GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 95 



Mr, Walker. Well, in the fii-st place, we do have to make allot- 

 ments under the new-farm concept. 



Mr. Pace. That is the farmer who has just started producing corn? 



Mr. Walker. A certain amount of acreage would be reserved in the 

 administration of the program. A certain amount would be reserved 

 for a farmer who had not been growing any corn, and that means, that 

 the farmers must apply, themselves, and they \^t11 be treated in accord- 

 ance with the provisions of the program, to the extent that reserves are 

 available for new farms. 



Mr. Parker. That is the manner in which 3-ou have administered 

 the law, but the law does not requhe it. 



Mr. Pace. That is the point I am making. There is no require- 

 ment, and not even authority under the law for 3"ou to take into con- 

 sideration the past corn acreage on the farm. 



Mr. Walker. No; except requirements under the regulations pre- 

 scribed by the Secretary which do say that we must take into account 

 these factors, the history of the amount planted 



Mr. Andresen (interposing). Pardon me, Mr. Walker; it is mj^ 

 understanding that where your State or county committee makes an 

 arbitrary allocation to a farm, it is without knowing what the farm 

 history was for the production of corn. 



Mr. Walker. That is not true. 



Mr. Pace. Let us get that clear: Under the law as I understand it, 

 in making individual farm allotments, there is no requirement nor any 

 authority for the Seeretarv of Agriculture to take into account the past 

 liistor}^ of corn on that farm, but the farmer who has not produced a 

 stalk of corn during the five preceding years can be given a substantial 

 corn allotment, and you tell us that transaction is now taken care of by 

 regulations, and let me say this, in talking about regulations, Mr. 

 Walker, that if it is done, it is through regulations and not the law. 



I had this situation last week in regard to peanut acreage allotment: 

 A farmer had grown 5 acres of peanuts in 1946; he grew 55 acres of 

 peanuts in 1947, and he grew 23 acres of peanuts in 1948. Then the 

 county committee, under the authority of the Secretary's regulations, 

 said, "Mr. Farmer, the 55 acres you planted in 1947 was too much; it 

 was abnormal; we are going to cut that 55 acres down and treat it as 

 23, the same acreage you had in 1948." 



So, they gave him an allotment, based on the 5 acres in 1946, 23 

 acres instead of 55 in 1947, and 23 acres in 1948. 



I insisted, which they refused to do, that if they were going to treat 

 the 55 acres of peanuts in 1947 as too much, abnormal, they should, at 

 the same time, have treated the 5 acres in 1946 as too little, you 

 understand. 



Mr. Walker. Yes. 



Mr. Pace. If they were going to take the 55 acres in 1947 and reduce 

 it to the 1948 acreage, they should have taken the 5 acres in 1946 and 

 brought it up to the 1948 acreage. 



The State committee of Georgia is on the way up here now about 

 that case, because after all, if the Secretary of Agricidture can vn-itQ 

 regulations without one iota of authority under the law in cases of that 

 kind, and if the State committee can order the county committee to 

 take a man's high acreage 1 year and cut it down and give no con- 

 sideration to the low acreage in order to bring it up, then this committee 

 needs to know it, and needs to know it badly, because then all we 



