Secretary WICKARD. I have not thought of that proposal. Mr. GOSSETT. You said there were only 7,500 of these farms. I assume you got that from the Secretary's testimony. Mr. Secretary, as a matter of fact, do you have any figures on just how many farms, I mean farming units were acquired by the Government incident to this war program, or is that simply an estimate that you made?

Secretary WICKARD. The only way I got that figure was that there were about 7,000,000 acres of land which had been acquired for war purposes.

Mr. GOSSETT. How many acres?

Secretary WICKARD. Seven million acres, which we think could be used properly for farming and ranching. Now, if you divide it up into 80-acre plots, of course, that comes out some place near the answer I gave, which is merely an estimate.

Mr. GoSSETT. Your arithmetic is a little confused, Mr. Secretary. If you have 7,000,000 acres of land it would run to a lot more than 7,500 farms.

Secretary WICKARD. Maybe my arithmetic is bad.

The CHAIRMAN. I was using the figure that 2,500 former owners would acquire land and 7,500 veterans. Of course, some of this land is like the land in west Texas, and it takes more than 40 acres to make a living on it.

Mr. GOSSETT. 5,000,000 acres would make 10,000 farms of 500 acres each.

Secretary WICKARD. Yes; I think my arithmetic is not too good. I was doing a little mental calculation. I think you are right. Some of these farm tracts could be made into poultry farms which would not require as much land, and others consisting of ranch land would be much larger, so I do not know what the average size would be.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Secretary, in yesterday's hearings, I asked Mr. Clayton to put into the record the formula or the regulations that had to do with the liquidation of the Sangamon County, Ill., Illiopolis acres. I wonder if you would not be kind enough to look at the record and put into the record your statement as to any recommendations you might have with reference to the regulations governing the liquidation of that farm land? Are you familiar with that problem of 3,600 acres in Sangamon County, Ill.? I understand that Senator Lucas has introduced a bill on that very matter. This committee will be concerned with that problem in this bill, naturally, of how the farmer and others are to be treated in the redistribution of this land. I want you to familiarize yourself with that testimony of yesterday and then put in your statement any suggestions you have with reference to the Illiopolis, Sangamon County, Ill., distribution of those acres as far as your Department is concerned. You are not familiar. with that?

Secretary WICKARD. I am not familiar with it, and I am not prepared to discuss it.

Mr. CHURCH. You are familiar with the fact that a lot of farms were taken by the Government when that undertaking was started? Secretary WICKARD. Yes, sir; I am. I received some communications from people in Illinois protesting the way it was going to be handled, or something of that kind, but I do not know the details at all as to how it was acquired, or what kind of condition it was in. I have been told that as to quite a little of the land buildings have been partly destroyed and some of the fences, gates, and things of that

kind are gone, and the land has been rented out for cash rent, I believe, for a couple of years and has not been taken care of as it should have been because the tenant was trying to get all he could from the land.

Mr. CHURCH. Perhaps Mr. Clayton's complete statement is not in the record yet. He is to put it in on that point. I hope you will look at it, and with the permission of the committee I would like to have Secretary Wickard's statement on that matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Is not this testimony to go to the printer tomorrow?

Mr. CHURCH. Is Mr. Clayton's statement here yet?

The CHAIRMAN. It is not here. We are sending it down today to be corrected. That will not give the Secretary an opportunity to see what he said on that, and we want this to go to the printer tomorrow. Mr. CHURCH. I would ask that the Secretary of Agriculture get the benefit of Mr. Clayton's statement today, if he can.

The CHAIRMAN. The statement is here; he can read it.

Mr. CHURCH. I would like to have the Secretary's comment on that. I think that is beneficial to this committee.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. Clayton did say that he appointed appraisers, and they appraised this land. In some instances the appraisal was higher than the price paid by the Government, and in others it was below that price. I think in one instance he said it was $34 an acre below, and in another I think he said it was $25 an acre above, but that was the policy they were following on this farm land which they were going to dispose of.

Secretary WICKARD. Were they going to sell it at the appraised vlaue?

