I believe there are these general principles I have discussed with you that should be included in each of the commodity proposals in some workable manner and combination.

Let me summarize.

First, I suggest that we must set up programs that in years of full prosperity and full employment will operate practically without cost to the Federal Treasury. To that extent, Mr. Chairman, at least all of the programs ought to be designed to do as well as the tobacco program. To do that I have suggested that the programs must provide for a workable device to keep market supplies in line with full employment demand. I have suggested marketing orders and marketing quotas.

Second, for most commodities I suggest that bushelage and pound quotas would be more workable and more effective for the tough job of market supply adjustment and proration than are acreage allotments.

Third, I suggest that what we are trying to do is to preserve and improve the family farm, and have no particular reason to give unlimited eligibility to larger than family farm factories in the field. Therefore, the legislation should provide for a cutoff at the upper limit family farm production.

Fourth, I have discussed at length the need to provide for use of parity farm income deficiency payments during years when dropping supply down to stay in balance with a high unemployment consumer demand would result in hardship to consumers.

No doubt the question will arise in the minds of committee members as to the cost of the program. I have not tried to make an exact estimate. The figures and statistical analysis needed for such a careful estimate are not available to me. However, let me say that my bill is designed deliberately so that the program will not cost any net to the Federal Treasury in years of less than 3 percent unemployment. My bill provides that the market supply will be set at the volume for each commodity that will clear the market at the mandatory price protection level. Therefore, no costs could arise except costs of administering the marketing quota system. My bill provides for a fee of not more than 1 percent of the parity income equivalent price of the commodities to cover administration.

In years of depression or recession with more than 3 percent unemployment, the cost of the program would depend upon the degree of unemployment. According to recent studies, we can expect each 1 percent point increase in unemployment to bring about a 1 percent drop in consumers income. Each 1 percent drop in consumer income means an approximately one-fifth percent drop in prices received by farmers for the full prosperity supply of all farm food products, at fairly high income levels which now characterize our Nation. Preventing the drop in farm income usually attendant upon such a development probably would return to the Treasury in income tax more than the payment program would cost. But even if this item is not allowed, the cost of the program would be controllable through the total national economic policies used to bring the economy back to a full employment condition. The payments to farmers involved would be a part of the total program.

If 7 percent of the civilian labor force were unemployed this would appear to mean a drop of not more than 2 percent in prices received by farmers for the marketing quota volume. This would mean that the entire program, if the entire program were in operation, that the total annual cost, even in 7 percent unemployed years, would be less than $1 billion. This seems most modest com. pared with the $3 to $5 billion per year spent by the current Secretary of Agriculture in recent full employment years with farm family income allowed to decline to less than half of a parity income level.

It is not my thought that the bill I have introduced and which your committee is considering today is a complete farm and food policy for the Nation. Far from it. This bill covers only the farm income protection and improvement and market supply adjustment features of a complete policy. In addition, our Nation needs to eradicate malnutrition and hunger in the United States through such programs as the proposed food allotment stamp plan or other means. Our Nation and, indeed, the entire Western World, should begin immediately to make full use of its farm productive power to use food to preserve peace and provide the means to move toward universal disarmament, by progressive steps. We need to explore and put into operation specific governmental safeguards to prevent speculation and profiteering in the food processing and distribution channels.

But currently, we all must recognize that the longest standing economic depression in this country is on its farms. Now that depression has moved to town. But I hope that in our excitement about the nonfarm depression we do not forget or overlook the farm depression that led and fed the nonfarm depression. Correction of the maladjustments and other features of the chronic farm depression can help us to correct the nonfarm depression with its distressing aspects of unemployment and dramatic wastage of resources and potential production.

You on this committee know better than I that depression does not show up on the farm as unemployment. In fact, farmers probably have to work harder in a depression. Depression on the farm shows up as falling prices, dropping income, reduced farmer purchasing power to buy the products of industry and commerce and professional people in rural and urban areas.

I do not presume to request that your committee report out the bill Congressman McGovern and I have introduced. That was not our intention in introducing it. Instead, our purpose was to invite the attention of Congress and of this committee to certain basic principles which I am deeply convinced should be incorporated in the farm program of this Nation. These are principles which, in my view, if they not be included in the program, will result in the program being less adequate than it should be for family farmers, more costly than it needs to be to the Treasury, and less safeguarding than it must be to the over 170 million food consumers of our Nation.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. First, may I say that I have taken quite a bit of kidding as to why I should have any interest in agricultural bills, coming as I do from an urban area or city area.

