382 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



if they could expand a little up to 7,500 units and were willing to 

 take 80 percent of support up to that amount, that might help to 

 solve some of those individual human problems within agriculture. 

 We propose, for these reasons, that supports on the balance of pro- 

 duction over the 7,500 units be held at 60 percent. Our thinking on 

 that relates itself to the possible need — I say the possible need — for 

 the use of the judgment of the Congress and the administration in 

 acreage allotments, marketing quotas or such other devices and the 

 need in that instance to get the so-called big boys into the program. 

 We do not think the 60 percent in any event is ever apt to cost the 

 Federal Government anything, because as nearly as we can calculate, 

 Mr. Chairman — and we have not got all of the figures available to us 

 to give other than what we think is a pretty close guess — our 7,500 

 units at 100 for 5,000 and 80 percent for 2,500 would, we believe, 

 cover the total production of something around 94 or 95 percent of 

 the farmers in the United States. 



We think it would cover a nuicli snuiller proportion of the total 

 prouction in agriculture than the Secretary's proposal, as nearly 

 as we can analyze thus far. It appears to us that we would be 

 covering perhaps around 75 percent of the total cro]) in the 100 percent 

 or 80 percent support. If that proportion of the total crop was 

 covered under support prices, it is our thinking that probably the free 

 market would not be apt to get down to the 60 percent level. 



That is a question, however, and I might say that in terms of our 

 thinking back over a good many years, because of our knowledge 

 of the great harm that has been done to the small farmer, the farmer 

 who has just about enough land and facilities with a reasonable price 

 to stay in the break-even class, that when we ap})ly acreage (juotas 

 on a horizontal basis, as they have historically been used, we reduce 

 the size of the smaller farmer to where in effect we put him out of 

 business. Our thinking is that in the event that some controls have 

 to be used, marketing quotas would be much more efficient than acreage 

 quotas because acreage quotas depend on the weather and yield and a 

 lot of other factors, whereas marketing quotas can be tied specifically 

 to a definite volume of commodities. 



If, in the judgment of the Congress and of the administration, 

 acreage controls or marketing quotas or other such controls should 

 become necessary or be deemed necessai-y, we would certainly urge 

 strongly that either they be sharply graduated or that family-type 

 farmers under this definition or a definition this committee or the 

 Congress might arrive at, be given an exemption from the a]:>plication 

 of those acreage controls and that sharper reductions might be made 

 on the fellow that is large enough to be able to stand it and still stay 

 in business. 



I suspect you have heard a little about potatoes and support prices 

 in 1948. One of our ])eople who helped in the drafting of this proposed 

 legislation was for years a member of the State PMA connnittee in 

 North Dakota, and he was assigned to the potato division. He assured 

 us that it was his and the committee's thinking out there that had mar- 

 keting quotas — allotments in terms of marketing quotas — been used 

 rather than the necessity of using under the then existing legislation 

 acreage quotas, we would not have had nearly the ))r()bleui. because 

 you just give a fellow a quota of so much potatoes and lie gets nothing 

 more. We have a question about this 60 percent. 



