outside all of the present agricultural programs, I felt we had reached a crisis that called for some form of governmental action for those people. Senator HOLLAND. You think that the Congress should vote that governmental action in spite of the fact that every representative organization of which I know that represents those particular commodities is recommending against bringing those commodities under price support such organizations as the cattlemen's association, both national and State, such organizations as the fruitmen's association, citrus, apples, and prunes, which you mentioned, and such organizations as the American Vegetable Growers Association-all the organizations I know, without a single exception, that represent those perishable commodities as national spokesmen, or regional spokesmen, protest against the bringing of those commodities under price support. Do you know of any exception to that? Senator NEUBERGER. My feeling is this, that unless we have some form-and I am not using the term "price support." I am using the term "some form of governmental aid for the relatively small farmer” who is in row crops and the other things we have mentioned, that the family-sized farmer is going very largely to pass out of existence. Senator HOLLAND. The question that I asked you was this: Do you know of any exception to the statement I have made, any organization that represents these perishable commodities, the growers of those commodities as such, which wants price supports? Senator NEUBERGER. I have not canvassed the stands of various organizations, either in my travels around the State or before I came here today. I do know that I talked to a good many hundreds of individual farmers, because that is what makes up the bulk of our farming society west of the Cascade Range, and those people feel that they should be included in some governmental program. Whether it is the soil bank or price supports or some form of the Brannan plan, I am not passing upon that. Obviously, for a man with an orchard it is quite difficult to have something like a soil bank. I am not sure how it can be done, but I do believe that such Government programs as we have should include those people. Senator HOLLAND. In another part of your testimony I understood you to say you felt that the program was more a farm-family support program than a price-support program for farm commodities. Senator NEUBERGER. What I said was that the time might come-if I am correct-I did not know whether it would come in the chairman's time or mine-but we are moving pretty fast and conceivably it could come that a committee such as this one might some day consider a program, not for the support of specific commodities but for the support or assistance of farm families. If I recall, I think that is approximately what I said. Senator HOLLAND. Is that not the substance, really, of your statement? I believe that you, in effect, admit that no organization representing any of these perishable commodities, fruits, vegetables, cattle, poultry, and many fine representative organizations in all of those classes, is asking for price supports for those commodities. Senator NEUBERGER. I was not aware of the stand of various agricultural organizations, and I do not feel that is a part of my testimony. I felt that whatever I could give of value to the committee was just the impressions I had from traveling around the State as an indi vidual and as a Senator, and talking to various farm families and farm people. Senator HOLLAND. I personally appreciate the statement. I am going to ask you to do this. If you can find any responsible organization representing the producers of commodities in the group that you are talking about, which is asking for price supports for the producers of those commodities, I would like it to be supplied for the record. Senator NEUBERGER. I would just like to say this: You always come back to the term "price supports" and put those words in my mouth in effect. I have not advocated price supports. I said I think these people need some form of Government assistance, whether the soil bank or some form of direct payments, such as were envisioned under the Brannan plan, or whatever else. For example, Senator Holland, I was interested to know-I did not bring the figures with me-if I am not correct, some figures I got from the Department of Agriculture about a week ago showed a greater percentage drop in the last 3 or 4 years in the price of various market vegetables than in the supported commodities. What are we going to do for these people? I talked to many of them in real distress. I talked to people in eastern Oregon on some irrigated lands who were not even bringing up their potatoes because they said it would cost more to send them to the Chicago market-to ship them on the railroad-that cost would be far more than they would get for them. It did not pay them to bring them up this year. They were just going to plow them back. Senator HOLLAND. What kinds of support do you suggest for a family that produces a commodity for which there is no market? Senator NEUBERGER. We have been supporting families that are producing commodities for which there must be no market because we have considerable surplus, I may say a vast surplus, and still we have been doing it, if I am not mistaken. Why take one commodity and not another? Who is to say to a man who raises wheat or cotton, "You are to be helped by the Government," and to a man who raises cabbages and potatoes and prunes, "You are not to be helped by the Government." Senator HOLLAND. In other words, you recognize no distinction on the question of storability between The CHAIRMAN. Storability and curtailment of production. Senator HOLLAND. You recognize no distinction between the storability and possibility of control of production and the possibilities of handling storable crops in world exports and on the world market conditions, and similar problems of those who produce perishables. Senator NEUBERGER. I recognize there is a certain difference in something that can be stored, and yet I still say to you, the impact on the family unit is the same. What are you to say to people who are raising perishable, "because you are raising them, there is no Government program for you"? Do we have to say