Frankly, my main reason for having an interest in this bill is because of my deep conviction that the prosperity of the United States depends on a rounded economy and that we are not going to have prosperity in the city and in the urban areas unless we also have prosperity in the agricultural areas of the country.

I think the tendency has arisen somewhat in the past to divide the economy and perhaps pit one side of it against the other and thinking this is not good for the country and not good for the individual citizens that make up these parts of the community, I have tried with my colleague, Mr. McGovern, to work out a program which I felt could be fully supported by not only those who were interested in agriculture but also by those who were interested in prosperity in the industrial areas and particularly the consumers of the country.

And it was this aspect of this bill—and I am not trying to pose as an expert on agriculture, I am not and I certainly would not try to go into the details or perhaps I should say the mechanics of it, but I do feel that having studied this matter very carefully, that in this bill we have something which would be practical from the point of view of the consumer and that he would get the advantage of a falling off in prices in periods of unemployment without at the same time contributing to a continually diminishing income for the agricultural part of our community. That, very frankly, is my main and particular interest in this bill.

However, I also have tried as intelligently as I could to go into the other aspects of it and it seems to me that this does provide the one thing which we have not been able to provide in this recent past, which is a way of having a jab into the economy at a time when we were beginning to get into a depression period or a recession period, whatever you want to call it, and that this gives that additional income or that additional assurance of income to the agricultural population and if you add those two things together it seems to me that then you maintain the purchasing power of the farmer and at the same time

you give the advantage of whatever the temporary economic situation may be to the consumer and which in essence adds to his income, which means that he has more money to buy agricultural products, and between the two to restore your entire economy to a healthy and prosperous condition.

It is very briefly that which I am urging. I would simply want to add one other side of it.

I am sure you gentlemen realize we have limited this bill primarily to the family-type of farm. I have done that because I think there is a tremendous factor here which has been overlooked which is the increasingly apparent concentration of agriculture into the hands of a few which is exactly what is happening in industry.

Because I am a member of the Small Business Committee, I am tremendously interested in seeing, as I am sure Mr. Hill has also seen, that the same thing is happening in agriculture that has happened in industry and being a tremendous believer in individual enterprise and in the right of the small individual fellow to have his opportunity in the economy, I think that this bill will go a long way to stopping that concentration and restoring vigor to the small independent operator who, I think, is the backbone of our Nation, both economically as well as politically.

Lastly, I have not put in here something which I hope that we can stress later on. I believe that there is one aspect of the situation which this bill, and as far as I know, no other bill really does cover and that, of course, is the thing which I think Mr. Anfuso has spent a lot of time upon, which is the spread between the price which the farmer actually gets for his commodity and what the consumer finally has to pay for it, and I hope at some time in the future, because it comes into the field of those who are not directly in agriculture, I hope that we can find a way, perhaps, of working through the Department of Justice, possibly, and have a very thorough examination made to see whether there are monopolistic practices in the distribution of agricultural products, the products which can be looked into and which should be looked into for the very same reasons that we try to curb monopolistic practices in industrial and other manufacturing fields, and if we tie that together, then I sincerely hope that when the committee writes a comprehensive bill, that the principles laid down by my colleague, Mr. McGovern, and myself, will be given effective consideration in order that we may have a united front on the part of both the people in the urban areas as well as the rural areas, all in support of a comprehensive farm program.

I want to thank you very much for the courtesy and kindness that you have shown to me and my colleague, Mr. McGovern, in allowing us to come and talk, especially to myself, a city man, allowing me to come and talk about agricultural products.

Mr. POAGE. We are mighty glad to have you here, Mr. Roosevelt, and I do wish, speaking for myself, and I am sure for the other members of the committee, I do wish that we had more such people as yourself, before us.

I am sure that the other members of the committee as well as I would like to discuss this a great deal further with you and with Mr. McGovern. I regret that we have this time limit and that we will have to defer our questioning so as to allow Mr. Brannan to make his

Mr. POAGE. I agree. But they are holding to this rule in opposition to 2 of the 3 areas, at least, because obviously the Virginia-Carolina people and the southwestern people would like to see the rule changed, wouldn't they?

Mr. THIGPEN. On the particular point, I don't believe-you could ask the Virginia-Carolina people-I don't believe it makes very much difference to them one way or the other. I think if the rule is changed, with saying that the damage tolerance in all of these types on No. 1 peanuts be 1.5 or 2 percent, that it is a sort of a useless move. And I would say to you personally, I wouldn't object to that because I don't care to see the squabbling go on. I think they are going to put the peanuts up and sell them for what they are regardless of the Government grades as they stand, and as badly as I think we need serviceable Government grades for merchandising peanuts.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Poage, we would like to work out our difficulties as well as we could with the producer organizations with the least amount of disturbance and discord we could have. I think the Department actually appraises every move that it might make, and more or less fathoms grower reaction to see what the end result will be.

