Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Farmers here must protect poultry and other crops and must also watch interests of their markets such as purchasing power of shoe workers. We want trade agreements in hands of men responsible to us for what they do.

CARLTON I. PIECKETT,

President, Plymouth County Farm Bureau, South Hanson.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Thatcher.

STATEMENT OF M. W. THATCHER, ST. PAUL, MINN., CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION; PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF GRAIN COOPERATIVES

Mr. THATCHER. Mr. Chairman, speaking for the National Farmers Union and the National Federation of Grain Cooperatives, we have a very short statement for the record, one which I filed with the president last month.

We support the philosophy of reciprocal-trade agreements as the most likely assurance to bring into national cooperation and peace, but we insist that in the consummation of such agreements, necessary safeguards must be employed to protect parity prices to domestic agricultural products efficiently produced, and we are opposed to logrolling and tariff legislation which has historically betrayed American agriculture.

Within the group of the National Farmers Union, we have some cooperative business activities, particularly in the Dakotas, Montana, and Wisconsin, and very, very large business operations, and this large number of stockholders that we have in those business institutions numbser approximately 70,000 farmers.

At their annual stockholders meeting in September at St. Paul, the matter of the reciprocal trade agreements was brought up on the floor, the resolutions committee having decided not to attempt to bring up such a controversial question because of the lack of information and knowledge that those people had of this very important subject. Nevertheless, the matter was brought up by a member on the floor at our stockholders meeting, and finally after much debate, on a subject that it might be they knew too little about, a resolution was adopted asking for approval of these agreements by the Senate.

While it was not discussed on the convention floor, the strongest proponents of such a proposed way of approving these treaties did not understand that at the present time, as I believe, it would require a two-thirds vote of the Senate to approve such treaties. They thought that they were voting on a proposal that the Senate merely by majority approve the treaties.

I understand that Senator O'Mahoney has an amendment which provides for approval by the Senate like any ordinary piece of legislation.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. For congressional approval of both Houses. Mr. THATCHER. The matter of the whole Congress approval came up for consideration, and they thought that that was too unwieldy a way of requiring approval of these treaties, and that we might likely get back to what we term "logrolling" and from which we believe we have suffered in the past with respect to legislation on tariffs, but I do want to make the record clear that those who asked that resolution for the approval of trade treaties by Senate ratification were a part of the National Farmers Union and no part of the National Federation of Grain Cooperatives except in a limited way, who believe that these treaties ought not to be left to a sole authority but that there ought to be some protection thrown around the approval of these treaties, on the theory that a sole authority ought not-I guess I can almost quote the expression of the present Secretary of State, ought not want that authority, and that one day we might find that sole authority passing to someone in whom we had less confidence than in the present Secretary of State.

We had a meeting recently of the National Federation of Grain Cooperatives, and all of the directors of that association, and their conclusion was that safeguards might well be provided by having three or more departments which are governed by Cabinet officers be parties to the approval of these trade agreements.

I was amazed in connection with the proposed treaty with Argentina to find what a tremendous task lies behind the preparation of such a treaty, and the utter impossibility of farmers on the average having an understanding of what finally is proposed and why. There were 15 volumes of records back of the proposed treaty with Argentina. We had an interest in that and filed a brief in opposition to it on only one commodity, flaxseed.

In concluding my direct statement on this matter, we must, we believe, have more responsibility in connection with the approval of these treaties and proposed trade treaties. I think that the very least in the matter of protection that we should have should be the Department of Commerce and Agriculture as well as the State Department.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. It is alleged here that those Departments are now represented through their membership on these committees, is it not?

Mr. THATCHER. I am sure that is true.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Am I to understand that your proposal is that the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Agriculture be required to approve these treaties before they are submitted to the President?

Mr. THATCHER. That is the minimum protection, and that then, in addition to that, Senator La Follette, that there must be full protection in all of these agricultural commodities to assure against a decline in price below parity.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Then am I to understand from that, that you would like to have that written into this resolution?

