GEXERAL FARM PROGRAM 689 



Mr. Hope. Of course, in most of the wheat area, the farmer who had 

 to take an acreage reduction would not be able to shift that land to 

 somethmg else. He might summer-fallow, but he would not be able 

 to shift to some other crop. So he would not have any income from 

 any other crop off that land that he had out of production for that year, 

 and the result would be, if the support price was 68 percent of old par- 

 ity, he would receive that much less in his income, without any possi- 

 bility of recouping it from some other .source. So it seems to me — 

 I may be wrong — that most farmers would be more agreeable to com- 

 ing into the program and you would have a lot greater compliance with 

 the act if they had assurance that the wheat they did produce would 

 receive price support at 90-percent parity rather than price support 

 at 68-percent parity. I may be wrong about that, but I do not be- 

 lieve I am. 



Mr. Hughes. I believe they would like to take a little responsi- 

 bility in just making this adjustment and proving they can make the 

 adjustment. We feel the present law is set up in such a way as to 

 make it possible to achieve just exactly what to say, but it does make 

 it possible to hold us to an accounting more or less, to make us prove 

 we are capable of holding the supply in line with demand. I myself 

 do not believe that is too much of a concession to make to the 

 taxpayer. 



Mr. Hope. Do not you think the method you are going to have to 

 use to hold the supply in line with demand is the acreage allotment 

 plus, perhaps, the marketing quota? It does not seem to me it is the 

 price-support level that is going to determine that, because I think 

 all of us would agree, if we did not have any acreage allotments next 

 year and perhaps would not have market quotas, that we would not 

 get too much of a reduction and possibly not any. 



Mr. Hughes. That is right. 



Mr. Hope. Because a lot of farmers would be figuring upon the 

 support price initially. Maybe later on, over the years, you would, 

 but initially they might think they had to increase their acreage in 

 order to keep up their former level of income, in order to meet their 

 fixed obligations. 



Would some element of that sort enter into it? 



Mr. Hughes. There might be to some extent; I grant you that 

 might influence some individuals. However, I do not believe it 

 would carry a great deal of weight. Of course, that is just my per- 

 sonal opinion. 



Mr. Hope. It seems to me it is more important right now, at the 

 time we are asking farmers to make such a great reduction, to keep 

 the support price at something like the level it has been than it might 

 be at a later period when they have made their adjustment. Am I 

 wrong in thinking that? 



Mr. Hughes. It is my thinking it might have this efi^ect: that it 

 might encourage — especially if the reduction asked was very great — 

 the grower to disregard his acreage allotment and might result in an 

 excessive supply of wheat being produced, even though we did have 

 acreage allotments. Supposedly, price support has a very consider- 

 able influence on the market, and if he was outside of the program, 

 in the absence of market quotas, he would be able to market all of 

 the wheat he raised at the market price; and, if the support level was 



