paying those taxes and making those mortgage payments. It is a very serious situation. Now, whether I could wrap it all up in one package and say, "Everybody is going bankrupt if it isn't done," I do not know. It seems to me different groups stand in relatively more favorable and relatively more unfavorable circumstances, as the case may be.

Senator WHEELER. I just received a letter this morning from a man in my State who told me an incident that happened just a few days ago where he said they attempted to foreclose a mortgage on a farmer over in eastern Montana; that a thousand farmers got together there to protest. The sheriff swore in a lot of extra deputies and so forth, and armed them, with the idea of going through and carrying out the forcelosure proceedings, but when they went out and saw this thousand farmers there in silent protest, they decided they had better not attempt to go through with it. That same thing has occurred, not only in Montana, but it is occurring all through the country. These people today—and this is something that you processors had better think about, and something that the people in the East had better think about, that they have not been giving sufficiently serious thought to-these men now are in silent protest but in my humble judgment if this thing goes on for six months more it will not be a silent protest, because of the determination on the part of these farmers and these people out there that I think has seldom been exhibited in the history of this Nation.

Mr. WOODS. Senator, we are almost ready to join them. [Laughter.]

Senator WHEELER. I think you will be. I think you will be, if thïs thing keeps on. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

Senator KENDRICK. You had some other suggestions, did you not, that you were going to make?

Mr. Woods. As I say, this credit thing, I do not speak for my organization on that; I thought it was something that was worth thinking about, because they are new tools at hand. The other is the possibility of regulating supply and marketing, as well as production.. That is, after you have got your production, after your animals are farrowed, even before they are farrowed, you are committed to a certain production. Then you have the problem of the orderly flow of that production to market, so that you have the problem of achieving in some fashion a more orderly marketing, both of the raw materials and of the products. Producers have more freedom to cooperate than we have. Perhaps if both packers and producers could cooperate more closely under some auspices it would assure adequately the safeguarding of the public interest, and a good deal of the waste, a good deal of the destructive competition, a good deal of overshipping of markets could be corrected. I do not offer that as a panacea. I think that it might be helpful.

Senator BANKHEAD. That is the rule commonly called "orderly marketing."

Mr. Woods. Orderly marketing, but some definite provision for permitting a closer cooperation among the producers; an orderly marketing of the products as well.

And, thirdly, and the one thing I would like to suggest, with conviction and with my organization behind it, is some means that will expand foreign markets for meat and lard. We have only a very

small exportable surplus in the livestock industry. It is different from some of these other commodities in that particular. I believe, I do not know much about cotton, but I believe you export a very large portion of it. There is only a little part of the meat that is exported, only a relatively small part in tonnage of pork, percentage of tonnage. If through reciprocal tariff agreements, reciprocal tariff warrants, or any other method, you could stimulate those foreign outlets, it will just about do the trick.

Senator WHEELER. Can you tell us how it can be done?

Senator KENDRICK. It is your opinion that a limited amount of the increase in consumption would very largely take care of the present. situation?

Mr. Woods. In the demand, yes; in the effective demand. It would not do any good to consume a little more at destructive prices. It would do that much good but it would not be adequate.

Senator NORRIS. Is that the last remedy you suggest, those three? Mr. Woods. The last one that has anything affirmative in it. Of course, we do feel that a reduction in taxes is highly important. My only reason for not urging that more strongly is because it would just be wearying. It has already been brought up before this committee.. Senator BANKHEAD. You do not know any way that a Congressman could reduce his expenses any further, do you, since we have gotten through the last operation? [Laughter.]

Mr. WOODS. No, sir; I do not.

Senator NORRIS. I am assuming that you have the same interest we have. I want to commend you before I ask you the few questions. that I want to ask you for what seems to me to be your fairness in approaching these subjects, and I am assuming you are just as conscientious in your ideas as I am in mine, and you may be entirely right and I may be entirely wrong.

Mr. WOODS. May I say just one word, just to complete that picture, also of the same character as reduction in interest in freight rates we put reduction of taxes, reduction in interest rates and the possibility of reduction in freight rates.

