Some of the economic objectives set forth in section 2 might equally well be achieved, for the immediate present, under a family-type farm system or under a system of monopolistic, industrialized agriculture. But socially and culturally, the displacement of farm families by large farming corporations would be disastrous. Ultimately it would result in the creation of a land-hungry proletariat and the rural inequities which were found in some of the older agricultural economies of eastern Europe, prior to present upheavals, and which still exist in much of Latin America.

Even though it be mechanized and temporarily productive, large corporation farming has its feudal aspects. In any case it has undemocratic implications, as regards landownership, which are not acceptable to many of the American people. It can be seriously detrimental to natural resources, if not controlled. Our economic policy for agriculture should therefore be so framed as to positively dis courage monopolistic farm practices, the exploitation of small landowners and agricultural labor, and the misuse of resources. There are some further com ments on these points below.

Specifically, it seems to me that (1) of section 2 would profit by expansion to include the social characteristics of the family-farm system. This would insure that we not only have production but achieve it in a way socially beneficial to American family life.

With numbers (2) to (6) there is much that is progressive and desirable. Such policy objectives need to be set forth.

The objective indicated in (7) is good in itself. However, a complete conservation program will have to be broader than one obtainable by the efforts of farm operators alone.

The paragraphs of section 2 touching upon conservation programs, namely (8) and (9), have far-reaching effects which cannot be overlooked. In certain ways they change radically our existing programs for conservation. Careful study of the effects of such changes is necessary. In (8) the objective is set down of coordinated research and information services concerning conservation practices. But the more important objective of a unified approach to conservation programs, on the national level, is not considered. Instead, in (9) it seems to be assumed that the only coordination of programs will be as regards incentive payments.

Care of our human resources, as they are called, is all-important. Accordingly (10), which is a key objective, should be more specific. Also, what is meant by "efficient employment of rural human resources" needs to be defined. It could mean exploitation of manpower by large commercial growers, or encouragement of undesirable rural-urban migration, or it could mean systematic development of rural areas, decentralization of industry, and other desirable procedures. This seems too important a point to leave loosely worded.

Under (11), other Government agencies concerned with rural people are not given sufficient attention as regards necessary educational work. This policy objective could be interpreted to mean that adult education in the rural areas was the concern solely of agricultural extension services. Now this seems a narrow approach, even though as much coordination of effort as possible is objectively desirable.

With (12) and (13) there can be no disagreement. Much depends on the specific ways these objectives are implemented.

The separation of research and action programs as provided in (14), is in itself a worth-while goal. However, it should not be rigorously interpreted so as to handicap agencies capable of doing both a research and activities program job. In organizing administration it is sometimes necessary to take into account historical circumstances. It is quite possible that too strict interpretation of this policy objective would result in inaction regarding important programs by the various extension services and the State and county agricultural committees. Sometimes a Federal agency has to reach down into the local level just to get things going.

Owner-operated farms, particuarly of the medium size, are a most desirable goal for agricultural policy. Facilitation of such ownerhip by provision of credit to prospective owners is necessary as (15) recognizes. But, some further additions seems needed to indicate opposition to systematic absorption of familytype farms by large land corporations.

Objectives (16) and (17) are in full accord with progressive thinking in agricultural economics and with sound social principles. Marketing agreements, and the judicious handling of surpluses in perishable products are effective

means of stabilizing our farm economy. The school-lunch program, and some sort of distribution system for low-income families, are good ways of providing outlets for products in surplus supply. They are also instrumental in improving dietary habits and creating additional demand for farm products.

REORGANIZATION

In principle, the decentralization of economic functions is to be commended In practice, its results must be carefully weighed as they manifest themselves in individual programs. Concretely, the effect of title I would seem to be to place our soil-conservation program in the hands of State and county policy committees. It would make a national approach to conservation of natural

resources most difficult.

The regional offices of the existing Soil Conservation Service would be abolished by title I and such regional offices could only be continued where several States asked for them. Extension services would take over the educational information and demonstrational functions of soil conservation and the research features would be placed in the hands of the experiment stations.

Theoretically, this approach has much to commend it, but in practice it would mean a break-down in our coordinated attack upon the problems of erosion and conservation. At this time, when 500,000 acres annually are being damaged seriously, a national program is most necessary. If anything, our conservation program should be extended to include more effective control of forest and water

resources.

The National Catholic Rural Life Conference would like to go on record as favoring retention of the soil-conservation districts, as provided for under existing legislation. It regards such districts as democratic in their organization. Because of the nature of conservation problems, which vary according to regions, and areas, such districts are well adapted to the working-out of effective programs. They can, moreover, be integrated with State and county agricultural planning, as proposed legislation before the House Committee on Agriculture indicates.

