ous hearings before this committee by L. J. Taber, the master of the National Grange.

As the members of the committee well know, the Grange has for some years supported the export debenture plan to give farmers equality under our protective tariff system. Personally, I feel that the debenture plan is morally sound and I think it is workable. However, we have never suggested making it mandatory. We simply wanted to leave it optional with the Farm Board.

At our last meeting, which was held in Madison, Wis., in November, we passed some resolutions on this question, and, among others, we said:

In place of the stabilization operations of the Federal Farm Board, we favor the adoption of the export debenture plan or such similar method of bringing our exportable crops and livestock products under the protective system as can be developed on a sound and economic basis.

We made our resolution sufficiently flexible so if for any reason Congress should not adopt the debenture plan, we would be in favor of supporting any other plan that is sound and workable.

We hope that there may be some legislation at this session that will be sound and workable and that will be beneficial to agriculture.

There has been some discussion here this morning before the committee about the number of farmers who are being forced off the land. Last summer, when the railroads of the country were asking for a 15 per cent increase in freight rates, I appeared before the Interstate Commerce Commission and made a statement for the National Grange. I compiled a table then showing the number of farms that had been transferred by reason of delinquent taxes, mortgage foreclosures, or bankruptcies, during the five years from 1926 to 1930, inclusive. As we are all aware, the great part of that period was one of the most prosperous in the history of this country during times of peace.

The table shows that during those years there were 153,598 farms sold for delinquent taxes, that 529,252 farms were sold through mortgage foreclosure or bankruptcy, and the total farms

Senator BROOKHART. Does that include settlements that were made, or actual foreclosures?

Mr. BRENCKMAN. Yes.

Senator BROOKHART. Sometimes, you know, a debtor will turn his farm over and there will be no foreclosure. Does that include settlements of that kind?

Mr. BRENCKMAN. This is foreclosures and bankrupties combined. Senator BROOKHART. But in addition to foreclosures and bankruptcies, a great many farmers will say, "Come and take my farm." Mr. BRENCKMAN. Yes; I realize that.

Senator BROOKHART. Does that include those?

Mr. BRENCKMAN. This includes foreclosures and bankruptcies. Now, the total of farms lost to their owners through tax delinquency, mortgage foreclosure, and bankruptcy through those five years was 682,850 farms, more than one-tenth of the total farms in the United States.

Nothing could be more serious in its consequences to American society than to have the farmers forced off the farms, or to have them lose title to their farms.

117902-32——11

We hope that Congress may be able to pass some legislation that will help to bring up the commodity price level, to restore commodity prices. What we are after is not so much an inflation as a restoration of values.

On top of that, if anything can be devised that will work for lower interest rates, anything that is sound and workable, we are certainly in favor of that. Our organization has not specifically indorsed the Frazier bill, but we have not said anything against it. We are willing to leave it to the judgment of this committee and of Congress.

We are certainly in favor of the Goldsborough bill, which has just been reported out by the House Committee on Banking and Currency, and we believe that if that bill is passed and it is placed into operation, it will be a great help in restoring the price level. Senator THOMAS of Oklahoma (presiding). Have you any further suggestions to make, Mr. Brenckman?

Mr. BRENCKMAN. No; that is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. Senator BROOKHART. Just a question or two, Mr. Brenckman. I think the trouble with you people is that you are too modest, you are too bashful, you do not ask for half what you are entitled to. At the beginning of the session, at the very first, when No. 1 bill was up before the Banking and Currency Committee, there appeared the big bankers and the big railroad presidents. They came in and they asked for $2,000,000,000 out of the Treasury of the United States. Not a one of them claimed they would use all of it. They said, "We probably won't use most of it, but we want it available so we can use it if necessary." And they got everything they asked for. You are just asking for 72 cents a bushel on corn, one-half a cent a pound on rice, 21 cents a bushel on wheat, 2 cents a pound on cotton, and 2 cents a pound on tobacco, which is a bagatelle compared with what those fellows asked for and got from Congress at the last session.

