Mr. JUMP. I do not know, Mr. Sinclair, but when we have the Agricultural Adjustment Administration up here they will be able to discuss that point. Mr. SINCLAIR. I think in my State the percentage is much higher than the percentage that you gave in connection with the cotton farmer. Ninety-five percent of them in my State signed up. Mr. EISENHOWER. My recollection is that in Kansas, for instance, 95 percent of the farmers signed. All told, 500,000 wheat farmers, in 1,700 counties of 37 States, agreed to reduce their 1934 plantings. But that is all out of my field. The office of information's job nowin addition to cooperating directly with the Agricultural Adjustment. Administration, especially for radio broadcasts-is to put out basic facts, whether they are gloomy or bright. We want farmers and city people able to know the actual facts. Furthermore, now that farmers are actually adjusting, they individually want information on replacement crops, soil-building crops, subsistence farming, quality production, farm management, market prospects, and so on. It is our responsibility to furnish this information in ways that the individual farmer can apply it. Mr. CANNON. In obtaining a million signers, you attained your objective? Mr. EISENHOWER. So far as the educational work was concerned; yes. Mr. CANNON. I do not know about the cotton situation in the South, but in the North we have had an increase in acreage in a number of States. For instance, in Michigan there was an increase of 25 percent in the acreage of wheat sown after this campaign and in my own State there was an increase of 5 percent; that is, there is an increase this year of 5 percent. They are sowing 105 percent instead of showing a decrease resulting from the campaign. There is an increase in acreage and an increase in the prospective bushelage for the coming year. Mr. EISENHOWER. I was using cotton as an example of the educational activities. We have nothing directly to do with the administration of the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Naturally, all of us are interested in seeing the program succeed. The total crop in cotton would have been about 17,500,000 bales had it not been for the reduction program, and prices would have reacted accordingly. The crop was about 13,000,000 bales and the average farm price is now about nine and a half cents. Mr. CANNON. It has been successful so far as cotton is concerned, then? Mr. EISENHOWER. That is correct. The educational campaign and the sign-up campaign are now under way on the new cotton program, and reports from the South, particularly from the Agricultural Extension editors, indicate that they will achieve the objective, bring the acreage down to approximately 25,000,000. Mr. CANNON. Does that apply also to wheat? Mr. EISENHOWER. The objective was a 15 percent reduction. Some noncooperating wheat farmers have expanded their acreage and I think the net reduction is calculated at about 8 percent under the 3-year average. Mr. CANNON. That is over the United States as a whole? Mr. EISENHOWER. That is correct. Again may I say that I have used this example merely to show the new emphasis we are giving to all our informational material. When the program first started, the Office of Information, engaged considerable temporary help and worked on this thing almost to the exclusion of everything else. Then the Agricultural Adjustment Administration got its own organization perfected and took over the temporary men so as to have its own information unit. TYPE OF INFORMATION GIVEN ON INCOME OF FARMERS IN BULLETINS AND ARTICLES Mr. CANNON. In the course of your campaign I have had this complaint from the farmers in my section, that in your bulletins and in your articles sent out over the radio, you made statements to the effect that the income of the farmer was greatly increased, and that the farmers were satisfied with the results which were being secured. I have had protests from the farmers that that such reports did not apply in their locality. It may have applied to the country as a whole, but in their locality their income was not increased; they were still receiving below the cost of production and they were being subjected to the resentment of the cities whose people read those articles and who got the impression that the increases which they were being compelled to pay for farm products were going to the farmer, when as a matter of fact that was not the case. There is wide criticism of this in my section of the country. Mr. EISENHOWER. Mr. Cannon, I am certain that we have never put out a release saying that farmers were satisfied. Farm purchasing power is still only 61 percent of pre-war; for the year 1932 it was 53 percent of pre-war. Mr. CANNON. You have put out the statement that they were receiving vastly increased incomes? Mr. EISENHOWER. Yes, sir. Total farm income this year is about $1,500,000,000 greater than last year. Mr. CANNON. But the vital point in the matter is this: Did you say how that compared with the income in 1926 and in 1920? Mr. EISENHOWER. We go back for a number of years in making comparisons. Our whole effort is to give the facts. We have issued publications, press releases, and radio releases emphasizing the tremendous disparity between the prices of commodities the farmer sells and the prices of goods he buys. We