for to

Vn 54s
a very fairly concrete basis for the discussion of the objections ta the
bill, as they were raised by the President, and the extent to which the
present bill meets those objections. It is my intention to discuss the
pending bill from the point of view of the extent to which it does
meet the objections raised by the President’s veto message. It will
take too long to attempt to state those objections in his language or
to state the answers in the language of the proponents of the bill in
their answers to these objections. I am consequently reduced to
the necessity of attempting to summarize the objections of the veto
message as best I can.

The first objection raised by the President to the bill as it passed
Congress in the last session was that the bill was opposed to a program
of sound diversification of farm crops and definitely discriminated in
favor of one-crop farming. The bill apparently meets this objection
on its face by including within its provisions all farm commodities.
But I do not think it meets it in fact.

If it can be assumed that the objective of the bill is to stimulate
the domestic price above the foreign price rather than to stabilize
the price, I think the President’s objection still continues. I do not
think any one can conceive of the board operating in all farm com-
modities at the same time. If it operates only in a few of them, or
in one of them, it operates to stimulate the price upon those com-
modities to the disadvantage of other farmers who produce products
whose prices are not thus stimulated.

Now, the second objection which the President raises is that the
bill makes the packers, the millers, and the spinners and other proces-
sors the commissioned agents of the board to buy hogs, wheat, and
cotton and to sell these products abroad, the losses, charges and costs
connected with that operation to be borne by the stabilization fund.

Mr. FuLmMERr. Mr. Anderson, right there: You do not understand
the bill to mean we would sell cotton abroad cheaper than we would
in the United States?

Mr. AnpersoN. Well, I am not applying it to cotton; I am talking
in terms of wheat. But, of course, if you had a tariff on cotton or
could get one that might be the objective of the bill so far as cotton is
concerned as well as wheat.

I find no particular fault with that provision, so far as I am con-
cerned, as an integral part of the bill, because I can not contemplate
its operating without such a provision in it. But I do not think it is
necessary to a sound plan of agricultural relief or of price stabilization
to impose the burden incident to such losses entirely upon the shoul-
ders of the producer of the commodity.

I believe that it is possible to develop a plan of relief which does
not involve the imposition of such a burden upon the agricultural
community.

I am passing over these objections very rapidly, and I am trying to
take as little time as I can. Therefore, I will say that I do not think
the bill as it stands meets the President’s objections on that ground.

Mr. KincHELOE. Mr. Anderson, you were speaking that it would
not probably be fair to declare an operating period on one commodity;
in other words, if you do declare. it, it might be a detriment to the
other. Do you not think that if you stimulate the price, for instance,
of wheat or corn or anv other character of grain that that will more