domestic wool in the

The reduction of stock sheep numbers since the high of 1942 is 38 percent as of January 1, 1948.

Mr. JONES. Exhibit B: Cash income of various agricultural commodities in the 12 Western States and Texas. The sheep industry has dropped in rank of importance with the industries from 7th to 8th place in 1946.

(The exhibit B is as follows:)

EXHIBIT B.-Cash income of various agricultural products and relative importance in 12 western States and Texas