Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

PRICE-CONTROL BILL

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 1941

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,

Washington, D. C.

The committee convened at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Henry B. Steagall, chairman of the committee, presiding.

The members present were: Messrs. Steagall, Williams, Spence, Ford, Brown, Gore, Mills, Wolcott, Gifford, Crawford, Miss Sumner, Mr. Rolph, and Mr. Hull.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. O'Neal, please come forward.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD A. O'NEAL-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gifford has a few questions to ask you. Mr. GIFFORD. Mr. O'Neal, I am very sorry that I didn't have your speech before me yesterday afternoon that you made when the price-fixing bill was first talked of in Congress. But Mr. Cannon of Missouri also made a speech. He is probably the greatest farmer now in Congress. Did you read that speech?

Mr. O'Neal. Yes, sir.

Mr. GIFFORD. Did you agree with it?

Mr. O'NEAL. I think it is very fine.

Mr. GIFFORD. Did that speech imply to you that parity would be satisfactory for the farmers?

Mr. O'NEAL. Yes, sir. That was the whole trend of his statement there.

Mr. GIFFORD. That was parity as fixed by that present method of

1910 to 1914?

Mr. O'NEAL. I think so. Yes, sir. That is the usually accepted parity concept, that with some adjustments. I don't think anybody is agreed probably that in some of the commodities there might not have to be made some adjustments. But generally speaking, yes, sir. Mr. GIFFORD. As I read Mr. Cannon's speech, parity meant conditions at the time to be taken into consideration. Parity meant that if wages increased for the farmer-and the farmers nowadays want these newer conveniences that they have that there must be a different term used; and he applied the 10 years from 1920 to 1929. Now, is there any reason to suppose that parity would be 24 cents a pound for cotton if any further parity was granted at the present time?

Mr. O'NEAL. I think not. Parity as it is arrived at now, as I said yesterday, is 16.99 cents as of September 15.

Of course, I read into the record yesterday an editorial by Mr. Clifford Gergory, the distinguished agricultural editor and leader, stating that if wages go up parity goes up; that if the prices of industrial commodities go up parity goes up.1 1

Mr. GIFFORD. You would not want to freeze cotton at 16.99 cents? Mr. O'NEAL. No, sir. I rather think that that parity concept is the best concept.

Mr. GIFFORD. You would want that concept changed to meet the conditions, as it is now being done?

Mr. O'NEAL. Yes.

Mr. GIFFORD. Once a month, as you said yesterday?

Mr. O'NEAL. Once a month or periodically. They report the parity, or the Department does, I understand, once each month, the changes.

Mr. GIFFORD. Of course, your statement began with sort of a frightening message to the committee that it is a very important matter that we are discussing; that the welfare of the citizen is involved, and so forth. But if this bill is passed, it will be more or less of a permanent bill or permanent scheme, won't it?

Mr. O'NEAL. Only for the defense period and immediately after the defense period.

Mr. GIFFORD. Do you have any idea that they would ever set it aside?

Mr. O'NEAL. I couldn't understand you.

Mr. GIFFORD. Have you any idea that the power that will be given, if this Federal Bureau is set up, do you think that that could be set aside or that it would be set aside?

Mr. O'NEAL. I think so. It was in the other World War period. Mr. GIFFORD. You have been working before the Agricultural Committee and have been working for years. I have been here 19 years. I came here to Congress in 1921 on a farmers' poll. Twenty years is a long period to work for a thing and finally achieve it only by a pipe line to the Treasury.

I want that stopped. Are you hoping that it can be stopped?

Mr. O'NEAL. I certainly do. I think your committee took an action and I thanked you yesterday I was delighted to have the opportunity to thank you for what you have done, which will help that situation.

Mr. GIFFORD. I hear so many say that so many farmers have suffered. I understand that the farmers have suffered. My factory workers have suffered also. In my city half of the industries closed down entirely. They suffered.

Now, they had no pipe line to the Treasury. They had no parity. They laugh at parity, because there has been nothing in it for them. And I think that that should be considered when you think of one class of people. I think the other class ought to be considered.

Mr. O'NEAL. Congressman, I want to thank you for your statement here. I appreciate very much personally what you say. I am delighted at the information that you have given to me here. I thought that Congress was exceedingly sympathetic to agriculture, but now I am firmly assured that Congress belongs to the farmer.

It is a wonderful thing. I am 67 years old. After 67 years, most of my lifetime spent fighting on the farm and with organized agriculture, to hear you, a man in your position and background, say that is very, very pleasing to me.

1 See pp. 1393-1394, supra.

Mr. GIFFORD. I wasn't giving you any information but what you I thought that you might try to gage my questioning

already knew.
by what I said.
Mr. O'NEAL. Surely.

Mr. GIFFORD. When the Republican organization is trying so hard, with all that the other party is doing, to show the farmers that they are sympathetic to them, to have just a Republican, a straightforward Republican man, indicate toward the farmer that the Republicans are going to help them too-I supposed that you had that information too. Didn't you?

Mr. O'NEAL. I had heard that. Yes.

Mr. GIFFORD. The Congress does not get the congressional money from private subscriptions. But we have gotten to see that the farmers certainly control Congress. But I don't know how you can proceed to take care of the farmers unless you also take care of those other groups.

Mr. O'NEAL. My dear friend, far be it from me to make any suggestions to you; but I would like to put into the record what has been done for each group in the United States in the last few years. Mr. GIFFORD. Yes. My factory workers want to have that.

Mr. O'NEAL. This pipe line that you talk about has been an open sewer in certain directions for other groups. In other words, it has been a main line, it has not been a little line for these P. W. A. payments that you receive in your area, and the W. P. A. payments. Mr. GIFFORD. Which is it?

