906 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



the Brannan plan and we have seen enough of the OPA without 

 asking for it back. 



Mr. Pace. Thank you very much, Mr. Kopitzke. 



At this point in the record, I would like to file with the clerk, for 

 inserting in the record at this point, a statement submitted to the 

 committee by Senator Robert C. Hendrickson of New Jersey, it being 

 a statement by the United Milk Producers of New Jersey. 



(The statement above referred to is as follows:) 



Brief Filed With the Committee On Agriculture Of the House Of Rep- 

 resentatives, Washington, D. C, on May 3, 1949 by United Milk Pro- 

 ducers OF New Jersey, Trenton, N. J., on Proposed Farm-Price-Support 

 Program 



[A brief on the farm-price-support program as outlined by United States Secre- 

 tary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan and printed in the Congessional Rec- 

 ord of April 7, 1949] 



The United Milk Producers of New Jersey, comprising a membership of some 

 2,500 of the milk producers of New Jersey, desire to present herewith their views 

 to your committee on the farm program as outlined by United States Secretary 

 of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan at a joint hearing of your committee and the 

 Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on April 7, 1949. 



This proposal would apparently repeal the principles and concept of the Agri- 

 cultural Act of 1948, doing away with parity prices which have received general 

 farm support during the past 15 or more years. 



Discarding of fair market prices and substituting "farm production payments" 

 ("consumer subsidies" to us) would be to return to the practice carried on during 

 the war years and which policy the farmers resisted but tolerated because we are 

 patriotic citizens. It deceived the consumer into believing that the price of 

 milk -^^as lower than it really was and we paid for a big share of it in our own tax 

 bills. 



The theory of production control, which implies the threat of eventual com- 

 plete regimentation of all farming operations, is one thing that our members are 

 most critical of, and strongly oppose. The proposed legislation would give 

 blanket power and authority to the Government to enforce such a policy and 

 none of us would be safe knowing that it existed, ready to be invoked when "the 

 time may come" as the Secretary puts it. 



The board of trustees of the United Milk Producers of New Jersey are on record 

 opposing the proposal. 



Mr. Murray. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this 

 point to include in the record a letter that the chairman received on 

 February 23 which will probably answer some questions that have 

 been brought up by witnesses. 



Mr. Pace. Without objection, the letter will be filed with the clerk 

 for insertion at this point in the record. 



(The letter above referred to is as follows:) 



Department of Agriculture, 



Washington, February 23, 1949. 

 Hon. Harold D. Cooley, 



Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, 

 House of Representatives. 



Dear Mr. Cooley: On February 10, 1949, the Committee on Agriculture held 

 a hearing on H. R. 2200, a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to announce 

 the parity price of milk, and to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to immediately 

 announce the support price of milk. A request was made near the close of the 

 hearing that, by February 22, 1949, the Department advise the committee con- 

 cerning the current dairy situation, the effect of actions recently taken by the 

 Department with respect to dairy prices, and the need, if any, for future action. 