Frankly, maybe we would have moved more aggressively in some areas than we have, had it not been for the differing views we have seen evidenced among the peanut growers. We certainly have no intent of maintaining a sore spot, so to speak, to the detriment of the program. We would like to remove it if we see it is possible and practical to do so, for the improvement of the program itself.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Should the growers in the Southwest and Southeast get together on that one point, would the Department correct it? Mr. MILLER. I don't want to answer for the Agricultural Marketing Service, but I would say certainly if it is for the improvement of peanut program and the peanut growers, I see no reason why the Department of Agriculture would not go in that direction.

Mr. POAGE. Well, as one little irritant, may I ask you about this— that is a small irritant. The Burleson bill would correct that. As far as I know nobody in the Southeast, nobody anywhere else, has objected to it except you, the Department.

Now Mr. Brooks is a good friend of mine. I admire him as an individual and his organization. But you have planted him over in our midst, and have let him take money from the cotton_cooperative members and go into the peanut business with it. We want to know why the Department is so determined that we shall have to have Mr. Brooks' organization operating in the Southwest. Now, I don't think in the Southeast that has any insistence on that. There is nobody among the growers that are demanding that you put Mr. Brooks in the Southwest, is there?

Mr. MILLER. I know of no growers in the Southwest that are demanding it. I think that the Department has seen fit to recognize the cooperative movement for a great number of years.

Mr. POAGE. We haven't a bit of objection to your recognizing the cooperative movement. In fact, we want you to recognize it. But we would like you to recognize our own cooperatives, instead of moving somebody from Atlanta, Ga., into Texas and Oklahoma.

Mr. MILLER. We are rather hard put, Mr. Poage, to justify limiting the fields of operation of any cooperative association in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I will be happy to proceed in any manner which suits the committee best. However, the chairman shall direct. I do have a statement which I have prepared and which I am ready to read if that is the procedure which still prevails before this committee.

Mr. POAGE. Well, I am sure that you have heard the situation that we are faced with, with an unanticipated session of the House at 11 o'clock or it might be even sooner. There probably will be a rollcall very shortly after 11 o'clock.

Now, I want you to take advantage of the time we have and use it as you feel will be best.

We will be glad to accept your statement for the record and let you speak anyway you please, or if you prefer to read it you are at liberty to do so, however you wish.

Mr. BRANNAN. Well, then, Mr. Chairman, I think I would prefer to read it and if it is necessary that I be interrupted at any time, that will be up to your discretion.

Mr. POAGE. That will be perfectly permissible.

Mr. BRANNAN. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I must say, first of all, that I am honored to appear before this distinguished committee at this time on the subject of farm income improvement legislation. During my frequent appearances before you while a member of President Truman's Cabinet, I enjoyed both my official and personal contact with the committee and its members. Your chairman, Mr. Cooley, has been one of the most diligent farm spokesmen in our history, and the very great majority of this committee has always been in the lead in the fight to strengthen farm programs and, insofar as Federal legislation could do so, to afford the American farmer an opportunity to secure a fair and just price for his products. It is most gratifying to find other Members of Congress, such as Congressmen McGovern and Roosevelt, deeply enough concerned about farm problems to develop suggestions such as you have under consideration today.

I think it is fair to say that there was a time when the executive branch of this Government, as well as the legislative branch, was trying to do the same thing. I wish we could say that such was the situation during the past 5 years. But, unfortunately the welfare of the American farmer and his family has seriously declined because those in the executive branch charged with the responsibility to represent farm people, have failed both to administer the existing laws as the Congress intended or to bring to Congress any constructive proposals for improvement in those laws.

On the contrary, we have witnessed the spokesmen for farmers in the Eisenhower Cabinet quite openly taking those steps which all knew could only penalize farm families and expose them to a processor controlled market in direct opposition to the stated intention of the Congress. This has put the members of this committee-and other Members of Congress-in a difficult position. Nevertheless, it is my opinion, that American farmers appreciate what you have been able to do in the anomalous situation.

For example, your efforts in developing and adopting H. R. 12 will long be appreciated by American farmers, although President Eisenhower vetoed that legislation with one of the most cynical actions in American political history. I refer to the fact that in veto