GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 361 



for an agricultural program. Thus, this committee and Congress as 

 a whole are confronted, in the main, with three alternatives. These 

 are: 



(1) To leave matters as they are and to permit title II of the Hope- 

 Aiken Act, with its lower support levels, to go into eflfect on January 

 1,1950; 



(2) To propose simple extension of the existing supports and either 

 postpone or eliminate the title II provisions ; 



(3) To adopt legislation embodying the proposals made by the 

 Secretary of Agriculture. 



In these circumstances, the National Farmers Union is strongly back 

 of the Secretary's proposals and urges this committee to place them 

 before the House in legislative form. 



Naturally, members of the committee are not to be expected to accept 

 every dotting of an "i" and crossing of a "t" in the secretary's sug- 

 gested program. We realize that in detail there is room for honest 

 difference of opinion upon the part of men of good will. Indeed, the 

 Farmers Union witnesses whom I shall next present to the committee 

 will make many such suggestions. But this does not impair in any 

 wa}^ our conviction that the secretary's program is sound, statesman- 

 like and by far the best of the general alternatives before Congress. 



The proposal of the secretary can be regarded as a milestone both 

 in the struggle to maintain and preserve the family-type farm, and 

 in the effort to tie together the interests of producers and consumers. 

 Especially significant is Mr. Brannan's suggestion that a differential 

 be established in type of farm benefiting from price support. 



Never before has a Secretary of Agriculture in a general farm pro- 

 gram suggested that special consideration be given family-type farm- 

 ers as distinguished from large "factory farm" operators. Congress 

 for many 3'ears has sought a means whereby its often expressed senti- 

 ments favorable to family farms could be translated into actual pro- 

 gram term. The Seci-etary has suggested such a device and principles 

 which can be followed. 



The proposal does not go as far as we had hoped. It is an excellent 

 beginning and a long step in the right direction. 



Likewise, the proposals for the use of production payments to sta- 

 bilize farm income and to maintain consumer food prices at reasonable 

 levels are timely and significant, as is the new minimum income 

 standard for support prices. 



Of the other major alternatives before Congress, one would mean 

 severe contraction of farm income. This is the alternative of letting 

 the title II "sliding scale" provisions go into effect on January 1. The 

 severity of this imi)act upon farmers' incomes has not been generally 

 realized. It has been dramatized in terms of a single family farmer 

 by Mr. Eoy F. Ilendrickson, himself a former top official of the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture and now Washington representative of the 

 Natianal Federation of Grain Cooperatives, in an analysis presented 

 last December 14 to the annual meeting of the stockholders of the 

 Farmers Union Grain Terminal Association. 



Thus, with 3,100 bushels to sell- 

 Said Mr. Hendrickson — 



with the loan agnin impoT-taut to Tohn X. Doo, he finds his gross income is 3,100 

 times $1.20, or .$3,760 less interest and service charges. Doe remembers 1948 

 with $7,200 gross against 1950 with $3,760 gross. I could, but I will not, quote 



