things and attempt to maintain a proper balance between industry, labor, and agriculture.

Your records show that industry and labor have shot away up at the time that this Department, under your leadership, has been letting the farmer's share of the economy go by the board. That might be all right if you had it within your power to scale back wage rates and railroad rates and the margin of profit in the Safeway store. If you could scale all those down along the line, it might work.

But I question that, in view of the debt in the amount of $275 billion that the Nation has. I also question that in view of the national-defense expenditures that we are making. But, beyond everything, agriculture has got to be considered and dealt with as a part of the overall.

Mr. PAARLBERG. I agree with that.

Mr. WHITTEN. You cannot afford to ignore what is happening in labor and in industry and to continue to let that increased take that they are getting be taken out of the farmers' hide. That would bring us all down.

Mr. PAARLBERG. I agree with you, sir.

Mr. WHITTEN. It would not just bring the farmer down, but it would take the rest of us down, too.

I

Mr. PAARLBERG. I agree we are part of the whole. I might say find it a little difficult to decide just what the feeling is of some of the committee members regarding the situation in labor and industry. On the one hand, one hears that all is fine and that profits are high and that labor is doing very well. Then one also hears that there has been some downturn, that there has been some unemployment, and some difficulty in industry. I submit that there is a little confusion as to what the economic situation is.

Mr. ANDERSEN. Not at all, in my mind, Doctor. The farm buying power has gone down so pitifully that they are no longer able to buy the television and radio sets and automobiles to keep the people in Detroit working. That is the trouble.

I am just desperately trying to find some means of pumping more of this money into some agricultural selling in some legitimate way and then just let it trickle up. The trouble is that it does not trickle down. It just does not trickle enough. There is no confusion in my mind at all on it.

Mr. WHITTEN. The decrease in farm purchasing power, as has been pointed out by our colleague from Minnesota, is now being felt. We have been trying to tell you and the Department since 1954 that it was going to happen. It is not very pleasant to say, "I told you so,” but if I were going to put it into words, that's what I would say.

Mr. MARSHALL. There is perhaps one other reason why we feel so keenly about this.

Through the action of Congress, industry for a number of years has had enabling legislation which has permitted industry to enter into the price field in order to protect themselves as far as prices are concerned, through a number of various items.

Labor has also had that same enabling legislation, which, under the Wagner Labor Act has provided them with ways and means through which they could protect themselves.

Mr. PAARLBERG. Agriculture has also had that. Agriculture has had it through the Capper-Volstead Act. It has had it through the marketing orders that the Agricultural Marketing Service adminis

ters.

So that agriculture, as well, has these opportunities. It not only has opportunities but has the active help of this Government and programs for which you gentlemen appropriate funds to accomplish this same sort of thing.

MOVING FARM COMMODITIES AT COMPETITIVE PRICES

Mr. MARSHALL. Dr. Paarlberg, I think that is where some of the differences of opinion exist and some of the uncertainties exist. We are thinking in terms of the use of the laws that you had.

The chairman of our committee a number of times has talked about selling these commodities in a world market at competitive prices, and it was due largely to the insistence of this committee that we did begin to move some of these commodities into the world market.

Mr. PAARLBERG. And the Secretary has thanked you in this committee with regard to the concern you have expressed with respect to this problem.

Mr. MARSHALL. The other day you pointed out that 1 acre out of 5 is producing crops that are exported.

Mr. PAARLBERG. That is true.

Mr. MARSHALL. And at the same time we get over into the domestic field and it seems to be obvious to us at least there is an outlet for a number of our commodities through our domestic programs, and we seem to run up against the same sort of resistance that we ran up against when we started talking about moving our commodities at a competitive price into the world market.

You have all the legal authority to do those things. You have all the funds you need to do those things. Yet, for some reason or other, you do not, and as one member of the committee-and I am sure this was true of the other members of the committee-I cannot understand why you do not do it. It would seem when you get your agricultural market into a place where you are taking 1 acre out of every 5 for export-and I congratulate you for doing a marvelous thing-why not go a little further and get this thing solved?