Senator NORRIS. We all recognize the terrible dilemma in which we are placed. I assume that not only for selfish reasons of your own business but as a citizen, as a fair-minded man as you seem to be, you are interested in the prosperity of the farmer.

Mr. WOODS. We are.

Senator NORRIS. Realizing that after all he is at the bottom of the pyramid, and if he does not prosper we cannot have permanent prosperity. I take it you are opposed to the bill?

Mr. WOODS. We have given our views as clearly as we can out of our experience.

Senator NORRIS. I draw that conclusion, that you are not freindly to this legislation.

Mr. Woods. We are not urging its passage. [Laughter.]

Senator NORRIS. You would rather it would not be passed? Now, I have respect for that opinion, but you realize probably, as we all do, that to quite an extent at least it is an experiment. To be fair about it, agreeing that we all are of the same opinion about wanting to do something, we ought to either say, "It seems to me the question can not be solved and we should do nothing"-I concede that a man who honestly believes that, could be perfectly consistent in saying so; or

if there is any chance of solving a desperate situation, we are justified in resorting to desperate methods, even though we are not sure just how we are coming out; and the man who says, "There is some solution for it but this is not the one," to be fair ought to give his solution of it. Now, your solution, as I understand it, is involved under three heads. One is credit. Loan more money at cheaper rates. Mr. WOODS. No, sir.

Senator NORRIS. It is not?

Mr. WOODS. Credit as a means of control. You might lend less; you might lend more. May I just elaborate?

Senator NORRIS. I want to get from you, if I can, your idea as to how we are going to solve this thing. What should we do? If there is anything we can do, and this is not right, what should we do that will bring relief to the farmer? I understood your first one was the extension of credit.

Mr. WOODS. No.

Senator NORRIS. We will eliminate that, then.

Mr. Woods. I would not eliminate it; I would restate it.

Senator NORRIS. If you do not eliminate it, you still have it. Then you believe in it, more credit?

Mr. WOODS. No, sir.

Senator NORRIS. Then you do not want any more credit extended? You do not think credit would solve the question?

Mr. Woods. Not put in terms of just lending more money at lower interest rates. I think maybe some harm in some particular instances has been done in that way already.

Senator NORRIS. But do you think that by any system of credit now that you have in mind it would bring relief to agriculture?

Mr. Woods. I think the use of credit might be a convenient tool in connection with efforts to control production. If you will just let me elaborate that a little bit, I think I can make the proposal clearer. First, in the livestock and meat industry, you have a product that is always eaten at some price. You never have the problem of a surplus in the sense that you have got more than you can sell. A surplus is registered by the losses that you have incurred, rather than by the fact that you cannot sell all of it.

Secondly, you have only a small exportable surplus. Your domestic consumption uses up most of it. So that the problem does not bulk as large as it might at first seem. Nearly everybody has agreed that if in some way you could adjust production more intelligently to demand it would solve the situation and if we did not produce 50,000,000 hogs, for example, when only 45,000,000 were needed, that that would settle the trouble.

Senator NORRIS. Now, if you think that is the right thing, we can do that.

Mr. Woods. That is just the point. Everybody says that. Unfortunately, your hogs are produced a year or more ahead of the time when the meat is going to be consumed. So that, first, it is very difficult when your breeding operations are conducted which determines the size of your production-it is very difficult to anticipate what the demand will be when those hogs subsequently are born and then subsequently after that come to market and are turned into meat.

Secondly, since the hog is such an important part of the rest of your agricultural system for utilizing the corn crop and utilizing other things, it is very difficult to control the production and to get people to do the things that would be right if you knew what they

were.

Senator NORRIS. Now, there are two serious difficulties. First, you do not know what to do and, second, it would be difficult to do it if you did know.

Mr. Woods. That you can not anticipate very exactly. Occasionally some of the statisticians have tried to anticipate what the demand would be, and they found it a difficult problem. Some of them think they can do it. Some of them maybe think they cannot do it. But now the biggest objection that has been raised to any effort at orderly production, production that would have a speaking acquaintance with demand, and orderly marketing has been, “Well, you can't control production. How are you going to control production?" My suggestion was that perhaps the use of credit-putting a little more elasticity into it or taking a little out-might have some influence in that direction. Of course, education is another means. So far it has not worked very well. Some people have even said, "You should prescribe to the farmer how many hogs he should raise." That does not work very well and is subject to constitutional objections.

