Mr. POAGE. If the gentleman does not want to cooperate with the committee or to give us his best judgment, are we to assume that his appearance here was for home consumption?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I made the statement that I would take just a certain amount of time. I do not want to be unfair with Mr. Wickersham and that is the question I want to propound. Will you give him ample time?

Mr. PACE. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Beckworth, has made a long study of this problem and no doubt has some very specific views. Will the gentleman revise his remarks by furnishing this committee a specific recommendation with regard to amendments to the act?

Mr. BECKWORTH. May I say that I will revise my remarks, Mr. Chairman, and put in them that which I feel would do any good to put in them.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if the gentleman will or if he will not make a suggestion to this committee as to what this minimum should be. He criticizes what the committee has done. I just want to know what he would do if he were sitting here in the place of this committee.

Mr. BECKWORTH. May I refer the gentleman to the amendment which I offered?

Mr. POAGE. The 5-acre amendment. I am familiar with that. I asked you the specific question, if you were sitting here in our place, would you vote for a 10-acre minimum?

Mr. BECKWORTH. If I were sitting in your place I would vote for the 5-acre amendment which I offered in August which has not yet been adopted.

Mr. POAGE. I assume you would do that, but I asked you a further question. Would you vote for a 10-acre amendment?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I said that I would be glad to bring that 5 acres up as far as I could and I repeat that.

Mr. POAGE. And I am trying to find out how far you think this committee should bring it up.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Just as far as they can.

Mr. POAGE. I am asking you, can we bring it up to 10?

Mr. BECKWORTH. I stated what I mean to state.

Mr. POAGE. Now, I do not think it is fair, Mr. Chairman, for a witness to come before us and use this opportunity to tell the press and the public that are all wrong, that we have mistreated the farmers of this country, that we are sitting here with utter disregard for the small farmers, and then when we ask him what he would do, that he either does not know what he would do or refuses to tell us and refuses to give us the benefit of his own suggestions. I simply want to know, do you have any ideas on whether 10 acres is a proper minimum or not, Mr. Beckworth.

Mr. BECKWORTH. I have answered the question once.

Mr. POAGE. No; you have not answered that question.

Mr. BECKWORTH. May I say this: I have answered it the way I propose to answer it.

Mr. POAGE. You have not answered the question at all and I want the record to show that the witness has not answered the question as to whether or not 10 acres is a reasonable allotment.

Mr. BECK WORTH. I want the record to show just exactly what the record is, I might add.

Mr. PACE. Thank you, Mr. Beckworth.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Thank you for permitting me to talk. I am certainly sorry I have taken Mr. Wickersham's time.

I include the amendments and data you invited me to include at this point.

I desire to refer to some amendments I would like to see adopted. They were offered last August 3, 1949, as the Congressional Record of that date will show. I still feel they are fair and just:

Amendment offered by Mr. Beckworth: "On page 7, line 11, strike out the period and insert in lieu thereof a colon and the following: 'Provided, however, That the allotment shall be a number of acres which will produce at least four standard bales of 500 pounds gross weight unless it can be conclusively shown by the county committee that (taking into consideration financial resources and available credit, available acreage, and other relevant factors) the operator of the farm, found so to be by the county agricultural committee, can engage in other practical farming activities on such farm which will assure him income from such farm for the calendar year in question (including his income from cotton produced in such year) at least equal to the income that four standard bales of cotton of 500 pounds gross weight, produced in such year, are calculated to yield.''

Amendment offered by Mr. Beckworth: "On page 16, after line 3, insert the following subsection:

"(f) The penalties provided for in this section shall not apply with respect to cotton produced by any veteran of World War II who is recognized by the county committee as being, or as previously having been, a cotton farmer if his total production of cotton during the year in which such cotton was produced did not exceed an amount equal to four standard bales of five hundred pounds gross weight. As used in this subsection the term 'veteran of World War II' means a person who served in the active military or naval service of the United States on or after December 7, 1941, and before September 3, 1945, and who has been honorably separated from such service.'"

Amendment offered by Mr. Beckworth: "Page 16, line 3, after the period insert the following subsection:

"(f) The penalty provided for in this section shall not apply with respect to cotton produced by any person who is recognized by the county committee as being a cotton farmer if his total acreage does not exceed 5 acres,'

In connection with the last amendment I submit a brief discussion, which refers to it. The discussion took place August 13, 1949. I reprinted part of the discussion in the Congressional Record of January 3, 1950.

Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Speaker, when the cotton-allotment legislation was written last year it was an agreed-on bill. I believe the Record will bear out this statement.

I quote from page 10922 of the Congressional Record of August 3, 1949. The remarks are those of the distinguished chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Representative Cooley:

"Now we bring before the committee a bill that was unanimously reported by the subcommittee and unanimously approved by the full committee, a bill that is highly technical and difficult to understand.

"This bill makes rather liberal provisions for both little growers and new growers, and I hope that none of the provisions will be disturbed."

