360 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Mr. Pace. All right, you may proceed. 



Mr. Patton. First, let me express to the committee on behalf of 

 our membership our gratification that you have pushed ahead and 

 are pushing ahead toward the adoption of legislation that will revise 

 the existing laws governing general agricultural programs. As our 

 members have seen successive breaks in the prices of farm products 

 while their own costs have continued to rise or have remained at very 

 high levels, they have become increasingly concerned about the out- 

 look. Too many of the so-called economic indicators are parallel to 

 some of those of the early 1920's for them to feel comfortable. They 

 very earnestly and deeply believe that Congress should act now in 

 the interest not of farmers alone but of economic stability for our 

 whole people. 



The legislative situation that we face may be compared, to some 

 extent, with that obtaining toward the end of the Eightieth Congress. 

 At that time, you will recall, the wartime legislation putting reason- 

 ably good floors under farm prices was still in eJffect. They afforded 

 pretty much the same governmental protection that farmers now 

 enjoy. But those supports were scheduled to expire at the end of the 

 year, and the support levels then would have reverted to the much 

 lower levels of the old AAA program. 



In that situation, I put my principal emphasis, in testimony on 

 behalf of the Farmers Union both to this committee and to the Senate 

 Committee on Agriculture, on the dire need for some sort of action by 

 Congress. While it was clear that the general agricultural bill then 

 pending in the Senate meant relatively much lower levels of prices 

 than were desirable, it was far preferable to a return to the old AAA 

 levels. At that time, I put the matter as follows : 



Agriculture as usual finds itself in an extremely vulnerable position in the 

 aftermath of war. Farmers for several years to come face a condition where 

 failure to continue exports of farm products at very high levels would almost 

 certainly bring about another and worse decline in prices of the things farmers 

 sell. At the same time this could well be accompanied by continuing and even 

 increasing inflation of the prices of things farmers buy. 



Therefore, the National Farmers Union alone, I believe, among the major farm 

 organizations, has taken the position that the support levels guaranteed in the 

 so-called Steagall amendment to the Price Control Act of 1942 must be continued 

 unless something were done to control the rest of the economy. In fact, we have 

 advocated price control right across the board, backed by adequate credit control, 

 for agriculture as well as for everybody else. 



The enactment of S. 2318 or similar legislation would assist materially in 

 quieting our fears. It would not, however, in my judgment, remove the necessity 

 for strong action to curb inflation. We think both things ought to be done. 



If, however, it appears later that it will not be possible for the committee to 

 obtain favorable action on a satisfactory long-range bill, I appeal to it today to 

 do all it can to obtain the extension for at least another year of the Steagall 

 amendment levels of price support. In an uncertain world, there appears to be 

 no other way available immediately to assure farmers against at least some of 

 the worst effects of inflation. 



Now, we are again faced with the prospective end of the guaranties 

 afforded farmers in Congressman Hope's House bill of last year, which 

 became title I of the law finally enacted. There is one major differ- 

 ence, however, in that time remains to adopt more far-reaching and 

 more significant legislation than was provided in the Senate bill of 

 1948, which, so far as price supports are concerned, became title II of 

 the completed bill. Most important of all, since that time Secretary of 

 Agriculture Brannan has presented to Congress his historic proposals 



