Mr. HAGEN. As I understand the Sugar Act, that is about the closest thing to the Brannan plan there is. And the Wool Act gets a little closer to it. Mr. BUCHANAN. I did not vote for the Wool Act, and I have not, as yet. I have last year's clip. I have never gone with a statement to the ASC. I have never taken the time to find out where you go with that blank to obtain that money. However, I will say this, that I understand the Sugar Act-I am not an authority on this subjectbut as I understand it, the Sugar Act provides that the funds for the payment of the sugar, payments, come from the offshore producers, which is not a Government tax. And in the process of collecting and distributing it, the Government makes a profit. Am I right or wrong? The CHAIRMAN. The Government imposes one-half cent tax on all sugar consumed and of that amount about three-fourths of it or maybe a little less than that is used to make payments to the producers in lieu of tariff protection. Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, I would just like to say, since the Government has no way of making money in and of itself, any amount that is distributed to any segment of our society, be it labor or industry or agriculture, first has to be taken from us. And sound economics to me is not socialism, or the tendency toward it. I think if agriculture has to stem the tide of socialism, if we have, I think we have done a tremendous amount of good and I think ultimately if it were left to work out its problems, among ourselves, and if people in Washington will listen to the farm people, I am sure that these problems will be worked out, and we can attain at least something. The CHAIRMAN. That is what we are trying to do now is to listen to the farmers. You stand almost alone, but there are some few who take the position you are now taking. Mr. BUCHANAN. That is my stand, gentlemen. I am glad to present it to you. If it is worth anything to you, more power to you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Is Mr. Thomas present? STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. THOMAS, SPANISH FORK, UTAH Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman and members, I, too, like Mr. Buchanan, did not have any indication that we had been accepted to be called and we have not prepared a statement for that reason. But I am happy to have the opportunity of saying a little bit of what I feel. I am a little bit different from probably most others who have given their testimony here today. I feel, myself, that my feelings will not solve the problems. But I do feel that we need to be very moderate in what we are doing. I do feel that farmers need some kind of help from the Government. There are things that the Government can do for the farmer that they probably cannot do for themselves. I differ with some of the thought that the ASC program is wrong. I think it is a very fine program. I would like to say that I am here as chairman of an ASC committee. I feel like it is a very fine program. It has probably been pushed a little too far and has been taken advantage of. I feel that way. I think that we do, in this land of ours, have a tendency to ask the Government for more than we should. We take advantage of the programs that are given to us and, therefore, hurt the programs ourselves. I feel very confident myself that if the flexible price support is given a chance, which it has not been given yet, that probably it will help. I think that there are many things that enter into the overproduction of farm commodities, not alone the 90 percent of parity. There is the war and mechanization. Farmers have purchased equipment which was in most cases needed, but have made it very easy for them to produce much more. The CHAIRMAN. And good weather can be added to that, too. Mr. THOMAS. Yes, and so many things have entered into the overproduction. I do feel probably that the 90 percent of parity has helped some and with flexible price supports I think that someone gave testimony here today that they were blaming the flexible price support for the shortage of the crops. Maybe that would do away with the surpluses in that manner. I feel that if we can use the flexible supports and be moderate in our programs and try to get the farmers to help take care of themselves, with the Government entering into it moderately, it would be a very fine thing. