GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 1195 



It is on the basis of that provision of the law and that statement of 

 the Secretary that I stated to you that if this law goes into effect on 

 the 1st of January there cannot be an}^ support price for hogs 

 next year. It is true, as Mr. Hoeven has stated, that he would have 

 a law whereby he could apply section 32 money that might be avail- 

 able to the extent of 25 percent of that fund, whether it is 109,000,000 

 or 149,000.000, but it is my belief that under the light of this expressed 

 prohibition he would not feel justified in resorting to a fund of that 

 kind. I think that is in complete accord with the testimony of the 

 Secretary here yesterday. Mr. Hoeven, is that all? 



Mr. Hoeven. That is all. 



Mr. Pace. Mr. Murray. 



Mr. Murray. First of all, I tliink maybe the Agriculture Committee 

 and the Congress had better take time out and find out what is in the 

 bills already passed before we get ourselves projected into some new 

 proposal. We evidently cannot even find out what is in the Aiken 

 bill. At a committee hearing since the first day of January I asked 

 that question. The answer I got was that after the 1st of January 

 the Secretary of Agriculture put a floor under these commodities if 

 he so desires at 60 percent of parity or at 90 percent of parity or at 

 160 percent of parity, in an emergency. Of course, that did not satisfy 

 me because I do not want to have to run do\^^l and ask the Secretary 

 of Agriculture what the law is. I like to have the Congress pass a 

 law and then ask him to carry it out so I have no responsibility to 

 take for the Aiken bill. My record is pretty good on that because I 

 am not delegating the power of the people to any one man that has 

 never been elected by anybody to anj^thing, but who is appointed 

 by someone else. 



I think that is a new interpretation of yours, Mr. Pace. 



Mr. Pace. No, sir. 



Mr. Murray. In the hearings I asked that question. I Avi"ote a 

 letter several months ago and I have not received an answer from 

 the committee to put that question up to this committee so that I 

 would have it in black and white. What I was going to use it for 

 was to send a copy of the letter to constituents who were complain- 

 ing because I would not sign the conference report on the Aiken bill. 

 The reason I would not sign the conference report on the Aiken bill 

 is because of the delegation of power that goes with it. They did a 

 lot of talking about this slidmg-scale business but if you have confi- 

 dence in your Secretary of Agricultm'e there is nothing to worry about 

 in the sliding scale. He can make it 60 or 90 or, according to the 

 testimony before our committee, 190 in an emergency. 



Mr. Pace. If the gentleman will look at the hearmgs that are al- 

 ready printed and available, he will find that Mr. Hunter, the Solicitor 

 of the Department, fully concms in that interpretation of this act. 



Mr. Murray. ]\lr. Hmiter concurred in an interpretation of the 

 act that milk and its products could have a support of from to 90 

 percent of parity or more in an emergency. 



Mr. Pace. What we are facing now is the interpretation of the 

 Solicitor fortified by the Statement of the Secretary of Agriculture. 



Jvlr. Murray. It is a new approach to frighten us into some kind 

 of scheme, evidently, because I had not heard that before this 

 morning. 