Mr. COCHRAN. They were going to have it appraised so that they could reach some decision as to price. That was the thought that I understood Mr. Clayton expressed.

Mr. CHURCH. Except this, Mr. Clayton indicated that the sale of that land was under regulations prepared in his office. I asked for a copy of the regulations to be filed with the committee. I am anxious that the Secretary of Agriculture read those and that we have his further comment with reference to those regulations that Mr. Clayton used under the President's order. He would undoubtedly try to follow the similar regulations in similar cases if this bill is passed.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Mr. Secretary, I am in accord with the statement that was made by Mr. Colmer, in which he expressed general approval of the statement you have made here today and the views you have expressed.

However, there are some particulars in your prepared statement which you read to the committee that I would like the opportunity to ask a few questions on.

Secretary WICKARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Before doing that, however, I want to make reference to the emphasis that you placed upon the advisability of turning surplus property over to the Department of Agriculture for general uses in its several activities. May I call your attention to the fact that section 10, clauses (a) and (b) of the act which is before this

committee would seem to have contemplated that very thing. It reads:

(a) The Administrator shall establish procedures to facilitate the transfer to each Government agency, for the performance of its functions, of surplus property of other Government agencies. Each Government agency shall make the fullest practicable use of surplus property in order to avoid unnecessary commercial purchases.

(b) The disposal agency responsible for any such property shall transfer it to the agency acquiring it at the fair value of the property as fixed by the disposal agency, under regulations of the Administrator, unless transfer without reimbursement or transfer of funds is otherwise authorized by law.

Now, it seems to me that that states in general language in about as plain a way as you could state it, a policy that would carry out that which you seem to have in mind.

Secretary WICKARD. Yes, I do not think there is much difference at all between what you have read and the policy.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I wanted to point out to you that the bill does seem to provide for that in a very satisfactory way.

Secretary WICKARD. I was just trying to facilitate that.

know whether Congress wanted to make appropriations for it or acquire it under present appropriations, but I do see the advantage of transferring it without throwing it out in the open market and then have the acquiring agency have to go out and purchase other equipment.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Now, with reference to the subject which Mr. Colmer referred to as a delicate subject, namely, your presence on the Board, I have no hesitancy whatever in expressing my personal opinion. I see no reason whatever why the Secretary of Agriculture should not be on the Advisory Board, but on the contrary I can see many reasons why he should be.

When I look over the list of those who are on the Advisory Board, and without going into each of them in detail, and without making any unpleasant comparisons, which I do not have in mind, but I merely refer to him, because he is the first individual named, it is much easier for me to favor the presence of the Secretary of Agriculture, or I see more reason for his presence on the Board, than the Secretary of State because of the policies that are outlined in this particular bill. For instance, under section 12, which is headed, "Policies Governing Disposition," there are enumerated some seven or eight or more objectives that are spoken of as policies. Now, first, "(a) To facilitate transfers of surplus property of one Government agency to other Government agencies for their use."

Certainly your Department of Agriculture is interested in that particular policy, and then again, just skipping through it, in clause (c) we find:

To afford returning veterans an opportunity to establish themselves as proprietors of agricultural and business enterprises.

Certainly it seems to me that the Secretary of Agriculture would be in a position to be of value in determining the application of that policy.

And then, in (d), "to afford smaller business concerns and agricultural enterprises generally an opportunity to acquire surplus property" which, again, comes particularly under the supervision of jurisdiction, at least, or interest, of the Secretary of Agriculture.

Then, in (e) a further policy is "to afford former owners of surplus real property acquired by the Government by the exercise of its war powers an opportunity to reacquire such property." Well, real property certainly includes farms in which you are intensely interested, as your testimony here this morning indicates.

So it seems to me there are abundant reasons why the Secretary of Agriculture should be on this Advisory Board. And while I can readily realize why the War Food Administrator might just as properly be on that board yet his jurisdiction and the scope of his duties, in my opinion, do not cover as much as that of the Secretary of Agriculture, and I would feel it would be very proper to include the Secretary of Agriculture on that Advisory Board.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Wolverton, would you yield to me at that point?