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Lionel Steinberg? Give us the highlights of your statement, please. STATEMENT OF LIONEL STEINBERG, VICE CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC FARMERS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE, FRESNO, CALIF. Mr. STEINBERG. Mr. Chairman and members, I have been waiting patiently to give you what I feel may be some helpful remarks. My name is Lionel Steinberg. I am a vice chairman of the California Democratic Farmers' Advisory Committee. I am a farmer. I grow fruits and vegetables and I grow cotton and grain. I live in Fresno. My family has been farming here for 33 years. One of the most disastrous things that is going on today is the headlong tobogganing of the American farmer into another great depression. Net farm income is down 31 percent in the last 3 years. At the same time, while this is going on, there has been what I feel-I am going to read several highlights out of this statement-an insidious action going on in Washington with respect to the farm program. There has been a concerted program to set city folks against the farmer to make the worker think that the farmer is a parasite bankrupting the Nation while living off of Government subsidy and making food prices higher for the consumer. At the same time, turning the farmer against organized labor for increasing the cost of food processing. Actually, while wages have been consistent, the farm prices have dropped 20 percent on the average since 1951, and, meantime, the cost of food products to the consumer has dropped less than 5 percent. The truth of the matter is that while the farmer seeks parity prices, we have a successful farm program. For 17 years the entire cost of this great farm program that we have totaled to the American taxpayers no more than $12 billion. The last years of this successful farm program cost no more than a hot fudge sundae for the average American taxpayer. That was in 1952. Let us examine what has happened to a successful farm program. It is falling apart. The new Secretary of Agriculture has spent $3 billion in trying to hold up sagging prices, in the last 3 years. While this has been going on, there has been a campaign to convince the American people that the American farmer was a millstone around the neck of the taxpayers. In the last 5 years, $6 billion have been given as subsidies to American businessmen. We read just yesterday that $500 million that the American taxpayers pay for the cost of the Post Office Department is going to be collected in a new manner. They are talking about raising the postal rates from 3 cents to 4 cents. Do you know where that $500 million goes? It goes to the use of second- and third-class mail. That is one of the groups that is getting that $6 billion subsidy. It is my belief that the remarks of the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to his intention concerning agricultural programs and the propaganda directed to the cost of the price supports has done nothing indeed to stabilize our wobbling agricultural income. In fact, it is my sincere belief that the primary responsibility for the collapse of farm prices these last 3 years can be laid at his doorstep. He should not be perplexed that he is required to pay in 3 years nearly twice the entire expenditure of the previous Democratic administration during 20 years. (A cry of "politics" from the floor.) Mr. STEINBERG. Every time the Secretary or one of his assistants has made a speech on farm price policy, prices have dropped. Their actions have signaled a change in trend. This is the point I am trying to leave with you. There has been a change in trend of major significance in the markets, the psychological attitude of buyers and users of farm commodities. And I refer to the packers, the processors, the traders, the manufacturers, and the middlemen. The point I am making is that that both buyers and sellers have lost confidence in the desire of the Government to stabilize price supports. When that happens, laws and statutes will not prevent a devastating erosion of prices. Under the previous administration, it was clear that the rigid price support program was being enthusiastically and vigorously administered. Everybody knew where the administration stood. It is my sincere belief if such an attitude had prevailed in the last 3 years we would be sitting with a program that was successful and was still uncostly. I would like to document my case with three little examples here. During the last 3 years, buyers have adopted the practice of day to day procurement. Never knowing how far down is down under a parity system of sliding scales. Thus, for example, I am going to quote a very respected publication, the Commodity Futures Market Service Letters. Those letters and other grain and trade papers have reported time and again the bearish attitudes on the part of the buyers which seem to follow the inept remarks of the Secretary. Such a letter on cotton, dated September 17, 1953, reported: Speculative demand is very small and some concern is evident that Secretary of Agriculture Benson, in his speech Saturday, might upset the applecart insofar as confidence in the present price support program is concerned. A grain letter reported also in 1953: Early in the session (of the Chicago Board of Trade) there was scattered buying of wheat futures prompted by the rumor that Secretary Benson would soon resign *** a selling flurry late in the session followed Secretary Benson's denial that he contemplated resigning. Last month a Wall Street Journal reported that Secretary Benson was "searching for ways to lower cotton support prices." Almost immediately the 1956 futures dropped 3 cents a pound. My point is that political attitudes play a large part in instilling confidence or "backbone" in buyers. I do not hesitate to predict that if Secretary Benson were to resign tomorrow