GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 315 



standpoint, was the old Federal Farm Board. That was the first 

 attempt by the Government to support agricultural prices in which 

 they appropriated money. As I remember, some $500,000,000 was 

 appropriated to support wheat. If I remember correctly, there was 

 a loss of about half of what was appropriated. 



Then we had a support under the original triple A for the so-called 

 basic commodities based on loans. This support was not very effective 

 because after 7 years the price the farmer received for hogs was 5 cents 

 plus per pound, cotton 8 cents plus per pound, and wheat 54 cents plus 

 per bushel for August 15, 1939 according to the B. A. E. This was the 

 second support attempt. No actual support really was put in opera- 

 tion until the beginning of the war when the Steagall amendment was 

 added to the price control act. The language was changed so far as 

 the support for basic commodities was concerned making a 90-percent 

 support and a 110-percent ceiling which also applied to the Steagall 

 commodities. We have been operating under that since 1941, with 

 revisions included in the Hope bill passed in 1948. This was the third 

 support program. 



Now, we are up to your proposals or the fourth phase of an attempt 

 by our Government to give support prices to the farmers of this coun- 

 try together with title II of the Hope-Aitken bill. 



In that connection I want to see if I have analyzed your position 

 correctly. I have listed a few of what I would call constructive or 

 commendable approaches. 



No. 1 is that you seem to appreciate the fact — and I say that 

 without criticism of anything that has happened in the past — and 

 you seem to approach this from the standpoint of thinking of the 

 individual farmer. 



I know of no better language to use than that instead of having a 

 lando^vners' program you are proposing a farm owners' program. 



The second point is that you have pictured the human approach, 

 which seems to me is human conservation. You take care of the 

 individual farmer and that is your ir^terest in the family-sized farm. 



He is taking care of his own property. We wdll not have to worry 

 so much about soil conservation because if we have that type of 

 farmer getting a decent wage it will be a rather easy matter to con- 

 serve the soil. 



Do I interpret that part correctly so far? 



FURTHER STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BRANNAN, 

 SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 



Secretary Brannan. I think those are proper observations about it, 



Air. Murray. As the Farmers Home Administration expands, I 

 understand you feel that none of our other troubles of surpluses 

 would embarrass us as much as they do at the present time for the 

 reason that if you had the Farmers Home Administration expanded, 

 which is largely on a familj^-sized farm operation, it would prevent 

 so many embarassing surpluses. 



I understand that your point No. 5 is the readjustment of produc- 

 tion of different agricultural commodities in keeping with the domes- 

 tic demands. ^ 



I come from a State that has an economy based on family-sized 

 farms. 



