a renewable resource. And when those industrial chemicals are made from petroleum, they are made from a resource that is not renewable. We think that in the long run and ultimately it may be less expensive to use renewable resources for some of these industrial uses, rather than to keep on exhausting our petroleum supplies that are not renewable resources.

And the final point, No. 7, is that why can't we wait a while to see what the President's Commission comes up with in their suggestion; can't we wait for their preliminary report, which, as I understand it, is due about March 15?

Senator DOUGLAS. Do you have definite information on that? Mr. WEATHERFORD. No, I do not, but I understand that they expect

Senator DOUGLAS. Later this month?

Mr. WEATHERFORD. They expect to produce a preliminary report later this month, and the final report, as I understand it, by June 15. Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Welsh's letter says, "Until our report can be presented to Congress later this month."

Mr. WEATHERFORD. Yes.

Senator DOUGLAS. Do you think that is going to be around the 15th? Mr. WEATHERFORD. That is my information, sir.

Mr. YINGLING. Senator, that is what they said in delivering that letter; they hoped to have it by March 15.

Senator DOUGLAS. That is only 8 days away.

Mr. WEATHERFORD. Yes. Thank you, sir.

Senator DOUGLAS. I would like to ask Mr. Robbins, in view of the fact this report is coming in in 8 days, do you insist on immediate approval by the committee of this bill?

Mr. ROBBINS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the point that Senator Morton made this morning. This is not the last chance that this committee or the Congress will have to approve or disapprove this bill. The reason for the urgency in passing it is this schedule of 130 days which must run under the terms of the bill before a sale can be finalized.

Senator DOUGLAS. We could chop off a few days from that, at least chop off some days.

Mr. ROBBINS. It is very difficult to reduce it.

Senator DOUGLAS. We could shorten some of the periods.

Mr. ROBBINS. As I said in my statement this morning, if this is not passed in time so that this time will run before the adjournment of Congress, then nothing can be done until sometime in 1958.

Senator DOUGLAS. Suppose we show our cooperation by trying to shorten these periods to make up for the time between now and the 15th or whatever the President's Appointed Bipartisan Commission on the Increased Industrial Use of Agricultural Products will make its report. We will shorten up the period so the net time will not be lost.

Mre WEATHERFORD. Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest that it would even be very wise for you to wait for the final report until June 15 and, further, to wait until the Congress has an opportunity to act on Senator Capehart's bill which envisions a large amount of money for research, some of which might be used in a pilot-plant operation.

89750-57-pt. 1- 8

Senator DOUGLAS. See, I was trying to be a shrewd Scotchman here and drive a hard bargain on time, and you start in pushing me in the other direction.

Mr. WEATHERFORD. Seriously, sir, this is one of the few plants equipped to process surplus agricultural commodities, and we are serious in thinking that it should be kept as such a plant.

It seems to me, from listening to the testimony, that there is something of a dispute between companies as to who shall own this plant and to get it sold real fast.

Senator DOUGLAS. I have not heard Union Carbide & Carbon testify, but I presume that they would probably still like to have the plant.

Mr. WEATHERFORD. Well, it seems to be something like that. Of course, I have no interest in who owns the plant. But I do have a great interest in having facilities available for processing agricultural commodities to industrial uses. And this seems to me to be quite a plant for that purpose.

I might say, sir, that a number of years ago the Oregon Wheat Commission did some little research and study on the possibility of taking certain surplus grains, processing them into alcohol at the Muscatine plant, floating that alcohol down the river to the Louisville plant where it would be dehydrolized, in other words, the last amount of water taken out, and the alcohol then shipped to co-ops for addition to low-grade gasoline, thereby manufacturing or creating a high-quality gasoline which would be sold to farmers themselves as evidence of farmers' sincere desire to help themselves out of this surplus problem.

And I might say that even that involved proposition was almost practical. If we had been able to get the grain for the same price that we are now selling it under Public Law 480, it would have been thoroughly practical.

Senator DOUGLAS. So do you think that you should take, not the dollar price for corn or the market price for wheat in the free market, but, instead, the price at which these products are selling abroad under Public Law 480 in terms of American equivalents?

Mr. WEATHERFORD. Yes, sir. The ultimate realized price received under Public Law 480 should be the price that is used for the commodities when they are converted into industrial products.

Senator DOUGLAS. Because that is the alternative.

