GENERAL FAR:M PROGRAM 529 



B. With hundreds of different commodities each with its own special 

 problems, it will be impossible to enact legislation of such detail and 

 scope that it will meet all the contingencies which may arise. Legis- 

 lation should avoid too rigid details, should establish goals to be 

 attained, and should grant adequate discretionary powers to some 

 responsible board or official to administer so as to attain the goals or 

 desired results set forth in the law. 



C. No single remed}' will meet the complex jjroblems of diversified 

 commodities under all kinds of conditions and locations. Any pro- 

 gram should consist of an ample number of stand-by devices with 

 adequate flexibility and latitude of use to assure maximum results. 



The essential purpose of any program is to attain equitable prices 

 for farmers for their products while maintaining abundant production. 

 There are two major suggested approaches to the problem, one being 

 through employing effective marketing practices, and the other by the 

 use of price supports. "We belieA'e both are needed. 



In the matter of supports there are many ideas, but we hope it is 

 not an oversimplification to divide them into two groups: {a) Definite 

 fixed supports or price guaranties, maintained through subsidies, or 

 the^ionopoly of restricted production: and (b) supports designed to 

 attain reasonable stability with more or less flexibility in their appli- 

 cation. Considerable controversy has arisen over the merits of these 

 two approaches. We maintain that in some cases, one type may serve 

 best, while in other cases the other type may best be used to attain our 

 goals. Again we believe legislation should be broad enough to permit 

 the use of whichever type will most fully attain the end sought as 

 outlined in the law. 



The 1948 legislation drew a line between basic crops and others, with 

 very definite means of treating basics. Secretary Brannan has quite 

 logicalh' differentiated between storable and perishable crops and has 

 recommended definite fixed supports for the former with subsidies for 

 the latter. 



We rather like the Secretary's differentiation, but we do not like the 

 subsidy approach. AYe believe that in most cases there is a far better 

 way. We believe it possible to develop marketing methods which will 

 largely solve the problem of perishables and avoid the undesirable 

 elements of any subsidy program. 



Committee members are aware, no doubt, of the effectiveness of 

 drives to market certain items of surplus products, when well con- 

 ducted and widely particpated in. We believe effective and sound 

 marketing practices can be so developed as to meet a large part of our 

 problem, if participated in by producers, processors, and distributors. 



We recommend the creation of a marketing commission or advisory 

 board made up of representatives of producers, processors, and dis- 

 tributors, appointed by the President in consultation with the duly 

 elected representatives of these industries, as nearly as practicable on 

 a bipartisan (or nonpartisan) basis, confirmed by the Senate, for 

 definite terms of office. This board would have as a major respon- 

 sibility the task of keeping a continuing record of supplies and pro- 

 spective demand for farm products, having available to it all the 

 statistical facilities of the Government for the purpose. It would then 

 make recommendations from time to time to producers and processor 

 as to production, and to distributors as topushing items in surplus 



