786 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



good, because the crops are planted, they are in, and a lot of crop has 

 been planted on the guarantee very definitely. 



Mr. Pace. Then you said to come in after that m the Aiken bill. 



Mr. Wilson. I will refer back to our resolution, that after January 

 1, 1950, "A policy of flexible supports as provided iii the Hope-Aiken 

 law be allowed to become effective in 1950" — that is, if you are to have 

 a support price. Then we tack on, I think, the most important part — 

 "and that any changes in this law" — and I think they had in mind any 

 new law^ — ''be directed toward minimizing the use of Government- 

 control guaranties" — getting out of this thing instead of into it 

 further. 



Mr. Pace. That was the second reason I was surprised to hear you 

 give a sort of left-handed endorsement to the Aiken bill, because this 

 should be understood, Mr. V^ ilson, that outside of one feature, that is, 

 with regard to this 1,800-uuit support, the Secretary of Agriculture 

 has not requested in his plan one smgle power of control that is not in 

 the Aiken bill. 



Mr. Wilson. I believe that you used the term "left-handed." We 

 realize that you have some left-handed stuff' in there. It is in the law; 

 it is on the books. We are considermg here one which not only takes 

 all of that but goes further, and it raises your guarantees above the 

 flexible rates you have in there. We are agamst them all — period. 



Mr. Pace. I am surprised that you did not say that. 



Mr. Wilson. We did say it two or three times. 



Mr. Pace. You said that you were against the Secretary's proposal, 

 and in the light of the philosophy expressed in your statement I do not 

 understand why you did not say that you were against the Aiken bill, 

 too, and that it should be repealed. That is where I found apparently 

 an inconsistency in your position. The right to make these production 

 payments that the Secretary of /Agriculture is talking about is 

 authorized in the Aiken bill; it is in the law now. 



Mr. Wilson. That is right. 



Mr. Pace. Consequently, how do you come to us and condemn the 

 Secretary's proposal with regard to payments without at the same time 

 condemning the Aiken bill with regard to payments? 



Mr. Wilson. I am certainly not approving the Aiken bill; our group 

 is not. They are approving the principle of flexible parity rather 

 than 90 percent, or rather than the one Avhich is in his 



Mr. Pace. You just say the flexible is the lesser of two evils and 

 that you think they are all bad. 



Mr. Murray. Even under the A.iken bill with the discretion that it 

 gives the Secretary of Agriculture, there is nothing to keep him from 

 making parity what he wishes. There is nothing in connection with 

 the Aiken bill to prevent the Secretary from maidng it 90 percent, if 

 he so desires. 



Mr. Pace. He can make it 90 percent and he can increase it if it is in 

 the interest of national security. 



Mr. Hill. 150 percent, if he wishes. 



Mr. Mu.R.R.AY. This sliding scale is at the discretion of the Secretary 

 of Agriculture and that is one of the bad parts of the legislation. It 

 puts too much power in any one man's hands. One man should not 

 have that much authority over every man's grocery bill and over every 

 farmer in the United States. That is the big stumbling block of a 

 support program based on the particular attitude of one individual 

 who is not elected by anybody; just appointed. 