Mr. THATCHER. That is correct.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. In other words, you are proposing an amendment or limitation that no agricultural duties be proposed which would result in domestic prices below parity?

Mr. THATCHER. No. I read exactly the text of what we had stated for the record.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I understood that was something you filed with the President.

Mr. THATCHER. That is right, and I filed it here and reassert that we insist that, in the consummation of such agreements, necessary safeguards must be employed to protect parity prices for domestic agricultural products efficiently produced.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. You do not find in the present agreements that those standards or that that safeguard has been followed?

Mr. THATCHER. That is right.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I simply want to clear up the record. Mr. THATCHER. I also want to make the record clear that we have great faith eventually in the purposes and the philosophy of the reciprocal trade agreements as the most likely assurance to redevelop our foreign commerce and bring back peace again in the world.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I do not want to delay the committee, but, Mr. Thatcher, assuming that peace comes and the enormous wartime production which has been stimulated in the belligerent nations has to be converted over to peacetime production, is it your view that these reciprocal trade-agreement powers will be utilized to a sufficient extent so that the United States would absorb a substantial proportion of the converted peacetime capacity?

Mr. THATCHER. No; I have no such illusion as that at all. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Have you made any study of the effect of wartime control by the belligerent nations of their trade and its effect upon American agriculture?

Mr. THATCHER. Quite a little bit, and for the moment the reciprocal trade treaties, in our judgment, are of little value because of the present conditions abroad and the sole authority which now governs the countries with whom we have had, in the past, desirable foreign commerce in agricultural products. We recognize what has happened to our tobacco market, we recognize what has happened to our fruit market. And, of course, experience with what has happened to our wheat market, because we are very large handlers of wheat, the largest in that business in the United States, and I know what has happened to the wheat business, and we recognize that for the moment, and maybe for the next several years, that we are up against a readjustment of our economy and its relation to agriculture, that is going to be more shocking, in our opinion, than anything we have had in the last 10 years, particularly cotton. We have great interest in what is going to happen there. We think that is the most dubious outlook there is.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Do you think that the Government should not take some action to prevent the impact of these war-time controls on American agriculture?

Mr. THATCHER. I not only contend that they should, and I do it vigorously now, but I have contended that they should have taken more action with respect to agriculture than they have back through the years. We have declared policies of Congress, but we lack the means of carrying that policy to consummation.

We are striving for parity income in agriculture, and we do not get it, and with constantly decreasing export markets, the matter is going to be worse in the future, and when the war is over we are going to have, in our judgment, very serious repercussions that are going to put agriculture at a worse disadvantage than they have been up to date.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. In other words, if we do not adopt vigorous policies to protect American agriculture against the impact of wartime controls of belligerents and other nations, and adopt a vigorous policy after peace comes, the prospect for the American farmer is that he is going to take another beating, is it not?

Mr. THATCHER. That is right, and that is why I am so vitally interested, as you know, in the matter that you and other Senators and Representatives in the House have introduced in the Senate, the legislation dealing with the farm home and agricultural credit to help to entrench them in that home and preserve them in a home and on the land so that at least they have a roof over their heads while they are going up against this impact, and I want to commend you very much and say that I greatly appreciate it.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is nothing further, the committee will adjourn until 2 o'clock in the District of Columbia Committee Room of the Capitol.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 o'clock of the same day, in the District of Columbia Committee room at the Capitol.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The hearing was resumed in the District of Columbia Committee Room, the Capitol, at 2 p. m., pursuant to adjuornment for the noon

recess.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. HOLMAN, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' FEDERATION

Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: Our general position on the bill has been outlined in considerable detail in the House hearings. I have today some new material which was not presented in the House hearings, which I wish to present to the committee. Before doing so, I would like to file two resolutions of our organization passed in November 1939, bearing on the subject matter before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that may be filed. (The same is as follows:)

I

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' FEDERATION, CHICAGO, NOVEMBER 15, 16, AND 17, 1939

We believe that the present trade-agreement program of the Federal Government, as administered by the Department of State, is detrimental to the welfare of agriculture and particularly to the producers of dairy, livestock, and poultry products. The so-called but misnamed reciprocal trade agreements are particularly harmful to the economic interest of dairy farmers, and the progressive reduction of duties en various imported dairy products threatens not only to limit the opportunities for American farmers to find markets in the United States but is setting a maximum possible rate of income for the average dairy farmer far below the needs of such farmers if they are to have anything that approaches a rightful share of the national income.

