STATEMENT OF HON. BROOKS HAYS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

Mr. HAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was just looking to see if there were any of my other colleagues present who were on the committee when I had those 8 happy years with you, and I am happy to see some.

Mr. MULTER. I am sure if your colleagues knew that Congressman Hays was coming in, they would all have been happy to come in and hear him. We always enjoyed having him with us. We enjoy cooperating with him in his other committee work.

Mr. HAYS. I am very grateful for the welcome.

The CHAIRMAN. Nobody stands higher or is held in greater affection than Mr. Hays on this committee.

Mr. HAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very grateful.

I asked for an opportunity to be heard because I am eager to present the plight of the low-income farm people of my district, and of many other areas of the United States.

I have been interested in this problem of low-income farm families for a long time and, while most of the problems relating to farm income are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, there is a certain appropriateness in this committee considering the agricultural situation in relation to the unemployment problem and the distressed areas that are generally within the industrial scheme. Now, that isn't an innovation. The chairman remembers how many struggles we had with the Commodity Credit Corporation's relationship to the agricultural structure generally, and so there is, as I have indicated, some logic in this committee considering rural problems. Something has been happening to the family-size farm. In many areas, they are in the low-income classification.'

The CHAIRMAN. Has the area in which the farm income is very low been designated by the Government as a depressed area?

Mr. HAYS. Yes, sir. They do not use that terminology, I believe. I am not sure, but, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Agriculture has made some studies that are very enlightening, and I will include as an exhibit to my testimony, if the chairman will permit, some statistical studies that indicate that the Department of Agriculture does recognize the existence of this problem, and the Department has charted it very accurately on the basis of agriculture statistics and the census reports generally.

The CHAIRMAN. You may insert anything relevant that you desire in the record, without objection.

Mr. HAYS. Thank you.

(The data referred to above is as follows:)

CHART 1

LOW-INCOME AND LEVEL-OF-LIVING AREAS IN AGRICULTURE

TABLE 3.-Percentages of commercial farms classified as low-production farms, United States, and generalized areas of low-production farms, United States, 1950

1 Farms with $250 to $2,499 value of sales in 1949 with the operator working off farm less than 100 days and farm sales exceeding the value of other family incomes.

Source: Low Production Farms, Jackson V. McElveen and Kenneth L. Bachman, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 108, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture, June 1953.

TABLE 7.—The size of net money income received by farm-operator families; South and non-South compared, 1949

NOTE.-Calculations based upon Farm and Farm People, GPO, 1952.

Source: The Low-Income Problem in American Agriculture, W. E. Hendrix, ch. 7, United States Agriculture: Perspectives and Prospects, The American Assembly, Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, 1955.

Mr. HAYS. Now, Mr. Chairman, if the committee would bear with me and I certainly must not transgress; I fear that, since I am with old friends here and in an old environment, I may run away with myself, so please call me down-but if the committee would bear with me to that extent, I would like to refer to my history in connection with this problem.

Some years ago the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Bailey, and I introduced a bill to promote what we called rural industries, processing plants that would absorb some of the surplus farm labor that resulted from mechanization in our areas.

Unfortunately, in certain parts of the country it was misinterpreted. It had no connection whatever with the sectional competition for industries. We had no thought of adding to sectional rivalries, and we disclaimed it but, as I say, we never were able to rid ourselves altogether of that handicap that seemed to identify us with a sectional rivalry.

I want to reiterate what Senator Bailey and I said at the time, and persisted in saying. I hope I am convincing on this point if no other. It is that we do not propose, those of us that are fighting now for a place in the sun for the little farmer, we do not propose to take away from any section anything that they have, and to the extent that this has industrial significance, it is with no thought of moving anything away from any community. Goodness knows, they need what they have, but I think in all fairness, the more advanced industrial communities should agree that other areas are entitled to share in the industrial expansion of the country, and it is only to secure a proportionate share in new industrial development that I advance this idea of paying some attention to a problem area.

