« AnteriorContinuar »
now being made to import large quantities of feed grains from Canada and Australia. This is an open admission that the surpluses of farm products claimed by the triple A are a myth and do not exist. They are as fictitious as the farmer's income given out by the United States Department of Agriculture.
This plan of international interests to secure cheaper farm products from other lands fits in nicely with the over-all plan of our great internationalists in New York and London. Such great international families as the Du Ponts, the Guggenheims, the House of Morgan, and the Astor family have seen their
opportunity to go along the same road with these internationalists in Government bureaus to accomplish their purpose in the world-wide picture.
This, in my opinion, explains the activities of Mr. Bernard Baruch. From the offices of great international banking houses back and forth to the offices of high officials in Washington travels Mr. Bernard Baruch as a liaison man in this great over-all picture of globular international economic and military control. It is now recognized by a great many thinking people that the over-all picture for this great globular empire contemplates a monopolistic industry along the Atlantic seaboard in this country and in Great Britain. A great industrial empire with high prices for industrial products. A world's raw materials empire with low prices. What a picture of wealth on one hand and squalor and despair on the other.
We have seen that our special trade agreement with Great Britain provides for competition of raw materials in America and in world markets. We have likewise seen that this special trade agreement with Great Britain does not provide for any competition of American and British industrial products in America and in world markets.
We have seen the United States Department of Agriculture spending the farmer's money, which is deducted from his parity price, to develop the production of agricultural products in Central and South America, in Cuba, and in all the islands of the sea.
We now see the Department of Agriculture has the brazen impudence to announce a plan to move a large portion of the farm population that is left on American farms to the industrial centers to be utilized in grinding out profits from industry in this great world monopoly of industrial enterprise.
Let us sum up the facts. First, the Immigration Act of 1903 flooded this country with 12,000,000 immigrants from low-wage countries of middle Europe. Second, an effort was made to keep all these unneeded workers in a job by making a shorter working day with increased prices per hour. This, of course, resulted in higher prices to farmers, white-collar workers, business people, and professional people. Third, the passage in 1934 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act resulted in reduction of crops and meat production.
Fourth, the passage in 1934 of special trade agreements and increased imports under these agreements prevented us from realizing that we were far from self-sustaining, while we were being told by our Government that we had immense surpluses of food and fiber. Fifth, the millions of people in our great cities who are not farm-minded have been propagandized into looking across the sea for cheap food and fiber and other raw products. They have been propagandized to forget that high wages and high prices of industrial products are due to special tariff protection which the farmer generally does not share. Sixth, the millions of people in our great cities have been propagandized to look to other countries of the world because this makes possible the carrying out of great international ideas of a few great international families with millions invested from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn and from high meridian to high meridian. Seventh, these billionaire internationalists, in their attempt to carry out this great international scheme, are but fellow travelers with the internationalist crackpots who infest some of the bureaus in Washington. Eighth, these special trade agreements, as they now operate, are but one cog in the wheel of unlimited internationalism which is intended first of all to crush the American farmer.
We pass a law in Congress to limit production by American farmers. The same year we pass a law in Congress to flood this country with agricultural products from foreign lands. We burn wheat in the field. We plow cotton in the ground. We throw hogs in the river. And then, what do we do? We turn right around and make treaties to import wheat, to import cotton, and to import horse meat and mule meat from Mexico. Did ever a drunken sailor do anything more foolish than this?
We create high prices by artificial means of a protective tariff. We increase these artificially high prices by higher wages and shorter hours. We spend $210,000,000,000 in 2 years ato pay for these artificially high-priced products to conduct the war and then, when the farmer asks for a little raise so that he may be permitted to do his part toward winning the war by raising food and fiber, the Chief Executive says, “Inflation.”
The Treasurer of the United States, with all the international gold for a footstool, says the farmer is causing inflation. Bernard Baruch, as he commutes from international offices in New York to the seats of authority in Washington, sends out a parrot-like cry, "The farmer is causing inflation.'
The President of the Senate, as he talks for the edification of those low-wage countries with which we have these trade agreements, repeats the echo, "The American farmer is causing inflation.” The Secretary of Agriculture, getting his due from these internationalists, reechoes the cry, "The farmer is causing inflation."
