GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 291 



proposals because as a matter of fact I think it is quite responsive. 

 As you were pointing out yesterday, it could be too responsive to the 

 changes in national income. It is responsive to the general economic 

 conditions and is not a rigid, fixed objective. It moves forward with 

 time. It reflects all of the new things which come to bear ui)on 

 agriculture. It reflects the changes in oiu- national economy. 



Mr. Pace. Thank you. 



Mr. Hope. Will you yiehl to me just one minute? 



Mr. Granger. Yes. 



Mr. Hope. There is this difierence between your proposal and the 

 flexible provisions in the Aiken bill, that you will not have under your 

 proposal a price incentive for a movement out of one commodity into 

 another hy recent changes that might be made in the price supi>ort 

 program. 



Secretary Brannan. That is right. T do not know \\'hether you 

 were in your seat, Mr. Hope, at the time I said that to Mr. Granger 

 just now. That is correct, sir. 



Mr. Hope. As to flexibility, you might say that undo' the Aiken 

 bill you have a two-way flexibility and under your bill you would just 

 have a one-way over-all flexibility. In the Aiken bill you have 

 flexibility between the price programs for the difl'erent commodities. 



Secretary Brannan. There is flexibility between the prices of 

 specific commodities under my proposal. The ultimate price of a spe- 

 cific commodity reflects not only national farm income but it also 

 reflects farm purchasing power interpreted into dollars and finally is 

 related to the 10-year history of the price of a specific commodity. It 

 might move either way in relation to that scale. 



One commodity might move in one direction and another commodity 

 might move in the opposite direction, depending upon its 10-year 

 history. That was the reason I thought it most advisable that we 

 &ee how it works and give this 2-year lag for everybody concerned to 

 get a good look at how it is going into operation. 



The farmers would know, the Departm.ent would know, and the 

 Department could come to Congress if there were some abnormalities 

 and talk them over and make the adjustments either by legislation 

 or by general authorization of the Secretary, whichever the Congress 

 felt most desirable. 



Mr. Hope. Tho point I had in mind was that under the Aiken 

 bill, as I understand it, there was the idea that you, as Secretary 

 of Agricultui'e, would directly influence the planting or withholding 

 from planting of various commodities because of the authority which 

 you had to fix, within certain limits, the price support for that 

 particular commodity. The theory was that if you provided for 

 a lower price support the planting of that particular crop would be less. 



If you provided for- a higher price support it would be increased. 

 You do not contend, do you, that you have that type of flexibility in 

 your program? 



Secretary Brannan. There is all of that, Mr. Hope, coupled with 

 the very expressed intention that in place of reducing prices to get 

 people out of producing that particular commodity, certainly as far 

 as the next 4 or 5 years are concerned you will give inducements to 

 them to go into some other type of production. 



Mr. Hope. That is on the theory, I presume, that under your 

 program the minimum price support is the income support standard.. 



