Page images

Secretary of Agriculture, this plan would constitute an agreement between the Secretary and the State agencies (1, pp. 58–59).

A later version of the proposed legislation, however, eliminated the requirement of a work plan; instead it stipulated that the Secretary should appoint a coordinating committee to meet at least once each fiscal year to review all programs financed under the Act and advise the Secretary concerning programs for the succeeding year. This committee would include representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the land-grant colleges, State commissioners of agriculture, the major national farm organizations, and one representative at large (2, p.53).

The attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent involvement in all-out war compelled the temporary abandonment of efforts to pass new legislation despite the sharp and persistent interest of the experiment stations and other State agencies in the marketing problems of agriculture. Farm production soon expanded during the war, notwithstanding the withdrawal of manpower by industry and the Armed Forces and shortages of machinery, fertilizer, and transportation.

During the war crisis, the Nation and its farmers, adopting techniques which permitted substantial increases in output relative to input, reaped the benefits from the many years of patient research by scientists, most of whom were in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State experiment stations. Agricultural leaders recognized, however, that this growth in productivity, so necessary to winning the war, could create a serious problem of oversupply in the postwar period. They did not forget, furthermore, that the efforts to control production during the 1930's had attained only limited success, nor could they overlook the strong preference in Congress and among farm organizations for attacking the problem of surpluses via better marketing and distribution rather than by restraints on the freedom of individuals to operate their farm businesses.

Meanwhile the House of Representatives in May 1943 unanimously passed a resolution introduced by Chairman Hampton P. Fulmer of its Committee on Agriculture. House Resolution 38 authorized and directed the committee “to make a study and investigation of the present system of marketing, transportation and distribution of farm products from rural areas through the various marketing agencies to the ultimate consumer as it affects farmers, the various types of middlemen, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers” (3). The pressure of wartime activities, however, prevented the committee from completing its study during the life of the 78th Congress.

Early in the first session of the 79th Congress, Congressman John W. Flannagan, who had become chairman of the House Committee following the death of Mr. Fulmer, introduced House Resolution 54, providing for a similar but somewhat broader survey than that anticipated by Resolution 38. During the same period a Republican Food Study Committee held numerous hearings in various parts of the country and undertook a thorough study of all matters connected with the production, marketing, and distribution of food.



Both the latter group and those conducting marketing studies under House Resolution 54 concluded that the subject was so important, so


complex, and so continuing in nature as to lie beyond the jurisdiction of any Congressional Committee. They further decided that only a program of research, comparable to that which had been carried out successfully in the field of production, could competently deal with the problems of marketing. Accordingly, Congressman Clifford R. Hope introduced in the House on March 28, 1946, H.R. 5925. This he later described as the direct ancestor of Title II of Public Law 733, commonly referred to as the Research and Marketing Act (3). The title of this proposal read: “To improve nutritional standards, reduce the cost of food distribution, provide a broader outlet for American farm products, and promote scientific development of food processing, distribution and marketing, by establishing a National Food Research Institute."

This bill aroused a great deal of interest but a successor, H.R. 6692, was introduced on June 6, 1946. The latter, containing suggestions for improvement made by those who had studied H.R. 5925, was dedicated to the same broad purposes of improving marketing efficiency and market outlets. It proposed to bring together all Governmental agencies concerned with the pricing, distribution, and marketing of food, and to create within the Department of Agriculture a new agency to be known as the Agricultural Marketing Administration (3).

Meanwhile a movement emerged to strengthen the research, both in the States and in the Department, along lines similar to those provided in the land-grant proposals of 1940 and 1941. Congress, under pressure to meet the research and related needs of special groups, heard proposals to provide additional support for research in nutrition, housing, cotton, and forestry. The members of ESCOP, meeting in Washington in April 1946, discussed the requirements of overall legislation that would broaden the Bankhead-Jones Act by including nutrition, housing, and cotton research. There came from these discussions a proposed amendment to the Bankhead-Jones Act. Director Leonard A. Baver of North Carolina, a member of ESCOP and the chairman of its subcommittee on legislation, collaborated with other members of ESCOP in a determined effort to obtain Congressional support.

