GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 341 



under acreage allotments or marketing quotas, it seems to me the 

 idea might as well be abandoned altogether. Otherwise, I do not 

 see where it is going to have any particular force and effect. It is 

 certainly not going to have any application to most of the large farm 

 operations in this country. 



The Chairman. May I ask a question there, Mr. Hope? 



Mr. Hope. Yes. 



The Chairman. Do you not believe that the marketing quota laws 

 we now have are adequate and forcible enough to accomplish the 

 desired amount of reduction in any particular commodity? When 

 two-thirds of the farmers vote in favor of the quotas, they put the 

 power in yom' hands to fix the amomit at any amount you want to, 

 Mr. Secretary. If you fix it too high, it is your fault, not theirs. 



Why do you want to put any more yardsticks and limitations upon 

 the over-all production of the commodity, if they put it up to you and 

 say, "Here it is; you fix it"? Why should you say to Mr. Hope 

 because he has acciunulated a big farm that you are going to support 

 him half way, and while I am a little grower or a medium grower, 

 you will support me all the way? I do not believe that any sort of 

 program like that will work and I do not believe you would ever get 

 one through this Congress that is patterned after that fashion. 



I tliink the strength of our program has been that the bm'den is 

 rested equally upon the big and little growers and the blessings enjoyed 

 by each of them alike. Wlienever you try to change that, I think 

 you vdll run into trouble. 



Mr. Hope. It seems to me you are applying two different pro- 

 grams. One is a program whereby you are going to limit the benefits 

 that go to large farms for the reason that it is felt that the policy 

 of the Government should be to encourage the small far-mer and 

 discourage the large farmer. That is one thing. 



The other program is an effort when we have a surplus of a com- 

 m.odity to reduce the quantity of that commodity which may be 

 produced in order to prevent the surplus from resulting in a breaking 

 down of the entire program. Those are two different and distinct 

 things. 



One can be operated entirely independently of the other, it seems 

 to me, and I think they should be operated independently. If both 

 of them are meritorious, that is fine, but if one of them is not we 

 should thi'ow it out. I see no reason when you are attempting to 

 reduce yom- total production by uniform acreage reductions why the 

 other operation should not go into effect also. 



The Chairman. By the same token, why not put quotas on the 

 big man and no quotas on the little man? Then you will accomplish 

 exactly what you have in mind; that is, to restrict the big operation 

 and encourage the little operation. 



Mr. Hope. That would be one way of doing it, but the object is 

 to encourage the little farmer and discourage the big farm.er, as I 

 understand it. If that is the object, what you suggest would be one 

 way of doing it and what the Secretary suggests would be another 

 way of doing it. One might work better than the other. 



Mr. PoAGE. Will the gentlem.an from Utah j'ield to me to ask the 

 gentleman from Kansas a question? 



Might there not be a logical distinction there, based upon the 

 practicability of working one of these unit limitations on a commodity 