PRIOR ACTION TAKEN TO HELP THE FARMER

Mr. PAARLBERG. Let me give an example of a situation where I think that we acted with courage, with boldness and considerable expense. in the perishable field in a manner advantageous to the farmers.

We got into trouble with beef, as the congressman read from the record, some years ago. We were urged to do all sorts of things with respect to cattle-put supports under live cattle and spay heifers. We resisted all kinds of pressures. We did move in with a section 32 purchase in the amount of about $85.7 million and took some of the surplus beef supplies off the market and utilized them in outlets available to us. It was not a sensational program. It was not a big program, but it did help. It was in the right direction. It helped get the beef business stabilized. We did this, I think, 2 different years.

In 1953, and again during the fall of 1956. Presently cows are in good condition. I think this is an instance where we used our money wisely and well and exercised good judgment.

Hogs is another illustration. About 2 years ago, as you know, we were in a very difficult situation on hogs. Again we were urged to do many, many things. We were urged to move in and put supports under the price of live hogs and make premium payments on lightweight hogs. There were many such proposals. We resisted all of these, and it took a lot of courage. I think it was well we did. We moved in with our purchase program under section 32 and bought again $101.3 million of pork and pork products. It was not sensational, but it was helpful. It helped stabilize the situation. With that help the farmers brought about the needed adjustments in supply, not through regulation or allotments, and presently the price of hogs is pushing $20 per 100 pounds.

The point I am making is we do use this authority when there is the opportunity to use it constructively. That is in the record.

We have resisted many urgings to move in and buy when, in our judgment, we would, instead of helping farmers, actually hurt them by generating still heavier supplies.

So my request of you is that you do not infer that we refrain from moving in under any and all circumstances. We do move in. We move in when the opportunity exists to be helpful and that we shall continue to do.

I am convinced if we had moved in with purchases under section 32 on every occasion we had been urged to do so we would have brought about a chaotic situation. We would have stimulated the production of far more pork and beef and eggs and turkeys and almost every conceivable product than the markets could ever have used. Instead of helping work toward a solution, we would have worked deeper into a problem.

Mr. MARSHALL. Dr. Paarlberg, do you feel that when the market was in the chaotic condition it was 2 years ago in the hog market, that purchasing lightweight hogs and taking the pressure off the market would have hurt the hog producer?

Mr. PAARLBERG. We did not think that it would have helped him as much as the program we adopted, and we were of the opinion that it would have been extremely difficult to administer and function properly in the interest of the farmers.

Mr. WHITTEN. When this petition went to the Secretary to step in and announce that he was going to buy pork so as to stabilize the market in the fall of 1955, prices had broken from about 20 cents a pound to 15 cents a pound. The Secretary's statement was that it had not fallen enough to justify action by the Department. It was then further reduced to about 12 cents and then the Department started in.

If I have understood the program in the 12 or more years that I have been on the committee, the strength of this program is brought into play by announcing early when you can see that the break is going to happen that you will buy.

Frequently in the past the break never did occur. The Government was out much less money and saved all that income to the farmers. So the whole heart of this thing is to anticipate, see and to move be

fore a break. Once you get a real break, there is not enough money in the Treasury to lift things back up. The surplus is the thing that causes the trouble. If the Government announces early that the surplus will be taken care of, the buyers can immediately know they are going to have to pay the price to get it, and the market strengthens. You can trace the record of this department and see case after case where that procedure has been followed.

May I say again, to my knowledge, this Department and your administration has never moved fast enough to prevent a break. It is only after the break occurs and the pressure builds up and it looks like you are forced into it that you move, and then it is too little, too late. That is just one man's opinion. I can cite you illustration after illustration in the record to substantiate what I have said.

