« PreviousContinue »
AUTHORIZING THE EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS, NORTH CAROLINA, TO LEASE CERTAIN LANDS FOR A PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING 40 YEARS
Jour 7, 1940.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. REDDEN, from the Committee on Public Lands, submitted
(To accompany H. R. 4901)
The Committee on Public Lands, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 4901) to authorize the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina, to lease certain lands for a period not exceeding 40 years having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
EXPLANATION OF THE BILL
The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina, to lease to the Farmers Federation Cooperative,' a tract of land containing approximately 1% acres. No expenditure of Federal funds is required.
The Farmers Federation Cooperative has requested that it be allowed to establish a store and trading post at Cherokee Village. The proposed site, covered by this bill, is conveniently located for the Indians and would save them certain transportation costs and time, in addition to furnishing an accessible market for their products. The tribal council has adopted a resolution recommending that a lease be given to the federation.
H. R. 4901 provides that the lease shall be in effect for a term not to exceed 40 years. This long-term lease would permit the federation to make certain improvements, such as frozen-food lockers, that would not be practicable under a short-term lease.
At hearings held before a subcommittee of the Committee on Public Lands, representatives of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, expressed approval of the legislation and recommended its enactment. Also appearing in support of the bill were the superintendent of the Cherokee Indian Reservation, the vice chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the president of the Farmers Federation of North Carolina.
The Committee on Public Lands unanimously recommends that H. R. 4901 be enacted.
AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1949
JULY 7, 1949.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. COOLEY, from the Committee on Agriculture, submitted the
(To accompany H. R. 5345)
The Committee on Agriculture, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5345) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
A copy of the bill is bereto appended, marked “Exhibit A.”
Titles II and III of the Agricultural Act of 1948 (the Aiken Act) are hereto appended, marked "Exhibit B."
Almost continuously during the past 2 years the Committee on Agriculture has carried on investigations and studies and conducted bearings with regard to a sound program for agriculture for the future. During the present session of the Congress these hearings started in January and are still in progress. We have heard from farmers in every part of the country, producing crops of every kind, character, and description. We have also given careful attention to the views and recommendations of every other type or class of business--those who prepare the crops for markets, those who haul or transport the crops, the processors, the bankers, the brokers, the workers in the processing plants, and, in good number, the housewives and wage earners who provide the market for the products of the farm. From all this the committee has become convinced, among other things, that no single plan, no one method of supporting prices, no one program for producing enough but not too much, can bring about the desired results of assuring producers a fair return for their labor and investment and all the people abundant food at reasonable prices. There are so many kinds of farms, there are so many different commodities produced, and there are so many kinds of markets and middlemen, that several plans and programs should be made available. And those who work in the sun in the fields, those who produce the crops, should have some choice of the program they work under. Several methods of supporting prices should be authorized. Different plans for keeping production within reasonable limits should be provided.
For example, the only methods now authorized by law for supporting prices is through loans or purchases. Sometimes, with potatoes, for example, loans cannot be used and purchases have proved to be impracticable or too expensive. That is the reason why, in this bill, the committee has provided for an experimental program or trial of the use of production payments-to find out the things no man can tell us: (1) The probable cost, (2) the administrative problems and difficulties, and (3) whether in fact the consumers—the people who must provide the funds for these payments—will receive benefits in keeping with the costs.
On the other hand, for keeping production in line with need and demand, the law now authorizes only (1) acreage controls, (2) marketing quotas, and (3) marketing agreements and orders, and each of these is limited to only a few commodities. Before the end of this Congress the committee plans to give consideration to legislation to authorize a two-price or domestic allotment plan, a price-support insurance plan, a greatly expanded marketing agreement act, and other measures to complete a sound, safe, and sensible farm program.
The bill recommended by the committee does three major things:
(1) It provides a new and modernized method for the calculation of parity, to be known as the income-support standard;
(2) It continues to provide price support for agricultural commodi. ties at about the present levels;
(3) It authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make a test or trial, on three commodities, of the production payment method of supporting prices. With the exception of shorn wool, these commodities must be perishable, nonstorable. Wool was authorized as one of three in order that domestic wool may move into domestic consumption in competition with foreign wool.
It should be added that, before employing the production payment plan with respect to any commodity the Secretary must find and determine
(1) That production payments are the most effective and practicable method of providing price support;
(2) That the use of production payments will not substantially reduce the market price of, or the demand for, any other agricultural commodity;
(3) That the Congress has approved the annual budget programs setting up funds for such payments.
Later in this report will be found a section-by-section analysis of the bill, explaining in detail the other provisions.
This bill presents an issue which the Congress should settle before adjournment. It is one of the most important issues ever to face the farmers of the Nation, and, judging from the testimony presented to the committee, they await with serious concern the outcome.
The issue is: Will the type of program set out in this bill become effective on January 1, 1950, or will the Agricultural Act of 1948 (commonly and hereinafter referred to as the Aiken Act) become effective on that date?
In deciding that issue the Congress must determine
(1) Unrestricted direct payments.-Will the Secretary of Agriculture be given general, unlimited, unrestricted, and unrestrained authority to use the production payment metbod in supporting prices?
The Aiken Act, section 202 (a), provides as follows: The Secretary, through the Commodity Credit Corporation and other means available to him, is authorized to support prices of agricultural commodities to producers through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations.
Hon. Carroll Hunter, Solicitor of the Department of Agriculture, testified as follows before the committee:
The Aiken bill provides a wider choice of the means of price support, since it authorizes the Department to support the price of agricultural commodities to producers through loans, purchases, payments, and other operations, thus expressly recognizing that it is possible to extend price support to producers by means of direct payments to the producers, a type of operation which the De partment has not yet undertaken for price-support purposes.
Unlike the bill which the committee now recommends, the Aiken Act does not place any restrictions, conditions, or limitations on the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture in the use of production payments. That act does not provide (as does the committee bill) that payments may be used on only three commodities at one time; nor tbat (except as to shorn wool) those three must be perishable, nonstorable commodities; nor that before using payments the Secretary must find that the use of payments is the most effective and practicable method of providing price support; nor that the use of payments will not substantially reduce the market price of, or the demand for, any other agricultural commodity.
None of these conditions and limitations, nor any other, are placed on the Secretary in the Aiken Act. He is left fancy-free and all he Deeds is the money. He can use payments on the basic commoditieseven on cotton, which can be stored without damage for 50 years. He could use tbe payment plan on wheat, and thereby wreck the price of corn, oats, and barley. He could use it on soybeans, and wreck the price of lard, cottonseed, flax, and other commodities.
Under the Aiken Act the Secretary could use the payment plan with no limitation on costs. The committee bill requires the Secretary, before using the payment plan on not more than three commodities, to find that it is the most practicable method of providing price support. This certainly means that he must judge the cost of the payment method as compared with the cost of supporting prices by loans or purchases, and to find that it will not reduce the demand for or the price of any other agricultural commodity. The latter finding is designed to afford protection for competing commodities which do not receive similar support.