470 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Mr. CooLEY. Oh, no. If it is a good thing to have a little money, it 

 is a nice thing to have more money. 



Mr. Kline. I agree with the latter and disagree with the former. 



Mr. Pace. Mr. Hill, have you finished ? Our hour is nearly up. 



Mr. Hill. I will say to the chairman that there is nothing more 

 important than ]Drice supports. 



Mr. Granger. Mr. Hill, it seems to me the answer to your question 

 on the flexible provision of the 60-percent parity is that it provides 

 til at the farmer gets 90 percent of parity when he does not need it. 

 When he is down and broke, they give him 60 percent or zero. Tl\e 

 theory of regulating the acreage breaks all these fellows and their 

 ground goes back to tumbleweeds. You then feel you have solved 

 the whole problem. 



Mr. Kline. I disagree. 



Mr. Hill. Now, I will ask you to turn to page 2, Mr. Kline. You 

 make a very interesting suggestion. That is what I was trying to 

 get to when we got into all these difficulties. You simply say, "We 

 think it is highly significant that both the Democratic and Republican 

 platforms specifically endorse flexible price supports." 



Then you make this suggestion, which I want you to develop for 

 just a second in the interest of time. "The farm program has been 

 developed essentially on a bipartisan basis" and here is one member 

 of the committee who does not totally agree with that. Will you tell 

 me what you mean by the farm program and wliat you mean by essen- 

 tially developed on a bipartisan biisis' Where did you come to that 

 conclusion and how? 



Mr. Kline. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Congressman, this whole matter 

 of agricultural legislation, since we began working on it in the twen- 

 ties, has been a very successful effort. 



To get together the best thinking on agricultural matters, to get it 

 from farmers, from farm organizations, from people who were in 

 administrative positions in the Government and out of the Congress 

 in both Houses, and toi put it together in the farm legislation, we 

 had what was called the farm bloc for a number of years. It was quite 

 nonpartisan. It was certainly bi])artisan. It sponsored a good deal 

 of farm legislation. At least they got tooethei- and discussed the 

 elements of it and came out with a certain amount of agreement. 

 The agreement finally eventuated in legislation on the books in the 

 interest of agriculture and what was thought wise. The Agricultural 

 Act of 1948 was developed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate and, 

 after all, it finally was agreed upon. There were a lot of difficulties 

 which it is not necessary here to recount, but the Farm Bureau has 

 gone all the way in attempting to give credit to those leaders in both 

 parties who cooperate sincerely in an effort -to devise agricultural 

 legislation which is both wise and in the interest of farmers. We 

 certainly lio])e that in this Couiifress as in other Congresses we may 

 have the most sincere efforts of JNIembers, regardless of party. 



It seems to me the agricultural program is one which has such 

 public interest that we must kee]3 it off a partisan basis if there is 

 any possibility of doing so and we will continue to work to that end. 



Mr. Hope. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for a 

 question ? 



]Mr. Pace. Will the gentleman yield ? 



Mr. Hill. I will yieid to Mr. Hope. 



