No one should be permitted to say in court, with any degree of plausibility, that Congress did not intend to give the administration the effective means to carry out the declared policy of the act. It is apparently the intent of these large processors to prevent the enactment at this session of these amendments and then after Congress has adjourned to hire a multitude of able counsel who will, because of the very failure to adopt these amendments, argue that Congress did not intend to confer the effective licensing powers clearly set forth in these amendments. I believe that, when it originally enacted the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Congress intended to create the powers which are more clearly declared in the proposed amendments. But since these large processors and distributors are now challenging that intention and propose to assert this challenge in court after Congress has adjourned, it would seem indispensable that Congress now clearly manifest its original purpose beyond the shadow of a doubt. Processors and distributors of farm products, whether in Chicago or elsewhere, are entitled as much as anyone else to a voice in making the laws of the land. Nobody would deny them that. But having a voice in making the laws is one thing, and an attempt to hamstring and dominate by obstructive tactics is another. The agricultural policies of the administration should be dominated by the direct needs and welfare of farmers, not by the indirect interests of processing, distributing, or dealer enterprises, who in thus opposing what is best for the farmers are acting short-sightedly and against what will prove to be their own best self-interest in the long run. The amendments reflect the determination of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to extend its facilities as rapidly as possible to producers of commodities, principally nonbasic, grown in widely scattered States and regions, through marketing agreements and licenses. These commodities include all the fruits and vegetables, all the canning crops, rice, some kinds of tobacco, nuts, olives, and many special crops. They also include milk, which, though a basic commodity, has so far been dealt with entirely through the instrumentality of marketing agreements and licenses. I would not say that, without these amendments, we cannot proceed with programs now under way or contemplated for the benefit of these vast groups of producers. What we shall be able to do without these amendments is a matter of opinion as to what the courts will finally hold with reference to the present licensing and marketing agreement provisions of the act. I will say, however, that if these proposed amendments are not adopted, the chances for effective relief for a great many of our farmers under the provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act may be in grave jeopardy because of serious delays in enforcement. The amendments are designed to aid the Adjustment Administration in extending assistance to farmers who would not be aided directly by any of the major production-control programs, or who can be assisted more effectively through marketing agreements and licenses and without a processing tax. From this point of view and for other reasons, the pending amendments have been strongly indorsed by the National Agri cultural Conference. This conference is composed of delegates appointed by farm organizations representing all the major producer interests, namely, the National Grange, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Farmers National Grain Corporation, the National Cooperative Council, and the American Agricultural Editors Association. In marketing agreements and licenses, now in effect or planned, to assist growers of these numerous and diverse crops, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration has proceeded along lines which clearly reflect the intent of Congress in the act as it stands. The amendments give explicit approval of the use of quota systems of marketing with which farmers' cooperatives long has been accustomed but which, to be effective, need to be supplemented by Federal enforcing powers. In this connection, I would specifically direct the committee's attention to the fact that the proposed amendment with reference to quotas provides that two thirds of the producers or producers representing or controlling two thirds of the production or acreage of the commodity affected must clearly indicate their desire to put such an agreement into effect before we could lawfully proceed. `It is in no way the intention to attempt any agreement that does not represent the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the producers. The amendment is clear on that point. The amendments should be thoroughly understood, and to that end a complete explanatory statement is offered, which should dispel entirely the misunderstanding that opposition has sought to create. It is important to recognize that the real object of attack, however, is not the amendments but the measures and authority already in the act which the amendments seek to limit, clarify, and consolidate. I think Congress, with Members representing regions having the greatest interest in marketing agreements and licenses, in effect or pending, for many crops, should be informed of the identity of those crops which would be adversely affected or jeopardized by impairment of these functions. A large number of groups of producers depend chiefly for help upon the marketing agreements and licensing provisions. Milk licenses, now in effect for nearly a score of cities, and sought by fluid milk producers in many other milksheds, are included among these. I submit a list of the commodities, and the States and regions where they are produced, to show the extent and the diversity of the farm interests which would be theatened by an attack upon the act such as the opposition to these amendments now is organizing. Help for these farmers must not be undermined or jeopardized. I do not want to see even a beginning or an opening wedge for such an attack accomplished through obstruction of these pending amendments. We list here the commodities primarily concerned, the regions where grown, and the States primarily interested: Potatoes: Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Missouri, Maine. Apples: Idaho, Oregon, Washington, California, Montana, New York. Dry edible beans: Idaho, Michigan, California, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming, New York. Peaches: California, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia. Asparagus: California, Florida. Citrus fruits: California, Florida, Arizona, Texas, Puerto Rico. Peanuts: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia. Ripe Olives: California. Strawberries: Florida. Grapes nessee. California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ten Wood turpentine and wood rosin: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia. Walnuts: Oregon, California, Washington. Cherries: Colorado, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin. Corn for canning: Alabama, Colorado, Oregon, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Maryland, Ohio, Montana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nebraska, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Virginia, Oklahoma, Wyoming, West Virginia, Georgia, Maine. Peas for canning: Alabama, Idaho, California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Maryland, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Washington Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio. Tomatoes for canning: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Iowa, Oregon, Idaho, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, New