Washington report; Agriculture in USA

From the nation's capital the NABC radio network presents a Washington report. Our continuing examination of vital currents in issues which affect the conduct of government and are of direct concern to each of us. You are any AB commentator is John F. Lewis. No single domestic issue in the past 15 years has caused as much controversy and consternation as American agriculture status in our national economy. Agriculture is a thirty five billion dollar a year business with net assets an excess of 200 billion dollars. Farmers are the major purchasers and consumers of durable goods such as steel rubber and oil products. The biggest single user of electric power. But each farmer is an independent operator. Faced with such uncertainties as whether market fluctuations and in the case of half a dozen price supported commodities over production that is caused surplus accumulations. The farmer has not shared in the general national

prosperity since World War 2 to the same extent as other major segments of the economy. His share of the consumers food dollar is less than 40 cents is selling food and fiber of highest quality and in greatest quantity ever known by any nation in history to a consuming public that knows too little about the farming business and doesn't understand many of the farmers problems. Among farmers and lawmakers and agricultural observers a dispute has raged since the days of the Great Depression. Over the road agriculture and America should follow. Agriculture is truly a house divided. One side argues number one that the farmer must have government regulating his operations and often his markets because the farmer is otherwise helpless in competing with other phases of the economy. The other side contends that the farmer will do better to rely on the law of supply and

demand in a free market without government interference. Both positions accept and even encourage government assistance in conducting research providing Farm Credit promoting the use of farm products and regulating speculatively markets meat slaughtering and the use of drugs and chemicals in food production. Bipartisan support may be found for either position though administratively since 1933 Democrats have tended to favor increased government in agriculture and the Republicans have advocated a lessening of government's role in the new administration in Washington has gone farther than any of its predecessors in calling for a sweeping program of government supervision over the farming business. And it is this proposal which is broad American agriculture is problems more clearly into focus today than at any other time before any consideration can be given to farm legislation. It is necessary to understand some very

basic facts about today's Agriculture says Harold Cooley of North Carolina longtime chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. I think that the Americans the right. To continue living. Is increasing and expensive. I don't believe that the people of America will continue to support this program. So in this situation we saw the problems with local

agriculture which I think a problem. There was a time in America when 65 percent of our population and gauged in farming. Thanks to machinery fertilizer in the most efficient farm management ever developed in the world's history only eight point seven percent of our people are farmers today. And each farm worker produces for himself and twenty six other persons at home and abroad. But among those still listed by the Census as farmers more than half produce only 10 percent of the total output of food and fiber. This means that there are two categories of farmers. The 54 percent whose annual gross income from farming is less than twenty five hundred dollars often less than twelve hundred dollars. And the 46 percent producing 90 percent of our crops and livestock and enjoying incomes that range above twenty five hundred dollars. This latter group makes up the commercial family farm that

has enough acreage education and initiative to make a business like though not always good livelihood out of the soil. Both groups of farmers are in varying degrees of trouble as a result of the technical know how that has caused a production explosion in American agriculture. Without programs for retraining and relocation in new careers adjustment is virtually impossible for most of the 54 percent listed as marginal farmers in economic distress. For the vast majority of the 46 percent adjustment both with and without government programs is often painful though many farmers in this category are doing fairly well. Some farmers are hurting a lot more than others. A contributing factor is over abundance of a handful of commodities which have been guaranteed government supports these price supports sometimes without effective production controls tend to subsidize excessive

output while often pricing the commodity out of competitive markets. Farmers are also hurt by World competition for example by cheaply produced textiles from Japan by the sheep production of New Zealand by tobacco production in Africa. The previous administration under secretary of agriculture is a red Taft Benson maintain that a reduction in support prices in the lifting of controls that were in effect or will would eventually return agriculture to the play of the free market and would therefore provide farmers with a more stable income. The new administration under secretary of agriculture Orville Freeman argues that without government price guarantees and with the surpluses over our heads farmers would be faced with catastrophe if they were returned to the free market. They also insist that high supports and effectively applied controls something they call supply management could work effectively on all

commodities if given a chance. They also advocate that Congress healed some of its authority in writing farm legislation to Farmer commodity Committee. It's says Chairman Cooley. This is a place of audibles statutory status of the problem set up programs limited to contemplate the farmers where they leaped. To represent you elected to collaborate with responsibility and then to collaborate with the program to the program to be given the right to veto the program submitted.

This committee will insist upon the right to amend or change such a program to a committee because having received it. Do you really reckon that if you disobey one of the opponents of the Freeman concept is Oklahoma Republican page Belcher also a long time member of the House Agriculture Committee with a view sharply critical of government farm programs generally and I think it goes way too far in giving the secretary power to write law. You might say there's an argument as to just what the suggestion or actually going to be but it does give him the power to send down to Congress for basic suggestions for an agricultural

program which well become law unless a majority of either the House our the Senate rejects or vetoes and this reverses legislative procedure entirely. Under the Constitution it listen Dan and legislate branch of the government should pass laws and send them to the executive. Far veto our approval under they us the executive department write the law send it down to congress far either far veto. It providing the Congress acts with them 60 days and there are a lot of reasons why the Congress might not even be able to act within the 60 days that is certainly at it. Too much of a delegation of power to one cabinet member Congress and the executive department are the whole United States government has gotten too far into the farm problem and a lot of instances I think we have done more damage than good to agriculture

in lots of respects in the middle of the fight or the farmers themselves as represented by farm organizations the largest of these is the American Farm Bureau Federation and President Charles Schumann an Illinois hog producer calls the Freeman proposal a way to comfortable peasantry. On the other side of the fence are the Grange and the farmers union insisting that more government in agriculture as proposed by the administration is the only way agriculture can resolve its problems on both sides are scores of lesser groups often reflecting specific commodity interests. The issue as indicated earlier narrows down to one question. Should governments role in agriculture increase or decrease representative Cooley says. I definitely feel that the government's role in agriculture must increase all of this talk about taking the government off the back of a lot of

government lot on the back of the problem but the government's participation at this moment the promise of America will face bankruptcy. There's been a question about that because if all of our accumulated stocks are now put into the markets markets would be the most followed with with some plan that I say would back up what we need more government at the moment because we must have more control of production. I never believed in price supports on limited production of in a commodity advocated prices for commodities produced by farmers who are willing to accept such. But up to the kids are limited to rice work by supports of first grade bother with a group that. I support. But you're right about a

little piece of the nation. And Representative Belcher admits. Well of course I think that agriculture might have been better as far as price supports are concerned if that gun would have never gotten into that failing at all. However I believe find ourselves now. Why is a huge star places which have been built up. By an unrealistic attempt to balance production consumption and I can't just pull out and dump lower surpluses on the annex of the farmers without ranking a large segment of agriculture in the country and whenever we do that we bring on a general depression not just a depression in agriculture so the the press for a problem we have a S as I see it to get out of these agriculture programs as easily as we can by that and disrupting the economy of the country.

In this debate the future of American agriculture. A production success story with overtones of economic failure is being charted regardless of the outcome traditional concepts are apt to be replaced by new ideas and policies offering both a hope and a threat to the farmers Freedom to Farm. From Washington this is John F. Lewis reporting. You have been listening to another in a series of weekly reports from Washington produced and transcribed in the nation's capital by the NEA E.B. Radio Network. You are any commentator was John F. Lewis. Washington report is made available to this station by the National Association of educational broadcasters. This is the NEA ABC Radio Network.