468 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



prodiK'tion and also to so develop demand that you coidd avoid 

 unnecessary controls. We have made the point repeatedly that our 

 real hope is a prosperous America and an improvement in diet, 

 which means an increase in the use of livestock and livestock products, 

 and the balance is just this narrow that if in the past 20 years we had 

 had an increase of somethin<>- less than -1 percent in the use of live- 

 stock products it could have tal^en care of the wheat surplus that you 

 have heard so nnich about. If we had had an increase in the use of 

 livestock and livestock products in America of a little less than 5 

 percent it would have used all of our <iiain surpluses. It is a rela- 

 tively narrow balance. It does hinge rather dramatically on this 

 matter of a prosperous America, but I doubt the possibility of having 

 in America a really and truly prosperous agriculture without a com- 

 pletely prosperous economy. 



Mr. (tranoer. Will the gentleman yield there? 



Mr. Hill. Xo, I wanted to ask another question first and then I 

 will yield. 



AVould it improve that j-art of the bill called the Aiken part if we 

 increased the parity payment up to a level where the farmer could 

 actually produce it at least at cost and get it away from zero to (50 and 

 say 75 or 90 percent on all basic or nonbasic crops? I do not think 

 those words mean a thing in the world because when you call some of 

 these crops basic and then leave out some important crops, you are just 

 playing with words. Would that improve the Aiken bill, in your 

 opinion? 



Mr. Kline. You said parit}^ payments. 



Mr. Hill. I mean the percentage stated in the Aiken bill. It must 

 drop down as the supply increases. 



Mr. Kline. You mean minimum price supports ? 



Mr. Hill. That is right. 



Mr. Kline. And you wonder whether the minimum should not be 

 raised to 75 or 90 percent? 



Mr. Hill. In other words, become a floor and the flexibility would 

 be above the floor. That is the question I am asking. 



Mr. Kline. It is certainly the hope of our farmers that we can 

 have a price which will not be a Government price. We believe that 

 the problem of getting real income in agriculture, and particularly 

 per ca])ita income — and this is a case which cannot be overlooked — 

 divided by the number of people in farming includes some problems 

 which are not primarily agricultural. They are national problems 

 and they are concernecl with a great many people with too little 

 resources and price has but little effect in that area. Per capita income 

 requires that there be per ca])ita production. It is certainly our inten- 

 tion both to earu a high standard of living and to get it, but it is nor 

 our firm belief at the moment — in fact, our belief is to the contrary — 

 that that sort of income is to be had by a Government support price. 

 We think that will in.evitably reduce the standard of living in rural 

 communities b}' restricting the efficient production of agricultural 

 commodities on the basis of what a farmer furnishes to society and 

 expects to get paid for. 



Mr. Hope. Will the gentleman yield for a question ? 



Mr. Hill. Just a question because I want to pursue this one step 

 further if I can ever get to it. 



