608 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Mr. Davis. I am coming to potatoes, 



Mr. HoEVEN. At 90 percent of parity? 



Mr. Davis. I think where you have a commodity where the acreage 

 is pretty well in balance with the long time needs that they probably 

 should not receive anything like 60 percent of parity 



Mr. Sutton. In other words, you agree with the Aiken bill ? 



Mr. Davis. Let me finish. 



Mr. SirrTON. Certainly. 



Mr. Davis. I think where you have a commodity, on the other hand, 

 w^here the production is out of line and adjustments need to take place 

 to hold production in line that something below 90 percent is and it 

 inight be even to bring about a shift desirable to give incentive for 

 a shift. For example, where you have a commodity like broilers ; or 

 vegetables that are produced in a period of maybe 3 to 6 months and 

 YOU can therefore adjust the production quite quickly, you have more 

 argument for making the price incentive the basis for adjustment 

 than in the case of fruit trees which may produce for 30 years or 

 tobacco, which has a marketing period of several years. 



Mr. Sutton. Mr. Davis, with your knowledge of the farm program, 

 with your knowledge of the laws that are on the statute books today, 

 do you think that we could have a good farm program if we had title 1 

 of the Agricultural Act of 1946, amended just so as to take out title 2 

 of the Aiken bill ? I am speaking to you as a man who knows the law, 

 and knows a lot about the farm program. 



Mr. Davis. I think that probably for the basic commodities that 

 would work all right. I do not think it would work best for the non- 

 basic. In other words I do not think you would want to use for the 

 nonbasic commodities the same kind of a program as for basics, right 

 straight across the board, if you are going to have a support for them. 

 That is something that I think needs further study, more study than 

 we have given it. 



Now in more direct answer to your earlier question, I do not think 

 in the Aiken bill that we have reached the full solution. I think it is 

 going to need amendments from here on out. 



Mr. PoAGE. As I understand it, you are endorsing the philosophy 

 or belief that you can reduce the production of the crop decidely down- 

 ward by lowering the price. Is that right ? 



Mr. Davis. Not just by that ; that is a part of it. 



Mr. PoAGE. Well, I understood you to say that where you had more 

 of some crop than is needed maybe it could be reduced by lowering 

 the price. Did you not endorse that philosophy ? 



Mr. Davis. No; I think it is not near as simple as that. For in- 

 stance, let us take as an example potatoes in Maine. I do not think 

 that a price support variation is going to mean immediate shift out of 

 potatoes in Maine, nor is it going to mean immediate shift out of 

 wheat or out of some other crops where they have land that is best 

 adapted for a certain crop. 



Mr. PoAGE. As a matter of fact, Mr. Davis, is it not correct, that if 

 you lower the price many farmers are going to grow more of those 

 commodities? If you lower the price on cotton and lower the price 

 on wheat the farmer is going to put in more acres to get more income ? 



Mr. Davis. That is true, I think, in the part of the country 

 where 