Senator BANKHEAD. Senator, would it interfere with you if I asked him a question there?

Senator NORRIS. No.

Senator BANKHEAD. Does the production in the hog meat depend upon reducing the number of hogs, or can it be controlled by marketing them when they have attained a certain weight?

Mr. WOODS. Both ways.

Senator BANKHEAD. Now, assuming that you have got a certain number of hogs, could you, by regulation, or in any way that you could to make it effective, reduce production by putting them on the market before you put too much meat on them?

Mr. WOODS. I think if you had some sort of council of producers and processors set up, with the Secretary of Agriculture participating, to see that the public was not exploited, or some other safeguard; then if you would let those people go so far as to say, "This is a season where we don't need as much meat; that is a season when we need more meat," it might be possible to put on differentials that would discourage a weighty hog or encourage a weighty hog.

Senator NORRIS. You would have to do that by a price-fixing arrangement, would you not?

Mr. Woods. No, sir. The base price would take care of itself under supply-and-demand conditions; purely a question of differferentials between grades.

Senator NORRIS. You are talking about hogs now, under ordinary conditions where the farmer would lose money if he fed it longer, and also where he would lose money if he did not feed it up to a certain point. Now, you would not want to make any arrangements that would interfere with the farmer getting the most out of his hogs that it was possible for him to get? He might feed it too long; he might not feed it long enough. If you arbitrarily fixed the point where he

166630-33-- -21

had to stop, unless you fixed it at that point, you would be doing harm instead of good.

Mr. Woods. You mean, to the individual farmer, or to farmers collectively?

Senator NORRIS. I mean both. If you had the power to do so and issued an order that everybody must sell his hogs when they weighed 100 pounds-that is an extreme illustration, but I use it because it illustrates the point that it is not economically sound for the farmer to sell his hogs when they are just 100 pounds unless he has some extraordinary condition surrounding him where he can not feed them any longer. That would do an injury to the individual farmer, and to the farmers as a whole. So far as you said, he must feed this hog and sell it when it weighs 400 pounds; you would go to the other extreme, would you not? What I mean is, there is a point where, in order to get the most out of his business possible that he ought to, assuming now that the market is not changing-I realize that-but there is a point where he ought to sell that hog and loses money if he keeps it longer; but there is another point on the other side where he ought not to sell it and ought to keep it longer, and feed it more. Do you get the point?

Mr. WOODS. Yes, surely. You could even say the same thing, Senator, of any voluntary arrangement. If everybody agreed, just out of a general patriotic spirit, that it would be good now not to make hogs so heavy "Yes, we have a little too much hog meat to dispose of, and it would be wholesome if we did not have quite so much," and everybody except a few decided that they would market their hogs somewhat lighter, say 220; not run them up to 390; now, given that condition, when 90 per cent of the people did that, that would put a premium on heavy hogs and if somebody, as we say, wanted to copper" that situation, would you be in favor, then, of protecting that fellow in his individualism?

Senator NORRIS. I do not see how you could, especially as a permanent proposition. I do not see how it would be practical to carry it out. I do not see how it would work myself.

Mr. Woods. Perhaps it would not.

Senator NORRIS. If it would not work, then there is no use considering it.

Mr. Woods. No use, but I do not know whether we can dispose of it quite that readily or not.

Senator NORRIS. Well, maybe not. Let us go on with the other. Another reason you gave was-another suggestion you gave was the regulating of markets. I agree with you that that would be a good thing. You can do something in that line, I think, but do you think that would remedy the situation confronting us now?

Mr. Woods. I think it would help it considerably.

Senator NORRIS. If it would help it, we ought to do it. Probably we will have to do a good many things, but what I am trying to get at is that the remedies that you are suggesting now, in my judgment at least, would not come anywhere near meeting the situation. I think, in other words, we would have to do something else, even though we were desperate in the selection of our dilemma.

Then your third one was and it seems you relied on that more than any-was the expanding of the foreign markets. I can concede that that is a good thing, but I do not know how we are going to do it.