Mr. MARSHALL. Often it is not a case of a chaotic condition because of the supply on the market, it is the lack of confidence in the trade that it has in purchasing commodities under the market. Of course, I realize all of us will have honest differences of opinion. It is my opinion at the time of the 1955 trouble when the hog market was in a chaotic condition if you had raised the price on lightweight hogs I think that you would have strengthened the market and it would have cost the taxpayers of this country less.

FARMER'S SHARE OF MARKET BASKET

Now, you mention the market basket, and when you were talking about the farmers' share of this market basket, what commodities contributed to the fact that the farmer got more this year in his basket than last year?

Mr. WELLS. Most of it was livestock products.

Mr. MARSHALL. I may have misunderstood, but I understood when you were talking a moment ago that you gave some credit to the soil bank program for the fact that the farmer got more in his basket. How could that come about?

Mr. WELLS. I thought what I said was that agricultural production was somewhat less last year as the result of the Soil Bank Program than would otherwise have been the case. I do not think that it had much effect on the market basket because much of the soil bank acreage was in wheat and cotton which had a fixed support price.

Mr. MARSHALL. Which did not switch around very much as far as prices were concerned.

Mr. WELLS. Yes.

Mr. MARSHALL. And neither did the price of corn.

Mr. WELLS. The soil bank, in my opinoin, did not affect food prices

very much.

Mr. MARSHALL. I probably misunderstood. It was not a case of the soil bank giving the farmer a larger share of the market basket. Other things contributed, such as livestock.

Mr. WELLS. Livestock, yes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PRIOR APPROPRIATIONS

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Secretary, in your general statement you make the point that one of the main functions of the Agricultural Marketing Service is to find new markets and to enlarge existing ones by

learning the current needs of both industrial and household consum

ers.

I wonder if at this point in the record, to save time, you would file a short statement as to the accomplishments of the department during the fiscal year 1957. In addition to that, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a short chart inserted at this point showing the appropriations for the Agricultural Marketing Service beginning with the year 1950 and extending through the year 1958. Mr. PAARLBERG. We will be glad to do that.

Mr. WELLS. The Agricultural Marketing Service was not organized until November of 1953. I am not sure how far back, Mr. Natcher, we have the figures of the comparable earlier agencies. Do I make myself clear?

Mr. NATCHER. Let us begin with the fiscal year 1953.

Mr. WELLS. Yes. We may have to go back 1 year to get a comparable base.

(The information requested on appropriations is as follows:) Annual appropriations, 1953 through 1958, for Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTE.-Amounts are adjusted for comparability with appropriation structure in 1959 budget estimates.

(The statement requested on accomplishments is as follows:)

EXPANSION OF MARKETS-CURRENT ACTIVITIES OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE DIRECTED TOWARD EXPANSION OF MARKETS AND INCREASED CONSUMPTION OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES

The programs of the Agricultural Marketing Service are directed primarily at facilitating the effective and efficient marketing of agricultural commodities within the United States. Some programs are also directed toward problems of moving commodities into foreign outlets.

Several types of activities carried out by the Agricultural Marketing Service contribute to the expansion of markets and increased consumption of agricultural commodities. Significant progress and several specific accomplishments in this area were recorded during the past fiscal year.

As a background to current activities and accomplishments, a brief discussion of changes in consumption and use patterns during the past two decades is pertinent.

CHANGING CONSUMPTION PATTERNS

Significant shifts have occurred in the kinds of foods consumed in the domestic market during the past 20 years. There are now more protective nutrients in the food we eat more proteins, more minerals, and more of some vitamins. This has resulted mainly from increased consumption per person of dairy products (except butter), and of meat, poultry, and eggs. Total consumption of fruits and and vegetables, per person, has not changed greatly, though consumption in processed form has increased while that in fresh form has declined. Use of visible fats and oils, per person, also has remained relatively stable; but per capita consumption of cereal products and potatoes has declined. The major shifts in consumption have been toward more palatable, nutritious, and expensive foods, which require greater farm-resource use in their production. Without these shifts agricultural surpluses in the United States would be greater than they are.