None of the provisions was disturbed.

However, it is being shown from day to day that the legislation is threatening to injure badly and perhaps to disrupt the economy of a number of counties through the Cotton Belt. Certainly it is a very serious situation. Between 1942 and now, it will be remembered, a great world war was fought. There were many dislocations during this period of time. I have one county, for example, that had 74,000 acres of cotton allotted in 1942. It has a little over 16,000 acres

now, or one-fifth. There are counties in Texas, on the other hand, that have nearly twice as much allotted cotton acreage in 1950 as were allotted to the same counties in 1942.

There has been a great deal said about a 5-acre minimum provision in the bill as passed. I quote this discussion that took place August 3 between the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] and me. It appears on page 10933 of the Congres

sional Record:

“Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. "Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask some of the Members who are sponsoring this bill this question. It is in the form of an assumption, but I think a very real assumption.

"Assume that a veteran 25 or 26 years of age never did anything except grow cotton on a cotton farm until 1942 when he went into the Army; assume he remained in the Army until 1946; assume that he took GI training to be a mechanic for 2 years and while doing so he did not farm; assume that he owns a 60-acre cotton farm which has had no cotton on it since 1942; assume that today he loses his job and goes back to that cotton farm which has not had cotton grown on it since 1942. The question is: will he be privileged to get 5 acres of cotton?

"Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

"Mr. BECKWORTH. I yield.

"Mr. PACE. That depends, and I have tried to explain it to the gentleman, that depends entirely upon the State PMA Committee of the State of Texas, and the county PMA Committee in which that farm is located. He can, and will very likely get considerably more than 5 acres. It depends upon the amount of acreage the State committee allocates to that county for new farms. If the State committee gives the county, for example, 500 acres for new farms every acre of it must go to new farms. Then in addition to that 500 acres, the county committee may reserve 10 percent that can be used for new farms. So the allotment could be identical with like farms in the same area.

"Mr. BECKWORTH. May I ask this further question: However, is it true or is it not true that the definite 5-acre minimum applies to him?

"Mr. PACE. It does not."

My amendment introduced on page 10937 of the August 3, Congressional Record to give genuine cotton farmers a 5-acre minimum was defeated. I include at this point some proceedings from the Record about the amendment: "Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

"The Clerk read as follows:

"Amendment offered by Mr. Beckwith: Page 16, line 3, after the period, insert the following subsection :

""(f) The penalty provided for in this section shall not apply with respect to cotton produced by any person who is recognized by the county committee as being a cotton farmer if his total acreage does not exceed 5 acres."'

"Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, this makes it definite that if the county committee recognizes a person as being a cotton farmer that person shall have 5 acres of cotton. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Sutton] spoke about 16,000,000 veterans. If he will read my amendment he will find that I said 'If they are recognized by the county committee as being cotton farmers.' Those from New York, for instance, could not be recognized by the county committee as being cotton farmers.

I

"The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] spoke about 6,000,000 bales. On July 25 the Department of Agriculture wrote me a letter as to the number of farmers growing 5 bales or less on the average, and there were 601,273. If every one of them grew 4 bales of cotton that would be 2,405,092 bales, and not 6,000,000. would appreciate it if in the gentleman's remarks he would show where he got this 6,000,000 figure. It would be interesting indeed when we consider the fact that I have here a letter from the Secretary of Agriculture, written on July 5, with the particular figures I have given.

"Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

"Mr. BECKWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

"Mr. COOLEY. How could the gentleman determine and how could the county committee determine whether a man is a cotton farmer?

"Mr. BECKWORTH. How did the 6,000,000 bales come in?

"Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman does not provide any way of determining whether a man grows cotton or not.

"Mr. BECKWORTH. The county committee would know. I repeat, they are knowing men, and would, to the extent they have authority under the law, be fair and just in their decisions.

"The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Beckworth].

"The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. Beckworth) there were-ayes 12, noes 56.

"So the amendment was rejected."

I submit copies of other amendments I'd like to see accepted. Note the Department of Agriculture letter dated February 10, 1950, about voting.

If marketing quotas are proclaimed for the 1951 crop of cotton, farmers eligible to vote in the referendum held with respect to such crop shall be those farmers who were engaged in the production of cotton in the calendar year of 1950 and those persons recognized by the county committee as being cotton farmers.

If marketing quotas are proclaimed for the 1951 crop of cotton, farmers eligible to vote in the referendum held with respect to such crop shall be those farmers who were engaged in the production of cotton in the calendar year of 1950 and those veterans of World War II whose farms received cotton-acreage allotments for the 1950 crop but who are found by the county committee to have been unable to engage in the production of cotton in the calendar year of 1950 because of the smallness of the cotton acreage allotments to their farms for the 1950 crop. As used in this section, the term "veteran of World War II" means a person who served in the active military or naval service of the United States on or after December 7, 1941, and before September 3, 1945, and who has been honorably separated from such service.

