Mr. WHITE. I am sure Mr. W. L. Smith will be here. I think he and Mr. Griswold are out comparing notes at the present time.

Mr. PACE. What about Mr. Wilson Laney, of Chewar, S. C.? (No response.)

Mr. PACE. Are there any other witnesses present who want to be heard?

(No response.)

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, since there does not seem to be any other witness available at the present time, may I use this time to put into the record a statement by the California Farm Bureau Federation? I will just read one paragraph of it here. It says:

Widespread dissatisfaction throughout the entire Cotton Belt with farm cotton acreage allotments established for 1950 has resulted in emergency legislation being considered by Congress for the purpose of correcting what are considered to be serious injustices. At the present time it appears that whatever legislation is finally approved will add a large acreage to the national allotment, yet at the same time fail to give adequate relief to many of the most serious hardship cases. The first point is all I wanted to get into the record, that they recogrize the fact that throughout the Cotton Belt there are serious injustices.

I ask unanimous consent to put this in the record.

Mr. PACE. Without objection, that will be inserted at this point in the record.

(The matter above referred to is as follows:)

CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,

Madera, Calif., March 7, 1950.

Hon. CECIL F. WHITE,

United States Congressman,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CECIL: Enclosed is a statement of policies in regard to changes in the cotton marketing quota law which we recommend be made effective for next year and following years. These recommendations have been discussed and developed by the cotton department of the California Farm Bureau Federation.

No attempt is being made at this time to write any specific detailed recommendations. We feel that there may be a number of different formulas developed that could carry out the principles discussed in this statement.

I will appreciate it very much if you and Congressman Bramblett, as members of the House Committee on Agriculture, will present this statement to the cotton subcommittee since I will not be able to come to Washington to present it personally.

Very truly yours,

EUGENE HAYES, Chairman, Cotton Department.

RECOMMENDATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REVISION OF THE COTTON MARKETING QUOTA LAW FOR 1951 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS

(Submitted by Eugene Hayes, chairman, cotton department, California Farm Bureau Federation, March 7, 1950)

FAILURE OF PRESENT COTTON ALLOTMENT LAW

Widespread dissatisfaction throughout the entire Cotton Belt with farm cotton acreage allotments established for 1950 has resulted in emergency legislation being considered by Congress for the purpose of correcting what are considered to be serious injustices. At the present time it appears that whatever legislation is finally approved will add a large acreage to the national allotment, yet at the same time fail to give adequate relief to many of the most serious hardship cases. In order to keep the national acreage allotment within reasonable limits and at the same time provide more equitable farm allotments in future years it is 71642-50-ser. rr-15

necessary to determine why there has been so much complaint and then take whatever steps are necessary to correct the problem.

The method set up for determining State and county allotments appears to be as fair as any method that can be agreed on at this time and the problem of inequitable farm allotments is entirely due to the fact that county allotments have not been fairly distributed to the farms. The failure to get a fair distribution of the county allotment is primarily due to inflexible provisions in the Agricultural Act of 1949 which require the county' allotment to be distributed to farms on the basis of the land tilled annually or in rotation. The history of this tilled acres concept proves that it has failed to work and there is no reason to believe that it can be made to work in the future. This method was first applied to the cotton marketing quota law in 1938 and in order to establish reasonable farm allotments it was necessary to add several million acres to the national allotment— such a large addition that when it appeared that marketing quotas would be necessary for 1949 we found that we had a law that would call for a minimum allotment for that year of at least 3,000,000 acres in excess of the 1948 acreage. Again, the necessity for emergency legislation for 1959 demonstrates that equitable farm allotments under the tilled acres method can only be assured in the future by the addition to the national allotment of an acreage large enough to jeopardize the successful operation of the marketing quota program.

There is a widespread belief that this year's program has broken down because of the failure of State and county committees to withhold the full amount of reserves. This is probably true in some areas, but a careful study of the actual facts clearly indicates that in California there is no basis for any such claim, and there is every reason to believe that in other States the withholding of the full reserve is only a partial solution to the problem.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN COTTON ALLOTMENT LEGISLATION

Due to the great difference in conditions in various parts of the country, no equitable method for determining individual farm allotments can be set up in legislation. State and county committees need authority to make equitable adjustments that can only be determined by an analysis of the conditions that exist in a particular area. There is no need that the identical procedure be followed in establishing cotton allotments in the West as may be used in Georgia or Texas where conditions, type of farming operations, tenure arrangements, etc., may be entirely different.

In order to find a solution to the problems that have been presented in this statement, the following recommendations are being made. We feel that legislation in line with these suggestions is necessary, even to the extent of setting up special legislation for the State of California (and the other States in the irrigated area if desired).

