GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 753 



Mr. WooLLEY. I would like to clear up one thing, Mr. Hope, the 

 question about the position of the Department with respect to the 

 advancing of the time at which marketing quotas will be held. In a 

 letter dated March 18 to Senator Thomas with respect to his 732 he 

 expressly stated that the proposed bill would clarify the situation by 

 providing specifically that the marketing quota provisions of title 2 of 

 the .Agricultural Act of 1948 shall become effective upon enactment 

 of the bill. 



The Department recommended that the bill be passed. That was 

 over the signatm-e of the Secretary. 



Mr. Hope. I have just one more question and then I am through. 

 I notice that in the new language, with reference to the apportionment 

 of the State allotment to the county, you have left out the proviso 

 "with reference to soil conservation practices" which is in the old law. 

 What is the purpose of that? 



Ml'. Bagwell. I think there were two things on that, Mr. Hope. 

 The Solicitor had some objection to it on legal grounds. We never 

 knew just what it meant and we thought it might subject our quotas 

 structure to attack on legal grounds. 



Secondly, it did not seem to make sense to have it in there for one 

 commodity and not have it for others, so we thought that perhaps it 

 ought to be dropped out for all of them. Is that about your recollec- 

 tion of it, Mr. WooEey? 



Mr. WooLLEY. Yes. The main objection was the one you men- 

 tioned about the Solicitor's feeling. 



Mr. Bagwell. The Solicitor's feelmg was that it was so indefinite 

 as to make quotas subject to legal attack. 



Mr. Hope. I thought jVIr. Walker said a while ago that this matter 

 of soil conservation pi'actices was one of the factors that he considered 

 in giving the allotment from the State to the county and that you 

 would shift a little of it around that way. 



Mr. Walker. It is one of the factors, that is right. 



Mr. WooLLEY. In the language that is contamed herein, however, 

 there would not be anything that you are presently doing that you 

 could not do under the new language. Is that not right, Mr. Walker? 



Mr. Walker. I am not sure. 



Mr. Bagwell. It is in the law now, as Mr. Hope has aheady ob- 

 served. 



Mr. PoAGE. There is nothing more indefinite in that soil conserva- 

 tion language than there is in this new bill because you are going to 

 give the Secretary, as I understand it, authority to establish acreage 

 to the individual on the basis of what equipment he has and whether 

 he owns a combine and what he may have in the way of equipment to 

 harvest it with. You may then give a man with his own equipment 

 a bigger allotment than a man who depends on custom combining. 

 If you want it vague, you have it as vague in this new law as you can 

 get it, it seems to me. 



Mr. Bagwell. Those are pretty definite standards. We have had 

 them in tobacco all along. They permit the Secretary to take into 

 account the tobacco barns a man has, and so on. 



Mr. Pace. I think it is true they have never paid any attention 

 to them. 



Mr. PoAGE. Just what do you propose to do in that provision in 

 the new law about basing these allotments on the equipment that is 



