92

THE CORPORATE INVASION OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

cause for optimism. Public opinion seemed to be running strongly against repeal of the law.

Efforts should be made in every state to pass laws restricting corporations in farming. Even if the possibility of success seems remote, it might still be worth the effort as part of the program to polarize grassroots opinion.

Legislation and enforcement at the Federal level is impossible unless there is a real groundswell of opinion from the states. Opinion does not ordinarily develop of its own volition.

If the corporate invasion is to be stopped, we must help enlist public opinion on our side. It is an uneven struggle. It is likely that at least twothirds of the people must be united in order to match the enormous power of the corporations.

Let us talk in practical terms about tax reform.

In Washington, three office buildings line Constitution Avenue directly south of the Capitol, housing the offices of 435 Congressmen. The center building is the Longworth House Office Building. Inside, the first office on the right--indeed in the corner of the building--belongs to the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Wilbur Mills of Kensett, Arkansas. In the opposite corner of the office building, also in a favored location, is the Committee office. In the very center of the building is the largest hearing room on Capitol Hill--that of the House Ways and Means Committee. The Committee has another private meeting room, appropriately situated just 15 steps from the floor of the House of Representatives in the Capitol itself.

Although it is hardly necessary, architectural proof is ample to show that this Committee is the most important in Washington. The press is virtually unanimous in its opinion that its chairman is the most important man on the Hill.

He is a man of medium height, who dresses conservatively and well, with a ruddy face that suggests a collar that is a little too tight. The voice that comes out of the body has such a resonance that even at low volume it echoes slightly in the high-ceilinged offices characteristic of Capitol Hill. He is considered the shrewdest and most brilliant tactician in Washington.

When the Revenue and Expenditures Control Act of 1968 was before the House of Representatives on June 20, 1968, Chairman Mills did relatively little talking. He had, as usual, done most of his talking before that day, in the Committee and in the cloakroom, and elsewhere.

He did, however, address his colleagues rather briefly and, in contrast to the usual situation on the floor of the House, a quiet spread across the chamber as fellow Congressmen listened. One point of view emerged force

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

93

fully as he talked. Chairman Mills believes that the right of the House Ways and Means Committee to originate and develop tax legislation is inviolate, and he, therefore, resists suggestions for hasty or abrupt changes.

There was a good deal of discussion that day about tax reform, much of it from opponents of the proposed tax surcharge and the $6 billion cut in Federal spending. Some said such drastic action by the government wouldn't be necessary if some of the tax loopholes were closed.

Congressman Lester L. Wolff (D-N.Y.) said that the most shocking failure of Congress was in failing to stop the oil depletion allowance. He said that Standard Oil of New Jersey in 1966 paid $116,000,000 in taxes on a net income of $1,830,944,000--a tax rate of 6.3 percent. Texaco, he reported, paid taxes of $32,500,000 on a net income of $845,466,000——a tax rate of 3.8 percent.

Can America afford this?

The House Ways and Means Committee has broad jurisdiction, the broadest, in fact, of any committee on the Hill. All proposals in the field of taxation-income, excises, gift and estate taxes--must originate in this Committee. All proposals in the field of social security, including old-age and survivors and disability insurance, Medicare, and also the very broad system of welfare grants-in-aid to the states, such as old-age assistance and aid to the blind, must come from this Committee.

All proposals in the field of foreign trade and tariffs, and collection of customs duties, come from this Committee. In addition, a variety of vital activities such as the national debt, the highway revenue program, and renegotiation of defense contracts are the business of this Committee.

Of tremendous importance is the fact that nearly every bill reported out of the House Ways and Means Committee is on a "closed rule." This means there can be no amendments on the floor of the House of Representatives. If the House is dissatisfied with a bill, it can only send it back to the Committee, thus enhancing even more the authority of the Committee. It is the only committee in Congress that has such a privilege.

Perhaps most important of all, it is the Committee on Committees of the House of Representatives. This means that it names the members of the other 19 standing committees in the House of Representatives.

Beyond all of this, the Committee handles thousands of personal relief bills relieving individual citizens of injustice of discrimination that may inadvertently result from legislation.

The power of the House Ways and Means Committee is almost beyond definition.

94

THE CORPORATE INVASION OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

The Revenue and Expenditures Control Act of 1968 contained a directive that the President develop tax reform recommendations by the end of the year. 1969 was expected to be a good year for tax reform. In July, 1968, in fact, the Treasury Department announced that it would seek reforms to end the kind of favoritism that has resulted in so many of the very rich paying no taxes at all.

Senator Lee Metcalf (D-Mont.) introduced a bill dealing with one aspect of tax reform--ending the write-off of farm losses against profits in nonfarm businesses.

But rural America would be cruelly deceived if it believed that the limited objectives of the Treasury Department and the Metcalf bill would be enough to restore a meaningful balance of economic and political power between rural and industrial America.

The tax system must be overhauled from top to bottom.

Crimes against the American public have been committed in the name of tax legislation.

