Senator ANDERSON. Maybe it would be a good thing if we found out what does cause this spread some time.

Mr. BAKER. I would like to interrupt, Mr. Chairman, at this point, and point out the similarity, Senator Anderson, between Mr. Patton's recommendations and the statements that you and former Secretary Brannan in 1946 and 1947 presented to this same committee, as what you then called the first, second, and third lines of defense for food policy and a farm policy of the United States.

Practically all the same things were mentioned in that statement of yours and Assistant Secretary Brannan's at that time are included in Mr. Patton's statement. They are repeated. We still ought to do them. They are good things to do.

Mr. PATTON. Mr. Chairman, might I say that when Senator Anderson was Secretary of Agriculture, I felt that your committee drafted one of the most fundamental statements on food policy. I happen to have had the privilege of being a member of that committee, and I still think it is something we ought to have recognized in America.

And one of the points I remember very well that you yourself were strongly for was eliminating this malnutrition in America.

Senator ANDERSON. We could use the food we have for the problems we have in this country. The farmers would be better off, and I think the country would be better off. I do not think it would cost too much to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions?

Senator HUMPHREY. I just want to compliment Mr. Patton on the subject of his testimony that relates to part I of the soil bank. I am going to have something more to say about this later on, and I just had a chance to look over the so-called administration bill that was placed in the hopper.

I saw a draft of it, and that bill does not exactly jibe with the testimony that the Secretary gave in reference to how the certificates would be paid for and the levels of prices on the commodities.

I am going to get to that at a later time. But I want to say that I think that area needs to be carefully explored, because I have a sneaking suspicion that when I see a slogan along the line of, "Using the surplus to eliminate the surplus," that is just too slick. There is something wrong. That is a "cuties," in quotes, and I am convinced that when we look into this, as Mr. Patton has begun to look into it, you are going to find out that this is a price-lowering device rather than an income-raising device.

Senator YOUNG. Would the Senator yield?

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes.

Senator YOUNG. I joined as a cosponsor of the administration bill yesterday, not approving of all of the provisions, of course. I thought that there were many good provisions in it.

There is one provision, though, on page 5, which you had reference to, as having a very greatly damaging effect on the cash prices today. Unless that paragraph is deleted from the administration bill, I shall withdraw as a sponsor.

Senator HUMPHREY. I knew that you would feel that way, Senator, after you had a chance to look over that bill, because I will be very frank with you, this is just almost between us, but I guess this a

64440-56-pt. 8-11

public session-when I studied that bill and saw that section, I said in the very beginning, "I know my friend Milt Young is not for that," and that is exactly what was said, because this would raise havoc with the grain prices out in our country.

Senator YOUNG. It is today.

Senator HUMPHREY. The commodity market has already started to go down, and in case the chairman has not noticed it, the cotton market took a little kick in the snoot, too.

The CHAIRMAN. I stated in the early part of the month that I was in hopes that the administration would merely place before us its bill, so that we could take that bill and try to take something from it, if it was any good, and add it to a bill that we have here. We are getting information from Mr. Patton and others. Let us try to get together and make a committee bill.

That is what I favor, and I believe that we ought to be able to get together. I think we are smart enough to draft our own bill.

Now, in regard to the cotton situation that you have just been referring to, Senator Humphrey, it has not been caused by the introduction of this bill. It is another little bill that was passed by the House yesterday, S. 2170, which permits the presale of cotton abroad. We passed this bill ourselves

Senator HUMPHREY. You mean, without regard to parity prices? The CHAIRMAN. The bill that has caused this decline in cotton is the bill S. 2170. It amends section 407 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 to include as "sales for export" sales made on condition that like commodities of comparable value or quantity be exported in raw or processed form. Inclusion of such sales as "sales for export" would free them from the formula price restrictions of section 407.

Commodities could thus be sold at the Commodity Credit Corporation's export sales price to exporters who might then export similar commodities of a quality desired by the foreign purchaser.

Likewise, sales could be made at the export sales price to mills which might then export a like quantity of finished products.

Now, that is the thing that I believe caused a little defection in the cotton market.

Senator HUMPHREY. Yes.

I want to say that I am not going to go into this point now, because I am having some work done on it.

The CHAIRMAN. You will have ample opportunity.

Senator HUMPHREY. This is going to be a point that requires the most careful study, that particular phase of the soil bank proposal. The CHAIRMAN. I will assure you that that will be done. Senator Holland, have you any questions?

Senator ANDERSON. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that Senator Eastland is not here to defend his bill, but I do not think that point is the cause of the market slump at all.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, I have heard from some folks at home, and I know that that is what they attribute it to.

Senator ANDERSON. I realize that. I know you get all sorts of explanations of how markets go up and down. As I said, I sold some cattle and I know what they attributed it to. But I know very well what actually takes place. The packing plant is going to make a little larger profit; that is all. And I made a contribution to their eventual dividend policy.

If, however, it is true that the introduction of a bill like this would drop the cotton market, then think what the two-price system would do.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator ANDERSON. That would put 20 times as much cotton in the foreign market at a much lower price.

We should think about that a little bit.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose almost anything we do here will affect the market one way or another.

Senator HUMPHREY. Let us affect it up.