have hammered constantly on the fact that when the farmer's prices dropped to 50 percent of prewar and prices of things he buys declined only to the pre-war level-he then had to give twice as much cotton or wheat or other commodities for the things he needed. We have tried to make it clear that low prices, resulting from surpluses, have caused the farmer to stop buying, which in turn has caused probably 4,000,000 industrial workers to lose their jobs. We have hoped to educate the farmer. and others to the fact. That is as far as I conceive my function in the program. Mr. CANNON. I am in receipt, and all Members are in receipt, of bulletins regularly issued from the Department, from your office, or some branch of your Bureau, which leave the impression that the farmer's condition has been greatly improved and that he is getting back to a condition of parity with industry and labor when, as a matter of fact, the few million dollars added to his income represent a drop in the bucket as compared with what he has lost since 1920, or since 1926. It seems to me that if agriculture is going to be given a fair deal, these facts should be laid before our consumers in the big metropolitan centers. They read these releases which you send out and they get the impression that we farmers are getting relief when, as a matter of fact, we are not. The industrial income and the labor income are higher now in some instances than they were during the war, while the farm income is vastly lower than it was during the war. The cities ought to understand that, and if they did understand the facts of the great disparity between industrial and labor income and agricultural income, it would be much easier to satisfy them as to why they must pay more, why the cost of living must be increased. For example, here in the District of Columbia, the average income of the departmental worker during the war was between $1,400 and $1,500, as I recall it. At the present time the average income is much higher. The cost of living at this time is materially less than it was during the war. During the war the farmer was receiving from $23 to $28 for his hogs. He was receiving from $1.75 to $2.40 for his wheat. He was receiving 50 to 60 cents for his eggs. I am taking the District of Columbia merely as an example, because I am heartily in favor of an increase of wages of Federal employees to normal. But I simlpy want to point out that the farmer also should be getting an increase to normal. We reduced the average Federal salary 15 percent but still left him more than he received during the war, while the cost of living is considerably less than it was during the war. The farmer, instead of losing 15 percent of his war time income, is getting only about 15 percent of what he received during the war. I can readily understand the reaction of the man in the city who reads these reports from the Department of Agriculture, which represent the problem of the farmer and the agricultural interests of the country, as being solved. I can understand his reaction when he reads those reports and sees that the farmer's income is being increased and that apparently he is getting back to a prosperous condition. He would then resent any increase in his cost of living. The full facts should be laid before the consumer so that he would understand the farmer's condition, that he is still receiving less than the cost of production while his expenses are being increased by the N.R.A. Mr. EISENHOWER. Mr. Cannon, I am certain that there has never been in the Department of Agriculture a more real interest and sympathy for the farmer. To my way of thinking there has never been more actual knowledge of what his condition is. Our facilities for learning the facts are superior to what they once were. Mr. CANNON. I think that is true. Mr. EISENHOWER. I know from experience in handling this work that for every release or radio talk that may have gone out saying that the income of the farmer has been increased, let us say, by $1,500,000,000 this year, there have been 100 issued deploring the condition of agriculture, and pounding on the fact that we have got to achieve a balance between the income that the farmer receives and that business and industrial groups receive; otherwise we will never get a normal exchange of goods. Secretary Wallace has gone on the air more than any man I have ever known in public life to express that point of view; and I think that this is very significant-we are receiving few if any serious complaints about the farm program from the cities. Mr. CANNON. From the cities? Mr. EISENHOWER. From the cities. I am convinced that for the first time in our history the consumer is aware of the fact that we have got to make agriculture prosper; that we have got to give agriculture a chance to achieve parity prices. I cannot help but believe that you have received the wrong impression of the facts we are putting out. As proof of that, I should like to send you samples of the radio talks and of the press releases on this situation. Right now we are emphasizing the deplorable condition of the livestock farmer. That is an especially acute situation and we are trying to make people understand it. Mr. CANNON. I am glad to have a statement of your attitude. Of course, it is in consonance with what I had understood. But I have