Page images
PDF
EPUB

payments should be extended, only for a limited period of years in order that needed adjustments in production may take place."

This general approach we feel to be based on sounder agricultural economics than the support price systems presently in effect or provided by S. 2318.

Our estimate of the present system is stated in our policy statement as follows: “The familiar machinery of commodity loans, marketing agreements, marketing quotas, and acreage allotments should be retained, if at all, only as a last measure of stop-gap relief for agriculture in case of acute economic dislocation and deflation."

To this statement we will add merely that we recognize the strength of farmer sentiment against any payment which may be called a subsidy. We do not regard this view as soundly based. However, if such sentiment forces continuation of a farm program along past and and present lines, we favor the alternative parity price formula as provided in section 301 (b) and (c), and we oppose the creation of two parity price formulas. That arrangement, as provided in section 301 (a), smacks of special privilege for the farmer, which we would oppose as vigorously as special privilege for any economic group.

In conclusion, we express our appreciation to the committee for its earnest efforts to set up an effective long-range farm policy and program, and we urge a continuation of that effort until the goal is achieved.

TOWARD A CHRISTIAN POLICY FOR AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

Much Federal farm legislation currently in effect was enacted to meet the emergency conditions, first, of deep depression, and, later, of World War II. The time is ripe for its reconsideration. We applaud the statesmanship of the House Committee on Agriculture and its chairman, Hon. Clifford Hope, and the Senate Subcommittee on Long-Range Farm Program and its chairman, Senator George Aiken, for their efforts through study and hearings to develop a sound Federal farm program for the years ahead.

It is our Christian conviction that a sound farm policy for America must establish as objectives and implement as programs the following goals for American agriculture:

1. Organized, sustained, and realistic abundance in production that all people may be adequately and healthfully fed and clothed.

To this end we support Federal programs of production and marketing research and extension service for the farmer. We favor the Federal-State cooperative school-lunch program and a Federal program which will provide a minimum health diet for all the American people. We urge full American collaboration with the other nations of the world through the instruments of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the Council of FAO, the International Trade Organization, and the reciprocal trade treaty program, to the end that food and fiber may find its way readily to hungry and ill-clad people wherever they dwell. 2. Conservation and restoration of the soil, water, and forest resources of the Nation.

We support a vigorous Federal soil-conservation program, including general conservation education, technical conservation aid to farmers, and financial assistance to farmers for long-run conservation practices in the public interest. We favor the extension of the river valley authority plan (TVA) to other river valleys of the Nation as a sound method of land and water development, conservation, and use.

3. Extension and preservation of the efficient owner-operated family farm as the normal and desirable pattern in American agriculture.

We support the retention of the 160-acre limitation in the Federal Reclamation Act. We support the tenant purchase and rehabilitation programs currently provided under the Farmers Home Administration, and urge their extension on the principle of supervised credit. We call upon the Congress to enact legislation which will (a) facilitate the acquisition and possession of family-sized farm units by persons whose purpose is to reside on and operate the farm, (b) discourage acquisition and holding of farm lands by absentee owners, and the acquisition and holding of acreages in excess of a family-sized unit by individuals or corporations. 4. Justice for the farmer.

We believe that the most important and practical road to income parity for farmers is a national program of full production, full employment, and equitable distribution of purchasing power. This takes us beyond the realm of farm pro

gram, but we call upon government, industry, and labor to join hands with agriculture in a program of abundance and fair distribution.

However, until it is demonstrated that America can keep the industrial-urban economy at full production with equitable distribution of wages, salaries, and profits, we favor Federal farm legislation which will provide farm people income security in the event of mass unemployment and drastic price deflation. Such legislation should place principal reliance upon a modernized parity formula, a price guaranteed and announced well in advance, and direct payments by the Government to farmers to make up the difference where the actual price falls below the guaranteed price. The actual selling price of farm commodities should be freely determined by the market and Government payments should be extended only for a limited period of years in order that needed adjustments in production may take place. The familiar machinery of commodity loans, marketing agreements, marketing quotas, and acreage allotments should be retained, if at all, only as a last measure of stopgap relief for agriculture in case of acute economic dislocation and deflation.

