AGRICULTURAL RELIEF 
645 
in favor of not permitting that very surplus that we need to be a 
menace to the farmers, to tear down their economic structure, or 
to make it so that a good crop to them is really less remunerative 
than a poor crop. 
I was reading just yesterday in the paper that there is another 
threatened famine in Russia. Why? By some governmental ma- 
nipulation they have practically confiscated the crops of the Russian 
farmers; and the farmers, waking up to the situation that it is no 
use for them to raise much, where there are any surpluses, have 
reduced their surpluses and stored what little they have raised: and 
to-day Russia is menaced with another catastrophe. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, we feel that relief must be given the farmers 
in some tangible form. Oh, people say to me, “This equalization 
fee—unheard of; never has the Government interfered to that 
extent.” No; but organizations of business men have been able to 
establish an equalization fee for themselves. It is a well-known fact 
that machinery manufactured in the United States is sold cheaper 
abroad than it is sold in the United States, not only farm machinery 
but all kinds of machinery. The same is true of textiles. There is 
a 15 per cent overproduction of textiles and, incidentally, let me 
tell you the wages of the workers in the textile industry are predi- 
cated on that 15 per cent that they have to sell abroad in competition 
with Japan and all the other cheap labor countries. 
Further, we feel that the farmers are not in position and they have 
not shown themselves able to establish that equalization fee through 
organization just as the great manufacturers have established an 
equalization fee through their organizations, and yet it is as necessary 
for the farmers as it is for these others. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, we are in favor of the McNary-Haugen bill. 
We believe that in that bill is the only comprehensive plan that will 
safeguard the interests of the farmers and put them on a paying 
basis. If anyone can show some other way by which the farmers 
can be safeguarded, that their surplus shall be safeguarded, why, we 
would be for that plan. But no such plan has been offered, as 
appears to us to be comprehensive enough to safeguard the interests 
of the country, which demand a surplus, plus the interests of the 
farmers, which would place them upon a paying basis as consuming 
citizens of the country. 
Now, that is all I wish to say at this time. 
Mr. AsweLL. Mr. Wallace, I understood you to say that 40 per 
cent of labor is idle. 
Mr. WarLrack. I said that—I mean to say that 40 per cent—now, 
understand me, Mr. Aswell, I do not mean that 40 per cent of the 
workers are totally unemployed. Some are on two days a week, 
some are on only three days a week, and some are on four days a week. 
But on any one given day 40 per cent of the potential industrial 
workers are idle at this time. Co } 
Mr. AsweLL. All the information we can get from administration 
sources is that there is great prosperity around here. How about 
that? 
Mr. Warnace. Mr. Aswell, I was in all the industrial centers last 
summer—— i - 
Mr. AsweLL. I am serious about that. We hear it and see it in 
the papers about great prosperity, unheard of.