GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 455 



changed, it will still be 108. Then he ^Yould call for a vote on mar- 

 ketinof quotas. We will assume that the producers will vote for 

 market in Of quotas. 



That, I think, is a fairly safe assumption, since they always have 

 in the case of cotton. Then marketing quotas would, of course, be 

 in effect for the 1950 crop. If the crop in 1950 was such in volume as 

 to raise the supi:)ly to 130 ])ercent or more of normal, which I do not 

 think it would do with the marketing quotas, then the loan rate would 

 be 72 percent of parity. If the supply, as determined by the carry- 

 over on August 1. 1950, and the prospective crop was less than 130 

 percent of normal, the loan rate would be 1 point higher for each 2 

 points the supply was loelow 130 ]:)ercent of parity. If the supply was 

 to turn out to be" normal, the loan rate would be 90 percent of parity. 



I think we all knovr how it works on tobacco. In peanuts it is 

 similar to cotton, with one exception, and that is that in the case of 

 peanuts under the present law marketing quotas will be in effect every 

 year provided producers vote marketing quotas. 



Thank you. Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Pace. Tliank you. Mr. Randolph. 



Mr. Kline, will you present your next witness? 



Mr. Klixe. Mr. George Wilson of California, a member of our 

 executive committee. Mr. Chairman, 



Mr. Pace. Mr. AVilson, we are delighted to have you here and will 

 be delighted to hear from you. 



STATEMENT OF GEOKGE WILSON, MEMBER, EXECUTIVE COM- 

 MITTEE. AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 



]Mr. WiLSOx. I am George Wilson from California. In our State 

 in the farm bureau we divide the responsibility. Mr. Wiser being the 

 president and I l)eing the representative to the American Farm Bureau 

 Federation and. while home, actually operating my own farm as do 

 many of our directors Avhose entire time is not taken with their State 

 responsibilities. 



We in California are interested, of course, in the basics, but largely 

 in the nonbasics. because we have so many of those commodities. We 

 feel that it has taken a tremendous amount of work on the part of 

 this Congress and of American farmers to try to work out a reasonable 

 program for the relatively few basics, which have many similarities. 



We feel that the nonbasics are so many in number and of such great 

 dissimilarity that it has been difficult to work out a program that 

 would apph' to all of them. We feel we are making progress, how- 

 ever, in that field. We feel that we will make greater progress in that 

 field within the act of 1948 than we will be able to under any other 

 proposal of which we have heard. That is largely because we believe 

 that the amount of Federal money required to make the act of 1948 

 effective on the basic commodities will not be as great as it would be 

 unde)- som" other proposals, and consequently that there would be 

 more probability and })ossibility of getting financial aid from Con- 

 gress with which to meet the S])ecial problems of our nonbasic com- 

 modities. One of the factors which I think is cjuite important in this 

 whole thing which I think probably does not get enough considera- 

 tion, often from farmers themselves, is the rapid movement of crops 

 within areas. 



