824 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



reasons. First, emphasis on a livestock economy is in line with past 

 tendencies and the future needs of American agriculture, including 

 the vital need for conservation of our soil resources. 



Second, a greater provision of meat and other livestock products 

 (that is, dairy products) in the American diet is one of the most 

 practical and effective ways of improving the general level of health 

 and raising the standards of living of our people, especially for those 

 who need these gains most. 



For the reasons set forth in this statement, I strongly endorse the 

 general principles embodied in Secretary Brannan's program. I trust 

 that this committee, on the basis of its study of the program, will 

 recommend to the House of Representatives the enactment of legisla- 

 tion giving expression to Secretary Brannan's recommendations. 



Now, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pace, I would like to take 

 a couple of minutes to offer several additional suggestions. 



This statement was prepared about 6 weeks, actually, when we 

 thought we would get on then, and since then we have been thinking 

 a little more, and so I will be very brief in indicating what our thoughts 

 are. 



I haven't mentioned here that we rely on the basis or principle 

 that the family-type farm should be mainly benefited and that its 

 income needs support most. 



We like that provision in the original proposal of Secretary Brannan 

 which reconsidered the dividing line of $25,000 gross income. It seems 

 to us that there would be much to be said for not extending the 

 limitation in the form of allotments for acreage limitation, to say 

 those farmers whose income has grossed over the 10-year average 

 period less than $6,000 a year. Their net, I would suppose, on the 

 average is not more than $1,200 or $3,000, and it just strikes us that 

 on the basis of family needs that they ought to have a bit more 

 flexibility, if they can put in a few more acres, than those farmers for 

 the most part by the very nature. That is the limitation on their 

 income. They do not have too many acres to play with. Any increase 

 that they might be able to make in acreage, in view of how the indi- 

 vidual farmer analyzes the prospect, will not be treated in the form 

 of possible burdensome supplies of the particular commodities that 

 they produce. 



We would also like to endorse the point made by the Secretary 

 himself that this whole approach to the support price and income 

 parity does not reach several million, I judge, subsistence farmers, 

 those who are down at the bottom of the scale; and he himself said 

 that the Farmers Home Administration was worthy of further devel- 

 opment and expansion. I think that is an extremely valid point, that 

 for those farmers whose cash receipts really do not bring them in 

 a position to benefit, it was not the income approach; they need 

 other methods of shoring up their position. 



Now the Secretary mentions the school-lunch program, and cer- 

 tainly there, I think, the statistics afford a demonstration of the need 

 for expanding that program; and, by the way, it would seem to us to 

 be a very good program to see to it that every kid in school gets a 

 serving of meat once a day. I think the packers would like it as well 

 as the packinghouse workers, too. 



Finally, it seems to me that while we are all hopeful that unemploy- 

 ment will not snowball and become unmanageable, nevertheless it 



