(The information requested follows:)

The question as to what extent price-support programs have affected the demand for or actual consumption of butter is of course a matter of judgment. It is true that butter consumption was reduced during World War II by the operation of factors other than the price-support program, but the problem facing dairymen following the removal of controls in 1946 was how to regain or rebuild their market. And it is a fact that an examination of the figures below shows that instead of regaining markets, average per capita consumption of butter has been declining while average per capita consumption of margarine has shown a significant increase.

Per capita consumption of butter and margarine, United States, 1939–52

Mr. MARSHALL. I have one other question. Mr. Secretary, when you were here previously you made what I thought was a very opportune statement concerning the movement of corn. As I understood it, considerable corn had been going out of condition, and it was your intention to replace that corn with corn from the current year's crop. which would protect the interests of the Government.

Secretary BENSON. To revolve the corn.

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes. Mr. Secretary, I would like to know as of this date how much corn you have replaced.

Secretary BENSON. I could not answer offhand. Mr. Davis could probably give a better estimate than I.

Mr. DAVIS. Actually we have not had to purchase any.
Secretary BENSON. We have not?

Mr. DAVIS. No. I think that the assurance that we stood ready to do so has made it unnecessary.

Secretary BENSON. What about the corn that was deteriorating? Mr. DAVIS. It has moved into the market at the rate of around 800,000 or 1,000,000 bushels a week.

Secretary BENSON. That is encouraging.

Mr. MARSHALL. It is encouraging, Mr. Secretary, unless it has had this same price depressing effect on the market about which the Department was criticized before.

Secretary BENSON. Yet that is about the only thing we have to do with it; is it not? You cannot keep taking it in without getting rid of it sometime. If the price is right, of course, we are obligated to do it.

Mr. MARSHALL. Oh, yes. I think, however, that attention should be given to maintaining an adequate reserve at this time.

Secretary BENSON. Yes; I think that is true. I presume that the greatest pessimist would probably say we have ample reserves at the present time.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Secretary, since you have not found it necessary thus far to replace the corn going out of condition, does that indicate that less corn is spoiling than you previously indicated to the committee? You indicated about 20 million bushels would have to be moved.

Secretary BENSON. We have been offered No. 2 corn in terminal storage but it would contain as high as 151/2-percent moisture which is not suitable for long-time storage and might contain blendings of old CCC corn. Our purchase specifications call for "fresh" country-run corn, grading No. 2, and containing not over 14-percent moisture. Corn meeting those specifications has not been offered yet. We are making a special effort now to contract such corn for 30-day delivery. There is no change in our estimate that 20 million bushels of corn should be marketed from CCC stocks within the next few weeks. That amount shows some deterioration or is in danger of deterioration if carried into the hot summer months.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Secretary, I was interested in your article in the April issue of Farm Journal entitled "Where I Stand."

At one point in this article you said:

It has become so profitable to turn corn over to the Government that hog farmers can't afford to feed their own hogs. Hog numbers have further declined, and farrowing is off this spring, at the very time the corn supplies are at a near-record. It shows how fixed support prices can gum things up.

I wonder if this doesn't slightly overstate the case against the present price-support program for corn. In fact, I wonder if the corn loan hasn't been effective in preventing a further decline in the livestock market.

If it was not for the corn loan, would not corn prices be lower than they are? Would not more hogs be raised? Would not more meat be produced? Would there not be more pork to compete with beef? Mr. BENSON. The thing which is desired by all concerned, as I see it, is to produce the feed, convert it into meat, process it, and make the meat available to the consumer. If that happens, everybody has his job to do and America gets fed. If this process is interrupted at any point, we deprive somebody of task or a market.

a

DISCUSSION OF PRODUCTION CONTROL

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Secretary, I am still a relatively young man but I am old enough to remember what happened to wheat prices after Alexander Legge's statement in 1929. In your statements concerning turkeys, cotton, dairy products, and wheat, I see a parallel. As a single producer among thousands I want to cooperate with your request to cut production. What assurance can you give me that large operators, sometimes miles and miles away, won't increase their production more than I decrease mine? If I don't have that assurance I'd be taking a grave risk of being caught with little production in a year of low prices. Surely on the basis of past experience in dealing with situations of this kind, you must have some plan to enable me as an individual farmer to cooperate and at the same time have the assurance that I am not destroying myself by doing so. How have you provided this assurance to cotton and turkey producers this coming year?

