216 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



of factors now does not, in my opinion, come within the realm of 

 practicahty. 



For these reasons and the others already discussed, to estimate the 

 over-all cost of the program would serve no useful purpose. 



Another misunderstanding of my recommendations which I should 

 like to clear up has to do with the amount of Government control 

 involved. 



This is somewhat related to the cost question. On the one hand, we 

 hear that a program will be too costly; and on the other hand, we hear 

 it said that if we place limits or conditions upon the amount of price 

 support, this is "regimentation." The two arguments conflict. It 

 should be clearly understood that the only so-called Government 

 controls involved in my recommendations are those which limit the 

 amount of the Government's commitment to farmers. 



I state categorically: 



First, that my recommendations call for absolutely no form of 

 authority or control not contemplated by title II of the Agricultural 

 Act of 1948. 



Second, that the legislation I have recommended is less restrictive 

 than any so far enacted by virtue of the fact that it offers more 

 encouragement to the abundant consumption and production of 

 farm products and, thereby, offers more protection against surpluses. 

 This program would increase inducements for desirable adjustments 

 without ordering them. 



Thu'd, that the present legal right of producers to accept or reject 

 by referendum any proposed mandatory limitation upon theh market- 

 ing should not be infringed. As you know, a farm marketing quota 

 program cannot be put into effect for any commodity unless at least 

 two-thirds of the producers voting in a referendum have accepted 

 such regulation. The Secretary cannot even propose such a mandatory 

 limit except under carefully defined conditions which safeguard the 

 public interest. 



Farmers fought for the legal rights they now have to impose market- 

 ing limits upon themselves. In the view of those who did so, these 

 rights represent an extension, not an infringement, of their freedom. 

 I adhere to this principle. 



For the record, let me give you the citations to provisions of title 

 II, Agricultural Act of 1948, and preceding legislation, which carry 

 every type of authority to which my own recommendations refer. 

 Unless otherwise noted, the citations will refer to title II, Agricultural 

 Act of 1948. 



Production payments: Section 202 (a). 



Acreage allotments and marketing quotas: Sections 311 et seq., 

 Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938; sections 203-208 of title II. 



Marketing agreements and orders: First provided in section 8, 

 Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933; also see Congressional Record 

 of July 7, 1948 (94 Congressional Record A4620), for confirmation 

 that it was the intent of title II, Agricultural Act of 1948, that the 

 Secretary have authority to condition price supports for certain 

 commodities upon there being in effect marketing agreements or 

 orders regulating the marketing of such commodities. 



Soil conservation as a condition required for price support: See 

 section 8, Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act. When 

 the farmer's income was supported m part through payments under 