that to them? Senator HOLLAND. Then you come back to the implication that what you are really thinking about is farm family support rather than price support for commodities. Senator NEUBERGER. I think that eventually we may have to come to that if we are to keep individual families, relatively small-farm families, small family units on the land. I think that is a socially desirable thing in a democratic nation. If I am not mistaken, the fall of Rome happened when the small family-sized farmers went under. In the Soviet Union they have vast collective agriculture in which the family unit is unimportant. I feel that it might be a socially desirable goal for the United States Government to help an individual farmer stay on the land. I can conceive of that as being a worthwhile goal. Senator HOLLAND. Even though he is producing a commodity for which there is no market? Senator NEUBERGER. We are not doing that at the present time? You know much more about agriculture than I do. Your experience is much greater. Are we not at the present time assisting people who are producing crops for which there is no market? The only distinction being that they are producing storable crops for which there is no market. Senator HOLLAND. Of course, my answer would be that I hope not, because I hope we will be able to dispose of the stored product, and if we are not able to dispose of it, then there is no alternative if we are going to hold onto that program but to further curtail production which can be done as to that type of crop. But just to say that we are going into the program of supporting farm families who will want to continue to produce something for which there is no market, no need, that is a far cry from anything that is in the law now; at least I think it is. Senator NEUBERGER. I just want to say this in conclusion, that I did not say we were going to be doing this now, but I do think that eventually we may be doing that unless we are to have agriculture in the United States become great vast impersonal units that are corporately owned and even, perhaps, in which stock will be sold, and they will be an anonymous as an automobile factory or a railroad.' I think that would be an undesirable thing in a free country. I think Thomas Jefferson, who founded our party, would have thought that so. Senator HOLLAND. I would agree with you and I think the idea of ever getting any soulless corporation, for instance, to go through the rigors of producing livestock or poultry or the like on a general scale would have to produce the kind of corporation the like of which I have not seen, at least as yet. I find no fault with you in your bringing your ideas into the record, but I do want to bring out how revolutionary your ideas are compared to anything we have at the present time and how varied the problems of class of producers you mentioned are from those under the present price-support program, and how completely afield you are from the request of the associations and groups of producers who represent the particular producers whom you mentioned. The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have had you, Senator Neuberger. The committee had set aside today to hear Members of Congress and of the Senate. Three other Senators asked to be heard, but because of other engagements they were unable to come. I would suggest that the clerk get in touch with them and suggest to them that any statements that they have to make will be incorporated in the record as though they had been present. The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow at 10 o'clock to hear the heads of four of our large organizations, the National Milk Producers Federation, the National Farmers Union, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Grange. Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you very much for your courtesy. The committee will stand in recess until 10 a. m. tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 10 o'clock a. m., Wednesday, January 18, 1955). PRICE-SUPPORT PROGRAM WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1956 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, Washington, D. V. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10: 15 a. m., in room 324, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. Ć., Senator Allen J. Ellender (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Ellender, Holland, Anderson, Humphrey, Scott, Young, Thye, Hickenlooper, Mundt, Williams, and Schoeppel. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. We have today as the first witness Mr. James G. Patton. Mr. Patton, will you step forward and be seated please? STATEMENTS OF JAMES G. PATTON, PRESIDENT, AND JOHN A. BAKER, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION Mr. PATTON. I have with me Mr. Baker. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Baker can sit next to you; that will be all right. Mr. Patton, for the record, will you kindly give your name in full and your present occupation. Mr. PATTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record, I am James G. Patton, president, National Farmers Union, a completely private nationwide organization of farm families. Only farmers are eligible to be voting members of National Farmers Union. Our recommendations for national legislation are developed through democratic policy development processes starting with the discussions and resolutions of local community groups of members, county meetings, State conventions, and the national convention, at each of which decisions are made in open meeting by majority vote of members, or of delegates selected by members, on the basis of proportional representation. Delegates are responsible to members who elected them; and no votes of delegates are taken in secret. The CHAIRMAN. As I understood you a few days ago, you stated that your convention was going to meet in March. Mr. PATTON. Yes, sir; March 19 to 23. The CHAIRMAN. Are you permitted by them to give your views as outlined here? Mr. PATTON. Yes. The views I am outlining here today, Senator, follow the policy guidelines established by the last convention. Of course, there may be changes in policy. But I do not think there will be changes in basic policy. These views are in line with the basic policy guidelines. |