GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



The Chairman. The clerk is now supplying us with that folder, 

 Mr. Secretary. 



Secretary Brannan. In response to your chairman's letter to me 

 of March 10, I am appearing before this committee to discuss with 

 you marketing quotas for corn. At the outset, I would like to make it 

 clear that the Department is not making any specific recommendations 

 to the committee at this time but is merely making its services avail- 

 able to the committee to provide such data and information as the 

 committee needs to study the present marketing-quota law for corn 

 with a view to probably amending it in important respects in case we 

 might have to haA^e marketing quotas on corn in 1950 or some sub- 

 sequent years. 



The Department's specific recommendations with respect to changes 

 in legislation that affect the long-range agricultural program are 

 being formulated at the present time and will be submitted to the 

 Congress for consideration at an early date. 



The chairman of your special subcommittee included in his letter to 

 me six questions pertaining to corn marketing quotas which I shall be 

 glad to discuss with you at this time. These questions were: 



1. Do the corn producers desire to place corn under marketing 

 quotas? 



While we are not at all times in position to appraise the thinking 

 of the farmers we certainly are prepared to give our thoughts about 

 what should be taken into consideration by farmers in reaching a 

 conclusion either in approving or disapproving marketing quotas. 



Marketing quotas have never been in effect for corn. In the event 

 that supplies reached the level where quotas became necessary under 

 present legislation, it is believed that producers would favor marketing 

 quotas, since they could obtain full price support only when such 

 quotas .were in effect. However, commercial corn producers are 

 concerned over what producers in the noncommercial areas might do, 

 particularly those who are under acreage allotments for other crops. 



A definite answer to the question cannot be given until commercial 

 corn producers vote in referendum, as provided by law, to approve or 

 disapprove marketing quotas under conditions of excessive supplies 

 calling for such action. 



Prior to the time the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was 

 amended by the Agricultural Act of 1948, price support action on corn 

 and other basic commodities was prohibited when producers voted 

 against marketing quotas. However, under section 202 of the 

 Agricultural Act of 1948 support of basic commodities at 50 percent of 

 parity is required by law even though producers disapprove marketing 

 quotas. 



It would seem reasonable that farmers should agree to limit produc- 

 tion in order to bring into balance the supply and demand of corn by 

 the use of marketing quotas if supplies are so far out of line with de- 

 mand as to require the use of quotas. 



In principle, price support programs in the form of loans and pur- 

 chase agreements are designed to strengthen the bargaining position 

 of producers in the marketing of their crops by enabling them to 

 stabilize the movement of supplies against unpredictable variations in 

 production and in demand. In view of this, why shouldn't farmers be 

 expected to cooperate with the Government in observing the prin- 

 ciples of orderly marketing necessary to protect them against the 



