354 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



dry peas, if they submit to the hmitation of production through 

 marketing quotas, it has been the philosophy of the Congress up to 

 now that when they do that they enjoy a higher level of support 

 because they must enjoy a high level of support on a limited produc- 

 tion in order to get the same return as a lower price would bring them 

 on an unlimited production. Franldy, the philosophy is not clear to 

 me. Maybe there is some soundness in the philosophy back of that. 



The Chairman. Let me ask him a question. You have no objec- 

 tion to moving peanuts into a different category; have you? You 

 just put it into that category because it was not one of the big crops 

 in volume? 



Secretary Brannan. That is correct. 



Mr. Pace. But do you not agree with me that so far as the individual 

 producer is concerned, that is very important? 



Secretary Brannan. Certainly, that would apply to wool and 

 celery and carrots, too. 



Mr. Pace. In addition to these recommendations, Mr. Secretary, 

 you do recommend that this committee give consideration to the 

 perfection and strengthening and improvement of the other parts of 

 the present farm program? 



Secretary Brannan. That is right, sir. 



Mr. Pace. In that you include soil conservation, rural electrifica- 

 tion, rural telephone service, rural health, rural education, agricultural 

 research, extension service, home economics, cooperative credit, 

 school-lunch program, and crop insurance. You specifically recom- 

 mend that those programs be retained, perfected, improved, and 

 strengthened; is that right? 



Secretary Brannan. Because they are all part of a very fine farm 

 program. 



Mr. Pace. Then your recommendations would be that the Com- 

 mittee give consideration to their improvement and strengthening 

 along with their other considerations? 



Secretary Brannan. That is right, and I understand that they have. 



Mr. Hope. Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn, as I understand it the 

 Secretaiy will furnish the committee with a comparison, as far as the 

 statisticians can work it out, as to the income support level and the 

 parity formula of the Aiken bill as projected in the future? 



The Chairman. You understand what Mr. Hope is driving at? 



Secretary Brannan. Yes, sir; and I think what we will do, if we 

 may, sir, is get a little material outlined and check it with you to see 

 whether it is what you want. 



(The information requested follows:) 



The following tables have been prepared to indicate the probable trend in the 

 price-support standard proposed by the Secretary of Agriculture and the price 

 support and parity formulas under title II of the Agricultural Act of 1948. These 

 tables show (1) projections of the price support standard proposed by the Secretary 

 for the group I or priority commodities under specified assumptions for the years 

 1950 through 1953, (2) projections of the probable price-support ranges for major 

 commodities according to title II of the Agricultural Act of 1948 under specified 

 assumptions relating to the trend in parity prices under the same act for the 

 years 1950-53, and (3) projections of the parity prices under specified assumptions 

 according to title II upon which the probable price-support range estimates are 

 based. 



