GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 217 



this act, full payment to a farmer was conditioned upon observance 

 of soil-conserving and soil-building practices. See also section 

 202 (a), title II. This lists compliance with production goals as a 

 condition for price support. Under this provision, by administrative 

 determination, a particular acreage of soil-conserving crops would be 

 a production goal upon hich price support could be conditioned. 



Parenthetically, let me say that with a realistic income and price 

 support in effect, the farmer should be able to operate with more 

 regard to soil conservation than he otherwise could. This is another 

 reason why I regard this recommendation as a fair one. 



Limitation of amount of price support per farm: In principle, this 

 is not different from limitations upon the size of conservation payments. 

 See section 8 (e) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment 

 Act and the appropriations for such act in the Department of Agri- 

 culture Appropriation Acts for 1948 and 1949. Nor is it different in 

 principle from limitations upon private use of the public domain such 

 as irrigation water and grazing lands. 



With regard to the recommended conditions and limits as a whole, 

 let me make this one observation: Price supports are granted by the 

 public in the public interest, not as a matter of inherent right. The 

 public has also established certain other policy objectives in the field 

 of agriculture. In my opinion, it is entirely proper that the program 

 should connect up the various policy objectives that are naturally 

 interrelated. 



The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I am delighted, and I am sure that 

 the other members of the committee are delighted to have this supple- 

 mentary statement. 



I would like to ask you two or tlu-ee questions. Your recommenda- 

 tions deal with price determinations in lieu of parity calculations, which 

 we have heard a lot about in the past. Second, they deal with 

 production payments, and the limitation upon supports. 



You have now made it very clear that you are not asking for any 

 authority to control American agriculture which you do not have at 

 the present time and which you will not have in the event that the 

 Agricultural Act of 1948 goes into effect in January. 



Would it be possible for us to drop from our consideration your 

 suggestions with regard to limitations upon supports, and consider 

 and pass upon the other questions with regard to a determination of 

 a fair price and the production payment plan? 



What I have in mind is this: It seems to me that these limitations 

 upon supports are highly controversial. In the first place, I do not 

 see how it is feasible for us to support a part of production and fail to 

 support the other part, nor do I believe that it would be a wise policy 

 to control a part of production without attempting to control all the 

 production of a certain commodity. 



I believe that in every instance when we have undertaken to support 

 unlimited production or a part of unlimited production the Govern- 

 ment has always come to grief. 



It is difficult for me to see a great deal of difference between your 

 1,800-unit system and the potato program, which has been very ex- 

 pensive. In other words, as I understand the 1,800-unit system you 

 would support a part of the production and you would not support all 

 of it. That means that the man who was operating a large farm, an 

 entirely mechanized farm, who would be able to reduce the per-unit 



