698 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Mr. Murray. What I caniiot understand is that in August 1939, as 

 pubHshed by the BAE — that was the seventh year of the more abun- 

 dant hfe — the farmers in the United States received 54 and a fraction 

 cents a bushel for their wheat, and our Government was paying 

 half of that, or 27 cents a bushel, as an export subsidy to get rid of it 

 and ship it out of the United States. And they were supposed to have 

 a support program at that time. 



Mr. Hughes. What year was that? 



Mr. Murray. 1939— August 1939— as published by the BAE. 

 Now, they were supposed to have a support program, and we had 

 5-cent hogs and 8-cent cotton, and we have gone through several 

 years of an agricultural program, pouring millions of dollars into it. 

 And that is what makes me rather apprehensive as to what is in the 

 future, because with the support program we had at that time — and 

 the parity price of wheat was not as high as it is now — this 54 cents 

 was a long way from being anywhere near parity. Probably it was 

 not over 50 percent, and most of the agricultural products at that 

 time were not bringing over 50 percent of parity. 



Mr. Hughes. That is right. I agree with you. I think we have 

 two improvements at the present time over the situation then. That 

 is, of course, assuming the international wheat agreement will be 

 approved. I think that is of very great importance, because then we 

 won't have to be stabilizing in competition with the other exporting 

 countries. I was always against that personally; I just did not like 

 that, because the support level will be based on supply rather than 

 the discretion of the Secretary, as it was at that time. He always 

 had it pretty well at the minimum rather than at the maximum or 

 anywhere in between during that time. 



Mr. Murray. I might call your attention to the fact that when 

 you get down to pounds, bushels, and tons, we cannot have acreage 

 control over many agricultural products if we' base the production 

 on acres. 



Mr. Hughes. Yes. 



Mr. Murray. You cannot extend acreage production to eggs, live- 

 stock products, and so forth ; you have to do that by the dozen, or 

 by the pound, for whatever the support might be, bur surely it is not 

 on the basis of acreage. 



But getting back to what our distinguished chairman says — I have 

 served with him for 10 years and, while he is on the other side of the 

 aisle, I have never had any difficulties with him on agricultural 

 matters except on oleomargarine, and then he could not help himself. 

 He wanted to be with me then, but he had to be on the other side. 

 But he is sincere in trying to accomplish things for agriculture, and, 

 had it been left to him, we would have had the thing on a whole lot 

 different basis than we have had it, because I think every group would 

 have had the consideration which we have not had up to this time. 

 And the Secretary, on two different occasions, in his appearance here, 

 admitted that the other 75 percent of agriculture had been left out 

 of the support program, and what disturbs me is that every time the 

 Secretary comes before the committee he asks for more power or 

 more money, with all the different powers he has, he has more power 

 now than anyone in the United States except the President. And 

 one of these da>s there is not going to be an}' flour left in the flour 

 barrel. It sounds all right to say what we would like to have, but, 



