GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 153 



;general public of abundant food at reasonable prices and thereby 

 •offers them direct and tangible returns for money spent. 



Having pointed out certain advantages of the program, I also want 

 to call attention to some of its shortcommgs: 



In the first place, this program does not close the gap between 

 farm and nonfarm income. It offers a realistic beginning. 



In the second place, the price and income supports I have suggested, 

 in common with all other price-support systems, fall short of meeting 

 the needs of those operators who lack enough good land and enough 

 capital to produce the necessary volume with the necessary efficiency 

 for a good standard of living. For those operators and their families, 

 an expanded Farmers Home .A.dministration program is a basic need. 

 We should also remember that opportunities in agriculture are becom- 

 ing more limited in number, both for operators and labor. 



We need a program of job training and placement and some definite 

 means of encouraging the development of industries in underdeveloped 

 •areas if we are to avoid a long-time problem of relief for those who are 

 crowded out or only partially employed. 



I also call your attention to the fact that neither a price-support 

 system nor prosperity itself will assure the conservation of agricultural 

 resources on which we as a people depend for our very lives. With 

 the best possible price-support system, we still need an expanded 

 soil-conservation program . 



Price supports, of course, do not take care of the problems of 

 community services such as electrical and telephone services and 

 Ileal th and education facilities. They do not affect our need for 

 Tesearch and education in agriculture and home economics, for coop- 

 erative credit, or for various regulatory and service functions. 



The school-lunch program is also a continuing need. This program 

 is somewhat related to the price-support program. As long as it 

 appears necessary to make direct purchases of con^modities for the 

 purpose of maintaining farm returns, we should plan to dispose of 

 what we acquire in constructive ways, which certainly includes school 

 lunches. Only about 6,900,000 children — approximately a fourth of 

 those now in school — are benefiting from the program, and on a fourth 

 of the lunches the program provides for milk only. 



These are the facts we should keep in mind when we are consider- 

 ing outlets for farm production, as well as when we consider the pri- 

 mary puipose of the lunch program — the welfare of the children. 



Another program very important to maintaining farm income and 

 a continuity of production is crop insurance. Price supports are of 

 no immediate importance to a farmer who, because of natural hazards, 

 is unable to produce anything to sell. The crop-insurance program 

 is designed to help the farmer "get back his seed," at least, enabling 

 him to get by until his next crop can be harvested and sold. With- 

 out protection of his investment the farmer who suffers a crop disaster 

 loses not only the l>enefit of the current price support,' but also a part 

 of his previous profits. 



I was glad to note a few days ago that the House Committee on 

 Agriculture reported favorably on the Department's recommendation 

 to expand this program. I also share the committee's enthusiasm for 

 extension of the multiple crop-insurance system by which a producer 

 of diversified crops can buy a simple policy to cover at least part of 

 his investment. The multiple crop system fits right into our aims 



