GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 565 



we are getting a little too low; maybe it might be better to fix the per 

 diem at $40 per day. But at any rate the bill should provide enough 

 pay, and that the members would be expected to receive reports from 

 the executive committee and devote such time as may be necessary to 

 their consideration when the Board is not in session. "We would have 

 the Board meet at least bimonthly, and choose the executive conmait- 

 tee from its own ranks, and not choose the executive committee for any 

 term, but change them whenever any one of the executive committee 

 members was not satisfactory, so that the executive committee would 

 truly represent the Board members. 



Now as to the duties of the Board : First, as I have said, to keep in 

 close touch with the marketing situation. I have talked with 

 heads of chain stores in making this suggestion, and I have talked 

 with others, and we believe that the marketing group, and other 

 groups would be glad to cooperate in pushing items in long supply if 

 they had such a board comprised of members who are thoroughly 

 familiar with the distribution system; that the processors would be 

 equallj' glad to have information concerning commodities that are in 

 long supply; and we think the farmers would also be glad to have 

 information concerning such conunodities. Now, they cannot do that 

 today without danger of violating the Sherman antitrust laws, so there 

 would need to be some authorization permitting them jointly to take 

 such practical steps to move surpluses. We think it would meet prob- 

 ably 60 to 80 percent of the problem, particularly in fruits or vegeta- 

 bles; probably 80 percent of the problem would be solved by use of 

 that instrumentality, by making use of the means we now have in a 

 more practical way. That would narrow down the problem to a few 

 crops in surplus supply. We do not know offliand how many crops, 

 but certainly it would narrow them down very substantially. 



In our testimony we discussed flexible supports, and pointed oyt 

 that there are some types of cases where we may get too much produc- 

 tion because the support price is just naturally too high. In such 

 cases it ought to be lower. We believe in flexibility of support prices 

 if it is properly applied. 



We discussed wheat and cotton and stated that in such circumstances 

 as we find ourselves today we do not believe flexible support prices 

 would meet the situation. We have got to have fixed floors in some 

 cases. If we are going to have fixed floors, then we have got to have 

 marketing controls, and acreage controls. We recognize that in this 

 complex situation there have got to be many different devices. 



We discussed a straight subsidy, and said that that might be neces- 

 sary, but that if it were necessary we would like to see the funds 

 raised through some system of price insurance. The position of the 

 Grange has always been strongly opposed to a direct subsidy paid to 

 farmers or anybody else from the Treasury, so strong, that I could 

 not say to you that our people would favor them under any normal 

 circumstances. We recognize that there may be emergency condi- 

 tions where it might be necessary, nevertheless. 



If it were possible to have an insurance system that could take care 

 of these direct payments I pointed out that it would be far better, 

 because it would keep it out of politics. It would keep out of politics 

 the question of everybody campaigning for better and better sub- 

 sidies for agriculture. We believe that it would really be a long step 

 forward. 



