374 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



land versus the interests, if I might put it that way, of the large 

 industrialized type of agriculture. 



I might say also that for nearly 30 years now the administrations 

 that have been in power in Washington in both parties have, on many 

 occasions, stated their conviction that independent farm families in 

 agriculture was tlie most desirable pattern of agriculture in this 

 country and should be encouraged. 



In studying agricultural legislation over a period of more than a 

 quarter of a century, I find any number of pieces of legislation where 

 the Congress, particularly in tlie preambles of bills, has stated its con- 

 viction that family-type farming in the United States was most 

 desirable and should be promoted. 



In any case, as you wnll note as we go through the bill, the whole 

 context of it is very definitely to promote the interests of family-type 

 farmers without too much regard to the other kind of agriculture. 



The next im])ortant ])oint is in the second paragraph in section 101. 

 You Avill readil}' note a rather radical or wide departure from past 

 treatment of agricultural connnodities where we say to the extent 

 feasible we want all commodities given equal treatment, all connnodi- 

 ties. That is one of our points of ])erhaps minor, although it seems 

 rather major to us, disagreement with the Secretary where he selected, 

 in addition to the historic basic connnodities, the six basic connnodi- 

 ties, a few additional ones, and called them group 1 connnodities which 

 should have prioi'ity in terms of treatment. 



We believe that all commodities need to be treated on an equal basis 

 in order to effectuate democratically the necessary shifts into and out 

 of production of various kinds of crops; in other words, the adjust- 

 ments necessary within agriculture. We believe that that can be done 

 for reasons that I shall attempt briefly to outline without, in most 

 instances, having to resort to acreage allotments, marketing quotas, or 

 other similar production controls, although as a safety factor we nuike 

 it clear in our draft of a bill that the ])resent authorities for invocation 

 of such controls shall remain intact for us if, as, and when they might 

 become imperative. 



In connection wuth that dejiarture from the historic treatment of 

 agricultural connnodities, I should like, in effect, to challenge the 

 rather long-time assumptions which have run like a thread through 

 all farm legislation, particularly since 1933. 



No. 1 is the assumption that agricultural surpluses are sort of an 

 inevitable proposition, that .we have them and we will have them. Our 

 own thinking in that regard is predicated on what we believe to be 

 facts. 



First, we have not nearly come to the point as yet where we are even 

 breaking even on the depletion of soil resources. We have not as 

 yet, in our judgment, a total soil-conservation or soil-building pro- 

 gram that is maintaining or rebuilding our soil even with the speed 

 with which it is being depleted. 



Secondly, new land available for agricultural production is prac- 

 tically nonexistent other than to such extent as irrigation may open 

 up relatively small amounts of land at some point in the future. 



Thirdly, we have continuing the problem of population increase and 

 the best estimates that I have been able to get, which I know of no 

 reason to challenge, are that probably by 1975 our population will 

 increase by about 20 percent over its present levels, which would give 