Mr. BENSON. Under current legislation, there are no available authorities under which turkey production can be directly affected or turkey marketings controlled. In the case of cotton, however, there

is authority under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended by the Agricultural Act of 1949, for acreage allotments and marketing quotas provided cotton supplies exceed certain levels. The Department is interested in seeing that both turkey and cotton producers understand the economic situation with respect to their particular commodities this year and we believe this to be in the interest of the producers of both commodities, although we cannot give specific assurances as to what particular individuals may or may not do. Obviously, under such circumstances each farmer has to look at his probable cost of producing the particular commodity and possible prices. In doing this, we believe that many of them will find that they are not destroying themselves by keeping production within the limits which it looks like they can safely handle. And in the case of cotton, another large crop this year would mean that farmers would be faced with the necessity of considering acreage allotments and marketing quotas for 1954.

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Secretary, I am becoming increasingly alarmed at what might be called a trend toward scarcity economics in our farm program thinking. After all, the public as consumers has a vital stake in abundant farm production. I'm thinking about 1960; for example, we need to start planning now to have food for about 20 million more people. Department of Agriculture statistics show it would take at least 5 years to get a 20-percent increase in production. What I am afraid of is that beef cattle and dairy cow numbers will be going down due to lowered prices right at the time we have a record consumer demand. My question is: How do we insure a constantly expanding farm production plant to meet population increases if we let bumper crops of a few years push farm income below the break-even mark with high farm cash costs?

Mr. BENSON. The question as to how to insure an expanding farm production to meet population increases is an important one. Recently our population has been increasing at the rate of 2 or 22 percent à year, and we can probably expect a further increase of about 13 million people by 1960. If we can maintain or further increase beef cattle and dairy consumption, as many people would like to see done, the cattle numbers we now have in the United States are not excessive. But the heart of this problem is actually moving the milk, butter, and beef into consumption, not holding up numbers of beef and dairy cows by the process of piling up beef and butter in Commodity Credit Corporation stocks for which no means of disposal are in sight. Isn't it likely that facing this problem squarely now will give better assurance of future farm supplies than taking a series of steps which will result in the farm program breaking down a few years in the future?

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Secretary, I do hope we face facts squarely. Don't you think that it would be a good thing for the record to show at this point why you feel that some kind of a price-support program for agriculture is justified, as I am sure you do; whether it be what we have now or something else?

Mr. BENSON. I think that is a fair question. I said in my general statement on agricultural policy that the family farm is in a vulnerable economic position, and that the guarding of farm levels of living requires a program of storage and price supports to help assure stability of income. I have also said that I feel the present legislation on price supports could be improved. Our studies have not yet progressed

far enough to permit us to indicate precisely the direction that such improvement might take.

DIRECTIVES GROUPING RESEARCH AGENCIES AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES AGENCIES IN 1951

Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Secretary, you told the Senate committee yesterday afternoon that before your recent changes in the Department all 20 agencies of the Department were reporting directly to the Secretary. My impression is that research agencies had been grouped back in 1951 by memorandum 1279 and the agricultural resource agencies by memorandum 1278. A reading of those directives will show that, I believe. Will you supply the committee with copies of those two memoranda for the record at this point?

(The memoranda in question are as follows:)

FEBRUARY 15, 1951.

MEMORANDUM No. 1278-COORDINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT'S AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICES

To increase administrative effectiveness and economy, and accelerate the rate of accomplishment of the Department's conservation program; to maintain the productive capacity of the Nation's land resources at a level equal to the demands of the national security, the rate of population growth, and a continued rise in American standards of living; to provide an appropriate standard for all the Department's soil-conservation activities; to utilize to best advantage the great variety of agricultural sciences available in this field; and to provide the unified and coordinated leadership, service, and action needed to meet to the fullest possible extent Department of Agriculture responsibilities regarding soil, water, range, and forest conservation, the following policies, objectives, and administrative assignments are hereby established and effected:

I. BASIC SOIL CONSERVATION OBJECTIVE

The basic physical objective of soil-conservation activties by Department agencies shall be the use of each acre of agricultural land within its capabilities and the treatment of each acre of agricultural land in accordance with its needs for protection and improvement.