read, I believe, every radio release which has been sent out, and I have yet to find in a single radio release a statement or even a reference to the fact that while the income of agriculture has risen, it has not approached anything like the amount which was received in 1926 or 1927 or 1928 or 1929, or 1920 and 1921; that there was still a vast disparity between the income of agriculture and the income of industry and labor. That is not stated anywhere. Mr. EISENHOWER. I shall have to send the releases to you. Mr. EISENHOWER. As a matter of fact, one of the points that the Secretary personally is constantly making in radio and other talks is the close relation between the income of the wage earner and the income of the farmer. This relation is especially close between pay rolls and the cash income from livestock products, but it roughly holds good for the cash income from all farm products. If you chart pay rolls and cash farm income you will find that the two lines go up and down together. Now, it so happens that I have here a publication which we have just issued, entitled, "Economic Bases for the Agricultural Adjustment Act." It gives the very facts you are discussing. It is probably true that we have not put out numerous comparisons with the situation prevailing in 1921 to 1926, or 1926 to 1928 because the Agricultural Adjustment Act names the base period as 1909 to 1914. It is only natural that most of our press releases and radio talks have used that as the period for comparison. The objective named in the act itself is parity prices, using the pre-war period as a base. Mr. CANNON. I take it for granted that your Department keeps clippings of the metropolitan press on this subject? Mr. EISENHOWER. To some extent. We have no authority in our appropriation to buy clippings. All we can do is to get them fortuitously. Mr. CANNON. I think that is unfortunate, because undoubtedly you ought to have them. If you have read, as no doubt you have, the metropolitan publications in the last 6 months, you will not find a single article that gives us this very vital phase of the matter. You say that you have had no complaints from the consumers. If you will take into consideration the attitude of Members of Congress who represent the consuming areas, who represent the cities, you will find that they are not disposed to cooperate in legislation which will bring the farmer's income up to a parity with the city worker's income. That is the reflection of the consumer's viewpoint. Mr. EISENHOWER. I was engaged in this same work during the so-called "prosperous era." At that time there was a terrific inertia or opposition on the part of city people to any argument which demonstrated that the farmer was not getting a square deal. I am positive that that is not true today. Mr. CANNON. I hope that you are correct about that. I have seen no evidence of it. Mr. EISENHOWER. Magazine editors of New York and Philadelphia with whom I have talked seem to be thoroughly convinced that we must achieve the fair-exchange objective. Of course, I suppose there is opposition always, but I am talking about the preponderance of opinion. Mr. CANNON. I will just repeat one statement that I heard made by a Congressman representing a metropolitan district. He said that he would object to any legislation which would increase the cost of any article of food or the cost of any raw material consumed by his constituents. Of course, his position was naturally a reaction to the attitude of his constituency. Mr. EISENHOWER. This is getting somewhat out of my field, but let me say that at first when the cotton processing tax went into effect, retailers began advertising in many cities that the big jump in the price of shirts and overalls, and so forth, was due to the processing But when the secretary and the consumers' counsel of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration stepped down on that and showed that the maximum increase in a shirt, for example, should not be more than 5 cents, retailers very quickly stopped the practice. I think people today are aware of the fact that the processing tax of 4.2 cents a pound on cotton does not make a vital difference in the final retail price of the commodity. Mr. JUMP. Mr. Cannon, your remark about city Members of Congress recalls to my mind the very fine attitude of the present mayor of New York City when he was a Member of Congress. Although he came from a large city, he repeatedly stated on the floor that while he was from a large city he was fully aware of the fact that the farmers had to get a good return on their products in order that they might be able to buy the products of the city. He constantly took that attitude, as I recall it. Mr. CANNON. The attitude of Mr. LaGuardia was admirable. He cooperated at all times on the floor and was a typical illustration of what the ideal Representative ought to be. AVERAGE SALARY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. JUMP. While this has no bearing upon the principle we have been discussing, I want to correct something that was said about the average pay of the Government employees in Washington. I do not know how you got your figures on this matter of Federal pay in the District of Columbia. You stated someone had informed you that the average income of Federal employees in the District of |