Mr. WEATHERFORD. That is exactly right, sir. You might say that a price-differential plan or a two-price plan for these grains, such as wheat and corn, would relieve the Government of the responsibility for subsidizing those grains in the future too and still permit American agriculture to hold its head up and receive a higher standard of income, higher level of income than it is now receiving.

One final item, and that is to read into the record the resolution of the National Association of Wheat Growers, which was adopted at Lincoln, Nebr., just a month ago regarding new markets:

We commend the Congress for establishing a special commission to study industrial uses of agricultural commodities. We urge this group to make every effort to find new uses for wheat, both food and nonfood, and, once research has indicated opportunities, an educational program should be carried out to encourage the application of the findings. And the Congress and/or the State should be encouraged to supply the necessary appropriations to carry out and implement the findings of the Commission regarding industrial uses of agricultural products.

That, sir, completes my statement, and I thank the committee for your kindness to me in permitting me to testify today.

Senator DOUGLAS. I think you have testified in most competent, brilliant form. And when Senator Morse makes a request of us, we are very glad to comply.

The final witness is Dr. Earl N. Bressman, of Moorhead, Iowa. You come from a sister State.

I presume you are more interested in corn than wheat?

STATEMENT OF DR. EARL N. BRESSMAN, MOORHEAD, IOWA

Dr. BRESSMAN. Yes, sir; that is right.

Senator DOUGLAS. We are very proud to have Iowa as a sister State. We think we produce better corn in Illinois, but we know the Iowa corn is very good.

Dr. BRESSMAN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Earl N. Bressman, and I live at Moorhead, Iowa. I am a farm owner and manager. My present interest is in the possible disposal of some of our great corn surplus through industrial uses.

During the last decade, I have been looking after several Iowa farms owned by myself and family. These farms comprise over 2,000 acres and have grown as much as 50,000 bushels of corn a year.

Unfortunately, corngrowers are not organized as are the wheatgrowers, and I want to spell out my background a little so I will not seem too presumptuous appearing here as an individual rather than representing a corngrowers' group. There is no such groups, so far as I know.

I do want to say, however, I concur in much that Mr. Weatherford has said, and what he said in regard to wheat, of course, applies to corn and will not have to be repeated.

Senator DOUGLAS. It probably applies more to corn than it does to

wheat.

Dr. BRESSMAN. Yes, sir; I believe it does. That is correct.

Senator DOUGLAS. In terms of alcohol content, corn is a cheaper product than wheat; is that not true?

Dr. BRESSMAN. Cheaper because of the price and high starch content which is a factor in the production of alcohol.

Formerly, I was an agronomist at four colleges; that is, Iowa, New Mexico, Montana, Oregon. I was scientific adviser to the Secretary of Agriculture during both terms of Henry A. Wallace. I am, along with Mr. Wallace and some other college men, the author of a college textbook, Corn and Corn Growing. This book was first published in 1923 and is now in its fifth revision.

When I was in the Department of Agriculture, I handled much of the Department's work on new uses for agricultural crops for Mr. Wallace. Senator DOUGLAS. May I say this: That while I disagree very violently with some of Mr. Wallace's later political digressions, I think he was a great Secretary of Agriculture nevertheless.

Dr. BRESSMAN. Thank you.

Senator DOUGLAS. As long as he kept out of international politics and stuck to agriculture and genetics, I think he was a very distinguished citizen.

Dr. BRESSMAN. I am primarily a geneticist.

One of the first projects that we worked on in some detail was the growing of Hevea, or natural rubber. I dealt directly with the attempt to grow rubber in this hemisphere. In this connection, I visited and inspected the work and progress of the Ford plantation in Brazil, and later I was director of a rubber plantation in Panama. This plantation, started by the Goodyear Rubber Co., was taken over by the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences. I did much of the work leading to the establishment of this institute as an agency of all of the American Republics and was its first director.

The growing of rubber in this hemisphere was one of our important projects, and the rubber plantation in Panama was an offshoot of the institute.

Senator DOUGLAS. As I remember, rubber started in Brazil.

Dr. BRESSMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DOUGLAS. It was the shoots from Brazil that were taken to Malaya.

Dr. BRESSMAN. Correct.

Senator DOUGLAS. By Sir Roger Casement, who first made his reputation as a humanitarian, at Putumayo, in Brazil. And then later he went to the Belgian Congo and was struck with the abuses there. Dr. BRESSMAN. That is correct.