It seems clear to everyone except the Secretary of State and his associates that the prices of dairy products domestically produced can never be higher for any length of time than the international prices plus our tariff wall; and rarely do the domestic prices reach this maximum. We object to being traded down the river for the benefit of a few large industries, such as the automotive and chemical industries, in order to enable such industries to increase their exports a little bit. We believe that the best way to approach prosperity is to increase the farmers' purchasing power instead of the present misguided method of trying to increase the purchasing power of urban labor and reduce the possible income of agriculturists. The present disparity of purchasing power of the three groups necessitates thought being given first to the plight of agriculture; and no wiser way to begin remedial action can be found than to establish and maintain a definite Federal policy of preserving the domestic market for the domestic agricultural producer.

We insist that Congress, in its second session of the Seventy-sixth Congress, repeal the Trade Agreement Act in view of the apparent further dislocation that has resulted to agriculture under the provisions of this act as enforced by the Department of State, and that Congress, in repealing the act, direct the Secretary of State to serve notice upon each country with which the United States has entered into a trade agreement, notifying such contracting country that the outstanding agreement will be terminated upon the expiration of 6 months from the date of giving such notice.

In event of a failure to repeal the act or in event of the extension of its provisions after its termination date in June 1940, we recommend that provisions for Senate ratification and opportunity for court review be incorporated in the text of the act.

II

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE NATIONAL COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' FEDERATION

At the last annual convention of the federation held in Chicago, November 15, 16, and 17, 1939, the following resolution was passed with respect to the continuation or operation of the Trade Agreement Act of June 12, 1934:

We urge the Congress of the United States immediately to enact legislation prohibiting the importation of any dairy products from countries which do not have cattle disease-control programs in effect equal to the standards set up for domestic producers by the Bureau of Animal Industry of the United States Department of Agriculture.

Mr. HOLMAN. As will be seen, that resolution first asks for the repeal of the act. Then, assuming that such action might not be possible, it authorizes the officers to seek Senate ratification as a minimum of congressional supervision over the operations of the Executive in this respect. Before the conclusion of my testimony I will file with the committee two suggested amendments to the act, one bearing out our conception of congressional supervision, the other bearing on a way by which citizens can once more get into the courts to test the constitutionality of the act.

Senator VANDENBERG. Before you go into your argument, will you indicate for the record the nature and extent of the National Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation?

Mr. HOLMAN. The organization consists of 60 affiliated groups, all farmer-owned and farmer-controlled, representing about 350,000 dairy farm families, residing in 41 States, of whom approximately one-half belongs to the cooperative associations that supply the fluid milk markets of an interstate character, such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Chicago, and Detroit. The remainder are primarily interested in shipping their butterfat to creameries, their own creameries in most cases, and supplying milk to cheese factories and to evaporating plants. These groups own almost a thousand plants scattered over the country from coast to coast.

Senator VANDENBERG. Is there any particular section of the country which is predominantly represented by your group?

Mr. HOLMAN. I don't know that I could say that, except north of the Ohio River. We are in almost every important milkshed in the United States north of the Ohio River. We have a heavy membership in Michigan, in New York State, in New England, in the intermountain territory, and the Coast States.

Senator VANDENBERG. Would Wisconsin be one of your heavy States?

Mr. HOLMAN. Not as heavy as Minnesota. In Minnesota we have from 65,000 to 75,000 farm families. I have never estimated the number in Wisconsin, but there are probably 10,000 farm families belonging to affiliated units.

« AnteriorContinuar »