64 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



you come to make your general legislative pattern you will have en- 

 compassed many other commodities in it. 



Mr. Pace. While you had this past year 3,050,000,000 bushels of 

 corn, at the same time you had 1,500,000,000 bushels of oats, which 

 is not a minor contributor to the feed grain picture. 



Secretary Brannan. And we had the highest production of grain 

 sorghums in the history of our country. 



Mr. Pace. You had 325,000,000 bushels or better of barley. 



Secretary Brannan. That is right, which just adds to the complica- 

 tions. It also has very substantial nonfeed uses, namely, beer. 



Mr. Pace. I do not think you or the committee can do a good job, 

 and I do not believe the corn growers of this Nation will ever submit 

 to quotas, unless you have taken into account the competing feed 

 grains. I would not want to, as a corn grower, submit to controls 

 unless the competing grains, which, as you say, have a comparable 

 market value, depending upon their feed value, are also subject to 

 controls. While I appreciate your statement that we need to study 

 corn alone, I think in everything we say and think about corn, we 

 should be thinking about all of them and, at the same time, be thinking 

 about the livestock recjuirements. 



I think if you have set up an over-all feed grain program, you must 

 at the same time completely coordinate that with your livestock 

 program. 



Mr. Andresen. Will the gentleman yield? 



Mr. Pace. Yes. 



Mr. Andresen. Would the gentleman also suggest you should 

 control the production of hay and pasture grass because that competes 

 with corn and other grains? 



Mr. Pace. I do not know. I would not even attempt to guess at 

 that. I know if you are going to have cooperation on the part of 

 producers, and if the Secretary of Agriculture is going to do a real job, 

 he must have somewhere the authority to do the job over-all. 



Mr. PoAGE. Will the gentleman yield? 



Mr. Pace. Yes. 



Mr. PoAGE. It seems to me if we are going into the question of 

 controlling every one of these fields, we will be controlling everything 

 the farmer grows and we will have a completely controlled economy, 

 and while you might not get an exact balance by controlling only the 

 major crops that there may be a good deal of merit in leaving some- 

 thing free to the farmer to exercise his own judgment on. 



It seems to me there is no closer relation between corn and barley, 

 for instance, than there is between cotton and wool, and certainly 

 no more than there is b'etween cotton and synthetics. Yet we control 

 the cotton crop without any control whatever over wool or synthetics, 

 and we have done some good by doing it. We can do some good in 

 the corn picture without going into everything that the farmer grows. 



Mr. Hill. May I ask Mr. Poage a question? That is exactl}^ what 

 I had in mind when I asked the question about controlling the corn 

 the farmer fed to his livestock on the farm. It is exactly the same 

 question that Mr. Andresen asked when he mentioned the hay. 

 If you do what I said, keep away from the control of this consumption 

 that goes into the livestock and is fed on the farm, then you will begin 

 to have a program that has some hope of succeeding. Otherwise, I 

 think you will not. 