This bill Chairman Flannagan introduced as H.R. 6548. Thereafter it vied with the Hope bill, H.R. 6692, for Congressional approval. Because both measures dealt with research, and because most of the spokesmen interested in one bill were also interested in the other, and for other reasons, the Committee on Agriculture held a joint hearing to consider the two pieces of proposed legislation. Both bills received the support of the leaders of the farm organizations, representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, State commissioners of agriculture, and representatives of land-grant colleges. Director Baver, Associate Director Noble Clark of Wisconsin, and Director W. B. Kemp of Maryland testified on behalf of the agricultural experiment stations in support of both H.R. 6548 and H.R. 6692.

In the course of the hearings, the committee decided to combine the two bills, H.R. 6548 becoming Title I and H.R. 6692 becoming Title II. It then added a third title providing for the appointment of advisory committees (6). The measure unanimously passed both houses of the 79th Congress and received the signature of President Truman on August 14, 1946, becoming Public Law 733. Unofficially, it frequently has been referred to as the Flannagan-Hope Bill. Although Title II is officially designated as the Research and Marketing Act of 1946, this name frequently is attached to the bill in its entirety.

As finally passed, the legislation contained the ideas of state experiment stations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, farm organizations, farmers, industrialists, State departments of agriculture, and others and was an amalgam of numerous ideas and proposals originally contained in a number of bills initiated as separate pieces of legislation.



Title I specifically mentions the development of new and improved methods of production, marketing, distribution, pricing, and utilization of plant and animal commodities through all the stages from the original producer to the ultimate consumer; human nutrition; research relating to the development of present, new, and extended uses and markets for agricultural commodities and byproducts as food, or in commerce, manufacture, or trade, both at home and abroad, with particular reference to products for which capacity to produce exceeds, or may exceed, economic demand.

Especially significant is the first part of Section 11 which reads as follows: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, (1) not less than 20 per centum of the funds authorized to be appropriated under section 9(a) shall be used by State agricultural experiment stations for conducting marketing research projects approved by the Department of Agriculture ..."

..." (6). This provision had not appeared in the original amendment to the Bankhead-Jones Act, proposed as H.R. 6548, but was inserted in the course of the conferences which brought about the merger of H.R. 6548 and H.R. 6692. Its inclusion reflected the strong feeling that more marketing research should be undertaken, that the experiment stations as well as the Department of Agriculture should participate, and that the stations had not fully complied with the Congressional wish that funds provided under the Purnell Act be used primarily to support research in economics and marketing.

The directives and authorizations of Title II apply to the Secretary of Agriculture and, hence, primarily to the work of the Department. However, the expression of the intent of Congress with respect to marketing work, the objectives of increased activity in the field, the breadth and content of the programs indicated, and the references to cooperative work with State agencies make the provisions of Title II of vital importance to marketing research at the State agricultural experiment stations.

Section 202 stresses the necessity for the United States to achieve and maintain a sound, efficient, and privately operated system for distributing and marketing agricultural products. It firmly announces the determination of Congress to promote a scientific approach to the problems of marketing, transportation, and distribution similar to that used successfully for many years in connection with the production of agricultural products, and to encourage cooperation among State and Federal agencies, producers, industry, and others in developing programs to reduce distribution costs, improve nutritional standards, and widen market outlets (6).

The direct appropriations under Title II are made entirely to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Under Section 204(b), however, the Secretary is authorized to make allotments to State agencies to finance cooperative projects to effectuate the purposes of Title II of the Act. Such allotments must be covered by cooperative agreements between the Secretary and the State agency, and the Federal funds assigned to an approved project must be matched by not less than an equal amount of non-Federal funds for such research. Although allotments to the State agricultural experiment stations under Section 204(b) have been relatively small-$500,000 per annum since 1955 and less in earlier years—these funds have had an influence on the entire marketing research program of the stations in the following ways:

(a) They have enabled individual stations having the personnel and other resources to undertake additional work in marketing research without weakening other important programs.

