• GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 947 



Mr. Andresen. On the one phase of who should determine or vote 

 on the marketing agreement, up to March 1, 28,448 commercial 

 potato farmers received $155,224,000, or an average of $5,457 for each 

 one, as part of the cost. Now, would il be two-thirds of the commercial 

 potato growers that I have mentioned who would pass judgment 

 upon the marketing agreement, or would it be all of the potato farmers 

 of the country? 



Mr. Case. Two-thirds of all of the growers, or two-thirds of the 

 total production. They vote by men or b}^ bushels. That is the law. 



Mr. AxDRESEN. Then the matter would not be settled entirelj^ by 

 the 28,000 commercial potato growers? 



Mr. Case. No. Every potato grower is eligible to vote, and he 

 votes the weight of his production, also. 



Mr. Pace. Are there any other questions on the marketing agree- 

 ment? 



Mr. HoEVEN. Mr. Case, in your statement, when you make your 

 recommendations, under point 3 you say: 



They asked that, where feasible, marketing agreements be made one of the 

 requirements of eligibility for price support, thus guaranteeing to the consumers 

 the best that was produced. 



Would you have any objection to taking out that rather nebulous 

 suggestion of "where feasible"? 



Mr. Case. That was debated for a long time in the National 

 Potato Council, but we recognized that in many areas where potatoes 

 are grown in small lots or are marketed at village stores nearby, the 

 potato industry itself probably could not administer the program 



Mr. HoEVEX. Wliat do you mean by "feasible"; who is going to 

 determine the feasibility? 



Mr. Case. That would have to depend to a large extent on the 

 Department of Agriculture as to whether or not the Government, 

 through its enforcing powers, could administer the act. 



Mr. Hoevex. In other words, you are willing to leave that entirely 

 to one individual, the Secretary of Agriculture, to determine? 



Mr. Case. There would be no one else to leave it to, sir, except 

 we might advise with him. 



Mr. Hardy. Would you interpret your "where feasible" to include 

 a condition imder which a certain group of growers said to the Secre- 

 tary "We don't like this; we don't want it. It is not feasible for us," 

 and that would not constitute a question of feasibility? 



Mr. Case. Oh, no. 



Mr. Hardy. Well, that has happened in the past, has it not? 



Mr. C.\SE. I do not know that it has in marketing agreements. 



Mr. Pace. If there are no further questions on marketing agree- 

 ments, the next matter Mr. Cooley brought up was acreage allotments. 

 Have you any further questions, Mr. Cooley? 



Mr. Cooley. No; not on acreage allotments. 



Mr. Poage. I want to understand this formula on acreage allot- 

 ments. 



Mr. Pace. Let me just comment here. Mr. Case and Mr. Wescott, 

 here is the difficulty with acreage allotments, as I see them: You 

 do not have to comply with them to this extent, that you have a 

 support price, say, of 60 percent to all of the growers; yet, imder 

 acreage allotments, it is your proposal that the only penalty is if I 

 plant more I do not get the benefit of the support price. 



