268 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Secretary Brannan. Is comparable support level the identical 

 support level? 



Mr. Pace. I do not think it necessarily has to be, but I think there 

 should be some fundamental reason for making a difference. 



Secretary Brannan. Does not the language also make reference to 

 availability of funds and authorities, and so forth? 



Air. Pace. Yes, sir; to the extent that funds for such operations are 

 available after taldng into account operations with respect to the basic 

 commodities. 



Secretary Brannan. We certainly can resolve this argument 

 because nobody holds this language to be inviolate, and if it can be 

 amended along the line you are talking about and that disposes of this, 

 we certainly would be happy to do it. 



Mr. Pace. Would you object to this language, Mr. Secretary: 



So as to bring the prices and income of the producers of the nonbasic commodi- 

 ties not covered by such put)lic announcement to an equal parity relationship with 

 other commodities? 



Secretary Brannan. Well, of course, that language would have to 

 be readapted because there is not any public announcement going on. 



Mr. Pace. That is exactly the language and I think that was 

 shooting at 90 percent of parity. This would not only shoot at it, 

 but this Vv^ould hit it. 



Secretary Brannan. That is right. 



The Chairman. You would not want to apply the same rule, to 

 achieve the same objective in handling a nonbasic uncontrolled com- 

 modity, to a controlled commodit}^ that was operating under marketing 

 quotas, would you? 



Secretary Brannan. Ordinarily not, I do not think we would. 



The Chairman. In other words, if a cotton producer accepts a 

 considerable reduction which he is going to have to accept to stay 

 within his quota or face a 50-percent penalty for violation, there is 

 not any reason to have the producer to tomatoes or potatoes and bring 

 him in on the same ratio. 



Secretary Brannan. That is right. 



Mr. Pace. That is the reason I said they should be the same unless 

 there is some fundamental reason for making a difference. I do not 

 think you can support the commodity at a high level unless there is a 

 limitation on production. 



wSecretary Brannan. That is where the chairman said you opposed 

 Mr. Poage's position. 



The Chairman. Do you not agree with the statement that you 

 cannot afford high support prices unless you do have commodity 

 control? 



wSecretary Brannan. I think that is generally true, although we 

 did support the price on corn when we did not get production. 



Mr. Pace. The Aiken bill says that the support shall be 20 percent 

 higher either when marketing quotas or acreage controls are in effect. 

 Do you subscribe to that? 



Secretary Brannan. We have tried to provide substitute for it. 



Mr. Pace. Let me be fair in my question, and let me go a little 

 further. The marketing quota producers have agreed on two things. 

 They have agreed that they do not enjoy a support price, or the Aiken 

 bill provides that they enjoy only 50 percent of parity support. They 

 also subject themselves to marketing penalties; that is right, is it not? 



