* GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 77 



acreage be reduced to less than the amount necessary to produce corn 

 for feeding and silage, and so on. I think that sums up the question. 



Secretary Brannan. In determining either his marketing quota or 

 his acreage allotment, you should exclude the amount of corn raised 

 on land for feeding his own livestock through silage or direct feeding, 

 or any other way. I am trying to state the question now. 



In my opinion, no matter how the corn is fed, if it is fed for the 

 commercial operations of the farm it should be included in the acreage 

 allotments or marketing quotas. 



Mr. Albert. Will you yield? 



Mr. Pace. Mr. Albert."' 



Mr. Albert. On that point, do you not think, Mr. Secretary, that 

 we are just about getting to the edge of the practicability of this 

 entire program? I think there is a point beyond which we cannot 

 go through the price-support program in trying to induce farmers to 

 control their entire crop production. It may be that they should in 

 their own interest and in the national interest, but I do not think 

 farmers will yield bej^ond a certain point. 



It may be to their interest that their entire production for com- 

 mercial purposes should be limited and that price supports and soil 

 conservation payments should be withheld if they do not comply, 

 but I think if we go that far we might as well drop the whole program 

 of price supports, because I do not think the farmers will stand for 

 that kind of control. 



Mr. Hill. I want the Secretary to answer that question and then 

 I want to ask a question. 



Secretary Brannan. Mr. Albert, that is the real crux of the whole 

 problem with which I think the committee is confronted and the Con- 

 gress is confronted today. The American farmers are about to call 

 upon the American people to put considerable amounts of money 

 into a price-support program. I think we must convince the Ameri- 

 can people that the programs are reasonable and operate in the na- 

 tional public interest; and that if we do not the money will be cut off 

 before the farmer decides whether or not he likes the program. 



Fundamentally, that is the thing that faces this committee and I 

 think faces the American farmer. All of the programs which have 

 been devised so far, and the ones which are in operation today, for 

 their basic premise have the widest opportunity for the farmer him- 

 self to determine the type of program. I am for expending that and 

 continuing it as far as possible. 



I do not say to the American farmer— and I think you will have 

 to tell your constituents — that perhaps the people who have some- 

 thing to say about how much money from the American Treasury 

 will go to maintain their price supports will have to be convinced 

 that they are getting either a direct or collateral benefit out of that 

 expenditure. We do it by making the programs sound and reason- 

 able, and in the national public interest, and not specific class 

 legislation. 



No one considers the right to price supports to be a fundamental 

 matter of right of the American farmers, because it was not so long 

 ago when we did not have them. If we were to follow what you and 

 I see in the papers, such as appeared in the Washington News yes- 

 terday, and if that opinion became generally adopted over the coun- 

 try — of coiu'se, it is a very erroneous statement — you and I might 



9121.5 — 40— pt. 1 C 



