Mr. COOLEY. I have told you that tobacco has been under control. It has been under control consistently, and you know we have maintained a better balance with tobacco than any other commodity.

You know that under the peanut law we are trying to bring acreage down so as to bring about a better balance between the supply and demand for peanuts and peanut oil.

Why would you deny this same machinery and this same voluntary program to cotton and to wheat and to the other producers of the other commodities if they are willing to bring the balance about?

Secretary BENSON. We have never denied them that if they want it, Mr. Cooley, but I do not believe that farmers want to be regimented to the extent that tobacco growers are today.

Mr. COOLEY. Why do they vote for it? Why not let them say so? Secretary BENSON. I tried to outline the differences in the tobacco crop more than we did in many other crops.

Mr. COOLEY. The wheat people have not had an opportunity. The cotton people did not have it until this year and the cotton people voted for it overwhelmingly, and the wheat people-they cannot have marketing quotas and acreage allotments unless two-thirds of the people vote in favor of it.

Secretary BENSON. They were not voting on the proposal of marketing quotas versus flexible supports. They were voting on the question of a 90-percent or a 50-percent support price. There is a vast difference between 90-percent support and flexible supports.

Flexible supports may mean 90 percent, with the set-aside.
Mr. COOLEY. I am quoting:

Those crops not now under production control exhibit at least as good a balance of supply and demand as those under control.

Now that cannot be justified.

Secretary BENSON. In terms of carryover, I think that is true. Mr. COOLEY. What crop are you talking about? You were talking about cotton and wheat which were not under control.

Secretary BENSON. I was looking forward to this ensuing year. They have already voted for the control.

Mr. COOLEY. You were speaking of the past. I have to go on from that question. I have 2 minutes left. There are 2 million questions I would like to ask you but I shall not have an opportunity within the time allotted to me.

You mentioned freedom for agriculture. You mentioned freedom in your statement. Freedom is mentioned in the caption of this bill or proposed bill. The farmers had freedom in 1929 and 1930 and 1931, did they not-freedom to plant the face of the earth in anything they wanted to plant. That is right, isn't it?

Secretary BENSON. They have always had a very high degree of freedom. Our agriculture has arrived at its present high state of efficiency largely because the farmer had a high degree of freedom of choice in the management of his farm.

Mr. COOLEY. Do you complain now that any large group of American farmers are regimented and deprived of their freedom, except tobacco growers?

Secretary BENSON. There is a degree of course.

38490-54-pt. 18- -3

Mr. COOLEY. You have been here all this morning and you responded forthrightly to all these questions but you have not even touched the sugar bill and if there are any farmers in the world who are regimented and controlled, they are the producers of sugar beets and sugarcane in America and in our offshore possessions.

Even refining is controlled. You do not advocate repeal of the sugar bill, because the President said it was a good bill; that is right, isn't it?

Secretary BENSON. It seems to be working quite well-it is a commodity that is produced in deficit, as you know sugar is, in this

country.

Mr. COOLEY. There are three cases-cotton, tobacco, and sugarwhere we have control from the grassroots up, and the programs are working so successfully and so well and so inexpensively that nobody would advocate the repeal of them.

Do you know how much profit was made on the sugar bill?

Secretary BENSON. That is why, Mr. Cooley, in our recommendations we have taken the commodity approach: Because you cannot recommend one program for all. One program will not fit every commodity. It may work on tobacco and sugar, where there are limited areas involved, and a relatively small number of growers. It may not work on wheat or some larger crop.

Mr. COOLEY. Sugar is limited in area. It is in Puerto Rico and in Hawaii.

Secretary BENSON. Domestically it is very much limited.

Mr. COOLEY. I certainly thought that recently I read a very misleading statement by you. You say now that on this basis the losses for the agricultural commodity program have been 1.2 billion. That is the figure that I have been using. I think it is an accurate figure. That represents an accumulated loss on all the basics over a period of 21 years.

Secretary BENSON. No. In the first place, the period is over 20 years and it is not limited to the basics. It represents only the losses from CCC operations. Now the overall cost of price and farm income stabilization operations amount to a larger figure of $71⁄2 billion.

Mr. COOLEY. When you include that you include through the wartime subsidies days?

Secretary BENSON. No; the wartime consumer subsidies are not included in the $7.5 billion.

Mr. COOLEY. You used the 16- or 18-billion figure?

Secretary BENSON. Let me make this clear: When I came in as Secretary there were all sorts of figures floating around as to what agricultural programs had cost and I asked our people to make an objective study of it to get the facts so that the people could have the factsthe taxpayers and the farmers and everyone-and that study has been completed.

Mr. Wheeler, Director of Budget and Finance for the Department, conducted it, and all of the figures are available in that study. If you limit it just to the operations of CCC, then the cost is $1.1 billion. If you include all the programs for stabilization of prices and farm income then it is $7.5 billion. If you include all the programs then it

runs to nearly $17 billion, as I recall the figures. I would be very glad to have

Mr. COOLEY. My time has expired. I only have a minute or two. Secretary BENSON. I am sorry. I would be very glad to have that study made a part of the record, if you would like, or we will make it available to the committee.

Mr. COOLEY. I think we should have it.

Secretary BENSON. I think it will be helpful.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record of the hearing.

(The data referred to is as follows:)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Realized cost of agricultural and related programs, by function or purpose, fiscal years 1932-53

(The basis for the costs reflected in this table is as follows: (1) For activities financed from appropriated funds, the expenditures less receipts arising from the activities so fi
nanced; (2) for noncorporate loan funds, the losses on loans and the net interest cost or income; (3) for Commodity Credit Corporation and Federal Crop Insurance Cor
poration corporate funds, the net gains or losses from operations and the interest cost to Treasury on Government-subscribed capital; and (4) for corporations of the Farm
Credit System, the interest cost to Treasury on Government-subscribed capital and payments made by Treasury on account of reductions in interest rates on mortgages
less dividends and franchise taxes paid to Treasury. Interest cost to Treasury on noncorporate loan funds and on Government-subscribed capital of corporations has been
computed on the basis of the average rate on the public debt paid by Treasury in each of these years.)