GENERAL FARrSI PROGRAM 425 



I hope I did not leave the impression that we thought it was a very 

 simple business to get all of the adjustments within agriculture. We 

 do think it will be almost impossible without very rigid regimentation 

 if we go back as we did prior to the Steagall amendment to the Price 

 Control Act to the consideration of only six basic commodities and 

 just hope that enough crumbs will automatically fall off to take care 

 of the others. 



I think you are not going to get farmers generally to shift out of 

 supported crops to nonsupported crops without handling it in such 

 a way that they do not have any choice about it. 



Mr. Pace. Will the gentleman yield '. 



Mr. Hope. Yes. 



Mr. Pace. But you do think that the shifts can be brought about 

 more easily and more happily through the inducement of higher prices 

 rather than the force provided in the Aiken bill \ 



Mr. Talbott. That is exactly right. The Aiken bill, in my judg- 

 ment — and I say this without criticism of Senator Aiken, whom I 

 personally think is a great gentleman and a good friend of agricul- 

 ture — has the theory, as I understand it, which is only a matter of 

 degree — of going back to pre- 1929 and the so-called survival of the 

 fittest, dog-eat-dog, and the fellow who could not make it would go 

 into the ranks of migrant farm workers, or unemployed lines in the 

 cities, or wherever it is. 



The differnce between 60 percent of parity and no percent of parity 

 is just a matter of degree. Parity, as I understand it, and as it has 

 been sold to the American people as a concept, is that price for agri- 

 cultural commodities which is supposed to be fair. Perhaps I should 

 qualify that by saying it is supposed to be the nearest fair of any 

 period that we had up to that time. It does not mean it is too much 

 or too little, but the best period, presumably, from the standpoint of 

 farmers in terms of price relationship, that we have ever had. 



On that theory, I know of no basis, Mr. Chairman, from an ethical 

 standpoint, from a moral standpoint, and certainly not from an eco- 

 nomic standpoint, by which we can justify any drop in parity for 

 family-type farms. Parity is supposed to be parity. If the parity 

 formula is inaccurate and is not in itself parity, that is an entirely 

 separate question and we would be glad and we hope to be able to 

 discuss either with the Congress or administrativel}' all the points on 

 that problem. But, whatever is presumed to be parity, I know of no 

 justification to talk about any fraction of parity. 



While there are more dollars for a farmer at 90 percent of parity 

 than at 60 percent of parity, personally, I do not think 90 percent of 

 parity is any more justifiable from ah ethical or moral standpoint 

 than 60 percent of parity or 20 percent of parity. If parity is parity, 

 I thhik that is what we are entitled to; and, if we are not, let us recast 

 parity and determine officially that we are entitled to something less 

 than that. 



^Ir. Hope. I still have not had my question answered. 



Mr. Talbott. I am sorry, Congressman Hope. 



Mr. Hope. I am not putting myself in the position of being a lobbyist 

 for the Aiken bill, l)ecause I disagree very much with some joints of it. 

 In spite of that, the general over-all theory of the Aiken bill is the 

 same as your bill, and that is that you should liave shifts in production. 