Mexico, Nebraska, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia. Watermelons: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina. Fresh vegetables: Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington, Texas. Pecans (paper shell): Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas. Pecans (seedling): Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas. Rice: Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, Tennessee, California. Tobacco: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Milk: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, New Jersey, Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, California, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado. I have confined my remarks, thus far, to amendments relating to marketing agreements and licenses. The bill, however, contains some other amendments. I shall now ask the clerk to read an explanatory statement of the provisions of the bill in the order in which they appear. (Secretary Wallace submitted the following newspaper clipping:) [From Chicago Herald and Examiner, May 3, 1934] FARM-PRODUCTS DEALERS FIGHT WALLACE RULE-BIG PACKING CONCERNS JOIN IN MOVE TO CURB UNLIMITED POWER; ASK FURTHER STUDY (By O. M. Smucker) Chicago processors and distributors of farm products started organizing yesterday to register vigorous protests against the proposal pending in Congress that Secretary Wallace be given discretionary powers in supervising conduct of their business, which aggregates approximately one third of the Nation's total commerce. The bill was reported favorably last week by the Senate Agricultural Committee, following an executive session in which only the Secretary of Agriculture and his associates were given a hearing. As a result of public resentment the committee was forced to recall the bill and set May 8 for public hearings. Although the measure specifically authorizes Secretary Wallace to establish quotas on purchases from producers of rice, milk and its products, peanuts, flax, dry edible beans, vegetables, fruits, and naval stores, provided more than two thirds of the growers approve, its provisions are so broad there is no limit on his right to establish sales quotas for processors or distributors of any agricultural commodity. PACKERS JOIN MOVE This latter phase of the measure caused local packing-house firms to join the growing list of dissenters yesterday. At a meeting held in the Union Stock Yards it was agreed primary action from this group would be directed toward extending the hearing date, to permit more careful study of the bill and to allow more complete organized effort against it. It was pointed out that the sales-quota feature on all agricultural commodities gives the Secretary absolute control over this commerce, as a sales quota would, in effect, be a quota on purchases. Aimed primarily at control of the milk business, the bill does not confine the Secretary to this industry, nor even to commodities Congress has designated as basic in the Agricultural Adjustment Act. WOULD CURB PRODUCERS It would empower Wallace to prohibit producers, processors, and distributors alike from handling any farm product or any product made from a farm crop without a license, and would give no appeal from any regulation or order he would issue in a legal manner. In effect, it is held, the Secretary would be handed power to fix buying and selling prices of all agricultural products in order to secure a greater return to the farmer. The licensing power, it is stated, is broad enough to permit him to establish arbitrary accounting systems for all those engaged in the processing and distribution of agricultural commodities. CITES UNCERTAINTY "Urging this bill by the Secretary of Agriculture and his request for even greater power than he now possesses fills with uncertainty all industries engaged in handling agricultural commodities at a time when there is already too much uncertainty ", one of the spokesmen for the packing interests asserted last night. "A worse time for the promulgation of regimental powers over the industry dealing with agricultural commodities by the Secretary of Agriculture could hardly be found." The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions that any member of the committee desires to ask the Secretary? Senator NORRIS. Mr. Secretary, you referred to farm organizations, there, and I noticed you did not read the Farmers' Union. Secretary WALLACE. The Farmers' Union as a national organization is not, as I understand it, a member of this national organization. Certain members of the Farmers' Union are members of that group. Senator NORRIS. I thought they were officially a member of that organization? Secretary WALLACE. I believe not. Senator NORRIS. That is the organization that had headquarters here in Washington for some time? Secretary WALLACE. Yes. Senator NORRIS. Not long ago? Secretary WALLACE. Yes. There are members of the Farmers' Union who, as I understand, are members of this group. Senator NORRIS. I wonder if the Farmers' Union have taken any action in regard to membership or nonmembership in this organization? Secretary WALLACE. I am unable to tell you just what the status is. I think you could ascertain that by inquiring of Mr. Taber, who, I think, is at present chairman of this group, and who is also president of the Grange. Senator NORRIS. I remember when they were in session here, when the revenue bill was up, there were some very prominent farm union men who were in that organization, but I don't know whether their organization—perhaps they were not members. This organization is made up of these other farm organizations, is it not? Secretary WALLACE. That is right. Senator POPE. Is this the same bill, Mr. Secretary, about which you testified 2 or 3 weeks ago in regard to amendments? Secretary WALLACE. Yes; the same thing. Senator NORRIS. Just to get the parliamentary status, Mr. Chairman, in this bill that is before us, I notice there are amendments. Is the Secretary testifying to this bill as amended? I suppose these amendments were put in by the committee? The CHAIRMAN. No; the parliamentary status is this: These are amendments proposed by the Department, through the Secretary, to the Agricultural Adjustment Act. There are no amendments in this bill proposed by the committee. Senator NORRIS. I see in this copy that I have here, the print shows that there have been stricken out some lines and some others inserted. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I believe that was done by the committee. Senator POPE. At the other hearing? The CHAIRMAN. At the other hearing; yes. Senator NORRIS. I was not present at that time. I would like to ask the Secretary that there are several amendments; have you examined these amendments, Mr. Secretary, to your amendments, that were made by the committee at its previous hearing? Secretary WALLACE. Which amendments are you referring to? Senator NORRIS. On page 6, section 5, is amended, and then on page 7. Secretary WALLACE. The one on page 7 is a wording recommended by the Comptroller General. The CHAIRMAN. That was agreed to here before you left, this amendment. Senator POPE. Yes; it was. Senator NORRIS. How are the other amendments? There are some on page 8. Secretary WALLACE. I think those are purely technical matters of no significance whatever. Senator POPE. And proposed at the other meeting? Senator NORRIS. There is an amendment on page 9. The CHAIRMAN. I want to explain to the committee that these amendments here were amendments sent down by the Department with the request that they be incorporated in the original form of the amendments. There are none in here that would not supplement |