614 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Mr. Davis. I do not know that I understand you noAv. Do you 

 mean that I would turn more power over to the Secretary than some 

 other programs suggested ? 



Mr. HoEVEN. I would suggest in your general statement that when 

 you say that the method should be adapted to the needs of the particu- 

 lar commodities being supported, who is going to decide as between 

 geographical parts of this country and the product itself, just how 

 and wlien that is going to be done? 



Mr. Davis. I think when you start applying the program to nonper- 

 ishables you will have to write some more law to apply to those. 



Mr. HoEVEN. We are getting at that. Can this committee specifi- 

 call}^ write the law in any kind of proposal like that? 



Mr. Davis. I think so, but I do not think all of it in 1949 because 

 we have had no experience with many of the perishable commodities 

 other than the marketing-agreement type of program. 



Mr. HoEVEN. You are willing, then, to carry on the Aiken proposal 

 as is with certain amendments? 



Mr. Davis. With certain amendments now and then as we have ex- 

 perience ; amendments from time to time in the future. I think rather 

 frequently, perhaps, on the commodities with which we have had no 

 experience. 



Mr. Pace. Are there any other questions? 



Mr. Granger. Yes. 



Mr. Pace. Mr. Granger. 



Mr. (Jrangek. Mr. Davis, in your statement, as I read it, you en- 

 dorse the Aiken bill and amend it in three particulars, relating to 

 liired help and the parity formula, extension of marketing agree- 

 ments to include certain commodities, and then you clip the wings of 

 the PMA. That is all the amendments you propose to the bill. 



Mr. Davis. 1 do not believe you saw the one at the top of page o. It 

 asks for comparable treatment of basics and uonbasics. 



Mr. (jRANiiEK. Yes. You are a farmer and have been connected 

 with farming o])erations, I suppose, for a long time. Do you think 

 under any flexible program that you could bring stability to the 

 farmer if you are going to change him this year and his parity price 

 is going to be one figure and then another? Do you think it would 

 ever be i)ossible to give any assurance to the farmer of where he is 

 goiHg, or are you going to kee}) him in a dither all the time? Do you 

 ]U)t think it would be better to make the price as stable as we coukl? 



Ml-. Davis. CVrtainly. I would be for all the stability we can give 

 the farmer now and that is what 1 have tried to say here. For your 

 basics and for those that can be stored, I would do it by purchase and 

 loan })rograms. For others, 1 would do it by commodity agreements. 



In addition t(j that, you do have some adjustments that need to 

 take place. 



Ml'. (iRANiiKK. And acreage controls^ 



Mr. Dams. Yes, acreage controls as a last resort. I think we need 

 more emphasis on distribtuion and on utilization than we have had so 

 far. It seems to me (me of the weaknesses in our Department of 

 .Vgriculture at the j)resent time is that we do not have a strong enough 

 marketing program. I think that relatively it is not as strong today 

 as it was some time earlier. 



Mr. Granger. I know if I were the Secretary and had in my hands 

 tlie i-esi)onsil)i]ity of su|)|)lying the American peo])le with food I would 



