GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 401 



The fellow who was only going to get support on what to him 

 would be a relatively small percentage of his crop would probably 

 say, "I am not going to cut my acreage or abide by anything that I am 

 not mandated to abide by just to get full support on a relatively small 

 percentage of our total year." 



We have a rather limited knowledge of some commodties and a basic 

 knowledge of some commodities that we have studied. 



We had available to us only the results of the 1944 census and there 

 were inherent difficulties in breaking that down into the categories to 

 meet the situation we hope to meet. 



We think it is a close estimate that we would cover, under the 

 5,000 units and the 2,500 units in combination, about 95 percent of all 

 of the farmers in the country as compared to the 98.3 percent that the 

 Secretary's proposal would cover, and that in volume of commodities, 

 excluding for the moment the 60 percent level, the two top levels 

 would cover some place between 75 and 80 percent of the total produc- 

 tion of the commodities. We understand the Secretary's proposal 

 would cover about 88 percent of the total production of the commodi- 

 ties. 



As I understand it, he proposed to cut off any support at 1,800 units. 



Mr. Pace. Would you yield, Mr. Albert, to let us go into that 

 feature ? 



Mr. Albert. Yes. 



Mr. Pace, Mr. Talbott, the diificulty I have had — and I have had 

 the opportunity to talk to Russell Smith about it, in accepting this 

 principle of supporting ])art of the crop, is, first, the probable expense, 

 assuming, as you just stated, that you would support 75 percent of 

 the crop. 



Then you would have 25 percent either in the free market or under 

 60 percent support. 



I think 25 percent of any crop in a free market can only have one 

 result. That is to lower the general market price of that commodity. 



Let me illustrate cotton. Let us say you have a 12,000,000-bale 

 crop of cotton. Under your plan about 9,000,000 bales would have 

 either 100 or 80 percent support. 



You would have 3,000,000 bales with either no support or at 60 

 percent. 



In the first place, I think the unsupported part of the crop would get 

 some benefit from the supported part. I think it would have a 

 tendency to raise the general market level. 



Then, on the other hand, while the supported part would bring 

 up the general average, I think the unsupported part would bring 

 •down the other and that you would wind up with a market price, we 

 w;^ill say, at 80 percent of parity. 



Then that would mean that under the support program at 100 per- 

 cent, the Government would have to pay to the producer the difference 

 between 80 percent and 100 percent if the market price came down to 

 80 percent. 



That would be 3 to 5 cents a pound for cotton. Consequently, that 

 could be $25 a bale on, we will say, eight or nine million bales. 



It would be quite a sum of money. Do you agree with me tliat those 

 two things would happen, that the unsupported part would go up 

 ,and that the supported part would come down ? 



