TABLE III.-Appropriations for special activities other than foreign assistance programs, fiscal years 1948 through 1963

1953

1954

1954

1955

1956

1956 1957

1957 1958

1958

1958 1959

1959 1960

Note cancellation

Amount

$25,400,000

34, 000, 000

$32,700,000

11, 240, 532

441, 655

5,788, 897

69, 385, 831

9, 545, 830

187,684 1,269, 330

TABLE III.-Appropriations for special activities other than foreign assistance programs, fiscal years 1948 through 1963—Continued

TABLE IV.-Foreign assistance programs-Appropriations received through

TABLE IV.-Foreign assistance programs-Appropriations received through June 30, 1968-Continued

Mr. HORAN. Could you bring those figures forward as suggested just now by the chairman?

My reason for asking these things is that I think we will have to face the fact that no system is perfect, and the history of political science proves that even a good law has to be reviewed every 20 years or things happen to it, and while I appreciate the reasons we have commodity credit, I do not think commodity credit is in itself sacred, and I think the more facts we have at our disposal when we take this bill to the floor the better able we will be to answer those on the floor as to the operations of this Commodity Credit Corporation. Definitely, some of the criticisms we are receiving now from the city people will be somewhat ameliorated by the fact that consumers are benefiting today through quite a number of programs. But I think there is a danger that a stamp food plan may become a way of life and that we

are just digging our grave a little deeper and one of these days it might cave in on us.

Mr. GODFREY. I would like to point out one thing for the record here, that if we were still spending at the present time the same percentage of our disposable income for our food that we spent a mere 10 years ago that the increased cost for our food alone, as American taxpayers, would be greater than the total cost of the price support operations. Mr. HORAN. I do not think there is any question of that. I think probably that we are the best fed people on earth, and I do not think that the producers as such get the fair share of the gross national product. The way to improve their status in that regard is the question before us. Commodity credit was instituted I think partly to

achieve that.

I have seen figures as long ago as the mid-1930's. Roger Babson about the time you started work for the Department of Agriculture was making a statement that milk really ought to be 30 cents a quart then. Of course it has risen some since then.

Mr. GODFREY. I have one figure that might be of interest here for you, that since 1954 through 1962 about 11.4 percent of our disposition of commodities, or $3.2 billion, was used in welfare distribution; distribution of food for needy people.

Mr. HORAN. We went into that quite fully. The chairman and myself, I believe, I forget now whether other members of the subcommittee went into that or not.

I personally was rather impressed with Howard Davis' handling of some of those programs. I think he has made an honest attempt to have safeguards.

Mr. WHITTEN. Will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. HORAN. Yes.

NECESSITY TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE FARM PRODUCTION LEVELS

Mr. WHITTEN. I cannot help but repeat that when they argue about law of supply and demand operating in regard to agriculture, when it does not in any other area, it is an impossibility, in my opinion, so far as keeping the proper balance. But if it were possible to do that, with this Nation embarked on a program of producing just enough but not too much so that the just enough would create a demand at the marketplace to bring in a proportionate share of the income equal to labor, the American people would be in bad shape the first time you had a little drought somewhere, or the first time you had a flood or anything else. And yet in order to be sure that we have plenty, you always have to produce more than enough. And the farmer except for price supports and the Commodity Credit Corporation, would always have this necessary surplus to hurt him.

I say necessary surplus-margin of safety might be a better term. It would be depressing the market all out of reason, if you did not have some price support program and some holding company like the Commodity Credit Corporation is.

So while these factors enter into it, I think to play it safe for the consumer, it is absolutely essential that we overproduce or plan to produce more than just enough. Otherwise we will go hungry.

Mr. GODFREY. And it would cost the consumer more, as illustrated by the 1950 and 1951 potato crops.

Mr. WHITTEN. There is no question in my mind, and I think the record shows it. If we forget the surpluses or suddenly get rid of them, if the farmer just produced three-quarters enough for the American people he would get rich. The competition between those who wanted to eat would run it on up to where the farmer would save the cost of harvesting, cost of transportation, and all the other things. If folks wanted to eat and there was just three-quarters enough for everybody, they would get rich in a few years under those conditions.

I point that out, because what we have here is troublesome, and we ought to do what we can to hold it at a minimum. But the worst thing in the world we could do would be to cut production down to where a surplus did not exist.

Mr. GODFREY. I believe the basic first law of farm economics that I learned in school was that a 1-percent underproduction could cause a 10-percent increase in price and a 1-percent overproduction could cause a 10-percent drop in price.

Mr. HORAN. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the production and marketing of perishables.

Mr. GODFREY. Being a perishable producer, you realize this. I happen to be myself, so I am in sympathy with you.

Mr. HORAN. However, I don't think it is possible at all to have a program which would suit perishables as much as we find practical and sometimes cumbersome in the case of cotton and even tobacco, which has at least a 5-year life, as you testified. So we are happy about that.

Of course this all began, I believe, with the concept of an “evernormal" granary; did it not?

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. HORAN. And we used to quote from the Old Testament about 7 years of want and 7 years of plenty. Then during the war we were spending huge sums, we thought then, for armament, and people talked about killing the last German with the last bullet.

President, Eisenhower, then Chief of Staff I believe, said, No, it was more like pushing a heavy wagon up to the crest of the hill, that you had to have all your weight behind it, when you got to the crest of the hill of course, you did not need it. But you have to have it to get there.

And so, while I am not expert in this field, I can see that it is difficult to criticize, constructively, the Commodity Credit Corporation. All we can do is try to help you to make it better.

PUBLIC LAW 480 SALES

Now do you review in any way the sale of surplus under Public Law 480 to make sure that the prices being financed by CCC are not excessive?

Mr. GODFREY. Yes, sir. This is done by a joint committee, an interagency committee. Sales prices are reviewed currently by an interagency committee which gives us a doublecheck.

Mr. HORAN. Do these checks include visits to the exporters' office to ascertain that the prices being financed by CCC are not in excess of prices charged for the same commodities not financed under CCC? Mr. GODFREY. I am not familiar with the detailed operation, but Mr. Eskildsen is here, and this phase of the work comes under his supervision.