GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 1095 



profitable for our agriculture to continue the production of certain 

 unwanted crops. Our people are interested in more food; but they 

 want it in such items as more and better meat, milk, cheese, and other 

 high standard of living foods. They do not object to using a reasonable 

 portion of their income for food purchases. But they dislike spending 

 part of their income for food purchases. But they dislike spending 

 part of this income for the production of unwanted commodities as 

 they are now dong through taxation. 



That may sound like a peculiar statement since I do not represent 

 a farm area. But I know that the people I represent want a truthful 

 answ^ to our farm problems. They want legislation that will work 

 and that will not bankrupt our Govermnent. After all, our farmers 

 have just as much stake in a sound, effective Government and eco- 

 nomic system as does the city dweller. 



Our farmers realize that their security is no stronger than their 

 ability to produce the types of food the consumer wants to buy. They 

 have no security when their affairs and production are manipulated 

 by one or two people at the Washington level. 



I have considered at length these farmer and consumer interests 

 and problems in regard to farm legislation. As a result, I introduced 

 H. R. 2368 earlier this year. This legislation is not a cure-all — it is 

 just a beginning. It will start our Government on a constructive 

 and nonbankruptcy path to helping farmers bring their production 

 in line with consumer food demands, and at the same time will en- 

 courage more and more farmers to conserve and make better use 

 of their soil resources. 



We should first recognize what took place on our land to produce 

 our 1948 crops. Of the nearly 351,000,000 acres harvested in 1948, 

 approximately 148,500,000 were used for intertilled or row crops, 

 129,000,000 for close-growing or small-grain crops, and 73,500,000 

 acres for meadow or hay crops, as part of a soil conserving and building 

 rotation. 



A close analysis of 1948 row crop and small grain production shows 

 that at a very minimum approximately 43,500,000 acres which were 

 used for row crops and 28,500,000 acres for small grain should have 

 been in meadow or hay crops for a minimum soil-conserving rotation. 

 (Estimates based on study material used to compile testimony for 

 Long Range Agricultural Policy Hearings, House of Representatives, 

 March 10, 1948.) 



It is very conservative to say that one out of every four acres in row 

 crops or small grains in 1948 should have been in a meadow or hay 

 crop for a minimum soil-conserving rotation. Likewise, we would 

 not have a serious maladjustment to agricultm-al production today if 

 our land were being properly used. 



It should be possible through payments, as outlined under H. R. 

 2368, to reduce the corn acreage 5 percent, the wheat acreage 13 

 percent, and the cotton acreage 20 percent in this country by Federal 

 payments not to exceed $200,000,000 the first year. This coidd be 

 done on the basis of converting 20 million acres of land that had been, 

 for the previous two or more years, in corn, wheat, and cotton to grass 

 and woodland at the average rate of $20 per acre, the Government 

 paying $10 per acre or one-half the total cost. Let me point out that a 

 reduction of so large an acreage of these three crops the first year would 



