GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 239 



to maintain a farmer buying power of around $26,000,000,000, and. 

 one of the major newspapers in my State took information from that 

 and made the statement, "Poage says Brannan's plan costs $26,- 

 000,000,000 per year." 



I want to make it plain that I have never been under any such mis- 

 apprehension, nor ever assumed the plan would cost $26,000,000,000, 

 because I realize full well if there is any market value to any of the 

 crops grown by the American farmers it could not cost that much. 



I offer that by way of trying to correct the record, to make apologies 

 for any unintentional injury that might have been done, because I 

 know, as well as anybody else, that is a mistake. 



I want to discuss with you particularly, Mr. Secretary, two things 

 today. 



First, I would like to clear up a matter which disturbs me about 

 the possibility of discrimination in your plan as against the various 

 commodities. 



All of our program.s in the past, as I understand it, have recognized 

 that the growers of commodities were entitled to a little more favorable 

 treatment if they reduced their acreage or their production than if 

 they, as a class, did not reduce it. 



I do understand that 5^ou propose under certain circumstances to 

 impose marketing quotas and other restrictions in production; but, as 

 I understand it, the plan you propose right now would impose upoc 

 the growers of the staple commodities, shall I say the storable commod- 

 ities, such as cotton, wheat, and corn, the necessity of reduction in 

 farm acreage long before it would impose it upon those who produced 

 the specialties or the perishable commodities. That is generally 

 speaking correct, is it not? 



Secretary Brannan. That may be the net result. 



Mr. PoAGE. That is what I mean. 



Secretary Braxnan. But it would be the net result, because 

 already we have considerable stores of those commodities, or it looks 

 as though we are going to have a considerable carry-over of those 

 commodities in the next producing year. There would be no emphasis 

 on trying to apply acreage limitations or marketing quotas to the 

 storables in preference or priority to any other commodity. 



As a matter of fact, one of the objectives of the program would be 

 to increase the consumption of some of those commodities,, particu- 

 larly corn, by increasing livestock and reducing the cost of livestock 

 so that more people can consume it. 



Again going back to our 1,700, 000, 000-some bushels of corn, the 

 objective would be to get more of that converted into hogs and into 

 the market place at reasonable prices. 



Mr. PoAGE. I understand that, but as of the moment we would 

 expect that next year there would be marketing quotas on cotton 

 and wheat, we will say. That would probably follow, whether we 

 adopt your plan or not. 



Secretary Brannan. That is right. I think the possibility of 

 acreage limitations or marketing quotas in cotton and perhaps wheat 

 is something that stares us in the face right now. 



Mr. PoAGE. That is right. 



Secretary Brannan. For which the Congress has already made 

 provision. 



