GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 661 



Mr. Hope. But, even if we did increase it, say, to 200 or 300 mil- 

 lion bushels, it still would be a very small factor; in other words, it 

 would not be a very important competitor. 



Mr. Taylor. The total feed grain, speaking for the Pacific North- 

 west, is a small percentage. We feel like that is an important point 

 to the Pacific Northwest certificate plan. 



Mr. Sutton. This 85 percent of the production for feed does not 

 mean 85 percent of it is fed on the farm as grain, but that 85 percent 

 of it is used for feed; does it not? 



Mr. Taylor. The figures were given to me as mdicating that 85 

 percent was fed on the farm where it is produced. Is that correct, 

 Mr. Kaseberg? 



Mr. Kaseberg. Yes. 



Mr. Taylor. That is the way it is marketed, through feeding — and 

 I can't verify that amount — but that is what we were told yesterday; 

 and, if that is the case, I will put it this way: That I cannot see that 

 this plan would raise any particular trouble with regard to the feeding 

 program. 



Air. Hope. Mr. Taylor, I think you have made a very fine presenta- 

 tion of your program, and I think it is one that the committee should 

 consider, and the wheat producers should consider. But I would like 

 to ask you this additional question because this is something new — 

 well, it is not new, but it is new for our consideration of the matter 

 now. 



Mr. Taylor. Yes. 



Mr. Hope. And many of the members of the committee have not 

 had an opportunity to consider it as you have had. The wheat pro- 

 ducers of the country have not had the opportunity to consider it. 



What would happen, to be realistic, if the committee did not report 

 out a program of this kind at this time? And I think that it is no 

 secret that it will probably be very difficult to bring out a long-range 

 program of any kind before the Congress this year; that is, to enact a 

 long-range program, and that brings me to this question: In the event 

 that it could not be possible to enact your suggestion into law at this 

 time, what do you thuik this committee should do with respect to a 

 program for next year, keeping in mind that, if the committee does 

 not, the Aiken bill will go into effect on January 1. 



Mr. Taylor. That has been discussed, and Mr. Kaseberg appeared 

 before this committee a month ago, and a part of his statement dealt 

 with the alternative program. But he discussed this phase that I 

 have presented, and at that time your committee showed considerable 

 interest in that plan, and never discussed the alternative. But the 

 position that the Oregon Wheat Growers League has taken is that we 

 do not like the provisions of the Aiken bill as to the flexible price- 

 support program; as it applies to parity on wheat, we would favor a 

 continuation of the 90 percent of parity, on the amended, or modern- 

 ized parity, which might be done in the present law by instructing the 

 Secretary that he must set the support 90 percent of parity. 



In discussing that matter this morning, some of the boys said, and 

 some are in agreement, that we could not get a long-range program. 

 If we could not, we would go along with the 90 percent of parity, 

 because we would not have time to work out a long-range program; 

 and we thought that parity, under the modernized formula, was 



