436 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



can or will continue to produce abundantly, but whether they will be severely 

 penalized for doing so. 



=• * * * • * ! * 



The need to put into operation a flexible, well-integrated and varied farm 

 program is urgent. In addition to flexible price supports intelligently adapted 

 to postwar conditions, consideration should be given as parts of a coordinated 

 program to such measures as the provision of adequate storage facilities, more 

 adequate credit accommodations, crop insurance, food stamp or allotment plans 

 for orderly marketing of bumper crops, production of diets of children and low- 

 income families by devices assviring levels of consumption consistent with real 

 food needs, guided redistribution of farm population, rural electrification, and 

 Federal aid for improved rural medical, hospital, education, and research 

 facilities. 



The American Farm Bureau Federation does not view the Agri- 

 cultural Act of 1948 as a complete farm program instead, we view 

 it as the cornerstone around which a more complete program may 

 be built. 



I should like to discuss with the members of this committee the 

 features of the act which we deem to be especially important. 



First of all, we think the philosophy of the legislation is sound. It 

 is based upon the premise that we can develop in this country an 

 economy of balanced abundance, and we subscribe to this approach 

 because we believe it is the only way really to protect the op])ortunity 

 for farmers to get adequate income. We do not believe the American 

 people can permanently get more by producing less. Therefore, we 

 hope to use every available opportunity to provide markets for farm 

 production and thereby avoid undue Government restrictions and 

 production controls. 



We are convinced that unwise farm-price policy in this country 

 may cut us out of badly needed export markets. The effect of such 

 policies will be less rather than more farm income. This is especially 

 important in the commodities which historically have had an export 

 market — particularly cotton, tobacco, and wheat. 



We are convinced that we cannot protect farm income by adopting 

 price policies which will unduly restrict the use of products or en- 

 courage the use of substitutes. In addition, farm overhead costs on 

 individual farms are relatively fixed and there is a definite point at 

 which net income falls as output is restricted in order to maintain 

 price. This is true even though it be assumed that price can be 

 maintained and output controlled without cost. 



We are convinced that the level of price support should be tied to 

 :farm supplies, and that farm prices should be used in helping to 

 guide farm procjuction. 



We are interested in trying to develop policies and programs which 

 will avoid burdensome surpluses in feed grains by encouraging the 

 translation of increased feed production into greater livestock pro- 

 duction. A recent study conducted by Michigan State College shows 

 that if, during the period 1930-48 we had had 2 percent more live- 

 stock in this country, we would not have had a wheat surplus during 

 this period. Likewise, if during this same period, we had had 5 

 percent more livestock, we would not have had a surplus of any of the 

 feed grains. 



Many people are convinced that, with the tremendous expansion 

 in wheat production which has occurred in this country, and the proba- 

 l)ility of reduced foreign outlets, American wheat producers must 