Mr. WOLVERTON. Yes.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I do not want to break Mr. Wolverton's continuity of comment, but I desire to make it clear that when I brought up the subject of the Secretary of Agriculture being on the Advisory Board, as is provided. for in the draft of the aforementioned proposal, that I personally believe, as do you, that it is highly important that he be a member of the Board. I reaffirm what you have said on this subject.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Why I took the time to emphasize these provisions in the bill is to indicate it is not just a question of personalities, but it is a question that is fundamental in the administration of this bill, in my opinion.

Mr. HOPE. Would you yield to me for an observation in that particular?

Mr. WOLVERTON. Yes.

Mr. HOPE. The suggestion is made in the Secretary's prepared statement that there are a large number of plants which have been erected during the war for processing agricultural products, and undoubtedly some of those plants will not be needed after the war. But some of them probably will be and it is emphasized in his statement that whether or not some of them are kept, or whether they are all dismantled, or turned over to other uses, it is going to have a considerable effect on agricultural marketing and distributing after the war. That is the point you had in mind, I am sure.

Secretary WICKARD. Yes, sir.

Mr. HOPE. Now it seems to me that offers an additional reason why the Secretary of Agriculture should be a member on this Boardthat we have these plants which, if they are dismantled, or retained, or converted into something else, will undoubtedly affect agricultural distribution and marketing to a considerable extent. And it seems to me while it is entirely proper to have the War Food Administrator on that Board, because he does have direct control of a considerable amount of surplus agricultural property, that in the matter of determining long-time policies the Secretary of Agriculture should also sit on that Board.

Mr. WOLVERTON. I am in accord with what you have just stated. Mr. ZIMMERMAN. I likewise wish to express my approval of placing the Secretary on the Board. What I said a while ago would require the explanation, probably, that the War Food Administrator was included, and not the Secretary.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Not being a farmer myself, I feel very much encouraged to have the support of these two very eminent farmers, who have such an intimate knowledge of the farm situation.

Now taking up the statement that you read: Basically, generally speaking having in mind there may be some exceptions-I am in favor of private enterprise as contrasted to Government enterprise in production. Therefore, when I heard you read your statement, in which you said

there are certain industrial plants capable of conversion to agricultural uses, the disposition of which should reflect that possibility. For instance, the Department of Agriculture already has recommended that 40 percent of our wartime synthetic nitrogen plant capacity be converted to the production of nitrogen fertilizer

I am not disagreeing with the statement you make as to the necessity of the conversion, but the statement did not make clear to me just whether you meant Government-operated fertilizer plants, or private.

Secretary WICKARD. I would prefer, of course, private enterprise operation of all the facilities. I think in the statement referred to— I am not sure whether it makes reference to that, or not, but it is implied.

Of course, there may be some of those plants which private industry would not want to operate, because there would not be enough demand and in that case, unless they are kept in stand-by condition, they would have to be Government operated.

In my opinion, the nitrogen plants, as well as all other facilities that private industry can operate, they should be given the opportunity to operate them.

Mr. WOLVERTON. If private enterprise can produce all the fertilizer that is necessary, do you see any reason for the Government to do so? Secretary WICKARD. No, sir.

Mr. WOLVERTON. Well, we are in accord on several things.

Is it your opinion that the principle of family-sized farms, which you have expounded here this morning, should be written into the bill; or do you feel it would handicap the sale of the property under some circumsrances and therefore should be left to the discretion of the Administrator?

Secretary WICKARD. Again I want to raise this question of the principle involved. If you permit this land to be acquired, even if divided into family-size units, by anyone in any amount, then I would say we are getting away from the objective I have named in this paper. Now it seems to me the Congress ought to be explicit and say it wants these lands, as far as practicable, to go into the hands of people who intend to live on them and operate them. And if you do that, you will perhaps not get the "high dollar" for them.

Now I think the Administrator, or whoever is going to be the person responsible for the policy, should know from Congress what Congress thinks he ought to do. Should he get the most money, or should he sometimes forego getting the most money in order to get the land into