Mr. BRENCKMAN. Senator, I always thought that the debenture plan was very fair and a very moderate proposal. It is simply intended to give the farmer some measure of equality under our tariff system, and we still hope that there may be some chance of putting it into effect, and if it can not be worked immediately, it will be on the books at some future time. But we want relief now, and I think that one of the best things we can do is to bring up the price level of agricultural commodities.

Senator BROOKHART. You heard Mr. Stone say that a billion dollars would do it, half as much as we took out of the Treasury for the railroads and the banks, didn't you?

Mr. BRENCKMAN. Yes.

Senator BROOKHART. He said five hundred million for cotton and wheat; and he said that was about half. You remember that? Mr. BRENCKMAN. Yes.

Senator BROOKHART. So, if we gave you half as much as we gave to the railroads, we could give you cost of production prices at once. Senator THOMAS of Oklahoma (presiding). Any further questions or suggestions? If not, we thank you, Mr. Brenckman.

Mr. BRENCKMAN. I am glad to have this opportunity to appear before you.

Senator THOMAS of Oklahoma (presiding). Is Mr. Hearst present? Mr. Charles E. Hearst, vice president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, and president of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, and chairman of the legislative committee.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. HEARST, VICE PRESIDENT AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION AND PRESIDENT IOWA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. HEARST. Mr. Chairman, you have got me properly there. I have my home in Des Moines, Iowa. We have the largest farm bureau organization in the United States.

I want to appear in support of this composite bill, and I do not want to go into the details of the bill, because you have already had it explained.

I want to go a little further. I suggest that when the farm groups agree on farm legislation, such as we are doing to-day, and get together on a project such as this, it to my mind represents a large cross section of all of the farmers of the United States, and we hope and expect that we will have consideration at the hands of this committee and at the hands of Congress.

It is a difficult thing to get these 6,000,000 farmers throughout the United States, each operating their own individual unit, to come to a mind, to get together back of any one specific piece of legislation for their benefit, because their interests are so diverse; but here is an instance where these national organizations have appeared before you in unity, making proposals that, a few years ago would not have been possible. But coming down through the years, since our big fight with the McNary-Haugen bill, we have found, each of us, that perhaps the thing that we stood for at that time, feeling that it would lead us out of the wilderness, possibly would not have done that thing as well as it was thought.

We are now agreed that there is merit in three different plans. We are advocating those plans together, because they may be used jointly or individually in marketing products.

The whole significance of this effort is to bring a better price to the farmer for his products, gentlemen, as you know. There is little use for me to dwell upon that situation long, but I do want to say to you men-it has been told you and you realize it, but not so well as those of us who are right out on the firing line--that agriculture is in a desperate situation. The word "desperate " is not too strong. The plight of agriculture has reflected itself in the business of this Nation, and the Nation is in a desperate situation. That can not be denied.

A few years ago it was difficult, almost impossible, to secure consideration from some of our industrial groups who are strong in their influence, to get them to admit that the success of agriculture was necessary to the success of this Nation. The last few months has shown those same people very ardently supporting the theory that there can be no continued prosperity in industry in this Nation until we have a more prosperous agriculture and until agriculture regains its buying power.

That is all encouraging, but we have lived on encouragement so long that we are just about at the end of our string. And business is going down.

Just before coming to the city here, following a luncheon in Des Moines, I had occasion to discuss these matters with some of our insurance officials in the city. We have a number of very strong life insurance companies located in Des Moines. Des Moines is the center of some of the largest insurance companies, outside of the very big cities, in this country. Those men said to me, "If you are going to Washington, be sure, if you can, to impress upon the officials at Washington the absolute need of something being done that will be effective to raise this commodity price level. We are holding farms right now. A few years ago we were perfectly willing to take over these farms when the farmers felt they could not meet their obligations. We put men on them to operate them. We employed a specialist and had him supervise 10 or 12 farms, and we thought we were making money." Then they said, "We don't want any more farms. If this situation continues, you know what is going to happen to the great insurance companies of this Nation." They have asked me to testify in their behalf here before this committee.

