GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 633 



Mr. Hope. Your area would be up against this problem, in that 

 in other areas the acreage could be increased and probably would be 

 increased. If you just let the thing go without any controls, as I 

 mentioned a while ago, and other areas expanded their acreage and 

 you could not expand, then your percentage would come down as 

 other areas might expand their acreage. 



Mr. Kaseberg. We can conceive that possibility, all right. Until 

 the plan can be developed to the point where it could be tailored to 

 the whole country, if it could be, we are willing to compromise on this 

 farm plan. 



Because of our geographical position out there, we feel, that 90 

 percent of parity — and this is the new parity I am speaking of — is 

 what we can get along with. 



Mr. Hope. You mean 90 percent on all that you are allowed? 



Mr. Kaseberg. No; 90 percent in the event of allotments. 



Mr. Hope. Yes; 90 percent on the production of your allotted 

 acreage. 



Mr. Kaseberg. That is right. 



Mr. Sutton. But you would rather have a hundred? 



Mr. Kaseberg. No; I do not think so. 



Mr. Sutton. Personally, I would rather see you have a hundred. 



Mr. Kaseberg. We run into enough trouble with the public as it is. 

 That is why we do not ask for the old parity. The old parity would 

 mean approximately 36 cents a bushel more for us. That would be 

 fine, but I think we have to live with the people here and they seem 

 to have plenty of misconceptions about the farm program. I would 

 hate to see a program put up so high that it might bog down of its 

 own weight. 



jMr. Hope. Do you not have this in mind also, that if it was too 

 high your exports would have to be subsidized to a greater extent, 

 to which the public would eventually no doubt object? It also would 

 result in less wheat being used for feed and industrial purposes than 

 would otherwise be the case. That is one of the things you have in 

 mind when you think about 90 percent being more practicable than 

 100. 



Mr. Sutton. Would you have to subsidize it if you go into a free 

 competitive market in world trade? 



Mr. Hope. I am assuming that oiu" price at 100 percent of parity 

 will always be above the world price. It has been over a long period 

 of years. 



Mr. Sutton. Ninety percent wUl, as far as that goes. 



Mr. Hope. Yes, 90 percent is, too. It would still require a subsidy. 

 The international wheat agreement, which has just been concluded, 

 calls for a maximum price of $1.80 and a minimum for the first year 

 of $1.50, and 10 cents less in the way of a minimum for each of the 

 next 4 j'-ears, winding up in the fourth year at $1.20. That does not 

 necessarily mean we will get $1.80, or that we will necessarily get 

 $1.50. It may be somewhere in between. It may be a negotiated 

 price in between. 



Under the terms of the agreement, we cannot compel the importing 

 countries to take it at more than the minimum, and they cannot force 

 us to deliver at less than the maximum. 



Suppose it was the maximum of $1.80. It would mean on a Kansas 

 farm about $1.50. I do not know how that would be translated into 