(1) Each State committee should be given full authority to determine the method by which allotments to the counties and individual farms are made. We further recommend that such authority should apply only in those States where the growers by referendum have indicated their approval that the State committee shall have such authority. We suggest this as an alternative to whatever other provisions relative to the allocation of allotments may be written into legislation.

(2) If legislation in line with recommendation No. 1 cannot be obtained, the following method is recommended: Individual farm allotments should be based primarily on the same general formula as is used in determining State and county allotments with such adjustments as may be made by the county committee in recognition of sound rotation practices, the suitability of the land for the production of cotton, and in irrigated areas, the acreage of land for which water is available for the production of cotton. The general principle here is that each farm should be entitled to a cotton allotment proportionate to the contribution of that farm toward the county and State allotment with adjustments as indicated above and such other adjustments as are necessary to insure the distribution of the county allotments in a manner that is considered fair and reasonable by the cotton growers in that county.

(3) If it is impossible to secure legislation in line with recommendations 1 or 2, the present tilled acres method could be made to work fairly well if county committees were given authority to make downward revisions in the allotments as determined under section (344) (f) (2).

Another change greatly needed under the tilled acres method is the elimination of "sugar beets for sugar" from the list of crops that are excluded from the "acreage tilled annually." As far as we know, this provision applies only to California since in no other part of the Cotton Pelt are sugar beets and cotton produced in the same area. Sugar beets are one of the few California crops that can be profitably grown on the large acreage that must be diverted from cotton. Under the present law, any planting of sugar beets by a cotton grower causes a further reduction in the farm cotton allotment, with the result that sugar beets are effectively excluded as a substitute crop on acreage diverted from cotton.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we would like to emphasize a few points that have been brought out in the above statement. The need for emergency legislation in 1950 to correct hardship cases should serve as a "horrible example" of what happens when acreage allotments are set up throughout the entire Cotton Belt with its varying conditions, under a single inflexible set of legislative provisions. It is our contention that the success of the cotton marketing quota program depends on the ability of each State to live within the State allotment as established by law. This can only be done when allotments to individual farms are made in a manner considered fair and equitable by cotton producers in that State.

Recognition of the principle of State and county discretionary authority in establishing farm cotton allotments is imperative if an equitable allocation is to be effected. We prefer proposal number 1, even if special provision is required to use this procedure in areas which desire to do so. Our second choice is number 2 as outlined above. If the first two alternatives are not acceptable, the third proposal is offered as a reasonably acceptable but less desirable alternative. Mr. POAGE. I ask unanimous consent to insert a letter from Mr. Palmer of Texas.

Mr. PACE. Without objection, it may be inserted at this point in the record.

(The matter above referred to is as follows:)

W. R. POAGE,

Waco, Tex.

LUBBOCK, TEX., February 16, 1950.

DEAR SIR: I am writing you to help us farmers on the South Plains County. The counties of Gains, Andrews, and Yoakum. Why don't you let every farmer plant one-half of his cultivated acres in all counties in cotton and the other half in feed?

I work about 8,000 acres by hired labor. From now on I want to rent all my land to these men that have been working for me so they can get a start for themselves, but they can't get any help from the banks unless they can plant at least half of their cultivated land in cotton.

Lubbock County, Floyd County, Lynn County, Hale County, and other counties their acreage has been cut very little. Several counties north of Lynn County have more rainfall, therefore their yield of cotton is greater.

Now if we farmers are producing too much cotton, I think it would be fair to cut our acreage, but I do think all counties should be reduced alike. There is nothing fair about letting some counties have the benefit of a larger acreage while others are cut so short that they cannot make a living on what is proposed at the present time.

We are supposed to be a democratic country where people have equal rights. All I am asking is that all farmers have equal rights regardless of where they live. Equal allotment in cotton acreages the State over.

All of our South Plains counties cannot develop under the set-up now. Why not fix to where a farmer can make a living for himself and his family; don't starve him out to where the Government will have to take care of him in the end. To me that is contrary to logical thinking. When you put it to where a man connot support his family you break down everything we are fighting for; a man must have an opportunity to make a living. If all counties are treated alike then we will be able to live and let live.

I have heard you talk here in Lubbock and have read numerous writings of yours. I think you are a very broadminded man and are willing too to help us

farmers. I would appreciate it if you would help us get equal rights throughout the South Plains.

Yours truly,

P. S.-Please read this to the Agricultural Subcommittee.

W. L. PALMER,

Mr. PACE. Mr. Bell, we will be glad to have your report with regard to the farmer from Cherokee County, Tex., who did not receive his total planted acreage, notwithstanding the fact that it was less than 5

acres.

