providing for research and extension-type aid to allow them to become more efficient, develop new products, advertise and promote more effectively and fill the worldwide demand. This would also necessitate removing restrictions on exporting. Since agriculture is so basic in our economy, our farm laws and programs should carry the extension idea right on through from the producer to the other operations that carry out basic commodities to the consumer. This would keep the heart of our economy strong, which is the purchasing power of our American farmer. We think much of the confusion that exists today about agriculture could be cleared up if Congress would authorize and provide funds for a National Agricultural Board with duties to study and recommend action on agricultural problems. The national farm organizations should stop fighting over farm policy. Such a Board, using democratic process might aid to develop a common position among farm organizations. The present Agricultural Advisory Commission appointed by the executive department could continue to aid that branch of Government. In conclusion, I would like to say that this report is not as concise as I would like to see it because it had to be written to include the comments directed to our farm programs at WIBX in Utica and it was a tedious task reducing the volume of material. I have tried to show that our main thinking is that farm prices are too low, businesses are not competing freely to sell on the world market and the solution to the farm problem may well be found off the farm. The country that developed the atom bomb should certainly be able to move farm products to supply world demand with some cleaning up here and there. We believe this new approach could do the job. We wish to thank this distinguished committee for coming into this important agricultural section of our country to hear our ideas. Senator AIKEN. I am glad that Ed Slusarczyk has been here on the stand this morning. He is one of the people who is responsible for getting this hearing into Utica. I understand he has to get up just as early in the morning as if he were a farmer. Mr. SLUSARCZYK. Earlier, I am afraid. Senator AIKEN. There is one statement he made I think needs a little clarification. There is a misunderstanding that the feed grains are supported at a higher level than are dairy products. That was true in 1953; it is not true today. Most of the small grains are supported at 60 to 70 percent of parity, including soybeans and cottonseed. Although corn is supported at 87 percent of parity, 75 percent of the corn in the country does not come under price supports, because 75 percent of the farmers prefer to ignore the acreage goals, raise all they want to, and take the lower price in the open market. They are getting anywhere from $1 to $1.25 a bushel now, I understand. So I don't believe we can solve our problems by reducing the support level for feed grains much farther. They are already, in the aggregate, lower than the support level for butter and cheese. In fact, we have a very favorable milk, feed, and egg ratio. I think that we have to look beyond that. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. SLUSARCZYK. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. McSparran. STATEMENT OF J. COLLINS MCSPARRAN, SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE GRANGE, HARRISBURG, PA. Mr. MCSPARRAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, my name is J. Collins McSparran, and I am secretary of the Pennsylvania State Grange, which has a membership of nearly 80,000 members in 64 of the 67 counties of the Commonwealth. I am a farmer. At the present time, I own and have in the past operated a farm, and as my secretaryship expires, I expect to go back into the operation of a farm in southern Lancaster County. The CHAIRMAN. I notice that you have a written statement here, Mr. McSparran. I wonder if you could give us the highlights of it, and any additional evidence that has not as yet been produced before the committee. Mr. McSPARRAN. May I say to you that we do appreciate you gentlemen having this hearing, and we appreciate the time element you are running up against here. I will very gladly pass over the first few pages of my testimony, as it does repeat a lot that has been said. I would like to turn to page 4, where we have some specific recommendations that we feel will help in solving the farm situation. We offer for your consideration the following recommendations: (1) A commodity by commodity approach to the problem. No single piece of legislation can correct the present situation. (2) Establishment of a domestic parity program for those basic crops, such as wheat, that will give producers 100 percent of parity for that part of their production which is consumed for human needs on the domestic market, with all surplus production moving into export or feed channels at competitive prices. Such a program would permit the Government to get out of the storage business, would return to farmers the control over their planting programs, and would enable the American farmer to regain at least a portion of the world market which we have lost under the high support programs of recent years. The CHAIRMAN. Do all of these suggestions you are making differ from those offered by the National Grange? Mr. MCSPARRAN. Some of these are very similar to the program of the National Grange, because, as you probably know, the program of the National Grange is formulated from policies coming from the State organizations. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, we have had it submitted to us 2 or 3 times on this trip already-language similar to the language you are now suggesting. Mr. McSPARRAN. (3) We feel the action of Congress in permitting the Secretary of Agriculture to accept foreign currency in exchange for stocks of surplus commodities was sound. This program should be expanded and the Secretary given a free hand in disposing of these market depressing surpluses. (4) A complete revision of our tariff system, establishing equality for agriculture throughout the system, and reducing all tariffs by a gradual process to the lowest possible point, to encourage expanded trade between nations of the world. (5) The problems of the dairy industry would be practically eliminated if the field of dairy products would be reserved for products made from milk. Milk is one of the finest and most important foods we have, and the invasion of the dairy products field by cheap imitations should never have been permitted. We do not