Now, the bill as drawn, Mr. Chairman, does not do that. The bill has an industrial emphasis, and it properly and understandably takes into account the distress of the areas that I know have been dramatically pictured to this committee, and I join just as vigorously as I can in the plea to help those areas of the Northeast that have unemployment. One difficulty, however, is that what we call underemployment has never gotten into the legislative picture. It does get into the agricultural statistics and it should come right into this legislation from the procedural standpoint, because if the Government is to lend money for the promotion of industries, then we should see to it that that procedure is broadly enough defined and charted so that the farmers of the Ozark foothills, as an example, can come in to get a loan to promote an industry that will set up employment opportunities for the people.

Mr. Chairman, that is my story.

Going back to the question that the chairman asked, I want to make reference to the Information Bulletin No. 108, from the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, indicating that 38 percent of the commercial farms of the United States are classified as low-production farms, defined as farms of less than $2,500 value, gross sales in 1949, when these figures were made, and the percentage of farm families receiving under a thousand dollars-think of it, receiving under a thousand a year, net money income, was 28 percent, with an additional 24 percent receiving between $1,000 and $2,000, and once again, I would like to point out that any increase that has taken place since these figures were accumulated has easily been offset by the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. Winthrop Rockefeller was in Washington the other day-he is a constituent of mine, having moved to Arkansas some 3 years ago. He is a farmer; but certainly not a low-income farmer. He has built up one of the finest live-stock farms in the South. Mr. Rockefeller

is interested in the industrial development of Arkansas and upon invitation of the Governor became Chairman of the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission. Mr. Rockefeller shares my views about taking industries away from another section. He has opposed any measures that would be unethical or unfair, and he agrees that we should ask only for a proportionate share in the expansion of American industry. He is interested in the little industries, and when we sat on his front porch on the mountain and looked down at a little town where there is a pickle plant, I said, "This is the kind of industry, Mr. Rockefeller, that I want to see Arkansas get." It isn't a big plant that adds huge payrolls, but a little cucumber processing plant that means that the people who want to stick to their little farms, that are being squeezed out of agricultural life, commercially, can find part-time employment.

I hope this committee will find a way to approve that idea of parttime employment. I know there are some that insist that you should either be in a big commercial operation in agriculture or you should be a wageworker in industry. I don't think so. I think that in this transition period, in this very difficult period, when the family-sized farm is struggling to survive against a large corporate farm operation, I think that if you can make your concession to that extent of seeing that a part-time employment is all right, you will be doing a good thing, and the pickle plant, therefore, gives to the farmers of my community, who are out of cotton, not altogether but who might well be out of cotton production, for they can't survive under present conditions, it gives to them now a market at their doorstep for cucumbers that replaced cotton and not only that, but the young men and the young women particularly of those hill communities can go into Atkins, Ark., and find employment for 3 to 6 months out of the year that supplements their small farm income.

It seems to me that that is a wise concession, it is a sort of middleof-the-road approach to a human problem, and this committee has always been interested in human problems. The impression is that because we speak in terms of money and economics, that we are not concerned with these great social problems, and I wish the people of the country knew how thoroughly interested this committee and this Congress is in the human and social aspects of this problem.

This problem cannot be solved by the Agricultural Committee. This Agricultural Committee could exercise perfect judgment and wisdom in the price policies for farm commodities and still you wouldn't meet this problem. You could double the price of the cotton which this little farmer raises near Atkins, Ark., but if it is only a bale or two, you haven't hit the income problem, and it is income rather than price that has to be considered if you solve this great problem.

Now, one other word about the history of my interest in the problem. Senator Flanders has joined me in proposing an amendment to cover the situation. His State of Vermont offers a northern counterpart to the Arkansas hill country situation, and since my friend, Mr. Rains, has come in, I am certain he would agree that parts of northern Alabama present much the same situation.

I would like to leave a copy of the amendment which Senator Flanders and I have worked out with the clerk. Senator Flanders'