STATEMENT OF E. D. BELL, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. BELL. Mr. Pace, on December 20, we had a letter from Mr. J. Perrin Willis in which he enclosed a cotton allotment notice which showed six-tenths of an acre and was addressed to Chester C. Vining. I believe that is the same gentleman you referred to day before yesterday.

We wrote Mr. Willis that we would have to check that matter through the Texas State office and get a report on it, and we did, and this is the report which Mr. Vance gave us on that case:

We have requested the Cherokee County committee to investigate the reported crop and land usd on Mr. Vining's farm and to make a full report thereon to this office. The report from the county committee indicates that an error was made in computing cotton war crop credits for the 1949 crop year, with the result that an erroneous 1950 cotton allotment of six-tenths of an acre was determined. This small cotton allotment has been canceled, and Mr. Vining has filed an application for a group 2 or new farm cotton allotment with his county committee.

So it is apparent from the records which Mr. Vance has examined that no cotton was shown as having been grown on the farm during the year 1946, 1947, or 1948 as further exemplified by the fact that Mr. Vining filed for a new grower allotment.

Mr. POAGE. That is exactly what Judge Willis was complaining about. He understands this man, under the law, was entitled to cotton, but he understood he was not getting it as the law generally prescribes.

Now you tell us Mr. Vance says because he has filed as a new grower, it was apparent he did not grow any cotton, while Judge Willis comes up here and states he did.

Mr. BELL. I can check into that matter further.

Mr. POAGE. Nobody would argue with Mr. Vance if the man did not grow any cotton, because obviously nobody would have any complaint then. If the man did not grow any cotton, there is no question about his not being entitled to anything more than a new grower's allotment.

Mr. BELL. We will be glad to write Mr. Vance back and specifically set out the fact that this gentleman said Vining did grow cotton. Mr. POAGE. Either cotton or war crops.

Mr. BELL. The records show apparently he did not, but we would like them to reconcile those differences and give us a further report. Mr. PACE. Does your report indicate he was entitled to a war crop credit in 1946?

Mr. BELL. Apparently, based on the 532 (c) as originally filed, they did compute his six-tenths of an acre war crop credit, and that was the basis for the six-tenths of an acre allotment.

Mr. POAGE. If they decided he did not grow anything, why did they give him anything?

Mr. BELL. When they got in touch with Mr. Vining and discussed it, or for some reason, they determined he did not grow six-tenths of an acre war crop; consequently, he was not eligible for an old grower's allotment according to their records.

Mr. PACE. Where a man has grown only six-tenths of an acre of cotton or has grown no cotton and has only six-tenths of an acre of war crop credit, do you permit your county committee to raise that under any circumstances?

Mr. BELL. Certainly.

Mr. POAGE. They raised it about three-tenths of an acre; did they not?

Mr. BELL. I do not know what they did in this particular case. Mr. POAGE. I think Mr. Vining said he got nine-tenths of an acre. Mr. BELL. No, sir. His allotment notice was six-tenths.

Mr. PACE. Under what method do you raise it? You have given him in the first instance the maximum amount he grew on which he was entitled to credit.

Mr. BELL. They could raise that amount under the 5-15-acre reserve if conditions warranted it.

Mr. POAGE. But he is not in the 5-15-acre reserve.

Mr. BELL. Or out of the regular county reserve. They raise them out of the regular county reserve-not the 5-15-acre county reserve, but the regular county reserve.

Mr. PACE. Without objection, consent will be granted to Mr. Russell Smith, executive secretary of the National Farmers Union, to insert a statement in the record at this point in behalf of the Farmers Union. Mr. Smith will file it with Mrs. Downey, clerk of the committee, for insertion at this point in the record.

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL SMITH, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION, TO THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE, ON PRICE SUPPORT LEGISLATION FOR COTTON, MARCH 22, 1950

The National Farmers Union has just completed its biannual convention. During that convention the Farmers Union outlined in specific terms its view of the general framework of price support and control legislation. While naturally these principles do not mention any commodity by name, we believe they are applicable to the legislation now before the committee. In brief, so far as these principles are to be applied to cotton in the next year, the cardinal points to be observed are that the Farmers Union advocates:

(1) A distinction between large and small growers by the adoption of a commodity unity system which would give full support for family farmers and less than full support to others.

(2) The use of minimum acreage allotments in the case of all crops so that small growers will not suffer unduly from such reductions.

(3) The use of production payments for all crops so that farm income may be kept stable and consumers may buy food at reasonable prices.

(4) The application of soil conservation requirements in connection with price support programs.

In addition the Farmers Union adopted the following comprehensive program for assisting individual farmers to shift from less desirable to more desirable types of production in the years ahead, and to meet the other problems involved in this transitionary period :

"Tremendous changes in the structure of agriculture must be faced in the years ahead. These changes may result in the destruction of all that is most