We urge Congress to investigate the practice of futures trading in agricultural commodities and to provide such regulation as shall protect both the farmer and the consuming public.

We are especially concerned that justice in terms of fair wages, working conditions, and living standards be extended to agricultural migratory workers. To that end we urge Federal legislation assuring to agricultural migrants collectivebargaining rights, minimum-wage guaranties, and social security. We believe that Federal social security should be extended as well to cover farm owneroperators and tenants.

5. Freedom with responsibility on the part of the farmer.

Recognizing the necessity for Federal farm programs as outlined above, we nevertheless believe that a democratic society calls for a maximum freedom coupled with the acceptance of individual responsibility. We urge, therefore, that the Federal program encourage the development of farm marketing and purchasing cooperatives and that it continue and extend democratic and cooperative methods of the type now represented by the Rural Electrification Administration, the Soil Conservation Service, the Farmers Home Administration, and the Farm Credit Administration. We also strongly urge cooperation but no official ties of any legal or financial sort between the Agricultural Extension Service or any other branch of the Department of Agriculture and any privately organized farm organization.

We call upon the Senate and House Agricultural Committee, the platform committees of the 1948 national convention of the political parties, the national form organizations, and all other persons and groups concerned with Federal farm policy to give study and support to these five major goals for American agriculture.

We call upon Christian people and churches to study these goals, to formulate and publicly to declare their formulation of a policy and program for American agriculture.

STATEMENT FILED BY THE NORTHEASTERN POTATO AND VEGETABLE COUNCIL We offer the following basic points for a general over-all long-time potato program for the Northeast:

I. Marketing agreements or similar cooperative efforts to

(a) Improve market quality for the consuming public.
(b) Insure steady and desirable rate of flow to market.

(c) Encourage more uniformity in tuber quality and sizes.

(d) Promote the potato industry as a whole from a national viewpoint. II. Utilization of low grades and off sizes withheld from market under marketing agreements, through CCC cooperation.

(a) Processing plants now established.

(b) New strategically located stand-by plants.

(c) More extensive livestock feeding.

III. Price support at a level which will

(a) Protect cash costs of growers.

(b) Discourage speculative program planting.

(c) Supply adequate supplies of potatoes at a fair price to the consuming public.

[blocks in formation]

IV. Acreage control if necessary to carry out above program.

(a) Consideration of making potatoes a basic crop.

V. Continued and expanded potato research under Research and Marketing Act. experiment stations, and commercial agencies.

(a) Production: New and better varieties, better insect and disease control, better handling methods, etc.

(b) Marketing: Better distribution, packaging, storing, refrigeration in transit, and storage and consumer preferences.

(c) Utilization: Processing new products, livestock feeding studies, etc.

VI. Improve public relations.

(a) Distribution of information on nutritive value of potatoes.

(b) Combat adverse publicity.

(c) Tie-in with other agencies.

STATEMENT FILED BY WILLIAM F. BROOKS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL GRAIN TRADE COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The bill, S. 2318, "To provide for a coordinated agricultural program," seeks to accomplish its stated purpose by the following methods:

1. Administrative reorganizations with the Department of Agriculture by establishing new agencies and by relocating and abolishing old agencies;

2. Creation of new county, State, and National policy-making and administrative agricultural groups bottomed on elections by producers who cooperate in soil-conservation or improvement programs;

3. Redefinition of parity and other price-support terms; and

4. Establishment of a flexible and alternative price-support level. The proposed bill specifically repeals some of the many sections of statutory law affecting American agriculture. It amends others and, without naming any specific sections, attempts, in section 402 (e), an en bloc amendment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as already amended. The failure to repeal other public laws governing agriculture and the attempt to effect an en bloc amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1948 are unfortunate and, as a matter of law, may not bring about the result the sponsors of the proposed bill desire.