This country was founded and set up by men who had courage of individual initiative and the determination to maintain their individuality at any price. If this kind of America is to survive, then the American farmer must survive. When the independent, God-fearing, liberty-loving, and freedom-maintaining American farmer is no more, then the America as we have known it and is worth saving will be no more.
These trade treaties constitute a powerful cog in the wheel to destroy American agriculture. Surely the law providing for these agreements will not be reenacted by the Congress with the facts now before them.
The CHAIRMAN. We thank you. Mr. Knutson. The hour is late, but at least I want to take the time that
you have given us a fine statement. Probably it is a little long, but there is a lot of food for thought in what you have said, and you are to be complimented for having the courage to come up here and express what you have this afternoon.
The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, did I understand that you wanted me back here then?
The CHAIRMAN. No, sir. We do not ask you to come back.
Mr. KNUTSON. I want the record to show that we would have interrogated the witness at greater length had it not been so late.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
Mr. COOPER. I ask unanimous consent to place in the record, following the statement of Mr. Tom Linder, the following statement:
STATEMENT OFFERED FOR THE RECORD BY MR. COOPER IN REFERENCE TO MR.
Tom LINDER'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON APRIL 16, 1943 On April 16, 1943, Mr. Tom Linder, Commissioner of Agriculture of Georgia, appeared before the Ways and Means Committee and made a statement opposing extension of the reciprocal trade agreements program. Certain aspects of that staternent were so astounding in their inaccuracy and irrelevancy that I had it analyzed in some detail.
Only a relatively small proportion of the statement related to the reciprocal trade agreements program.
Mr. Linder discussed the agricultural-adjustment program, methods of calculating parity farm prices, price-control legislation, party politics, the War between the States, shifts in farm population, the Book of Revelations, and other topics having little or no relation to reciprocal trade agreements. The portion of his remarks that did bear on trade agreements was full of vague statements, gross exaggerations, and plain erroneous statements of fact.
His apparent argument was that the reciprocal trade agreements program and the agricultural-adjustment program are two integral parts of one monstrous conspiracy among industrialists, labor leaders, and internationalists to wreck American agriculture so that industrialists and organized labor can get cheaper food and raw materials from countries with living standards lower than those of the United States.
Mr. Linder's lack of respect for facts is typified by his repeated statements that the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act was passed in 1933 at the same time as the Agricultural Adjustment Act. As a matter of fact the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act was passed in 1934, more than a year after the Agricultural Adjustment Act. He twice referred to imports of horse and mule meat from Mexico for human consumption in the United States, under the agreement with Mexico. The truth is that live horses and mules for immediate slaughter but not the meat from them-were made free of duty in the Tariff Act of 1930. This existing duty-free status is bound in the agreement with Mexico. Meat from these animals, slaughtered after they come into the United States, is not for human consumption, as Mr. Linder stated, but goes into dog food and fertilizer. He includes in a list of farm products which he says enter the United States under the trade agreements a number which are not even mentioned in the agreements. He states that the agreements only lower tariffs on agricultural products and not on manufactured products, which is flatly contrary to the truth.
He apparently sought to give the impression that under the trade agreements American farm prices, farm income, and farm production have been curtailed and American farm products displaced by imports for which he blames the trade agreements. Real farmers in Georgia must know that this is not the fact even if Mr. Linder does not.
Mr. Chairman, I ask to have the following comments included in the record of the hearings immediately following the statement by Mr. Linder.
COMMENTS ON STATEMENT BY TOM LINDER, COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE
OF GEORGIA, BEFORE THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, APRIL 16, 1943, ON EXTENSION OF THE RECIPROCAL TRADE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM
Mr. Linder's major assertion that farm production, prices, and income have been reduced under the trade-agreements program is obviously not true, as shown by the official figures. The index of total United States agricultural production (1935–39= 100) was 96 in 1933, the year when the Agricultural Adjustment Act
was passed and the year before the reciprocal trade agreements program was inaugurated. Except in the drought years 1934-36 it has been above 100 ever since, as follows: 1934. 93 | 1938.
