1094 . ■ GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



The New England Council, 

 Boston, Mass., February 3, 1949. 

 Hon. George D. Aiken, 



United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

 My Dear Senator Aiken: At a meeting of the New England Council's Com- 

 mittee on Agriculture and Forestry held on January 14, 1949, in Boston, the 

 current proposals to continue price supports at 90 percent of parity were discussed. 

 Following the discussion, it was unanimously voted: 



That the committee on agriculture and forestry endorse and support the 

 principle of flexible support prices and revised parity sponsored by Senator 

 George D. Aiken, and to mail copies of this letter to the New England con- 

 gressional delegation and to the Members of the Senate and House Com- 

 mittees on Agriculture. 

 It is a pleasure to send you a copy of this unanimous vote by the committee on 

 agriculture and forestry. 

 Very truly yours, 



John L. Carten, Jr., 

 Chairman, Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. 



Mr. Pace. We will now hear from our distinguished colleague, 

 Hon. Ben F. Jensen, of Iowa. 



STATEMENT OF HON. BEN F. JENSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 



Mr. Jensen. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

 I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee and be 

 of any help I can in providing a few thoughts on what you and I 

 consider the greatest problem facing our Nation today. Needless to 

 say, the whole welfare of our economy, agricultural and industrial, 

 weighs heavily on the decisions this committee reaches in regard to 

 effective farm legislation. 



The Nation is sadly in need of a sound approach to the economic 

 problems that beset it today. Since directly or indirectly approxi- 

 mately 70 percent of our labor is employed in the production, process- 

 ing, and distribution of farm products and the services incident to 

 such activity, the destiny of our Nation's economy rests on the leader- 

 ship and legislation you gentlemen and the other Members of Congress 

 provide. 



It is regretful that practically all of the help offered this committee 

 by well-respected, and rightfully so, national agricultural leaders has 

 been based on economic tangents and monstrosities irrelevant to the 

 basic causes of our agricultural problems. They deal totally in trying 

 to control effects. 



Far too many of our agricultural legislation proposers ignore or 

 forget that there is a bottom to the taxpayers' appropriations barrel. 

 We would never have any economic problems if there were a limitless 

 supply of dollars to cure our economic maladjustments. But we 

 know that the Nation's Federal business structure is very similar to 

 your family's or mine. We have to live within our income and cannot 

 constantly overspend without irreparable disastrous residts. 



It seems obvious that if our people aren't interested in using more 

 cotton — the fact is clear. If our people are not interested in eating 

 more and more potatoes and consume all the farmers wish and can 

 produce — that fact is also clear. The same is true in regard to certain 

 grain crops. The Government does not have the right or obligation 

 to force our people to utilize everything agriculture produces, or to 

 force our people to pay through taxes sufficient money to make it 