Hevea, which is the source of our natural rubber, is indigenous to Brazil, and that is where it started.

We were hoping to bring rubber back to this hemisphere, but I will point out a little later that we were not successful.

I spell out this background in some detail to indicate that I am able to speak in regard to this corn surplus problem and the possibility of making greater use of the crop. I feel that every available facility of the Government should be utilized to reduce the surplus, and one of the important ways is the industrial use of corn. Doubtless, our huge corn surplus cannot be eaten by man or animals.

Senator DOUGLAS. The corn surplus, as I understand it, now is approximately 1,200 million bushels.

Dr. BRESSMAN. That is my understanding.

Senator DOUGLAS. And this amounts to 1 year's production in the case of wheat, at 1 billion bushels, and to about 4 months and 1 week in the case of corn; is that correct?

Dr. BRESSMAN. That is the case; yes.

Before World War II, the Secretary of Agriculture and I worked desperately to get natural rubber production underway in this hemisphere. In addition to the work previously mentioned in Brazil and Panama, I went out to California to inspect the work that had been done on guayule, a rubber-producing plant grown there. Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower earlier had made an inspection of this work for the Army and had furnished the Secretary a copy of his report. And that is one reason we became interested in the guayule project. Senator DOUGLAS. How was that report, favorable or not?

Dr. BRESSMAN. It was rather noncommittal as to recommendations, I would say, Senator.

Senator DOUGLAS. Do you think the report Maj. Dwight D. Eisenhower made should be furnished to President Dwight D. Eisenhower? Dr. BRESSMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator DOUGLAS. Do you have a copy of that report before you? Dr. BRESSMAN. No, sir; but it is in the Department files.

Senator DOUGLAS. I wonder if we can get a report by this eminent inspector, Dwight D. Eisenhower?

Dr. BRESSMAN. It was in the thirties, I believe, Senator.
Senator DOUGLAS. Go ahead.

Dr. BRESSMAN. Later I inspected the rubber plantings in Haiti, where a large amount of rubber production was attempted by growing commercially a native rubber-producing plant. We came to the conclusion that the greatest, and possibly the only practical source of natural rubber was from the rubber-producing tree-Hevea. However, a severe fungus disease, known as the South American leaf disease, stopped any rapid improvement of natural rubber production. This disease was so severe that it practically wiped out these highyielding rubber clones that were brought back by Goodyear and others from the Far East to Brazil. They were extremely susceptible to this disease, and we found that we were stymied in doing anything in regard to this natural rubber production.

During this same period, it was proposed to build some plants to produce alcohol from corn and other grains. This alcohol was to be utilized in the production of butadiene and synthetic rubber. I became interested in seeing that these plants were built because of the difficulties that we encountered with natural rubber, and I assisted some of the original proponents of these plants. These original alcohol plants furnished the raw material in quantity for some of the very first synthetic rubber.

It is unfortunate that these plants were not continued. They could have used large quantities of surplus corn. Also, they could have served as pilot plants for developing uses of surplus corn other than industrial alcohol. Doubtless, much valuable information would have been obtained over the years. As it is, we are in about the same position in regard to using the corn surplus that we were about 20 years ago. To me, it appears that the plant discussed in H. R. 2528 might be used as a unit in any large-scale program for the industrial use of corn. And it is for that reason that I oppose the passage of

H. R. 2528.

All of my life I have been interested in corn production and research. I have known and worked with the leaders in the field of production-men such as Holden, of Iowa and Michigan, the first corn evangelist.

Senator Capehart, I think, earlier mentioned that we needed some spirit or evangelism behind this work in regard to the industrial uses of corn. Now, we had it in the production of corn. Mr. Holden, a very lovable man, went about Iowa in special trains encouraging the production of corn. He told them how to test their seed, how to plant it, and do all those things.

Senator DOUGLAS. I hope you do not neglect Dr. C. A. Shull, who did his great work at my university, the University of Chicago, before he moved to Princeton.

Dr. BRESSMAN. My next word is "Shull," Shull, of PrincetonSenator DOUGLAS. First of Chicago, please, may I say.

Dr. BRESSMAN. Excuse me. Dr. Shull, of Chicago and Princeton, and Dr. East, of Harvard. I knew both of them. I spent an enjoyable day with Dr. Shull in Iowa, going over some of his original work. These two men are the originators of hybrid corn.