103 1935 91 | 1939.
106 1936. 94 1940.
110 106 1941.
113 United States cash. farm income (excluding Government payments) rose from $5,314,000,000 in 1933 to $11,168,000,000 in 1941--more than 100 percent. The United States index of prices received by farmers (1935-39=100) rose from 66 to 115 in the same period.
In Mr. Linder's own State of Georgia cash farm income, not including Government payments, was $99,554,000 in 1933 and $163,907,000 in 1941. Georgia cash farm income from corn rose from $917,000 in 1933 to $3,638,000 in 1941; that from hogs rose from $2,507,000 to $11,293,000—more than 300 percent; and that from tobacco rose from $6,590,000 in 1933 to $11,454,000 in 1941. The average farm price of hogs in Georgia was $3.20 per hundredweight in 1933 and $7.90 in 1941. The price of tobacco in Georgia averaged 11.4 cents per pound in 1933 and 20.9 cents in 1941.
Largely because of the beneficial effects of the cotton-adjustment program in 1933, the Georgia cash farm income from that crop in that year rose to $49,038,000 as compared with $28,872,000 in 1932. The average farm price of cotton in 1932 was 6.1 cents per pound and in 1933 it was 8.6 cents. In the 7 years 1935-41, following the inauguration of the reciprocal trade agreements program, notwithstanding fluctuations due to abnormal and unsettled world conditions, Georgia farm cash income from cotton has averaged $53,595,000 a year. The Georgia average farm price of cotton in 1941 was 15.8 cents per pound.
Mr. Linder asserted that production of corn, cottonseed, sugarcane, and sugar beets have been reduced. He included the drought years 1934–36 in his calculations. If these are excluded the decline in the average United States corn crop for the years 1937-41, as compared with the high period 1910-19 which he cited, is less than 2 percent. Sugar-beet production has not declined. The average for the period 1933–41 was 22 percent higher than the average for the 5 preceding years 1928–32. Production of sugarcane averaged more than 75 percent higher in the period 1933-41 than in the period 1928–32. It is true that cottonseed production has declined by 15 percent in the same period.
Another outstanding departure from truth is Mr. Linder's assertion that the entire effect of the agreements has been to lower United States tariffs on competitive agricultural commodities. He directly states that the trade agreements provide no tariff reductions on any industrial products that farmers buy but “are devoted entirely to shipping agricultural products in to compete with the American farmer.” Furthermore, in no part of his statement did Mr. Linder recognize the fact that under the trade agreements the United States has obtained advantageous foreign concessions on its own exports, agricultural and nonagricultural.
The truth is that, on the basis of 1939 figures, the United States, through trade agreements, has granted duty reductions on $282,000,000 worth of its nonagricultural imports and $192,000,000 worth of its agricultural imports, not including $75,000,000 worth of sugar, imports of which have been limited in normal times by quota and, in the present emergency, by shortage of shipping. In addition to duty reductions made in the agreements, existing duties or duty-free entry has been bound against adverse change in the case of both nonagricultural and agricultural products.
Reductions in duty apply to 24.4 percent of total imports of nonagricultural products, and bindings, mostly of duty-free treatment, apply to 43.1 percent. Reductions in duty apply to 23.9 percent of total imports of agricultural products, and bindings, principally of duty-free entry, apply to 48.1 percent. Among the agricultural products for which the duty-free entry has been bound against change are coffee, rubber, tea, bananas, and spices not produced in the United States.
On the other hand, the United States has obtained from trade-agreement countries concessions on 73.5 percent of their total agricultural imports from the United States as against 47.7 percent of their total nonagricultural imports from this country. Almost half of our total agricultural exports and over one-quarter of our total nonagricultural exports are covered by concessions made by other countries.
On the average for the 2 years 1938–39 as compared with the 2 years 1934-35, our agricultural exports to trade-agreement countries. ncreased by 49.9 percent, whereas to non-trade-agreement countries they declined by 26.4 percent.
These facts totally disprove Mr. Linder's statement.