Federal laws affecting agriculture are now spread over at least 25 titles of the code. These laws have been supplemented by various executive orders, directives, and reorganization plans. Time has not permitted a complete survey of the actual number of public laws, executive orders, and directives under which the Department operates; with which producers may seek protection and benefits; to which other citizens, who do business with the Department, must adhere; and with which the Appropriations Committees of both Houses should be reasonably familiar. In the interest of good government and of more adequate control over expenditures, any law "To provide for a coordinated agricultural program" should state clearly and unequivocally what existing public laws are to be repealed. Such a statement and enumeration of acts to be repealed should consolidate, in one act, basic and incidental agricultural laws. Then, the Department's operations could be conducted within the four corners of one act-and producers, other citizens, and congressional committees would know where to turn to resolve any legal question affecting the Nation's agriculture.

As a specific instance, the Commodity Credit Corporation was, as of early in 1946, affected by 104 public laws, 23 Executive orders; and 3 Presidential directives. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the administrative organization of the Department and the cooperating producer-elected committees and the parity and price-support concepts are each affected by at least a similar number of public laws, Executive orders, and directives. It should not, therefore, be seriously contended that producers will stand to benefit to any great extent from basic legislation that no more than inferentially varies the effect of the present maze of laws, orders, and directives. Any act that purports to provide a long-term legislative pattern for agriculture should be reasonably definite and certain—and contain all the provisions of Federal law by which Congress intends to aid and govern agriculture.

The task of coordinating in one piece of legislation all Federal law-and, in so doing, starting with a clean slate and a new approach-is a formidable one. It will require much study and effort-study and effort that are not perhaps possible when Members of Congress are confronted with the many other national and international problems present in this post war era. We suggest therefore that, from the experience gained in the last two post-war years, and from the experi

ence to be gained in the first year of foreign aid, that Congress next year attempt to write and enact such an all-inclusive piece of legislation. It is our opinion that the proposed bill, since it fails to meet this all-inclusive standard, should not now be enacted-or at least not in its entirety.

Other specific objections substantiate this conclusion:

1. Until Congress has had an opportunity to receive and study the report of the bipartisan Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch, it seems wise to delay any attempt to reorganize the internal administration of the Department of Agriculture. That report will be available in 1949. If action on the proposed bill is delayed until then, the study and conclusions of this independent Commission should be of great benefit and help to this committee.

2. The scheme of integrated committees and the authority granted to them appear to be unconstitutional. By section 110 (d) (3), the National Council is given authority to determine the need to adjust price-support levels. By section 302 (a), the “Secretary shall" approve, as the level of support, the findings of the Council. In its determination the Council is limited to a level of between 60 and 90 percent of parity. Fundamentally, the extent to which the Government may be obligated is a matter for congressional determination. Within well-defined limits, this determination may be delegated to the Executive. In exercising such delegated authority, the Executive may seek the advice of other agencies of the Government and may be compelled to consult with advisory boards established by statute. The proposed bill does more than this. It requires the Secretary of Agriculture to adopt the recommendations of the Council if the latter body determines that a different level of support should prevail. This authority, given to the Council, is one that Congress and Congress alone may exercise. It involves the probable expenditure of Federal funds. Its provisions would grant to a specially chosen group of private citizens not only a power of veto over the acts of the head of a department in the Executive branch but the exercise of a function peculiarly within the constitutional authority of Congress.

3. The price-policy provisions are set forth under title III of the act. They consist of amendments to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. These have to do with the parity formula; factors governing the adjustment of the support levels; the range of support; and the administration of the support program.

While this price policy is definitely an improvement over the present rigid 90-percent-support mandate, it is obvious that the system as a whole is not thoroughly worked out. It has not seemed to be completely satisfactory to any of the witnesses who have appeared before your committee.