Consider for a moment Section 1240 of the Internal Revenue Code. The legal language is followed by a translation. It reads:

"Amounts received from the assignment or release by an employee, after more than 20 years employment, of all his rights to receive, after termination of his employment and for a period of not less than five years (or for a period ending with his death), a percentage of future profits or receipts of his employer shall be considered an amount received from the sale or exchange of a capital asset held for more than six months if--(1) such rights were included in the terms of the employment of such employee for not less than 12 years, (2) such rights were included in the terms of the employment of such employee before the date of enactment of this title, and (3) the total of the amounts received for such assignment or release is received in one taxable year and after the termination of such employment."

Confused? It is almost as though confusion was the intent of the passage. Philip M. Stern in "The Great Treasury Raid" interprets:

"If you've worked 20 years for one company . . . and if you have rights to future profits of the company for at least five years after you leave its employ . . . and if you sell those rights. . . the proceeds are taxed at the special 25 percent capital gains rate. . . provided you've had those rights at least 12 years before you stop work... and provided those rights were in your contract before August 16, 1954 ... and provided you sell your rights after you leave and all in a single year."

This unusual feature of the Internal Revenue Code saved one man--and

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

95

one man only--Louis B. Mayer of Hollywood, California, the movie magnate, $2 million in taxes, according to Stern's estimate. That means it cost other taxpayers that amount.

Tax reform is not a new subject. Plato observed nearly four centuries before the birth of Christ that the "just man" pays more taxes and the "unjust" pays less.

James C. Carter, an attorney, arguing before the U. S. Supreme Court in 1895 observed: "One class struggles to throw the burden off its own shoulders. If they succeed, of course, it must fall upon others. They also, in their turn, labor to get rid of it, and finally the load falls upon those who will not, or cannot, make a successful effort for relief... This is, in general, a one-sided struggle, in which the rich only engage, and in which the poor always go to the wall."

It is not a new thought to the House Ways and Means Committee, of course. Its Chairman, Mills, said in 1958: "We can no longer afford to defer serious, large-scale efforts to revise our federal tax system." He called the tax code a "house of horrors."

But large-scale reform has been deferred. It was attempted in 1963, but failed.

It is a part of the "conventional wisdom" that corporations receive tax breaks that individuals do not get. The question is: Should they? Is it in the public interest?

Perhaps... as long as they conduct themselves to aid the public interest, or at least in ways not inconsistent with the public interest. But now they have launched their invasion of rural America; the day is at hand when corporations must no longer be able to finance their campaigns out of the public treasury.

If this "house of horrors" is to be made habitable and serviceable to the Nation, the repairing and rebuilding can only be done through the House Ways and Means Committee. It consists of 25 members, including Chairman Mills--15 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Each member is of enormous importance. Their names should be household words in rural America.

In the summer of 1968, as farmers ponder the problem of tax reform, they must also ponder the attitudes of these men.

Changes were in the making. Four Democrats were retiring from the Committee. They were: Cecil R. King of California; Frank M. Karsten of Missouri; A. S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida; and George M. Rhodes of Pennsylvania. Three of them might have been expected to support tax reform. One Republican, Congressman Thomas B. Curtis of Missouri, was running for the Senate.

96

THE CORPORATE INVASION OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

In July, three of these retirees were replaced. The new members were: Congressman Omar Burleson, a conservative Democrat from Texas; Congressman William J. Green III of Pennsylvania; and Congressman James C. Corman of California. All are Democrats.

Congressman Burleson supported Farmers Union's position on legislation only three times out of 13 during the first session of the 90th Congress. However, those three pro-Farmers Union votes may be significant. Two of them dealt with appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, and the other was against reducing the Nation's debt limit. He appeared to be against cutting agricultural expenditures. It may follow that he would favor tax reform. However, on the negative side, it should be noted that he is from Texas, and few Texans have supported such basic tax reform as reducing the oil depletion allowance.

Both Congressmen Corman and Green have a nearly perfect voting record as far as Farmers Union is concerned. Congressman Corman comes from Los Angeles and Congressman Green comes from Philadelphia and both have had strong liberal-labor-urban support. They can be expected to support tax reform. It is a matter of crucial importance that the other two retirees be replaced with Congressmen favorable to tax reform.

Let us look at the remaining members of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Congressman John D. Watts (D-Ky.) is a conservative Democrat from the bluegrass area of Central Kentucky where there are many burley tobacco farmers, Farm Bureau members, and also quite a number of absentee-owned horse farms.

Congressman Al Ullman (D-Ore.) has a liberal voting record, but he hasn't been as aggressive as in earlier years. He is said to derive a good deal of his liberal energy from Senator Wayne Morse. He has more than half of Oregon in his sparsely settled district where large timber and mining interests have enormous influence. Grassroots support for tax reform is desperately needed if his support is to continue.

Congressman James Burke (D-Mass.) is known as a regular Kennedy Democrat. He doesn't duck from a fight. Although he has few farmers in his area, he would probably be good on the corporation farm issue.

Congresswoman Martha Griffiths (D-Mich.) votes liberal but has not been. identified as a vigorous fighter for any particular piece of legislation. It should not be forgotten that Michigan is also the home of such industrial giants as General Motors and Ford. And they think a lot about taxes. Some of her Michigan supporters do not believe she can be counted on for tax reform.

69-133 72 pt. 2 16