466 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



is also a matter of record that we aggressively supported the act with 

 that provision in it. It is further true that the support of prices for 

 many nonbasic commodities, which we are also for, is an extraordinar- 

 ily difficult proposition and that there is, therefore, in our testimony 

 a clear-cut attitude that this may be necessary but simply pointing 

 out that it has these dangers for farmers inlierent in it and that there- 

 fore we do not wish to set it up as a major dependence. 



Further, it is true that we have proposed some amendments to make 

 effective the act of 1948 and that we have not made any suggestion 

 with regard to the elimination of this provision. In fact, we do not 

 suggest it. 



Now, with regard to how to make it effective. I know of no way to 

 make that aort of thing effective except by appropriations by the 

 Congress to make the difference between what is determined to be the 

 support price and what the market price turns out to be. 



Mr. Hope. I take it your view is that there may be times when it 

 will be necessary to use payments in your price support programs. 



Mr. Klixe. It certainly is in the statement of the American Farm 

 Bureau Federation that that is true, that there is this possibility that 

 we may be forced to do that sort of thing even though we would hope 

 that it could be held to a minimum. 



Mr. Hope. This committee has before it now a bill to provide for 

 authorizing the Secretary to use payments in supporting prices on 

 hogs for the remainder of the present calendar year. You commented 

 briefly on that a while ago. I did not understand clearly whether 

 you felt that that was a good thing to do, that is whether you thought 

 we should change the law so as to provide for price supports on hogs 

 for the remainder of this calendar year and before the provision for 

 the Aiken bill would go into effect which would permit that. 



Mr. Klixe. We should like very much, Mr. Congressman, to study 

 the bill and to make available to you the results of our study on it 

 and our attitude with regard to it. I have not so far seen it. 



Mr. Hope. You are not in a position to express your views on it 

 at this time ? 



Mr. Klixe. That is right. 



Mr. Pace. Mr. Hill. 



Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, I have a question or two on the state- 

 ment made by Mr. Kline. 



On page T, INIr. Kline, you discuss the flexible price supports show- 

 ing, as I suppose you attempted to do, that the Democrats and Repub- 

 licans in their platforms supported price supports. My question is, 

 What was the idea in the Aiken bill of giving it such a variation from 

 nothing to 90, or from 60 to 90 ? Wliat I would like for you to make 

 plain to me is why we should not, in an amendment to the Aiken bill, 

 bring up the base. No farmer can produce crops at 20 to 30 to 40 to 60 

 percent of parity. Why not cut down that flexible price support re- 

 lation and put a floor or a base under which no farm product shall 

 be sold? 



I am asking you to give me a little enlightenment on why we should 

 not cut down that distance between nothing and 60. 



Mr. Klixe. The provision for zero to 90 percent supports is in 

 the nonbasic area and is qualified by tlie eight different and specific 

 qualifications in subsection a of section 302 of the act of 1948, with 

 which I am sure you are familiar. 



