« ÎnapoiContinuați »
Mr. McNary, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
submitted the following
[To accompany S. J. Res. 9]
The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to whom was referred the resolution (S. J. Res. 9) for the amendment of the acts of February 2, 1903, and March 3, 1905, as amended, to allow the States to quarantine against the shipment thereto, therein, or through of livestock, including poultry, from a State or Territory or portion thereof, where a livestock or poultry disease is found to exist, which is not covered by regulatory action of the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report thereon with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted with the following amendments:
Add at the end of sections 1 and 2 the following:
If the Secretary of Agriculture after proper investigation shall determine that a quarantine of a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, as authorized in this paragraph, is unwarranted or no longer necessary, he shall by order terminate the same and such quarantine shall thereupon cease.
The bill, thus amended, meets with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture, whose letter to the chairman follows:
May 8, 1929. Hon. CHARLES L. McNARY, Chairman Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR McNary: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of April 19, transmitting for consideration and report, a copy of Senate Joint Resolution 9, for the amendment of the acts of February 2, 1903, and March 3, 1905, as amended.
While the department has not had sufficient time to give this resolution extended consideration, attention is invited to the fact that a similar resolution passed the Senate in the last Congress after having received the department's approval, with the exception that that resolution as passed did not contain the provisos shown in lines 18 to 20, page 2, and lines 1 to 3, page 4, with regard to the approval of a specific test by the Secretary of Agriculture. The department believes the provisos referred to improve the resolution. It is also thought that it can be further improved if there be added at the end of section 1 and again at the end of section 2 the words: “If the Secretary of Agriculture after proper investigation shall determine that a quarantine of a State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, as authorized in this paragraph, is unwarranted or no longer necessary, he shall by order terminate the same and such quarantine shall thereupon cease.” This language will, it is believed, enable the Secretary of Agriculture to prevent the continuance of unreasonable quarantines if any such occur.
The department does not believe, however, that this measure comes within the class of measures described as emergency farm relief” and, therefore, demanding the attention of this session. Sincerely yours,
ARTHUR M. HYDE, Secretary.
Mr. McNARY, from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
submitted the following
[To accompany S. 1164)
The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1164) authorizing and directing the Secretary of Agriculture to investigate all phases of crop insurance, having considered the same, report thereon with the recommendation that the bill do pass.
THE CROP INSURANCE PROBLEM
1. NEED FOR CROP INSURANCE
The r sk involved in crop production must be recognized by all who have any familiarity with agriculture. The farmer may himself reduce this risk to some extent through diversification and safeguards of various kinds but he can not eliminate it. Many thousands of farmers every year find that all their efforts and precautions have been largely in vain, and that by reason of some climatic or other hazard beyond human control their investments in prospective crops have been largely or completely lost. Such an experience occurring to a newly established farmer, or to any other farmer who has failed to accumulate substantial reserves, often means serious privations and not infrequently practical, if not technical, bankruptcy.
The modern method of dealing with unavoidable risks is that of insurance. There is no insurmountable or valid reason why the insurance of growing crops against hazards beyond the control of the farmer should not be available at a cost commensurate with the actual risk involved. This view has been expressed frequently by practical insurance men as well as by students of agricultural economics. The same view was expressed by the Secretary of Agriculture in his reply to the questions raised by Senate Resolution 51 of the Seventieth Congress.
2. INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE HAVE ELABORATE INSURANCE FACILITIES of
ss, The manufacturer and the merchant insures his plant against fire and wi storm; his plate glass against breakage; his business and income against accide interruption by means of use and occupancy insurance. He may and frequ.
does protect himself against loss from burglary, from explosion, from earthquake, and from riot and civil commotion. He quite generally insures against liability for accident or injuries to his employees or to the public resulting from his property or the use thereof. He may even insure himself by a special contract against excessive losses on his credit.
3. LACK OF CROP-INSURANCE FACILITIES The only form of crop insurance now generally available to the farmer is insurance against hail. About $25,000,000 is spent annually by farmers for insurance against hail. Such insurance may be said to be good as far as it goes, but it gives protection against loss from only one out of a large number of uncontrollable hazards, many of which cause losses far more numerous and quite as severe as the hail hazard.
The crop insurance needed by the farmer is insurance against all unavoidable hazards in such amounts as will cover at least a substantial part of the actual investment in the growing crop representing accumulated capital and current labor. A number of attempts have been made by insurance companies to develop such general or_all-risk crop insurance but these efforts have as yet met with little success. The failure of these efforts must be ascribed in large measure to the lack of comprehensive and reliable information with reference to the hazards affecting the different crops in the various parts of the country, and the actual yearly yields on individual farms.
4. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE CAN HELP The Department of Agriculture has already given some attention and study to the problem of crop insurance as evidenced by certain publications issued and by contributions to the hearings on crop insurance held by a select committee of the Senate on investigation of crop insurance several years ago. Lack of funds for this purpose has hitherto prevented the department from making more comprehensive and intensive studies of the problems involved in crop insurance.
A large volume of data covering many years and bearing on the risk involved in crop production is now stored in the files of the department. These data bearing on crop hazards and crop yields in all parts of the country have as yet been published only in the form of broad averages. They have not been analyzed in any detailed way and so worked up as to present reliable information with reference to counties and other local areas. Broad averages are of little use as an actual basis for crop insurance. Yields of the various crops as affected by hazards to which they are exposed vary only moderately from year to year when the whole country or even an individual State is considered. Insurance must, however, deal with the crops on individual farms and the actual yields on these units in the case of every important crop vary each year from bumper crops to total failures.
Such data with reference to crop hazards and yields are also available from the files of our State agricultural colleges and experiment stations and of the State departments of agriculture. Additional original data needed for a thorough analysis will be gathered if the facilities are provided. A thorough study of the various experiments that have been made in crop insurance should bring out the causes of failure and throw light on many of the problems involved.
A beginning should be made as promptly as possible to compile, gather, analyze, and make available for practical use such information as would be of real assistance in providing a sound actuarial basis for crop insurance, and in devising workable plans for the writing of such insurance. Until this has been done individual insurance organizations attempting to solve the problem of crop insurance protection for the farmer will probably continue to fail. The task is too great for a private insurance organization. There is no good reason why the Department of Agriculture should not promptly be put in position to offer aid and encouragement in the development of crop insurance facilities for the farmers.
Mr. JOHNSON, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the
[To accompany H. R. 11781)
The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 11781) authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes, have considered same and report thereon with amendments, and as so amended recommend that the bill do pass.
The amendments referred to have been incorporated in the bill and each is designated in the measure.
The committee has deemed it unnecessary to indulge in a detailed analysis of the various items of the bill because of the testimony which has been taken, the engineering data which is available, and the report of the House in respect thereto. By reference, the Commerce Committee makes a part of this report the report of the House committee upon the bill and the testimony and record of the hearings before the Senate Commerce Committee.
The following are the amendments adopted and now made a part of the bill:
Page 3, line 5, strike out the word “twenty-eight” and insert in lieu thereof the word “thirty".
Page 3, line 8, strike out the figures "$400,000” and insert in lieu thereof the figures "$718,000".
Page 3, after line 8, insert the following:
Taunton River, Massachusetts, in accordance with the report submitted in House Document Numbered 403, Seventy-first Congress, second session.
Page 5, line 1, insert the following language:
East Chester Bay, New York, in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers, as submitted in Senate Document Number 37, Seventy-first Congress, second session.
** 5-23-30 SR-71-2-VOL 2- -38