290 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



US well, starts with a price relationship by commodity. If it happens 

 to have served the national farm income well, that was incidental. 



The other approach has been an income approach, not a guaranty 

 but an income approach. I think that is the first important thing_ 

 I agree with you that under the provisions of title II, or the Aiken 

 provisions, we could, in my opinion, do most of the production pay- 

 ment type of operation which we have been discussing here recently^ 

 The addition in our recommendation was first that we spelled it out 

 so that there would be no question in anybody's mind as to what the 

 word "payments" meant to us and so that the committees, the Con- 

 gress and the people would know what was to happen as a result of 

 that word and what our intentions were with respect to it. I do not 

 know what Senator Aiken had in mind when he put the word "pay- 

 ments" in. I think he had the sort of things we have been talking 

 about, but I am told by some other people who were interested in the 

 bill at the time that he had no such idea, that the word "payments" 

 would not allow such things as I have been talking about. 



Therefore, it seemed to me that it was highly important that we 

 get it out on top of the table and talk about it so that if whoever is 

 Secretary of Agriculture on the day that the word "payments" appears 

 in the legislation should do something as I have done, there would 

 not be a great howl of surprise and a feeling that that is not what it 

 meant. That is the second objective of what we were trying to say 

 in our presentation. 



The third thing was that we raised for the committee's considera- 

 tion the question as to whether or not there was some limitation 

 beyond which the application of price supports was in the public 

 interest. That is the unit limitation. 



Mr. Granger. I hope you have not hauled the flag down on that 

 proposal. When you propose legislation, is that provision going to 

 be in the bill? 



Secretary Brannan. It is in the draft today, sir. 



Mr. Granger. I hope it stays there. At least one member on the 

 committee does not agree with what the chairman said yesterday. 

 I think it is still the objective, is it not, of the farm thinking people, 

 to maintain the man and his family on the farm in this country? 



Secretar}^ Brannan. There are many recitations to that effect in 

 the record today. 



Mr. Granger. And that is, we think, a desirable thing? 



Secretary Brannan. Yes. 



Mr. Pace. Will the gentleman yield? 



Mr. Secretary, you probably want to call attention to the fact that 

 the difference in your plan is a very material difference due to the 

 fact that you do not resort to this flexible support feature contained 

 in the Aiken bill? 



Secretary Brannan. Mr. Pace, I think that is right. The term 

 "flexible," of course, has taken on the connotation of low price sup- 

 ports. As I understand the operation of the mechanisms which took 

 on the term "flexible," they would eventually, by moving down the 

 price as the main factor in controlling production, result in lower 

 prices. 



Mr. Pace. Which is a principle you do not subscribe to? 



Secretary Brannan. That is right, Mr. Pace. I would not want 

 the record to show that there was rigidity and inelasticity in the 



