384 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



grading identically the same, for $1 .12 a bushel. The cost of my trac- 

 tor went up about 80 ]:>ercent as compared to 3 years ago, and the in- 

 come from my barley went down about 140 or 150 percent as com* 

 pared to a year ago. That is part of the problem that farmers are 

 confronted with. 



The second major thing that I think needs revision in the weight- 

 ing of the cost indices in the parity formula is, to illustrate the point, 

 feed grains. Out in the area where farmers raise cereal grains, the 

 cost of feed is given the same weighting in terms of the farmer's cost 

 that it is given in the feed-deficit area where the cost of feed to a dairy 

 farmer or a poultry producer is a very substantial part of his costs. 



It seems to us, therefore, that we need a very careful review of the 

 weighting of the cost factors, perhaps by groups of commodities, Mr. 

 Chairman, which have similar characteristics, similar production prob- 

 lems, similar capital investment requirements, and similar operating 

 cost, deprecation, and so forth. It seems to us that perhaps four or 

 five parity formulas by groups of commodities might be a good ap- 

 proach if we are to continue to use the parity foniiula that we have 

 thought of in the past. 



The second thing that we ask the Secretary to do is to bring in such 

 revisions as may be indicated by reasons of shifts in production and 

 such other revisions of the parity fornnila as may render it more 

 equitable to all groups of producers of agricultural commodities. I 

 would like to say before I move on from section 105 that if we are to 

 stay with the old parity formula rather than the Secretary's new for- 

 nuila, go to income support standards, we very definitely wish to urge 

 that — perhaps it can be done administrativel}^ — the Congress consider 

 a revision and a bringing up to date, on the basis of a modern base 

 and on the basis of realistic weighing of the cost indexes that go to 

 make up the parity index for agricultural commodities. 



I think, as I stated a moment ago, that we may find ourselves — my 

 own belief is we probably will — in support of the Secretary's new 

 formula. Until we have time for more projections and more oppor- 

 tunity^ to discuss it and work it out, we cannot at this time be completely 

 sure of that. 



Section 106. As a matter of forward plannnig and forward an- 

 nouncement of support prices and the determination by the Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture, we consulted with the community, county, and 

 State PMA committees for the goals in terms of which we should shoot 

 in agi'icultural production, and in relation to agricultural commodities 

 those goals, of course, will be set in relation to domestic need, the prob- 

 lems of foreign difficulties appearing, and the problem of the need for 

 adequate reserves. That largely deals with the administrative prob- 

 lem. It is our thinking — and this largely is done now — that the inten- 

 tions of producers to plant are gotten through the community and 

 State PMA committees and can all be funneled into Washington and 

 related to the over-all needs for each commodity on the part of the 

 country that goals them. In terms of what we need and how it might 

 be broken down most efficiently among the States and the areas and 

 the counties, it could be sent back through the community committees. 



As I stated earlier, if all commodities are given comparable treat- 

 ment, we think then we have an opportunity to get very great volun- 

 tary shifts in production emphasis among the commodities. This 

 largely is an administrative problem. There is one thing that I should 