In approaching the conservation program, it seems desirable to keep distinct the payments made to farmers for support of prices and purely incentive payments for conservation. The economic and conservation programs should not be confused.

Conservation of natural resources is so important a problem in our country, due to the accelerated rate of soil depletion and the needs of an increasing population, that thought should be given to integrating all conservation work under one agency or administration. This should be a separate entity, and not merely part of an educational and informational program, such as is provided by agricultural extension service.

There is real danger of not doing enough to preserve our vanishing soil, water, and forest resources. The approach to the problem must be comprehensive and on a national level. In the past, our Nation has failed to take effective action in promotion conservation. During the last decade the Soil Conservation Service has done much to correct this deficiency. We should be careful not to take a backward step. Otherwise there will be no effective control over our much-needed

resources.

STATE AND COUNTY ORGANIZATIONS

Administration or supervision of agricultural programs by farmer representatives is a desirable goal. However, the organization built up should be one to safeguard established and worth-while programs. Federal supervision of conservation policy must be adequately provided for. In certain States, there is real danger that the State and county committees, unless their authority is limited, will work at cross purposes with the national conservation program.

The agricultural council plan envisioned in title I has its advantages. It integrates effort on all levels and provides for representation of many interested parties. Certain aspects of this program have already proved workable. However, such agricultural committees or councils must be so constituted that they cannot be used for purposes of self-interest by large and influential growers. The assumption that all American farmers and persons engaged in agriculture fit into the same category cannot be accepted. Large grower interests, which we can be sure will be represented on the agricultural councils, may pursue policies actually detrimental to smaller family-type farmers and to farm labor, 75470-48-20

whether organized or unorganized. For that reason provision should be made to give adequate representation to small- and medium-size growers and to agricultural labor. In a number of States this is seemingly not important, but in others, like California, or where corporation farming has taken hold, the entrusting of land policy to grower-dominated councils would be equivalent to giving them undue power over smaller farmers and farm labor. So, while advocating the agricultural council plan in principle, I would suggest that the concept be extended to secure broader representation and to safeguard national policies laid down by Congress.

SUMMARY

In conclusion, may I sum up our position. The National Catholic Rural Life Conference favors enactment of long-term agricultural policy in the near future. It wants to see this policy so formulated as to insure the greatest social good, and to assist, rather than hinder, sound family living upon the land. It wants an efficient and prosperous agriculture and hence realizes the need for a constructive economic program such as is sought for in title III of S. 2318. Without endorsing every detail of this economic program, it recognizes that farm prices cannot be left unprotected in the uncertain months ahead.

Regarding the national soil-conservation program, however, the conference has already gone on record as favoring retention of the soil-conservation districts and their participation in a unified national conservation program. Stewardship, not only of the land, but of forest and water resources is its guiding norm in judging conservation policy.

I do not feel that subordination of the existing Soil Conservation Service to already overburdened agencies is in line with a constructive policy regarding use and development of our resources. Rather, we need an expanded conservation program which would unify and coordinate existing efforts. The objectives set forth in the Jensen bill and the land-policy bill introduced on March 30 by Congressman Clifford R. Hope, are in line with National Catholic Life Conference thinking.

In any economic program adopted it will be necessary to give due attention to international commodity agreements. Restrictions on agricultural exports and imports should be held to a minimum.

The agricultural council plan, integrating agricultural policy on county, State, and national levels, is in itself desirable. However, the authority of these councils must be clearly limited so they will not be in a position to obstruct or ignore needed national programs. The small farmer, and the farm worker need representation if domination of agricultural policy by large growers and exploitation of farm workers is not to ensue. Such broad representation on the councils should be mandatory. Also, there seems no reason why agricultural councils cannot exist side by side with the established and prospering soil-conservation districts.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Fawcett here.

Mr. FAWCETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you mind if we had your statement printed in the record in its entirety?

Mr. FAWCETT. Would there be time at a future date to appear before the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. We have a full schedule in the morning. Could you summarize your statement?

Mr. FAWCETT. I do not have it summarized, but I would be glad to do whatever you say.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be necessary for us to adjourn the hearing this morning as we have to go over to the Senate chamber.

Mr. FAWCETT. Could I take my chances tomorrow morning?

The CHAIRMAN. You might have to wait a while tomorrow morning but I think we can get to you then.

Mr. FAWCETT. If it is possible, I should like to present my statement because I think there might be some questions which might amplify it a little bit.

The CHAIRMAN. Come in tomorrow and we will find some time, I think, for your presentation.

Mr. FAWCETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m., Thursday, April 22, 1948.)