Mr. Linder specifically stated that the agreement with the United Kingdom provides for importation into the United States of many agricultural products but, he said, "strangely enough, it does not provide for the importation of any of Great Britain's industrial products, not a single item.”
The truth is that in the agreement with the United Kingdom the United States reduced or bound the duties on a number of specialty products of an agricultural nature and bound the duty-free treatment of certain other products, none of which compete significantly, if at all, with United States farm products. These products are: Fresh venison; meat extracts and pastes; dead birds other than chickens, guineas, ducks, geese, and turkeys; horses valued at $150 or more; patent barley and barley flour; oatmeal and grits; limes and pineapples; certain jellies and fruit juices; certain vegetable and grass seeds and berries; malt vinegar; molasses and sugar syrups; coconuts, palm nuts, palm kernels, palm-kernel oil, and certain essential oils; locust beans; celery, cocoa, tea, spices, and natural rubber, which are bound on the free list; cut flowers; and orchids.
The United States granted concessions on a very large number of nonagricultural products of the United Kingdom which farmers buy and use. Included among these are the following: Pottery, earthenware, and china; various machines and parts for them; table and kitchenware; wire rope; ball and roller bearings; saddlery and harness and hardware for them; knives, hay forks, manure forks, and other hand farm tools; shotguns and rifles; motorcycles, bicyles, and parts for them; engines of various types; linoleum; woolen and worsted textiles; leather products of various special types; paper and paper products; emery wheels and files; gunny bagging, cordage, and twine; brushes; hats, boots, shoes, and gloves; tiles; sheep shears; and many others.
In trade agreements with other countries the United States has made concessions on such products of interest to farmers as: Cream separators; metal hoops and bands for baling cotton or other commodities; woven-wire cloth; axles and parts thereof; cast-iron pipe and fittings; chains for transmitting power; mill saws and crosscut saws; electrical vacuum cleaners; penknives, table knives and butcher knives, safety razors and blades; pliers and files; watch and clock movements; forks, hoes, rakes, scythes, sickles, and corn knives; cooking and heating stoves; rivets, nuts, washers, and screws; various types of lumber; wheel hubs; wagons and carriages; and hundreds of other items.
Nowhere in his statement about the United Kingdom agreement does Mr. Linder recognize the fact that the United States obtained, in that agreement, important concessions on such American farm products as wheat and wheat products, cotton, tobacco, apples, pork products, and lard. Nor does he mention that in agreements with other countries concessions have been obtained on the above-mentioned products and for American rice; canned, dried, and fresh fruits and vegetables; grain products; and dairy products of many kinds. He pays no attention to the fact that agricultural products enter into the manufacture of many American industrial goods, such as automobiles and tires, for which concessions have been obtained in the trade agreements.
In charging that through the trade agreements American agriculture has suffered from a flood of competitive imports, Mr. Linder enumerates a long list of farm products which, according to him, are brought into this country under the trade agreements. He lists nine on which no concessions have ever been granted in trade agreements. They are: Cottonseed oil, linseed oil (which he lists twice, once as “flaxseed oil”), peanut oil, soybean oil, tung oil, malted milk, oleomargarine, "horse and mule meat for human consumption from Mexico," and flour. He lists four on which existing duties are merely bound or duty-free status maintained. They are: Palm oil and tankage, which were duty-free under the Tariff Act of 1930; and buttermilk and skimmed milk, on which the 1930 rates of duty are bound.
Mr. Linder heads his list with "cotton. "The truth is that cotton of ordinary staple length which is the major agricultural export of the United Stat has long been on the United States free list, and no concession on such cotton is contained in any trade agreement. However, the United States has nearly always imported a large proportion of its requirements of long-staple cotton-of which domestic production has never been adequate even under a tariff of 7 cents a pound. Although this tariff was reduced in the agreement with Peru, effective July 29, 1942, there has not been enough of this staple to meet the expanded wartime needs, notwithstanding a program for encouraging domestic production of this type. The tonnage of shipping available for bringing products from the west coast of South America has been fully utilized for higher-priority products, notably copper. Furthermore, imports of cotton having a staple length of 1%