STATEMENT OF NELSON A. PRYOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FEDERAL POLICY REVIEW The prospect of the Beef Research and Consumer Education act reminds me of the words of General Hugh Johnson, in 1933, when he explained the nature of the NRA (National Recovery Act) of New Deal days. He said: "The first necessity to get industry under its regulatory codes, during the period of voluntary sign-ups, was to take the extreme measure of not pressing too harshly the disciplinary measures or the investigative powers. Once the bear claw was in the trap, then the NRA could concentrate on its second phase of revision and enforcement. The first phase should be over by September 16, about that time, the phase of disciplining the people begins." (Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., The Coming of the New Deal. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1959. Page 119.) Senate Bill 772 is all sail and no anchor. The intent of the bill, it is said, is to allow ranchers to run their own affairs. Yet, it is the Secretary of Agriculture who will possess the statutory power. In this short bill, that fills only two pages of the February 20, 1975 Congressional Record, the Secretary of Agriculture is mentioned forty-six times. Self rule by the rancher, indeed!!! The $22.1 billion dollar (1973 figures) cattle industry is quite a prize. The lessons of history have taught that instead of a frontal attack on anything, its sometimes best to wage an oblique attack. That very thesis was adequately developed in Gabriel Kolko's The Triumph of Conservatism, New York: The Free Press, 1963. As Kolko showed historically, lofty aims could be blunted by ACTUAL legislation. Take for instance, the power contained in the definition of "promotion” as used by the bill (Sec. 3, H): “The term 'promotion' means any action, including paid advertising, to advance the image or desirability of beef and beef products." You guessed it! ALL promotions come under the Act. Not only interstate commerce as would be expected, but INTRASTATE commerce as well. Not even the annual 4H livestock judging would escape the meddling envisioned by this bill (after all, the PRIZE is sold, isn't it?) That definition of commerce is (Sec. 3, L): "The term 'Commerce' means interstate, foreign, or intrastate commerce." The muscle NRA's Hugh Johnson had, "once the bear claw was in the trap," may be nothing compared to the power under this act. The act would be enforced in the Federal District Courts of these United States, with the Attorney General having the power to prosecute! Any alleged violation of law, or regulation, (bearing in mind the volumes of regulations the Secretary of Agriculture can promulgate) will be no small thing!!! All the ranchers books and records affected by the act must be made available for inspection to the Secretary of Agriculture, or his agents. This is the Sword of Damocles hanging over every patriotic rancher! Nothing is said about where the inspection would take place, or whether any of this privileged information would ever find its way into data banks. Everything open ended!!! Even the proposed referendum of ranchers is suspect! First, the Secretary of Agriculture gets to decide who votes, and who doesn't; but going beyond that, there is NO prohibition upon influencing the referendum results by government workers. I think this is a valid concern. Some of us remember the "thousands and thousands of dollars of government money" used to influence the May 21, 1963 Wheat Referendum. This was reported in the newspapers of the day, as Iwell as the May 13, 1963 Farm Bureau Newsletter. Furthermore, there were agricultural workers of the government who spent part of their work day influencing the referendum results of which no precise dollar figure will ever be known. The intentions of having a bootstrap operation by the cattle industry is honorable, but this is NOT an act for the rancher!!! It is an act placing tighter reins upon an industry that is already pretty much regulated. For instance, beef grading is already done by the Agricultural Department. If the consumer has little faith in government grading at present, then perhaps the Agricultural Department should look to correct its own credibility problem before its image affects its other activities-and save the rancher the expense of the added tax on his product, the loss of his privacy and papers, and the added prospects of Federal Court for alleged violations. BRISTOL CLIFFS WILDERNESS HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, SOIL OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY FIRST SESSION ON S. 2308 OF THE A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE MODIFICATION BOUNDARIES OF THE BRISTOL CLIFFS WILDERNESS AREA SEPTEMBER 28 AND 29, 1975.. Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia, Chairman JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, Kentucky RICHARD B. STONE, Florida PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ROBERT DOLE, Kansas MILTON R. YOUNG, North Dakota MICHAEL R. MCLEOD, General Counsel and Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, SOIL CONSERVATION, AND FORESTRY JAMES B. ALLEN, Alabama WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, Kentucky JESSE HELMS, North Carolina EX-OFFICIO MEMBER HERMAN E. TALMADGE, Georgia |