Secretary WICKARD. I think it is an injustice to any veteran to put him on land until he knows whether he would like to farm, until he knows something about the hardships of farming, and that is the reason why I would like to have these local committees have the same opportunities they have had before in selecting boys who have had farm experience and who they think will make a success of farming.

Mr. HOPE. Then if the committee were to put language in the bill which would grant a preference to the veterans you think it should also include preference to veterans who are familiar with farming, and who have lived on a farm, and who have had experience in agriculture? Secretary WICKARD. I think it is only fair to the veterans themselves to do that.

Mr. COCHRAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOPE. Yes.

Mr. COCHRAN. Right on that point, after the last, war it so happend that after the boys received their adjusted-compensation checks, a tremendous number of them from St. Louis who had never had any farm experience in their lives thought they could make a fine living and a lot of money by opening up poultry farms short distances from St. Louis. They opened them up, but it was not long until they were closed up, and they were back again in the cities.

I think your point there, Mr. Secretary, about men who have not had any farm experience is well taken, and that it will be a protection to a lot of veterans who might think they would like to go out into the country and farm. A man going onto a farm who knows nothing about farming would be just like a man going into a tool shop to make tools who had never had any experience in that field before and it is a protection to the veterans.

Secretary WICKARD. I think too many of them have the idea that farming is a free, easy life, especially those people that never had occasion to go out at 4 o'clock in the morning and work until 8 or 9 o'clock at night completing the chores. As you say, it would be an injustice to encourage those boys to undertake a farm project in which they have had no previous experience, because the disillusion would come later, and they would lose their entire investment.

Mr. COCHRAN. I just mentioned the poultry business. They went out by the hundreds to go into it.

Secretary WICKARD. We want to avoid the possibility of having those returning veterans come under the influence of people who would like to get them into projects of that kind without them knowing something about the hardships of farming and what is involved in farming.

Mr. HOPE. There were a great many cases of that kind after the last war, and I agree with what Mr. Cochran says and with what you say, that we want to take every possible precaution to avoid that thing happening at this time, because you could not do the war veteran any greater injustice than to get him out on a farm and leave him stranded there because of his lack of experience in farming, and yet there is a tendency right now to say, "Let us give these veterans a chance to go on the farm," when they have not thought the thing through. I think there is a lot of public sentiment right now that would support a move to put veterans on farms even though they have had no experience in operating them.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Do you not think that influenced Congress in putting into the G. I. bill a provision to aid veterans to go into business, as well as to buy farms, because it recognized that you would do them an injustice to induce them to go into farming rather than going into some kind of business when they knew nothing about farming? Mr. HOPE. I think we made a mistake in the G. I. bill in making loans available to veterans indiscriminately for the purchase of land, and that that mistake may be remedied by wise administration of the act.

Mr. WHITTINGION. That was not my question, but on the other feature of the bill with reference to offering them loans to go into business. I agree with you about the agricultural provision.

Mr. HOPE. Yes; the loan is available for either agricultural or business purposes, but unless that is managed very wisely I think we are going to have a lot of veterans stranded out on poultry farms again just like we did after the last war.

Mr. ZIMMERMAN. In the testimony of Mr. Clayton yesterday he stated that he would put out regulations governing the sale of lands, in other words through agencies disposing of the lands. Now, it seems to me that unless we write into this bill something along the lines suggested by Mr. Hope that veterans who had come from farms, and who had sufficient experience in farming be given a chance to buy land, then, of course, it would be up to the Administrator to put in regulations and requirements along that line, and if he does not do that we will again have the situation which you gentlemen have very clearly brought out here, of a lot of veterans who have no business farming buying farms.

Secretary WICKARD. These things we are talking about are a little bit contrary to the view of selling this land for all you can get for it because these veterans might not be able to pay as much as other people could pay for it, and I do not think they should be charged as much as other people, especially with the prospective land boom that is getting under way. Your point brings out some of the things I can see are very important here as far as the general policy is concerned. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, since there are only 7,500 of these farms it would not make much difference anyway, would it?

Secretary WICKARD. But when we consider selling this land at the high prices of the present time we ought to keep in mind that the period after the last war was when the land boom that we had really got under way. At this time we have already a 42 percent increase in land, and there is a chance that the prices will pick up momentum later. If the Government by its own action accelerates that boom, I think the Government will have to pay out a lot of money at some time or other to justify these prices, and the Government will also have to do as they did after the last war, they will have to take care of the financial situation in this country.

We had banks closed, we had mortgages foreclosed, and we had to help out all kinds of institutions as well as private people because they paid too much for this land. It not only affected the owners of the land, but everybody in the whole community, because people had paid too much for the land.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you recommended to any committees of the House or the Senate the payment of demobilization insurance or unemployment insurance to farm labor? That would take care of the situation. They are war workers; are they not?

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. I did not 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.