922 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



Mr. HoLMAN. I have not given that detailed consideration. We 

 have not thought that one through. 



Mr. Pace. Your primary purpose is to remove the subsidv. 



Mr. HoLMAN, That is one of the purposes. 



Mr. Pace. Then does your plan involve any control over the 

 production of dairy products? 



Mr. Holm AN. Only through the adjustment, year by year, of the 

 guaranteed prices. If the production goes up you reduce your 

 guaranty and you automatically find that production will follow. It 

 does not follow always the first year. It takes dairying from 2 to 3 

 years to make adjustments. 



Mr. Pace. That is what I had in mind, exactly. I think the 

 flexible support price is less adaptable to the cattle and diiry products 

 than any other commodity I kjiow oi. You do not operate from 

 year to year; you operate over a cycle of years. 



Mr. HoLMAN. That is correct, but we still think a flexibility to 

 the extent of about 1 year at a time, from market season to market 

 season, would be preferable to the other plan. 



Mr. Pace. I know, but in the light of what you just said, the time 

 that it takes to build a dairy and get into production, the time it 

 takes to raise a cow, what difference does it make in reducing the 

 support price on April 1 or any other date, if it cannot possibly have 

 any effect on the number of dairy cows that you would have and the 

 number of cattle that you would have on the range? 



Mr. HoLMAN. It will begin to have an effect almost immediately. 



Mr. Pace. It will impair or reduce the economic welfare of the 

 dairymen and the cattlemen. 



Mr. HoLMAN. Suppose, for example, we found ourselves with 5 

 percent too much. You would have to reduce yom- guaranties in 

 order to get back down. Normally, ther? is a 1%- to 3-percent 

 increase or decrease in the dairy herds on the first of the year from 

 the preceding year. 



Mr. Pace. From year to year? 



Mr. HoLMAN. Year to year. 



Mr. Pace. Which is naturally so, and not forced? 



Mr. HoLMAN. That is in part due to economic conditions as well 

 as to the nature of the cows. 



Mr. Pace. We thank you very much. You were very kind to 

 come here and I know the committee has benefited from your 

 testimony. 



The committee will stand adjourned and me^t tomorrow at 10 

 o'clock. 



(Letter from Charles W. Holman, datdd May 13, follows:) 



The National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation, 



Washington 6, D. C, May 13, 1949. 

 Hon. Stephen Pace, 



Chairman, the Special Sukcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture, 

 House Office Building, Washington, D. C. 

 Dear Mr. Pace: Recently I appeared before the special subcommittee for 

 the purpose of presenting the position of the National Cooperative Milk Pro- 

 ducers Federation concerning existing and probable proposed legislation on the 

 farm program. At that time I indicated the desirability of retaining the prin- 

 ciples embodied in the Agricultural Act of 1948 but urged that certain amend- 

 ments be made in title I and title II of the act so as to adequately protect dairy 

 farmers. In my testimony I endeavored to point out the need for the adoption 

 of our suggested amendments, emphasizing particularly the necessity for a manda- 