Now, we are not pinning our faith to one measure. We think it would be folly to do so. We think there should be an integration of several efforts here in order to keep agriculture out of the plight it is in and help bring up the status of the Nation.

I just want to refer to a matter discussed here this morning, if I may, for a moment-the McNary bill to export wheat and cotton. We must be in favor of this bill. We are piling up tremendous surpluses here. They are standing in the way of a decent price, domestic price, for our commodities. They should be lifted out of this country into some nation that perhaps can not buy it for cash. I do not know how better the money of the United States can be employed than to lift that out.

The Goldsborough bill that was discussed here a few minutes ago takes care of our money. The value of the dollar has gone up to the place where it needs five units of a commodity to secure a dollar. It is all out of proportion as a measuring stick of value. If we go any further it will throw us off the gold standard. We will come to it quickly if the dollar is not brought down to where it belongs, so that it does represent a true measure of value.

Then we have the Capper bill here that governs the short selling of cotton and wheat on the exchanges. All of those things, I think, should be integrated into a big program here and a policy.

I was very much interested in the discussion here this morning. I do not see any one thing that is going to do this job. I see a combination of several things that can do it, and do it quickly. But I will tell you gentlemen that the country is looking to Congress and they are looking to this committee largely. They feel that you men have the ability here, you have the power; they feel you have the inclination to do whatever has to be done at this session of Congress to do the right thing, and we can not and must not wait longer. I have been here for 8 or 10 years, off and on. I was here when we were trying to get a very modest bill through, giving the farmers an opportunity to adopt a protective system for the crop partly disposed of here in this country. We did not ask for enough, Senator

Brookhart. I agree with you. Others came and got things. But we are now saying to you that we can not get these things. You give them to us, at least give us this much that we are asking for to-day, and we will be grateful, and whatever more there is, let us have it, because the future of this Nation depends on the success of agriculture. If our prices can not be brought up I do not know what the results will be in the next six or eight months, because disaster is upon us right now.

Just in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss so briefly these matters before you, but I do ask that no time be lost in taking action on these very important matters. We are looking for you to do this, and I do not think you are going to disappoint our people.

Thank you.

Senator FRAZIER. I would like to ask the last speaker how far he thinks the bankers would have gotten with that $2,000,000,000 proposition Senator Brookhart talked about if they did not come here and demand it any more vigorously than the farmers of the United States; do you think they would have gotten it?

Mr. HEARST. I am glad they did it, and I am glad you did it for them.

Senator FRAZIER. I say, do you think they would have gotten it, if they had not come here and insisted that that be passed and held the committee in session practically night and day, with nothing else done until that bill was passed? If the farmers had come in with the organization the bankers had and the representation the bankers had, do you think they would have gotten legislation? Mr. HEARST. They might have.

Senator FRAZIER. You say you are going to stand back and let this committee do something for you. You have waited since 1920 for this committee to do something for you. The committee has tried to do it. But they can not do it all. The rest of Congress did not pass what we put up to them, and if they did pass it, the President vetoed it, and yet the farmers have sat back. They do not back the few friends they have here.

Mr. HEARST. The farmers have sent down their representatives, Senator, put up their policies and their programs squarely to you the best they knew how. They tried to do it the best they could. Perhaps we have not shown enough militancy.

Senator FRAZIER. Perhaps you have not. The organizations that you have can not get together enough. It has been stated that for the first time these organizations have gotten together on one little proposition.

Mr. HEARST. Let me suggest to you, Senator, that the country is not as dormant now as it has been.

Senator FRAZIER. I realize that.

Mr. HEARST. I hope they will not be obliged to come in here to force that.

Senator FRAZIER. If they can not get it in any other way they should come here, that is all.

Mr. HEARST. I agree with you.

Senator THOMAS of Oklahoma. Mr. O'Neal, have you anyone else you want to have heard as representing your organization? Mr. O'NEAL. No other witness.