or to be removed you would see overnight a major rallying in all commodity prices, and confidence in agriculture, not only in America but the future of agriculture throughout the world would receive a new vitality. The Secretary of Agriculture has a morbid fear of abundance. And, indeed, in America today that is the greatest fear we must overcome. The entire dairy surplus of the United States could be disposed of. I will tell you how something could be done. We have 38 million schoolchildren today. If each had 2 pints of milk a day, 30 weeks a year, 5 days a week, the entire surplus would be gone. Today, however, only about one third of our children in American schools enjoy the school lunch program. The CHAIRMAN. May I say to you that we have a program. The CHAIRMAN. We have offered the milk but some communities would not take advantage of the program, and administer it as intended. Mr. STEINBERG. That is correct, sir. It is not the fault of people in Washington. The CHAIRMAN. You cannot then say that the program has not worked if the communities fail to take advantage of it. Mr. STEINBERG. The program is an excellent one. I advocate it and more money for the program, an education to encourage all localities to use it. Our products, such as raisins, surplus of animal products, should go into the school lunch program. Lord Boyd-Orr, the first Director of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, said recently that it would take 10 to 12 billion dollars worth of food to relieve the hunger that is actually prevalent in two-thirds of the world. He said something even more significant to me. He said: That is the lowest sum that can relieve world hunger, and if food is not provided, then hungry people ultimately will pull down all the rest. I believe that the administration has failed dismally in the use of existing legislation and in recommending new proposals to find customers in Africa, the Middle East, and in Asia. American food in those areas could do more to halt the spread of communism than the sale of our A-bomb or H-bomb. The CHAIRMAN. How would you handle it-would you want to give it to them? Do you not think that we would make them wards of the United States if you kept on feeding them? Would it not be better to give them a way whereby they could produce food themselves? Mr. STEINBERG. Yes, I feel that a new look at the geopolitics of the world is essential if we are going to solve the problems in America and in the world. We must face up to what is coming to be known as the atomic era. When 134 billion people in the world live on less than 25 cents a day, how else can they turn but to the spreading propaganda of communism? Our answer is in the technical assistance programs, whether the honorable chairman likes them or not; I feel that by the year 2000 we are going to have a world of totalitarianism or a world in which democracy can't thrive. The technical assistance program is the only sound answer to Russian communism. I feel that no testimony such as mine which has been vehement should not in conclusion offer some constructive criticism and some definite recommendations. Therefore, I submit the following: We must adopt a sound farm program which will consider the long-range ability of our farmers to feed our growing population effectively to strengthen the economic position of the farmers and the rural communities. Our farm program must recognize and account for all segments of the farm population; the family-sized farms, the larger commercial farms, trade. It must provide and consider the owners, the operators and the workers of American farms regardless of whether they grow the staples or the perishables. I wish to close with the following points: 1. That marginal land brought into cultivation to provide for our war emergency be returned to grassland and to forest. Any money spent on such conversion is money spent on the future wealth of this Nation. 2. That the Congress should encourage the administration to utilize our food and fiber surpluses as weapons to be used abroad in the fighting of communism." 3. That the Congress extend the 90 percent of parity support program for basic crops through 1958, and promptly enact legislation to aid farmers of perishable crops by the extension of compensatory payments to them. That the Secretary of Agriculture use all available section 32 funds to alleviate the distress in perishable crops, and not return the same to the Treasury as he has done in the past. One hundred million dollars of such funds were available, and he declined to use them to assist · the distressed farmer in the past 12 months. 5. That the farmer on the family-sized farm have additional lowcost credit other than disaster credit. 6. That the Congress reestablish the Federal food stamp program to dispose of the surplus foods while at the same time raising the dietary level of the undernourished children, the aged and the handicapped, and the underprivileged. 7. That Congress reassure the people by proper legislation that the Rural Electrification Administration's functions will be carried forward and not sabotaged by the administration. |