78 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM * 



find our problem very much simplified. We would just not have a 

 program. 



All I am working toward is trying to make the program as work- 

 able as it can be, first for American farmers, and by and through 

 their successful operation to the American economy and the Ameri- 

 can taxpayer. Within those limitations maybe the American farmer 

 will have to submit to some restrictions of his methods of operations, 

 just as 1 think any American citizen has a right to drive his auto- 

 mobile at the highest rate of speed he feels like driving it on any • 

 given day, but he should not be permitted to do it, and he is not 

 permitted to do it when he jeopardizes the national welfare. 



Mr. Albert. Mr. Secretary, I recognize that on the one side we 

 have the taxpayer and the consumer to consider, and that the program 

 could break down if it should cost too much, or it it were held that it 

 was keeping necessary goods from the public. But on the other side 

 we have another practical situation, and that is how far, as a matter 

 of fact, the farm population of this country will go. 



Secretary Brannan. Mr. Chairman, may I interpose a question, 

 if it is appropriate for me to do so? I would like to ask the committee 

 to think how long the committee wants to stand for, anl the American 

 people will stand for, a type of price support program for potatoes 

 which we had last year. I know the A^merican potato producer is 

 not up here saying, "We want that specific type of program," but 

 somehow or other he got it and the smart ones took advantage of what 

 the law allowed them. I do not criticize them for that. But if we 

 have another $250,000,000 loss on potatoes alone, in addition to the 

 severe losses we had in the two previous years, and if we have another 

 one next year, I think if we suggested to the .A.merican potato producer 

 that he should accept some kind of limitations it would not be 

 unreasonable. 



Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Pace. Mr. HiU. 



Mr. Hill. You still confuse me more than you clarify my thinking. 

 The testimony in this committee from the time I have been a member 

 of it, for over 8 years, shows that the important thing for us to do is 

 to maintain and continue our family-type farms. How much simpler 

 would this program become if your Department would leave out 

 completely yoin- family-type farms in i-egard to the feed and the 

 products produced on those farms as long as they are consumed within 

 the boundary of that farm? 



That answers Mr. Andresen's question. He insists that ensilage 

 be considered differently than it has been before. Here is a farmer 

 who grows 5 to 10 acres of wheat. But not a pound of that wheat is 

 marketed. That goes back to Mr. Albert's question. 



I am firmly convinced that your whole program is going up in smoke, 

 spealdng of price supports. You have already suggested it on pota- 

 toes. It will go up on everything, which I am certain none of us 

 wish, unless you make a distinction between the family-type farm and 

 the commercial farm, regardless of the Supreme Court or anyone else. 

 The family-type farm is not selling on the market. That farmer is 

 not selling a pound of corn or a pound of wheat. You come along and 

 say you are going to have more livestock on a farm or you are willing 

 to produce more dairy cattle and moie hogs and poultry. 



