GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 785 



Mr. Wilson. Mr. Pace, the resolution which I read into the record 

 was passed at the annual meeting in March of 1949. To be exact, it 

 was March 23, and the delegate body there representing the livestock 

 producers passed that resolution. I have their letters. I have not 

 had a chance to talk with my board as a board since. I have had 

 letters from a number of them and have talked to them as individuals, 

 and the statement is made for the association on behalf of its members. 



Mr. Pace. Mr. Wilson, it seems to me from your statement that 

 you give sort of a half-hearted endorsement to the Agriculture Act 

 of 1948, otherwise referred to as the Aiken bill; sometimes the Hope- 

 Aiken bill. Is that your intention? 



Mr. Wilson. To give you a little clarification on that, in our 

 resolution we are opposed to subsidies, price control, and undue 

 Government regulation. We as a group recognize that the Govern- 

 ment is committed to 90 percent of parity on some commodities until 

 June 1, 1950. As the lesser of two evils, after 1950, 90 percent of 

 parity, or a graduated parity, which the Hope-Aiken law calls for 

 now 



Mr. Pace. Let us stop right there. I have had great difficulty in 

 trying to accept the principle of flexible support, first, because I think 

 if there is anything that agriculture needs it is stabilization. Once 

 the farmer pitches his crop it must be produced. There is no way of 

 stopping it. I think he is entitled to know and should have a pretty 

 good idea of what he is going to get, certainly to the extent of the 

 support program. 



Under the Aiken bill, the flexible support feature, there is no such 

 thing as forward pricing. Under the Aiken bill the producer does 

 not know until harvest time; not planting time — he does not know 

 until harvest time what the support price is going to be because the 

 flexibility depends upon the supply. I do not beheve upon reflection 

 you could embrace that principle. I think that you will agree that 

 the producers to say the least are entitled to better treatment than 

 that, will you not? 



Mr. Wilson. I do not. That is what I have tried to bring out in 

 our statement here. Each move on the part of the Government to 

 guarantee the people of this country a definite income, and anything 

 that calls for a move to take care of the rest brings you a heavier load 

 and that is exactly what we are trying to get away from. 



Mr. Pace. Outside of that principle which you are certainly entitled 

 to support, if there is going to be a support price, do you not think the 

 producer ought to Imow at planting time rather than at harvestiug 

 time? 



Mr. Wilson. That is where I think you are getting yourself into 

 trouble. If you guarantee the producer at the time that he plants, or 

 at any time during that period, exactly what he is going to get, then 

 you step right into a program which calls for guarantees for every- 

 body, and that is not the thing that has made this country great. 

 That is the thing that has you in trouble. 



Mr. Pace. Assume for the moment there is going to be a support 

 program. 



Mr. Wilson. I do not want to assume that. I have stated our 

 position that we are opposed to it. Secondly, we do expect the 

 Government that has committed itself to a certain number of com- 

 modities to carry through until that commitment has been made 



