GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 597 



It is important to keep in mind that America could not possibly 

 enjoy her present standard of living if we still had 80 percent of our 

 people engaged in agriculture. Actually, according to recent BAE 

 figures, half of our farmers produce over 90 percent of the produce 

 which goes to market. Thus it is that 10 percent of our population is 

 producing food 'and fiber for themselves and the 80 percent living in 

 urban areas, and. in addition, supplying farm commodities for ship- 

 ment abroad. The other 10 percent, classified as farmers, are produc- 

 ing chiefly for their own subsistence. 



There seems every reason to believe that we will continue at least 

 for a time to require a decreasing percentage of our population in agri- 

 culture. By so doing we can further increase our standard of living, 

 provided we make sound adjustments in agriculture, and provided we 

 push forward our nonagricultural frontiers so that productive employ- 

 ment will be available for those no longer needed in agi'iculture. In 

 saying this I am not anticipating that we will abandon the family- 

 operated farm, since I believe it is possible for the family unit to con- 

 tinue to be as efficient, or more efficient, than any other type. However, 

 it will require some adjustment in the typical sized unit, an adaptation 

 of equipment for family units, and greater economy in buying supplies, 

 jjrocessing and marketing. 



The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives supported S. 2318 

 (80th Cong.) last year because we believed it provided reasonable 

 security for farmers and at the same time permitted desired progress 

 to take place. We believe that it is highly essential for any farm pro- 

 gram to be reasonably flexible in order for these objectives to be rea- 

 lized simultaneously. We believe further than Government's prime 

 role should be that of taking some of the shock from agriculture in 

 times of emergency and of helping to implement desired changes in 

 agriculture so as to get our farm economy on a basis where a minimum 

 of Government aid will be needed. Where adjustments are essential, 

 we believe it is sounded for govermnent to use all of its agencies, 

 including credit, price supports, research, and extension, to help bring 

 the adjustment about, rather than to use these agencies to provide 

 security by protecting the status quo. Thus it should always be an 

 objective of Government to promote adjustments which will ultimately 

 require less Government aid rather tlian more. In all such programs 

 farmers should be encouraged to assume for themselves all of the 

 responsibility possible, on a voluntary basis. While considering farm 

 progi'ams for the future, let us not lose sight of the fact that the 

 voluntary system of the past has resulted in the development of the 

 greatest agricultural economy in history. Doubtless, we can improve 

 it further by wise Government assistance, provided we move slowly 

 enough so that we can be sure we are moving in the direction we want 

 to go. Let us not get so impatient that we lunge ahead without loiow- 

 ing for sure where we are going. Generalh' speaking, support prices 

 should not be so high as to discourage desirable voluntary adjustment. 



As I have already stated, we believe the best approach to a farm ■ 

 program is to improve what we have by amending existing legislation 

 on the basis of experience. Therefore, I now want to suggest some 

 specific changes in the Agricultural Act of 1948. 



We propose that the 1948 act be amended to provide. 



