422 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



I just do not feel that I ought to make any positive statement, in 

 fairness eitlier to ourselves or the Secretary, until we have had more 

 opportunity to make the jn-ojection so that we could have sound con- 

 clusions based on a fact rather than an opinion. 



Mr. Andresen. Will the gentleman yield ? 



Mr. Albert. I w'ill surrender the floor. 



Mr. Andresen. All of us here received a copy of the National Farm- 

 ers Union Weekly for last week. I got the impression from the first 

 page of the paper that your organization claimed that Secretary Bran- 

 nan's proposal was the proposal of the Farmers Union and t|iat you 

 were back of it 100 percent. I do not know whether I was the only 

 one to get that impression. 



I understand from what you have said here that there are certain 

 objections that you have, as far as you have been able to learn, to the 

 Secretary's proposal and that you would like to have a change. 



INIr. TxVLBOTT. I stated this morning, Congressman Andresen, that 

 insofar as we could analyze the principles of the proposals of the Sec- 

 retary, we felt we could endorse them wholly, but the application of 

 some of those principles falls in some respects considerably short of 

 what we think needs to be done in our viewpoint as representatives of 

 family-type farmers. 



Mr. Andresen. The Secretary has been here for several days, and 

 we have been ti-ying to get details as to application of his pro-am. 



Mr. Talbott. I did not have an opportunity to listen to the hearings, 

 so I am sure you are much better informed as to tlie details of the 

 Secretary's proposals than we are. 



Mr. Pace. Mr. Talbott, in that connection the Secretary declared the 

 desirability of bringing about parity income to the farmers of the 

 Nation. One of my complaints with the Secretary was that, while he 

 made one of the most splendid statements that I have ever listened to 

 in that connection, he presents a program which does not assure the 

 farmers parity income, nor does it contain the accelerating clause to 

 lead toward parity income. 



Late yesterday afternoon lie stated that he did not object to, but 

 would reconnnend, if his plan should be enacted into law, the inclusion 

 of a provision which would gradually move up over a period of, we will 

 say, 5 years toward a complete parity income for f annei'S. 



Wovdd you be in accord with such a provision? 



Mr. Talrott. I think I woud, although I have a sufficiently technical 

 mind that I would like to be able to project it myself to see what the 

 ideas are before I could say "Yes" or "No'' definitely. Of course, Wo 

 are in accord with the principle of parity income. Whether the appli- 

 cation of a particular program Avould result in parity of income, o.. 

 whether prospectively it would result in it or not, I do not know. 



Mr. Pace. Of course, he makes a statement on that. He says his 

 program would give about 60 or 70 percent of parity income. If T 

 had my way, I would write into this bill today complete parity 

 income. 



I think if a wage earner is going to realize a minimum wage of 75 

 cents an hour, almost double the present minimum wage, now more 

 than any other time the farmer should get himself on a com])arable 

 basis and not wait. The Secretary fears that to do that would bring 

 about prices that might not be generally acceptable. Certainly we 