object to the production of any nutritious food products, but such products should be made to retain their own identity, and stand or fall before the consuming public on their own merits. We have precedent for such action in the field of public utilities and labor union activity. (6) An immediate halt to the use of taxpayers' money in reclaiming land for agricultural production. There is no need for additional production in the foreseeable future, and taxpayers should not be burdened with purely political pork barrel projects. The tillable acreage in Pennsylvania alone has declined by 5 million acres in the past 50 years, and much of this land could be brought back into use if needed, and at far less cost than many of the projects planned, or partially completed. (7) Increased appropriations for agricultural research with special emphasis in the field of industrial utilization of farm products. There is a tremendous potential market in this field for agricultural surpluses, and individual farmers cannot afford to conduct such research projects. There are four large regional research laboratories that were established, I believe, in 1938. The primary purpose of those laboratories was for industrial utilization of agriculture production. It is our understanding today, gained from men working in those laboratories, that a great deal of their time has now been diverted over into work in foods, and not in industrial utilization. We think this should be corrected. The CHAIRMAN. We will check on that, sir. Mr. McSPARRAN. (8) Legislation, introduced by Senator Duff, that would prevent any regulations denying farmers the right to grow whatever grain they need to feed their own livestock, has passed the Senate and we commend the Senate for this action. We urge you to use your influence in securing House approval of this measure. (9) Farmer cooperatives are an important tool of our industry and the farm picture would be pure chaos without them. Any attempt to hamper their effectiveness through unfair taxation should be defeated. (10) The practice of trip leasing in the trucking industry has provided much cheaper transportation for farm products going to market and supplies coming back to our farms. The action of the Interstate Commerce Commission in outlawing trip leasing by regulation was a flagrant abuse of regulatory power, and in advancing the effective date of this regulation from March 1, 1956, to December 1, 1955, the Commission acted in extreme bad faith. Legislation should be passed immediately when Congress reconvenes to set aside this regulation and to strip the Commission of power to issue similar regulations at any future date. (11) Farmers delivering their produce to many eastern cities are being forced to pay exorbitant fees to labor unions for the privilege of unloading their trucks. This practice, which amounts to extortion, cannot be condoned in a democratic society. We urge legislation to halt it. (The prepared statement of Mr. McSparran is as follows:) My name is J. Collins McSparran and I am the secretary of the Pennsylvania State Grange, the largest farm organization in the State of Pennsylvania with nearly 80,000 members in 64 of the 67 counties of the Commonwealth. We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you to present the views of our organization on the needs of agriculture. We want to commend this committee for holding this hearing and similar hearings throughout our Nation at which farmers themselves have an oppor tunity to present their views. We sincerely feel that one of the main reasons agriculture is in the unfortunate situation in which it finds itself today is that it has been forced to operate under programs that too often in the past have been written for reasons of a political nature, or for the benefit of some group other than agriculture. We earnestly hope that the recommendations you make to the Senate of the United States do not fall in either of these categories, but are designed for the single purpose of helping agriculture obtain its fair share of the income of this Nation. In Pennsylvania today there are approximately 146,000 farms, and the welfare of approximately 750,000 of our people is dependent to a large measure on the earnings of those farms. Gross agricultural income in Pennsylvania has dropped from $829 million in 1951 to $748 million in 1954 with the decline continuing throughout the year 1955. When you add to this decline the constantly increasing operating costs that our industry has faced, it does not take any crystal ball to ascertain that agriculture is not enjoying any boom such as every other segment of our economy is enjoying, but in reality is fast heading for the depressing levels of the thirties. The agricultural income situation in Pennsylvania has apparently been duplicated throughout our Nation as your committee has undoubtedly heard during your tour. That the United States Congress is aware of agriculture's plight is evidenced by this hearing, and we believe that Congress, when it reconvenes in January, will pass legislation in an attempt to correct the situation. Our concern is that Congress, in its legislative efforts to aid our industry, recognizes the basic and fundamental problems of agriculture and designs legislation to solve these problems. Congress has never been willing to do this before, and because it so failed, the legislation passed by Congress in its futile attempts to solve the farm problem, has likewise failed. What are these fundamental problems? First, we must recognize that a sound system for the production of food and fiber is absolutely essential if we desire to maintain a strong Nation. Second, we must recognize that the welfare of agriculture has been very adversely affected by legislation placed on the statute books to further the interests of other segments of our economy. You cannot protect industry with high tariffs or continually increase the minimum wage of labor without placing additional burdens on agriculture. Yet Congress has done these things. We do not begrudge a fair profit for industry or a decent wage for labor, but we do say you can't protect these two segments of our economy and leave agriculture at the mercy of world markets. Third, that while it is comparatively easy for industry to control production to keep it in line with demand, this is not true of agriculture, for factors, such as rainfall, drought, and disease, which, to a large extent, are beyond the farmers' control, exert a tremendous influence on the total production of our farms, and, because many