If marketing quotas are proclaimed for the 1951 crop of cotton, farmers eligible to vote in the referendum held with respect to such crop shall be those farmers who were engaged in the production of cotton in the calendar year of 1950 and those cotton farmers who surrendered the cotton-acreage allotments to their farms for 1950. As used in this section the term "cotton farmer" means a person recognized by the county committee as being a cotton farmer.

Hon. LINDLEY BECKWORTH,

House of Representatives.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUTURE,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, February 10, 1950.

DEAR MR. BECK WORTH: This acknowledges your letter of January 28 regarding the effects on the 1951 cotton-acreage allotment for a farm from which the 1950 allotment was released under the provisions of House Joint Resolution 398.

In view of the large number of variables entering into the determination of farm-acreage allotments for cotton it is not possible to determine how the 1951 cotton-acreage allotment for a farm may be affected where the operator released the entire 1950 allotment for reapportionment to other farms under the provisions of House Joint Resolution 398. This resolution makes no provision for restoring released cotton-acreage allotments as a part of the farm cotton history for 1950 after the operator surrendered such acreage.

The following are some of the factors which could result in a change in the farm allotment in 1951 from 1950:

(1) Assume in the example given in your letter that the farm had a 10acre cotton history in 1946 and none for 1947 and 1948. Under such circumstances the farm would be ineligible to receive a 1951 allotment on the basis of the provisions in the law for old cotton farms because cotton was not planted or regarded as planted on the farm in 1947, 1948, or 1950. However, the county committee may establish an allotment for cotton under the provisions of the law for new cotton farms.

(2) Assume that the highest acreage planted or regarded as planted to cotton on the farm was in 1946 and that the 1950 allotment was limited to such highest acreage of cotton, the 1951 allotment for the farm would be reduced to the highest acreage planted or regarded as planted to cotton in 1947-48 unless the county committee made an adjustment from the county acreage reserve.

(3) It is not likely that the 1951 county cropland factor will remain the same as the 1950 factor in a large number of counties. In many counties such factor will be reduced considerably because 1950 new cotton farms will be

considered as old cotton farms in 1951 and the 1951 allotments for such new 1950 farms apportioned from the county allotment on the basis as for other old cotton farms in the county. In counties where a considerable number of 1950 new farm allotments were established the 1951 county cropland factor will be reduced and, therefore, the 1951 allotments for 1950 old farms will be reduced accordingly. On the other hand, where a considerable number of 1950 old cotton farms lose eligibility for cotton allotments in 1951 it is conceivable that the county factor will be increased, thereby increasing allotments for 1951 farms. Therefore, even if the farm allotment is not affected by conditions under (1) or (2) above, the 1951 allotment may be reduced or increased with respect to the 1950 allotment according to the change in the county cropland factor.

(4) Since the county committee may reserve not in excess of 15 percent of the county allotment for making adjustments in farm allotments and for establishing new farm allotments, there is no way to predict what adjustment may be made by the committee in the 1951 farm allotment or what allotment may be established for the farm in the event it becomes necessary to establish a new farm allotment for it.

There are a number of other important factors which may cause changes in the farm allotment for 1951. It is believed, however, that the factors outlined above will show that we could not definitely state at this time how the 1951 farm allotment may be affected by the release and reapportionment provisions of House Joint Resolution 398.

Public Law 272, Eighty-first Congress, provides that, following the issuance of a marketing-quota proclamation, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum of farmers engaged in the production of cotton in the calendar year in which the referendum is held. According to this provision, if marketing quotas are proclaimed for the 1951 crop of cotton, a farmer who was not actually engaged in the production of cotton in 1950 would not be eligible to vote in the referendum affecting the 1951 crop.

Sincerely yours,

A. J. LOVELAND, Under Secretary. Note what B. F. Vance, chairman of the PMA State committee, said about soil conservation, in his letter dated March 2, 1950:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION,
College Station, Tex., March 2, 1950.

Hon. LINDLEY BECKWORTH,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. BECKWORTH: This refers to your letter of February 21 addressed to Mr. E. A. Miller of the Extension Service in which you asked to be advised of the various soil-conservation practices a farmer must perform in order to be eligible for Government price support on cotton.

There are no conservation practices that must be carried out on a farm in order for such farm to be eligible for Government price support on cotton. A farmer's eligibility for price support on cotton is determined on the basis of whether the acreage planted to cotton is within the farm cotton allotment. any farm where the acreage planted to cotton is within the farm allotment all cotton produced is eligible for the price support.

Very truly yours,

B. F. VANCE. Chairman, State PMA Committee.

On

Mr. PACE. Mr. Wickersham, we will be glad to hear from you. You have gone into this matter very thoroughly and we know you have some problems.

STATEMENT OF HON. VICTOR WICKERSHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Chairman, I do not claim to be a farmer I spent 18 years on a farm in my district.

First, I think the new law should be changed to make it on a historical basis instead of the acreage basis. I think there should be a pro