eea new approach
to the FARM PROBLEM?
Presented here are excerpts from an address of Senator
Clinton P. Anderson (D—N. ML) before the Texas Farm
' Bureau annual convention, November «, 1955.
Senator Anderson, who is Chairman of the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy and was U. S. Secretary of Agriculture 1945-
t«. is eminently qualified to discuss agricultural problems and
to offer — as he does lure — a new approach to their solution.
Following his speech arc excerpts from an address given
"fore the same convention by Senator Albert Gore (D-Tenn.)
who ,g |n general agreement with Senator Anderson, but
expresses a different view in regard to price supports.
Sen. Clinton P. Anderson (D—N. Mexico)
against the output of other segments
'"rm production tha
eihil-h- piece of] "f';■'■■ '■<' v.
arnicr could "" , 1,le Congress tried to recognize that situation. It passed
,"l<l '"' sold J'|lii!,'M ■?ISl:"i"" promising the farmer that he would
' la"(i J","l"''1|«il'U " i "gld P1'Ce 8uPPorts as "■' incentive to production
$.-,00, and in!' "'"" lhe Peri°d of the war, and that in recognition and
,u»ht and soWJ . ard lor hls stimulated and expanded production under
'lal'lilf i» ur iaft"e '',""l''"ls <luri"f; the »"'■ te would have two full years
"■ the war during which the government of the United
UD WAR "'"'« would guarantee him adequate prices for his enlarged
'"in" The nn'1'! ,.cl"f-"*.Durl"g th<*s<* two years, of course, he was expected
"■lines of »"f8'leve| JU j Producti°n* '» shrink it back to more normal
fill-'1'; ;,„.,, a'Kl ,'" l>n'Pare °"<l* again lor the period when farm
;iiark,., „iJ,'"""K a',d "a"onaI income might move along together.
^ u|„; M.m I an, speaking of things that are within the orbit of
. ..,".'*■ own acquaintance, because I came into the Department
ver after iKr" < ac,Iua"""'"''- because 1 came into the Depart
two v.-ir- d"" the r 'ar> "f Vulture] midwav between the emli,
t ' «vc 0f?tl.e European and Japanese phases of World War II.
I eunl torn.
'■ou see next on the chart a rapid lift in the relationship of
J* '" '"«)ine to national income, because we moved e.s rapidly
years la rn* ,a> we could to eliminate price controls from the farm com-
, 'it oXZ, , '" fiive ""■"' :' chance <" "■"'ll *** "'""' formal
night call P»,f< hilionsl,,,! ,„ fa,,„ ;,„.„„„, ,(ut there were ^^ ^^ ^
11, hut .1 can mangmg the far,,, price horizon. We had on hand 71.', mil ,
I in I'M.',. I "''I,
.- elTectivcly Wacts Forum Nevvs, January, 1956
i US. JtllllllU'
hales of rag tag cotton — cheap cotton that had moved under
the government loan at standard prices hut had been of such
inferior quality that it had not heen taken out of warehouses
for manufacturing into textiles. We had e mous stockpiles
of butter, wool, cheese, dried skim milk powder, and a host
of other things. We had thousands of cases of canned vegetables, millions of pounds of canned meats.
The problem then land perhaps the problem now I was to
move those commodities into markets other than the normal
market of the American fanner. It is unnecessary to detail
those now: but the surplus cotton, for example, went to China.
Japan. Austria and Germany in a fashion that did not interfere with the normal exports of American cotton to England,
Belgium, Italy and other large buyers. In 1945, l'J46 and
1947, the release of these enormous stocks of surplus com-
nioelilie-s eliel not drive down domestic agricultural prices
because there was a world demand for our goods and we
could find places to put away our food and fiber without disturbance of the normal .American channels of domestic and
international agricultural trade.
The separation of farm income from national income
began in the vear 1948 eis vou can see from the chart. Agricultural prices began to drop because agricultural production
held up even after markets began to disappear. The people of
Europe and Asia began to reestablish their wheat fields and
their rice paddies. The rehabilitation work of I NRRA and