GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 941 



(2) At those hearings, leading members of the industry, particularly 

 at the grower level, testified in favor of a flexible support program at 

 60 to 90 percent of parity, and in favor of most of the other provisions 

 incorporated in present legislation. Presumably this represented the 

 best thinking of our industry. 



(3) However, for most of the time since existing legislation was 

 enacted we have been operating under that portion of the program 

 that represented the transition from wartime price-support to a peace- 

 time price-support program. Therefore, we have not given a fair 

 trial to the peacetime approach, which approach was requested by 

 members of the potato industry generally less than a year ago, and in 

 our opinion it should be given a fair trial. May we point out that 

 much of the criticism of the potato price-support program, and the 

 aspects of it that appear to be most objectionable, came from features 

 that were incorporated in the Steagall amendment. Operation under 

 the present legislation might change quite materially the reactions of 

 both the potato industry' and the general public. 



If, after a period of operation, it is proven that revisions are neces- 

 sary, such legislation should be considered at that time. 



If changes are to be made at this time, we certainly object to the 

 treatment proposed for potatoes in the statement of the Secretar}^ of 

 Agriculture. As we interpret it, any legislation based on these pro- 

 posals would have the effect of taking away from potatoes any definite 

 assurance of price support, because potatoes are not included in the 

 list of commodities which the Secretary recommends that the Congress 

 designate as being entitled to first priority on the funds available for 

 price support. 



From the standpoint of tonnage and farm value, potatoes are bv 

 far our most important vegetable crop and certainh^ should be rated 

 as one of our most important food crops. We feel that potatoes are 

 entitled to the same consideration given any other commodity, that 

 the}^ are an agricultural commodity of prime importance, and that 

 they should not be relegated to a secondary position because of pri- 

 orities on what funds are available for price support. 



Moreover, if new price-support legislation generally should be 

 adopted, we believe that the major featm'e^ of the legislation as it 

 applies to potatoes should follow very closely the major features of 

 existing legislation covering potato price support. 



In conclusion, let me express my appreciation, and that of the 

 members of our organization, for this opportunity to appear before 

 your committee and to submit our views. 



Mr. Pace. Thank you very much, Mr. Bryant. You will be called 

 back in a few moments. 



Mr. Granger. Before Mr. Bryant goes away, I would like to cor- 

 rect the record on what the gentleman says. I understood the gentle- 

 man to say that this committee had given careful consideration to the 

 present legislation and wanted to gi\e it a trial. That statement is 

 not true. This committee did not give 5 minutes' consideration to the 

 legislation now on the statute books that you are talking about. We 

 went all over the country and studied the problem, it is true, and when 

 we returned here there was an understanding between the committee 

 and the farm groups that it was not the time for any legislation to be 

 passed in wartime. And the only time this committee studied this 

 legislation you are talking about was from 3 o'clock Sunday morning 

 until 6 o'clock the same mornino-. 