Mr. O'NEAL. Well, both. They are pretty extensive.

Mr. GIFFORD. Every time we have had a P. W. A. project in our area we have paid for five of them in other areas by taxation. There was so much of it that we had to have up there and we attempted to suggest how money should be spent. But every little project that we have had in my area we paid for five of them in other areas. So don't tell me how we have profited. That is the way it works out under our system.

Mr. O'NEAL. Right at that point, would you allow me to put certain figures in the record?

Mr. GIFFORD. Yes. And I think that I can meet those figures. Mr. O'NEAL. That is fine. I would like to be corrected if I make any errors.

During the past 8 years-this is what I told the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Cannon's subcommittee of Appropriations on Agriculture during the past 8 years the total appropriations for the national farm program amounted to $5,508,000,000, compared-now, I hope these figures will register-with $13,234,000,000 for relief. That is not including Public Works expenditures.

Mr. GIFFORD. The farmer got his share of that.

Mr. O'NEAL. He didn't get very much.

I should like to insert the whole statement at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

FARM PAYMENTS RELATIVELY SMALL

We hear a lot of talk about large appropriations for agriculture but the fact is the appropriations for agriculture have been far less than those appropriated for the relief of the unemployed whose jobs industry plowed under with its own system of monopolistic controls, aided and abetted by the protective tariff system. During the past 8 years, total appropriations for the national farm program have

amounted to $5,508.000,000 compared to $13,234,000,000 for relief, not including public-works expenditures. A considerable portion of the agricultural appropriations have been used for distribution of surpluses to persons on relief. more, every dollar expended to restore farin income has been returned more than sevenfold in increased national income.

FARM PAYMENTS AND NATIONAL INCOME

Further

During the 8-year period 1933-40, Government payments of $3,860,000,000 made through the national farm program were instrumental in adding $25,500.000,000 to the national farm income and this, in turn, was reflected in an increase of the national income of about $170,000,000,000.

TABLE 69.-Estimated governmental subsidies to nonfarm groups, fiscal year 1939 Air lines:

Airports, Federal payments for improvement, construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance

Air line, Federal payments for radio and communication 2.
Air-mail service, excess cost to Post Office Department 3.

Total___

Ocean shipping:

4

Maritime Commission payments for operation -
Maritime Commission payments for construction 4.

Total

Waterways, Army expenditures for rivers and harbors 5. Publishers, excess of Post Office expenditures over revenues for carrying second-class mail_

Highways (motor transportation): Federal and State funds expended for construction, maintenance, and improvement 7

Grand total...

$51, 574, 367. 00 3, 907, 217. 00 8, 147, 595. 00

63, 629, 179. 00

11, 114, 578. 13

10, 076, 894. 22

21, 191, 472. 35 115, 987, 261. 02

87, 460, 317. 14

1, 100, 000, 000. 00

1,388, 268, 229, 51

1 First Annual Report of Civil Aeronautics Authority, Fiscal Year 1939, pp. 3, 15, and 49. First Annual Report of Civil Aeronautics Authority, Fiscal Year 1939, p. 49.

3 Annual Report of Postmaster General, Fiscal Year 1939, page 103.

Report of U. S. Maritime Commission, 1939, p. 35.

Report of Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army, vol. 1, pt. 1, p. 19.

Annual Report of Postmaster General, Fiscal Year 1939, p. 120.

'Estimates for total expenditures supplied by Public Roads Administration.

The amount of these subsidies per employed worker is estimated as follows:1

[blocks in formation]

By way of contrast, farmers received that same fiscal year about $65 per farm worker through cash payments from the Federal Government, or $92 per farm worker if reckoned on the basis of the entire Federal appropriation for agriculture. Other assistance to nonagricultural groups include

Patent and trade-mark privileges, and rights granted radio companies, such as the denial of private licenses for short-wave transmission (this constitutes a form of protection for telephone compames).

Insurance rate stabilization by Federal laws.

Aid to the building industry and construction supply trades through Government housing programs.

Protection for labor under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Land grants to railroads.

Local franchises to utilities.

Utility rate regulation by Federal and local laws.

Railroad rate stabilization and differentials.

Oil proration laws.

1 Subsidies as listed on preceding table are divided by number of employees as given in the census. Num ber of farm workers, 1935 Census of Agriculture,includes operators, hired help, and unpaid farm workers.

"Fair-trade practice" laws.

Silver price fixing.

Parity for agriculture will create a huge new market for industry. —Agricultural disparity has injured the Nation for many years. Parity income for the farmer is the chief thing needed to restore complete national prosperity. Past experiences indicate that the 12 billion dollars due farmers to bring them up to full parity would add at least three to four billion dollars to total national income. This is an amount equivalent to what would be required to employ three to four million workers at an annual wage of $1,000 per year. It would increase the farm cash available for living, which farm families spend almost entirely for goods and services, to a point practically as high as in the so-called prosperity years of 1925-29.2 Farmers are the Nation's best spenders. The farm market for city goods could be doubled if farm income permitted. About 80 percent of farm increases in income are spent for city goods and services.

EXHIBIT A.-SOME EXAMPLES OF TARIFF RATES ON ARTICLES BOUGHT BY FARM FAMILIES (RATES IN TARIFF ACT OF 1930)

(NOTE.-Ad valorem duties are computed on the value of the imported articles.)

[blocks in formation]

*Based on Bureau of Agricultural Economics farm income available for living.

64300-41-pt. 229

« ForrigeFortsett »