of our products are perishable and must, therefore, be marketed rapidly, a surplus of 1 or 2 percent can disrupt our entire marketing program. It follows, therefore, that one of agriculture's greatest needs is some program by which surplus production can be insulated from domestic markets. Fourth, that agricultural production, coming as it does, not from 100, or from 1,000 different sources, but from approximately 5 million producing units, presents problems peculiar only to our industry. We firmly believe, however, that the preservation of the family farm is essential and in the long-range interest of our Nation. Fifth, that other nations would buy considerable quantities of foodstuffs produced on American farms if they could obtain the dollars needed to finance the purhcases. Since our tariff structures prevent their selling us goods or services for which they could obtain dollars, we, therefore, find our markets restricted. We have tried for many years to solve the farmers' problems with a high support program. The effort was a tragic failure. Such programs have encouraged production for which there was no market, priced us out of world markets, built up tremendous surpluses, cost billions in taxpayers' money, gained us the ill will of the consuming public, encouraged speculators to enter the production picture, and failed to produce the income to the farmer they were supposed to produce. Remember, the only times since 1914 that farmers have received 100 percent of parity for their production were during the two World Wars and the Korean conflict, and the demands of war produced the favorable prices, not any farm programs enacted by Congress. Now we are about to embark on a low support program. It will fail just as dismally as the high support program for neither or these programs recognizes the basic and fundamental problems of our industry. It will not cut production, but will simply give the farmer a lower return per unit and, to stay in business, he will have to produce more units. We urge you to enact legislation that does recognize the needs of our industry and a program that will give the farmer equality with labor and industry, a fair return on his investment and a fair wage for his labor. We offer for your consideration the following recommendations: (1) A commodity by commodity approach to the problem. No single piece of legislation can correct the present situation. (2) Establishment of a domestic parity program for those basic crops, such as wheat, that will give producers 100 percent of parity for that part of their production which is consumed for human needs on the domestic market, with all surplus production moving into export or feed channels at competitive prices. Such a program would permit the Government to get out of the storage business, would return to farmers the control over their planting programs, and would enable the American farmer to regain at least a portion of the world market which we have lost under the high support programs of recent years. (3) We feel the action of Congress in permitting the Secretary of Agriculture to accept foreign currency in exchange for stocks of surplus commodities was sound. This program should be expanded and the Secretary given a free hand in disposing of these market depressing surpluses. (4) A complete revision of our tariff system, establishing equality for agriculture throughout the system, and reducing all tariffs by a gradual process to the lowest possible point, to encourage expanded trade between nations of the world. (5) The problems of the dairy industry would be practically eliminated if the field of dairy products would be reserved for products made from milk. Milk is one of the finest and most important foods we have, and the invasion of the dairy products field by cheap imitations should never have been permitted. We do not object to the production of any nutritious food products, but such products should be made to retain their own identity, and stand or fall before the consuming public on their own merits. We have precedent for such action in the field of public utilities and labor union activity. (6) An immediate halt to the use of taxpayers' money in reclaiming land for agricultural production. There is no need for additional production in the foreseeable future, and taxpayers should not be burdened with purely political pork barrel projects. The tillable acreage in Pennsylvania alone has declined by 5 million acres in the past 50 years, and much of this land could be brought back into use if needed, and at far less cost than many of the projects planned, or partially completed. (7) Increased appropriations for agricultural research with special emphasis in the field of industrial utilization of farm products. There is a tremendous potential market in this field for agricultural surpluses, and individual farmers cannot afford to conduct such research projects. (8) Legislation, introduced by Senator Duff, that would prevent any regulations denying farmers the right to grow whatever grain they need to feed their own livestock, has passed the Senate and we commend the Senate for this action. We urge you to use your influence in securing House approval for this measure. (9) Farmer cooperatives are an important tool of our industry and the farm picture would be pure chaos without them. Any attempt to hamper their effectiveness through unfair taxation should be defeated. (10) The practice of trip leasing in the trucking industry has provided much cheaper transportation for farm products going to market and supplies coming back to our farms. The action of the Interstate Commerce Commission in outlawing trip leasing by regulation was a flagrant abuse of regulatory power, and in advancing the effective date of this regulation from March 1, 1956, to December 1, 1955, the Commission acted in extreme bad faith. Legislation should be passed immediately when Congress reconvenes to set aside this regulation and to strip the Commission of power to issue similar regulations at any future date. (11) Farmers delivering their produce to many eastern cities are being forced to pay exorbitant fees to labor unions for the privilege of unloading their trucks. This practice, which amounts to extortion, cannot be condoned in a democratic society. We urge legislation to halt it. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. There is only one statement that I would like to take issue with you on, and that is what you intimate when you say "the taxpayers should not be burdened with purely po 64440-56-pt. 7-15 |