GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 201 



outside of the priority class, whether it is 8, 10, or 15, be supported in 

 line with or in relation to the priority group, taking into account the 

 available funds and authorities. That is entirely new language. 



Secretary Brannan. Well, it may be, but it is very similar language, 

 Mr. Pace, to the language which was in the old Steagall provision. 



Mr. Pace. Of course, Mr. Secretary, it is not the Steagall language 

 and the fact that it is different is significant. Here is the Steagall 

 language in the over -all. 



Secretary Brannan. Mr. Pace, we were trying to get the Steagall 

 language as it was adaptable here. 



Mr. Pace. Let me give you the Steagall language. You support 

 these other commodities "so as to bring the prices and income of the 

 producers of nonbasic commodities not covered by public announce- 

 ment to a fair parity relationship" with other commodities. 



If we were going to use the price support standard, then we could 

 not use the language "fair parity relationship." 



Secretary Brannan. I have expressed myself before, Mr. Pace, to 

 the efl'ect that I thought that fair parity relationship as it has been 

 defined and used recently was not a very realistic target. That is 

 the only reason that language has been abandoned. 



Mr. Pace. Then you tell us if this provision should become the law 

 and the act should contain that language, that the other commodities 

 outside of the priority 10, whatever they are, would be supported in 

 relation to the priority 10. How do you construe that? How would 

 you administer that language? 



vSecretary Brannan. IJnder this general principle and subject from 

 time to time to the instructions of the Congress, who very often when 

 they appropriate funds also indicate how they want them spent. We 

 have set up a national income goal. We have listed 10 or 1 1 commodi- 

 ties which, from the standpoint of the income of the farmer, are key 

 commodities in the total income. They were also selected because 

 they are the key commodities in the consumer budget. 



As far as possible, to achieve the national standard income, that 

 level below which it is not in the national interest to allow farm 

 prices to fall, we would attempt to use what additional funds were 

 available to support the other commodities in order — also keeping our 

 eye on the national income objective — to achieve a fair level of farm 

 economy. The national income objective we suggested at around 

 26.2 billions of dollars for 1950. That is how it happened to work 

 out according to your table. 



That is not, in my opinion, an appreciably different situation than 

 what we do today. We do not support every commodity that is en- 

 titled to be classified as an agricultural commodity, but we do sup- 

 port many of those which have a more or less direct or appreciable 

 impact on farm income. It would seem to me that the very same 

 rule would apply again here. 



Mr. Pace. Let me see if I can state that simply. In the interpre- 

 tion of this language your policy on the nonpriority crops would be a 

 support level which would maintain the over-all farm production at a 

 specified level? 



Secretary Brannan. Yes, because we are showing national farm 

 income here as the real objective, not specific commodity prices. 



Mr. Pace. Then you say, Mr. Secretary, that on the 10 top priority 

 crops you recommend they get the 100 percent support, quoting your 

 words. 



