602 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



have a further meeting on it and actually we will have a better ap- 

 praisal of it at that time, that is, at the time of the next annual meet- 

 ing. 



As indicated, the following questions are to be called to the atten- 

 tion of the Congress : 



(a) The program unnecessarily shifts to Government decisions, actions and 

 functions which farmers can better perform individually or through their co- 

 operative organizations. Its operations would multiply the already large staff 

 of Government employees and still further regiment the lives of individual 

 citizens. 



(&) The proposal makes no mention, and ventures no estimate of the cost to 

 the Federal Treasury. The Congress certainly should undertake to obtain a 

 reliable estimate of cost and should weigh that cost and its effect upon the 

 national economy in determining policy. 



(c) The proposal contemplates a priority list of commodities to receive 100 

 percent support prices and a secondary list to receive support to the extent that 

 funds are made available. This is discriminatory. If we are to have general 

 price-support programs, they should be available to all commodities on a com- 

 parable basis. 



(d) The proposal limits participation to that portion of individual farm pro- 

 duction not exceeding a specified limit. This obviously would be difficult if not 

 impossible to administer on an equitable basis. As a practical matter, methods 

 of evasion would be invited and methods of evasion would be found and employed. 



(e) Soil conservation and waste avoidance programs should not be combined 

 with price-support programs. 



I shall be glad to attempt to answer any questions which you may 

 have regarding these or other points. 



Mr. Pace. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. Are there any 

 questions ? 



Mr. PoAGE. Mr. Davis, I would like to ask you a question about 

 the last statement concerning soil conservation and waste avoidance 

 programs not being combined with price-support programs. I would 

 like to have you elaborate a little bit further on that last statement. 



Mr. Davis. I do not think in general that it should be made a con- 

 dition for participation in a price-support program. I think that 

 there are times, particularly in emergencies where you have to make 

 some exceptions. For example, I was talking with a man recently 

 from the Dakotas and he was telling me about the way their land was 

 abused during the war in the production of flax. Of course that was 

 to meet an emergency. Now it may be that during emergency periods 

 like that you should make exceptions. I feel that you should, and I 

 would on that point agree with the man to whom I referred, but as a 

 general proposition we think that such a policy builds up a tremen- 

 dous amount of power and supervision over the individual farmers, 

 particularly if you combine soil conservation, the waste avoidance 

 programs and your price-support programs altogether. It means 

 that the farmer is pretty much regulated, and we should like to hold 

 such regulation to a minimum. 



Mr. PoAOE. I think there is a lot of danger in increasing the power 

 of regimentation, but on the other hand do you* think it is sensible to 

 spend public money to keep a man in business who is destroying the 

 soil, when he is depending upon the soil-conservation money and lets 

 his soil be washed away? 



Mr. Davis. No. That question we have not discussed here, but 

 we have in the past. 



Mr. PoAGE. You have not discussed that, but I will say that you 

 are familiar, and we are all familiar with what is happening in east- 