Senator HOLLAND. I want to say that I was one of the cointroducers of the bill that you mentioned, and I want to recall that it passed this committee by unanimous vote, including those who are now critical of it and those who are not. And I remember also that it passed in the Senate by unanimous vote, so that I think we can all, and should all, assume responsibility, and as far as I am concerned, I think it is a good measure and its operation will pay off handsomely.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope my good friend from Florida did not think I was critical of the bill in bringing the matter up before the committee. I merely wanted to point out that it is my thought that it was the passage of that bill, and not the introduction of the so-called administration bill, that caused the cotton market to react as it did. Senator HOLLAND. Well, the point I am getting at is the principal author of the bill is not here at this time, and I am quite content to be associated with him in it and to share responsibility, and I believe that all members of this committee will feel the same way, because they equally shared the responsibility in that matter. There was no opposition in the committee to the bill, or on the floor of the Senate. Now, Mr. Patton, I have a few questions. I notice that in your opening paragraph you say that the organization which you represent in this testimony, the National Farmers Union, is a nationwide organization; is that correct?

Mr. PATTON. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. Are you represented in all States of the Nation? Mr. PATTON. No; we are not. We have members, I think, in every State.

Senator HOLLAND. In what States of the Nation do you have no organizations?

Mr. PATTON. We do not in your State, sir, and we do not in the New England States.

Senator HOLLAND. I know that. But there are a good many States. What other States?

Mr. PATTON. We do not in the New England States, including New York. We have members in practically every State.

Senator HOLLAND. You have no organizations in Florida, and you have none in the New England States, including New York. Mr. PATTON. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. And what other States?

Mr. PATTON. We have practically no organization in California and Nevada.

Senator HOLLAND. All right. In California and Nevada. And what else?

Mr. PATTON. Arizona.

Senator HOLLAND. Arizona.

Mr. PATTON. We have a small organization in Alabama. There are not enough members to have a State charter.

Senator HOLLAND. Not enough members to have a State charter. Mr. PATTON. We have to have 5,000 families to have a State charter. Senator HOLLAND. And in what other States do you have no State charter?

Mr. PATTON. Ohio.

Senator HOLLAND. Ohio. That is a pretty large agricultural State, is it not?

Mr. PATTON. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. All right.

Mr. PATTON. We have a very good, growing organization out there, but

Senator HOLLAND. All right. In what other States do you have no State charter?

Mr. PATTON. I will be glad to submit a list.

Senator HOLLAND. I wish you would, because I think that otherwise your statement that this is a nationwide organization might be received in a way that would not be accurate.

Now, you have already said that you have no organization in the State of Florida.

Mr. PATTON. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. Then when you say down there that this program is a national one worked out on the basis of proportional representation, you do not mean that any of that proportional representation was representation in the State of Florida?

Mr. PATTON. What I meant by that, Senator Holland, was that it was proportional in relation to the membership, and not in relation to the number of farmers. Obviously no organization could do that, I do not think.

Senator HOLLAND. You do not mean that in that representation, any proportional representation was from the State of Florida?

Mr. PATTON. There was no representation from the State of Florida.

Senator HOLLAND. And that is true likewise of various of the other States that you have mentioned?

Mr. PATTON. Yes, with certain exceptions, because we do have an arrangement whereby, where they do not have a State charter, they are represented at the conventions.

Senator HOLLAND. Then according to your statement, Florida and the other States had no representation, and other States had no organizational representation?

Mr. PATTON. No chartered organization.

Senator HOLLAND. Including such States as California, Nevada, Arizona, Alabama, Ohio, New England, and New York?

Mr. PATTON. That is right.

Senator HOLLAND. And still you speak of this as a nationwide program.

Mr. PATTON. It is, yes, sir. That may be a difference of opinion, but we consider it a nationwide organization. It is a rather substantial organization and has been around for about 52 or 53 years.

Senator HOLLAND. If you will supply for the record at this point the breakdown of your organization showing those States in which you have no organization and likewise those in which you have no char

tered State organization, I think that your testimony will more accurately reflect just how national your position is.

Mr. PATTON. All right.

(The information is as follows:)

In each of the following States there is a chartered State division of the Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union of America: Arkansas, Illniois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregan, Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. In addition there are county or local Farmers Union organizations in each of the following States: Alabama, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington, with membership at large in five other States.

Senator HOLLAND. Now, I notice that on page 7 of your statement you said:

An adequate program must cover 100 per cent of parity income protection and price support for all the commodities farm families produce.

Mr. PATTON. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. That is a correct statement from your testimony? Mr. PATTON. Yes.

Senator HOLLAND. Then you are recommending 100 percent price support for everything produced on farms?

Mr. PATTON. Yes. A little later in the statement I say that the feed grains should be related to a feed value equivalent based on 100 percent of parity for corn.

Senator HOLLAND. Now, you make that statement regardless of whether the producers of some of the commodities want to be included or not; is that correct?

Mr. PATTON. Well, I am not sure that all of them do not want to be included. I will put it that way. But so far as our policy is concerned, we believe that all commodities ought to be protected. The fellow who grows 10 acres of berries up in the State of Washington, his 10 acres of berries are just as basic to him as a thousand acres of wheat is to a North Dakota or Montana wheat farmer.

Senator HOLLAND. You know, of course, that the tree fruit organizations and the tree nut organizations in this Nation are old, responsible, vocal and have been speaking a good long time for the growers who grow those commodities. Do you know of any of those organizations that have asked for 100 percent of parity for their products?

Mr. PATTON. I think they have, by using the devices of marketing agreements within their States and within themselves, and I do not know that it needs to be the responsibility of the Federal Government in every commodity.

I was saying before you came in, Senator, that in Colorado we have a State law for a marketing order on peaches, which has worked very well for several years. The goal is what we are interested in, and a wide variety of methods would have to be used to achieve that goal. Senator HOLLAND. Well, you know—

Mr. PATTON. For, example, we did not include in this testimony, because Senator Ellender had stated a list in which it was coveredbut in the set of total recommendations, we recommended that marketing agreement authorizations be broadened through the authorization of the use of the law, to a number of other commodities.

Senator HOLLAND. But your position is to have 100 percent of parity income and price support pertaining to all commodities farm families produce