GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 293 



on this assumption, Mr. Hope, that farm income relative to the 

 national income and individual average farm income ia relation to 

 the individual average nonfarm income are still proportionately low 

 on the farm side. 



Maybe 20 3'ears from now we might have to take another look at 

 this whole thing, or in a lesser period of time. But during that period 

 of time we do have this area of difference, this 60 percent differential 

 against farm people in the national average income. 



Mr. Hope. Are we to conclude from what you have said that there 

 will be more likelihood of the need for controls in the way of acreage 

 allotments and marketing quotas and marketing agreements under 

 your program than there would be under the Aiken bill program 

 because of the higher price level and consequently the greater induce- 

 ment to overproduce? 



Secretary Brannax. Mr. Hope, the only premise on which you can 

 answer that in the affirmative would be that some day in this country 

 we would have the production of all of the things that all of the people 

 needed and all of our world trade completely and fully satisfied at 

 good prices to farmers. For the time being it means much less con- 

 trols because it induces the shift out of commodities in long supply 

 now by relying on price inducement as the chief factor rather than 

 relying on price reduction as the chief factor, which in my opinion 

 will not achieve the result anyhow, and therefore will cause us to have 

 to put in limitations at lower prices in any event. 



I think Mr. Granger referred to the experience we had with wheat 

 at low prices. I am sure you are well aware of that. If I may refer 

 to that again, I will cite an example in the case of potatoes where 

 we have reduced the support price and the volume seems to be coming 

 along almost as great as it was last year. 



Mr. Hope. I woidd like to go into that a little more, but I do not 

 want to take any more time right now. I thank Mr. Granger for 

 yielding to me. 



Mr. Granger. Coming to your proposal, under the special storable 

 commodities, is wool considered one of those storable commodities? 

 Actually, is it storable? 



Secretary Brannan. Yes, sir. 



Mr. Granger. Then why did you take it out of the preferred class? 

 Under the Aiken bill you will remember that wool received treatment 

 reverse to the treatment of other commodities because of the amount 

 of wool produced. 



It had a different status in the Aiken bill because of that reason. 

 Why did you take that out and treat it differently under your proposal? 



Secretary Brannan. For rules of logic, Mr. Granger. The group 

 1 commodities include the list of commodities the sale of which con- 

 tributes most substantially to the total national farm income. As you 

 go down the list of those commodities wool is not found very near 

 the head of the list because it is one of the smaller items of national 

 income. 



Mr. Granger. Is that the reason you took out peanuts and rice? 



Secretary Brannan. Exactly, sir. 



At the same time, lambs went in because they were part of the total 

 meat production of the country, which is No. 1 or No. 2 in its con- 

 tribution to total national farm income. 

 91215 — 49— pt. 2 11 



