GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 577 



Mr. PoAGE. I think so, too. I think it is a much sounder program 



and that it has a much better effect on the farmer. I think it, of 



' course, saves the general taxpayer some money, unquestionably, and 



in the long run it would give the farmer a more stable program, 



as I see it. 



As I envision it, certainly this Congress is going to be much more 

 inclined to continue a program in which there is farmer participa- 

 tion than to have to go into the Treasury every year for a new appro- 

 priation to pay what seems to be simply a gift to someone. 



Mr. Goss. Tying your remarks into our suggestions, the payment 

 of cash payments from an insurance fund would have precedence 

 in desirability beyond and above cash subsidies. 



Mr. PoAGE. Now, I want to ask you about another thing because 

 I believe your program recognizes the thing that I think should be 

 recognized and that has not been recognized by some of the witnesses 

 who have been before us. 



As I understand it, you do not suggest that we should make the 

 support for cotton dependent upon some variable formula that would 

 give us from 60 to 90 percent or from to 90 or any other figure 

 of that kind, but that you recognize that in the case of those crops 

 such as cotton — and there are others — where the producers are willing 

 to reduce their acreage, they might very well take the reduction in 

 acreage rather than take it in price. You have to take a reduction 

 somewhere. We realize that you cannot simply produce an unlimited 

 amount and get an unlimited price for it. We know that. 



But it has been suggested by some that the reduction should all 

 come through prices. Certain commodities are willing to take reduc- 

 tions in production. A commodity like cotton or wheat can very 

 well do that without injury to the national economy, as I see it, 

 because we produce more of those commodities than are used in the 

 United States. We export a substantial amount of cotton, a sub- 

 stantial amount of wheat, a substantial amount of tobacco. Those 

 go into export. Therefore, the domestic consumer cannot complain, 

 as I see it, when we reduce the production of those commodities, 

 as long as we produce what is needed in the United States. He 

 might have a more valid criticism if we reduced the production of 

 milk where we probably need more of it in the United States. 



As I understand it, you recognize that there is a difference and 

 that if the producer is willing to take his reduction in acreage you 

 would still be willing to place a floor of 90 percent of parity under 

 his product. Is that correct? 



Mr. Goss. That is correct ; but it needs a little more explanation. In 

 the order of preference that the National Grange ado])ted in such situa- 

 tions we preferred a two-price system under which the surplus would 

 be used for inferior uses or secondary uses on a self-supporting basis. 

 But we expressly stated that there are some crops, particularly those 

 that we raise in export volume, where we probably would have to use 

 marketing allotments or acreage controls, particularly to get adjust- 

 ment from our war conditions to normal conditions. 



Mr. CooLEY. Will the gentleman yield there? 



Mr. PoAGE. Certainly. 



Mr. CooLET. You could do both, could you not, Mr. Goss? You 

 could do what Mr. Poage suggested and still, in addition thereto, have 



