GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 651 



Mr. Pace. Let me ask one or two questions to point up something- 

 here. 



Would it be fair to say that your proposal is exactly contrary to 

 the plan proposed by the Secretary of Agriculture? 



Mr. Taylor. No; it would not be, because, under the Secretary's 

 plan, there are several points. It would be as to some of his points. 



Mr. Pace. What I meant was that the Secretary has proposed that 

 your wheat move at the market price and then he would make pay- 

 ment to the producers representing the difference between the market 

 price and the support price, one of the principal objects being in order 

 that people might have cheaper food. Under your plan, instead of 

 the payment, you propose that wheat move at the market price, 

 as does the Secretary, but that that portion of it used for food 

 would be subject to an increased price represented by the certificate. 

 Consequently, it looks to me like the two plans are diametrically op- 

 posed. One would raise the price to the consumer above the market 

 price, and the other would let it move to the consumer at the market 

 price. 



Mr. Taylor. The reason I answered that question as I did was 

 because I was thinking of the portion of his program where he would 

 let the market price seek its own level. Also, that portion of his 

 program does not apply to basic commodities, and he does not plan to 

 make payments that would bridge the gap between the market price 

 and parity except on nonstorable commodities. 



Mr. Pace. He asked for that authority to apply to unusual condi- 

 tions. 



Mr. Taylor. Then there is this other difference, that in our plan it 

 would be self-supporting financially, while under his plan the money 

 would have to come out of the Treasury to pay the food bill of the 

 people who bought at the low level. 



Mr. Pace. That is another effect in which they are diametrically 

 opposite. 



Mr. Taylor. Generally speaking; yes. 



Mr. Pace. On page 3 you have this sentence: "That is why we 

 would like to see a two-price plan as an alternative to acreage limi- 

 tation." Now, do you mean to this extent there might be times when 

 the Secretary would submit to producers two plans and let the pro- 

 ducers determine which one they wanted? 



Mr. Taylor. No. We believe the certificate plan would work 

 under all conditions, but as a supplement to it and under certain 

 conditions it might still require some production adjustment. 



Mr. Pace. In keeping with the philosophy of this committee to let 

 the producer have as great a voice as possible in the type of program 

 under which he operates, would there be any objection to not leaving 

 it all times merely to the discretion of the Secretary, but subject to 

 approval by the producer? 



Mr. Taylor. I would never object to the producer's having a say 

 in the program under which he is to operate. 



Mr. Pace. In other words, subject to your acceptance, do you want 

 a two-price plan, or do you want a marketing quota ])lan? 



Mr. Taylor. I believe you have in mind very definitely the picture 

 under this plan where wheat would sell in the open market at a lower 

 level, which would encourage the consumption and use of wheat. 



Mr. Pace. That is right. 