II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICES

A. Consolidation of county and State offices

1. In accordance with the objective of the Department to headquarter all USDA personnel having county responsibilities in a single office, county office personnel of the Soil Conservation Service and of the Production and Marketing Administration shall be moved into the same county offices as soon as such physical consolidation can be efficiently accomplished. It shall be the policy of the Department to invite county agents or representatives of State agricultural agencies to locate in such single county offices wherever possible.

2. The headquarters of all USDA personnel with statewide responsibilities shall be consolidated in a single State office. State office personnel of the Soil Conservation Service and of the Production and Marketing Administration shall be moved into the same State office as soon as such physical consolidation can be efficiently accomplished.

B. National authorities and responsibilities

1. The agricultural resources conservation services of the USDA shall be under the supervision and direction of the Assistant Secretary designated for this activity. This includes supervision and direction of the Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service, the agricultural conservation program of Production and Marketing Administration, and the activities listed below in whatever agency of the Department they may be located. In carrying out his responsibilities the Assistant Secretary shall utilize as his principal advisers, the heads of the agencies authorized to engage in conservation activities.

2. The activities assigned to the supervision and direction of the Assistant Secretary shall, among others, include:

(a) The development of departmental policy with respect to agricultural resources conservation.

(b) Conservation, utilization, and management of forest, range, soil and water resources including watershed management, irrigation, drainage, and disposal of water, flood control, and river basin investigations.

(c) The acquisition, management, and disposition of lands under the jurisdiction of the Department.

(d) Representing the Department on governmental, quasi-governmental, or private boards, committees, commissions, or other bodies relating to these responsibilities.

(e) Encouraging the creation and development of soil-conservation districts. (f) Executing on behalf of the Secretary, departmental memorandums of understanding with boards of supervisors organized under soil-conservation district laws and with State soil-conservation committees, or with other State or local agencies covering activities related to the work assigned to him.

3. The Assistant Secretary is authorized and directed to initiate immediately and to maintain a continuous survey of the agricultural resources activities of the Department and to determine with the Secretary such action, including transfers of functions, as may be necessary and appropriate to insure integration, effectiveness, and economy of the functions assigned to him.

4. The Assistant Secretary is hereby empowered to delegate the authority assigned to him to persons or agencies under his supervision and to authorize redelegation.

5. The land and water resources staff of the Office of the Secretary is hereby assigned to the immediate direction and control of the Assistant Secretary designated for agricultural resources conservation services.

6. Under the direction of the Assistant Secretary, the Soil Conservation Service, the Forest Service, and the Production and Marketing Administration will jointly determine the soil-conservation practices to be included in the agricul tural conservation program, and rates of payment for soil-conservation prac tices, by meetings and consultations at the National, State, and county levels. All agencies shall be guided by the Department's basic soil conservation objective. C. Statewide duties and responsibilities

1. The PMA State committee, the State conservationists of the Soil Conservation Service, and the Forest Service official having jurisdiction of farm forestry in the State shall jointly formulate and determine the soil-conservation policies and programs for guidance and direction of the Soil Conservation Service, Production and Marketing Administration, and Forest Service personnel and operations within the State by means of conferences or other means to be initiated by the chairman of the State PMA committee. The president of the land-grant college within the State shall be invited to designate members of his staff to participate also. The State director of Farmers Home Administration shall also be invited.

2. The State PMA committee shall continue to administer the agricultural conservation program and to carry out such other duties as are now or may be hereafter assigned to it.

3. The State conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service shall be responsible for all technical phases of the permanent type of soil-conservation work, except forestry, undertaken by the Soil Conservation Service and the Production and Marketing Administration within a State, and shall carry out his duties and responsibilities under the direction of the Chief of the Soil Conservation Service but shall coordinate and integrate the performance of his work with the PMA State committee.

4. The Forest Service official having jurisdiction of the forestry programs within the State shall be responsible to the Chief of the Forest Service, but shall integrate and coordinate his work wherever possible with the programs to be formulated pursuant to subparagraph C-1 above.

5. The PMA State committee and the State conservationist of the Soil Conservation Service shall jointly encourage the creation and development of soilconservation districts.

D. Countywide duties and responsibilities

1. Within the statewide programs formulated by officers of the Department of Agriculture and others as provided for in paragraph C above, the PMA county committee and the local technicians of the Soil Conservation Service shall, working with the governing body of the soil conservation district, jointly formulate and determine the soil-conservation policies and programs by conferences or other means to be initiated by the chairman of the county PMA committee. The county agent for the county and the county supervisor of Farmers' Home