This is such a far-reaching problem and one which is so important to the entire domestic economy that we think it needs further detailed study. Our industry has been studying the question of price policy for a considerable length of time. We must confess that while we see many things wrong with the current method and with the one proposed in this bill, we are not yet ready to propose an alternative which might give our producers the degree of social security to which they are entitled and at the same time do away with the many serious difficulties in the present and the proposed legislation.

For the above reasons we do not intend to make any lengthy comment regarding this title. We will confine ourselves to the following two brief subjects:

(A) We do not believe it is to the best interests of producers to give them two alternative methods of calculating parity. This is an unfair advantage which we think most producers would prefer not to have. In the long run, it might bring about a bad public reaction to the entire program. We think that so long as the parity concept is used as a basis for supporting farm prices or farm income, it would be desirable to modernize the parity formula. Your committee has had a great deal of advice on this subject and should be able to work out a method of calculating parity which would be an improvement over the old formula. Failing this, we believe it would be better to continue the old formula until the committee is able to offer an improved one.

In no case, however, should two alternative calculations be offered for use by producers as they might see fit. We believe this could only bring about additional dislocations in price relations.

(B) Price support.-We compliment the committee on the obvious amount of study given this subject and the work that has been done in connection with it. We cannot help agreeing, however, with other witnesses who have appeared during this present hearing that this feature is far removed from a final and perfected stage. We think there is still considerable work to be done in this connection before permanent legislation should be adopted.

On the other hand, we cannot agree with the idea that the Steagall period should be extended without change for any great length of time. Possibly it would not get us into too much trouble if extended for 1 year, but in our opinion this should be the maximum.

If it should be decided to postpone action on a long-range agriculture bill by stand-by legislation extending the Steagall period, we think the Secretary of Agriculture should be given a certain amount of latitude in determining the support price level. In the case of a 1- or 2-year extension, we should prefer that the Secretary of Agriculture simply be allowed to use his judgment within a range of 60 to 90 percent. Undoubtedly in doing so he would take into consideration such factors of total supply and normal supply as are outlined under this title. And the extension might even be written to require the Secretary of Agriculture to give due consideration to criteria of this sort.

We believe the above recommendations may bring results more satisfactory than those that would tie down the administration to a rigid pattern which does not itself seem acceptable to very many of the interests who have appeared before the committee.

LETTER FILED BY HON. TOM CONNALLY, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Senator Toм CONNALLY,

Washington, D. C.

CARTHAGE, TEX., April 19, 1948.

DEAR SENATOR CONNALLY: I know you are very busy and concerned with the Nation's welfare but I want to write you concerning S. 2318 by Mr. Aiken. I believe this bill is wrong because it bypasses local soil-conservation districts and destroys the Soil Conservation Service.

Each State was urged by Mr. Roosevelt to pass soil-conservation-district laws so that farmers could band together and, with locally elected leaders, work out their own soil-conservation problems with help from the Soil Conservation Service. Texas did this in 1940 and since has done a great deal to help in her soil-conservation problems. Now Mr. Aiken would tear all this down. He has parity and price supports all mixed up with soil conservation when they are two separate problems. If our soil is not conserved, in a few years we will be unable to ship food abroad or take care of ourselves as we do now. Anything that will make soil conservation a tool to get parity payments is all wrong. I respectfully ask that you do all you can to keep this bill from passing. Sincerely yours,

S. T. ALLISON. STATEMENT FILED BY BENJAMIN C. MARSH, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PEOPLE S LOBBY, WASHINGTON, D. C.

United States News, April 23, 1948, reports the following percent increase in income from 1939 to 1948 (based on first-quarter income for 1948) and income in billions:

[blocks in formation]

The comparison is not completely fair, because it ignores the disparity in income between the classes in 1939, and many businessmen are investors, as are also landed farmers, so that the percent increase in investors' income is really much more than the reported 85 percent.

It also fails to note the great present disparity in incomes of wage and salary workers, and of farmers.

« PreviousContinue »