408 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



the county committee to see that I did not sell more wheat than my 

 quota. 



Otherwise there were certain penalties. 



Mr. Andresen, . But you may have put your wheat on the market 

 and sell it at a loss. As I understand it, you contemplate a support- 

 loan program for a certain amount of the production. I do not know 

 whether you use the 1,800 units that Mr. Brannan proposed. 



Mr. Talbott. We use basically a similar formula. 



Mr. Andresen. Of course, if you have a support loan under a certain 

 portion of your production, as I see it, and you let the rest of it go 

 at the market price, then the Government may become the owner of 

 what is under the loan and the price, naturally, if we produce an 

 abundance, will go rather low in the market place. 



Mr. Talbott. I believe that would not be quite different from the 

 way we have handled the storable commodities that have been handled 

 with the support loan or the purchase agreement or direct Govern- 

 ment purchases. 



I thoroughly agree with the theory of production payments or 

 compensatory payments because I think in the long pull the consumers 

 have to have some kind of a break out of this. It relates to their 

 living costs and their income. 



Mr. PoAGE. Clearly you can give the consumer that break if the 

 Government will pay that difference and you can still allow full pro- 

 duction if the Government will pay that difference. But the point 

 I am getting at is, how you can give the consumer that break and give 

 the farmer the opportunity to have full production and at the same 

 time hold your price up in the market place. 



I just do not think you can do both. I am asking for information 

 as to how you are going to do both under any program. I will agree, 

 you can do either one, but I don't think you can do both at the same 

 time. 



Mr. Talbott. As I outlined to the chairman earlier, there was some 

 difference of opinion in our group. Some feared that the open market 

 price might be higher than it ought to be to give substantial advantage 

 to family-type farmers and others thought it M^ould be right up sub- 

 stantially to the two top brackets in our proposed support, the 100 

 percent and the 80 percent. 



I do not know any way that that can be proven until something is 

 tried. 



Mr. PoAGE. As long as you are restricting the acreage produced or 

 as long as you have marketing quotas, then the man who is getting 

 his support out of the sale of his product, even though it be through 

 the Commodity Credit Corporation in the form of a loan, is getting 

 it only on a portion of what he would normally produce, is he not? 

 I go back to that picture on the wall. 



Those people are picking cotton. Under all of the plans that have 

 been proposed for the support of the price of cotton, it has been sug- 

 gested that somebody reduce his production. 



Nobody has come in here and said, "Go out and find Carl Albert. 

 He has 100 acres that he normally plants in cotton. We are going 

 to let him plant 100 acres and the price is going to drop 9 cents but 

 we are going to pay him the difference between that 9 cents and the 

 fair price." 



