GENERAL FARM PROGR.\jM 333 



perfectly obvious that through the gradual changes that have over- 

 taken our Nation we must regulate or we perish. Is that not about 

 the situation, Mr. Secretary? 



Secretary Brannan. Mr. White, I think there is a great deal of 

 substance to what you have said. We have demonstrated in some 

 commodities already that we must ask the producers of those com- 

 modities to impose regulations upon themselves if they are to enjoy 

 the benefits of a price-support system. 



Mr. White. That is right. A lot of our people want to eat their 

 cake and have it too. They do not want any regulation. They 

 overlook the fact that this mechanization in agriculture has an exact 

 parallel in the automotive field. 



The invention of the automobile has robbed us of our liberty to 

 cross the intersection at the time we choose — 30 years ago there was 

 a big hullaballo about the traffic signals. A lot of people fought 

 against them but they have gradually come to the point where they 

 are glad to accept them. They want them because they know at 5 

 o'clock in the afternoon at the street intersection they would be 

 honking at each other in a traffic jam and could not get home. That 

 is exactly what has happened to us in our agricultural economy. We 

 are forced to accept controls whether we like them or not. I certainly 

 do not like controls but I am willing to give up that amount of my 

 rugged individualism that will produce the proper well-being of 

 all of us. 



I just wanted to get that in the record to comiteract some of the 

 things that have been said today about your desiring to be a dictator. 

 I think that you are only asking for what controls are absolutely 

 necessary and that you want to have a minimum of controls, as I do. 

 I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. 



The Chairman. Congratulations. You made it m 5 minutes on 

 the nose. 



Mr. Cotton? 



Mr. Cotton. Mr. Secretary, I though one of the fine things about 

 your proposal was the desire to utilize surpluses for the benefit of the 

 consumer and the American people instead of going back to the old 

 system of destroying them or curtailing production. 



I understood when you came in with your second statement that 

 the benefit to the consumer was somewhat secondary and collateral 

 to the program which is fundamentally for the farmer. 



That is right, is it not? 



Secretary Brannan. Yes, ir, 



Mr. Cotton. If the consumer is to benefit from this plan, with 

 whatever necessary expenditm-e it involves, is not the next step some 

 sort of price control for the consumer? Otherwise this will all be ab- 

 sorbed by the processor, or the middleman, and the merchant before 

 it gets to the consumer. Is there not that danger, Mr. Secretary? 



Secretary Brannan. Air. Cotton, I believe not, and I will give you 

 an example of why I believe that. We are talking now about perish- 

 ables. If we allow the commodity to seek its level in the market place, 

 the processors and handlers will handle it just as they do now. 



Under the philosophy of the proposal they may benefit to the extent 

 that there is an increased volume for them to handle. But when we 

 go back to make the payment directly to the farmers there is no 

 taking off of percentages of the money on the way back to the farmer. 



