316 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



It never embarrasses me any to tell my cotton friends that I do 

 not want to have a program that pays any subsidy for exporting 

 their cotton after they have raised it, because they are entitled to 

 only the support for domestic needs. 



I am willing to go along with them for the amount that we need 

 in the United States. 



Or I can tell my wheat or tobacco friends the same thing. There 

 is nothing personal involved in that. But your proposal, as I listened 

 to it, touched on that phase in connection with livestock farming. 

 You mention twice the 75 percent of American agriculture not included 

 in the prewar support. 



We appreciate the fact that we have been on an import basis on 

 beef except for short periods during World War I and II ever since 

 1913. What you really meant by your approach to the beef prob- 

 lem this morning was that you want to make the country some- 

 where near self-sufficient so far as that phase of agriculture is con- 

 cerned. If it is necessary to contract some of these operations in 

 some other lines of agriculture that over produces that in fact create 

 an embarrassing surplus and in which we have to use public funds 

 to dispose of them after we get them, that is your plan. Do I inter- 

 pret that correctly? 



Secretary Brannan. I think I could generally agree. 



Mr. Murray. I think that would apply to milk as well as beef. 

 This last year we had the lowest milk production per capita for many 

 years. 



That would justify your position of wanting to increase the milk 

 production and also the consumption, which would be along the same 

 lines. 



Let us take an example in lieu of that. You touched on it this 

 morning with Mr. Granger. We will take the wool situation. Sheep 

 have gone down one-third in the last 5 or 6 years. 



Our wool production has gone down to less than 300,000,000 pounds. 

 Yet we used 900,000,000 pounds in the United States and we imported 

 600,000,000 pounds. 



Without getting into any foreign-trade discussion, I have always 

 felt that our agricultural program was upside down. We are many 

 times subsidizing a soil-depleting crop and jeopardizing the system of 

 agriculture which is soil building, as, for example, the livestock industry. 



I do not know whether you would want to build the flocks up to 

 the point where we would produce all the wool we need, but at least 

 I understand you would like to strengthen the position of the flocks 

 over its position at the present time. 



Secretary Brannan. The emphasis is on livestock. 



Mr. Murray. It is necessary, without any explaining adjectives at 

 all, to have a support program. There is no use to dodge the issue 

 of having controls. That is a necessity. 



If anyone wants to be supported he must subject himself to con- 

 trols; otherwise it will be difficult to ever put a support program in 

 operation as a basis of apportionment. Is that not right? 



Secretary Brannan. It may be in the long run, but I think we can 

 get a lot of adjustments in American agriculture without using con- 

 trols by the inducement methods that I have been referring to here. 



Mr. Murray. By making it attractive for the farmers to have a 

 balanced agriculture. I realize those possibilities. I have always felt 