(b) Since the Department has final responsibility for deciding on lines of work to be initiated they have enabled the Department, represented by the State Experiment Stations Division (SESD), in consultation with an advisory committee of experiment station representatives, to activate studies of problem areas which, in the view of SESD and its advisors, have been relatively neglected in the research programs being conducted under other fund

(c) The authority possessed by the Department for the approval of projects and collaboration between the three committees advising the Department on the use of Section 204 (b) funds (research, extension, and State departments of agriculture) has provided a favorable opportunity to encourage and stimulate cooperation among the three agencies at the State level, and between the U.S. Department and these State agencies.

(d) Finally, the administration of the Section 204(b) program has provided the basis for the development of criteria and techniques for administering the marketing requirement of Title I and hence has had an influence extending far beyond the important but relatively small matching-fund research undertaken under Section 204(b).


ESCOP appointed a committee on September 14, 1948, to counsel with the Department of Agriculture on problems involved in arrangeing for State agricultural experiment station participation under Section 204(b) of Title II. This new committee met in Washir on on October 10, 1948, and, conferring with representatives of the Office of the Administrator for Research and Marketing and the Office of Experiment Stations, it explored ways and means for facilitating such participation. The conferees agreed that the State experiment stations could make important contributions to the development of an effective national marketing research program under Title II. They further agreed that the marketing research undertaken by the stations under Section 204 (b) should not duplicate or overlap, but on the other hand should be integrated and coordinated with Departmental research and also with the marketing work financed by other funds at the stations.

The station committee recommended that ESCOP appoint an Experiment Stations Marketing Research Advisory Committee (ESMRAC) of five members—one representative from each of the four recognized experiment station regions of the United States, and one representative from home economics. It suggested that each of the four regional organizations of experiment station directors should nominate the regional representative, preferably an individual with training or experience in marketing or related fields. It also suggested that the Home Economics Committee of the Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities should select the representative from home economics. It finally proposed that Section 204(b) funds should not be allotted for research on a formula basis but rather that each individual project proposal should be considered on its merits.

Each director-member of ÈSMRAC was charged with the responsibility for acquainting himself with proposed and active Section 204(b) projects, as well as other marketing projects originating in his region, and also for familiarizing himself with the attitudes and opinions, concerning marketing research, of the directors in his region. Likewise, the members of ESMRAĆ were expected to be acquainted with the Departmental program of marketing research underway and in process of development. In addition, the Committee received the authority to make recommendations to the National Advisory Committee concerning the overall

marketing program of the Department and the experiment stations. The Office of Experiment Stations agreed to provide an executive secretary for the new committee.

The charter members of ESMRAC–M. T. Buchanan, C. M. Hardin, F. F. Lininger, F. J. Welch, and Dorothy Dickins—held their first meeting in Washington in April 1949. Henceforth, until 1957, the Committee met twice a year, in the spring and fall, in response to the call of the State Experiment Stations Division (formerly OES). In recent years ESMRAC has held a single annual meeting in the spring in Washington.

The Committee has worked continuously in close cooperation with the State Experiment Stations Division. Also, it has maintained contacts with representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the purpose of coordinating project proposals with current and proposed research in the Department and facilitating cooperation between the State stations and the marketing research units within the Department. In cooperation with SESD, it has developed numerous procedures, including a calendar, for submitting and handling research proposals from the States. These procedures have provided the basis for a handbook, brought up to date from time to time, to guide the stations, the Committee, and the Department in handling the Section 204(b) program. The executive secretary of ESMRAC and other staff members of the State Experiment Stations Division also have assumed considerable responsibility for contacts and copsultation with the Department.

The current characteristics and functions of ESMRAC, which to some extent have developed in the course of its operations, are as follows:

(1) The Committee, a subcommittee of ESCOP, reports to ESCOP as well as to the Regional Directors' groups.

(2) ESMRAC holds official status as one of the advisory committees under Title III of the Research and Marketing Act. In this capacity the selection of members of ESCOP must meet the approval of the Department (SESD), traveling expenses of members are paid by the Department, and meetings are called by SESD.

(3) The Committee advises SESD concerning the relative importance of marketing problems on which the various stations propose

« PreviousContinue »