586 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



The questions regarding the commercial area in wheat cover many of the same 

 considerations as those dealing with corn. Here the primary questions appear 

 to be those of administrative flexibility and feasibility. In general, we believe 

 that considerable leeway in adding to or subtracting from the so-called com- 

 mercial area, is highly desirable. Discrimination between the two areas can only 

 be justified if no substantial injustice is done by exclusion from the commercial 

 area. In turn, such injustice cannot be avoided if those areas which in actiiality 

 become of the commercial type are not included as rapidly as this comes about. 

 This observation seems also to apply to the last question asked by the chairman. 

 If it is administratively feasible, obviously it would be better to eliminate entirely 

 the commercial and noncommercial definitions, but it appears that such action 

 as this would lead into very expensive and detailed administration. 



The third, fourth, and fifth questions all relate to farm feeding and to substitu- 

 tion as between different grains, mostly for feeding. There is no doubt that 

 limitation of any cereal program to corn and wheat alone can be only a stopgap 

 measure, nor is there very much doubt that farm feeding of any grains must be 

 taken into account in evolving control programs. There is equally little doubt 

 that such extensions of control programs provide infinite and enormous head- 

 aches. Perhaps it will be possible to get by the next year or so witli the simple 

 return to acreage allotments and marketing quotas on wheat and corn but in the 

 end some action must be taken to include all cereal crops and to include virtually 

 all of the production. 



To our mind, these questions and the difficulty in answering them in the frame- 

 work of present legislation provides an excellent argument for one of the basic 

 principles of the draft bill laid before this committee on April 27 by ^Ir. Glenn 

 J. Talbott, chairman of the executive committee of the National Farmers Union. 

 Members will recall that this bill proposed a new approach toward the problem 

 of making crop adjustments and commodity adjustments in agriculture. For 

 one thing, it declared specifically that all agricultural commodities shall be 

 considered "basic commo<lities." For another, it offered a new device for placing 

 all agricultural commodities on an equal basis. This was the suggested inter- 

 changeable commodity unit termed in the bill the family farm production unit. 



Mr. Talbott explained to the committee at that time in great detail our view 

 that equal treatment for all agricultural commodities offered the best prospect 

 for easy and effective year-to-year adjustments in production. I will not attempt 

 to duplicate to the committee at this time all of the arguments that Mr. Talbott 

 and our other witnesses made on behalf of such an approach. At this time, 

 however, I should like to recall the discussion between some members of the 

 committee and our witnesses regarding the difficulty of making adjustments even 

 granted the adoption of such a program as we had outlined. 



The principal of these diffi<'ulties were (1) limited experience and training 

 of farmers, which rendered it difficult for, say, a wheat farmer to shift into daii\v- 

 ing; (2) the relatively heavy expenses involved in making some of the de.sirable 

 shifts; (3) limitations imposed by nature, such as climate and character of soil. 

 The last of these may be dismissed, so far as the total national picture is con- 

 vcerned since nearly all tillable soil in the United States can be used for at least 

 two or three purposes, other things being equal. As to training and experience, 

 I am inclined to think that this also is a negligible factor in the total picture. 

 However, it is always possible for the Congress to expand the kind of work done 

 by the Farm Security Administration and intended to be done by the Extension 

 Service in assisting farmers to meet exactly such problems as this. The ex- 

 perience and the patterns for helping fai-mers to make this kind of transition are 

 readily available from past governmental programs. 



The real and principal obstacle, however, to widespread crop adjustments on 

 a voluntary basis is financial. Therefore, I suggest that the committee may 

 well now begin giving consideration to evolving some new kind of production 

 adjustment credit facilities. I am not suggesting, necessarily, that Congress 

 authorize a large direct loan program, although we in the National Farmers 

 Union have never objected as have others to direct Government credit to farmers. 

 But in this instance it might be wholly possible to develop a system of production 

 adjustment credit based either on the insurance principle that is embodied, for 

 example, in Federal Housing Authority loans or the cooperative principle as 

 demonsti-ated in the loans of the Rural Electrification Administration to cooi>era- 

 tives or by the production credit associations to farmer members. 



Such credit would have to be tailored to fit the needs of an adjustment program 

 and not be competitive with existing types of Federal credit arrangements. It 



