11396 Mr, COMBS. It is to be withheld for allocation to this type of farm tenant. Mr. CRAWFORD. That would be 1 percent of the total State allotment? Mr.COMBS. Not exceeding 1 percent of the total State allotment. Mr. CRAWFORD. Does the gentle- man intend that to come out of the 10 percent which the bill now carries? Mr. COMBS. The gentleman will no- tice that the same proviso is added in three sections of the bill. I do not have the amendment before me. It would depend on how the whole thing was interpreted. Mr. CRAWFORD. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poace] points out, the present law states that they may do it, and this bill provides that they shall withhold not less than 10 percent at the State level or 15 percent at the county level. Mr. COMBS. What my amendment would do would be that the States set aside this acreage for this particular year; whether it is out of the 10 percent or the 15 percent would make no dif- ference. Mr. COOLEY. Would the gentleman mind answering this question: Is it the purpose of the gentleman's amendment to provide acreage allotment to tenants who have not formerly owned real prop- erty on which cotton has been grown? Mr. COMBS. It applies to the man who goes out and buys a new farm. Mr. COOLEY. Does it apply to the man who formerly owned his farm and had grown cotton on it but disposed of the farm and has bought another on which cotton has not been grown? Mr. COMBS. No; he could be taken care of. The man I am interested in taking care of particularly is the soldier who has gone out and bought a new farm, Mr. COOLEY. If the gentleman is trying to provide this acreage to take care of new growers, then certainly it is not necessary, in view of the fact that both the 10-percent acreage which is to be reserved at the State level and the 15-percent acreage which is reserved at the county level can be used so as to provide allotments for new growers. While no specified part of such reserved acreage is set apart solely for new grow- ers, certainly substantially more than that which would be made available by the gentleman's amendment might be used to accomplish the purpose sought by the amendment which the gentleman has offered. Frankly, Iam glad to know that the gentleman has now made it clear that he intends for his amendment to affect only new growers who have ac- quired land upon which cotton has not formerly been produced. There has al- ways been a new-grower provision in the cotton program. I certainly have no ob- jection to providing adequately for new growers of cotton and other commodi- ties, but I do object to changing the philosophy of these control laws by mak- ing the acreage allotments to indi- viduals rather than on the definite fac- tors now contained in these control pro- grams. We cannot make acreage allot- ments to individuals who do not own farm land. We cannot make individual allotments to certain classes or groups of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE individuals to the exclusion of other groups or individuals and thereby aban- don the fundamental philosophy upon which these programs have been oper- ated. The law as it is now written is per- fectly plain. The gentleman’s amend- ment will result in confusion and am- biguity, and should therefore, in my opinion, be defeated. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment in order to clarify the issues here. Let me say, first, that the State of Texas receives 37 percent of all cotton allotted in the United States. This year that State has 7,600,000 acres allotted to it. Under the bill as drawn the State committee of Texas may reserve 10 per- cent or 760,000 acres. To do what? If you will turn to page 3, line 19, you will find that among the uses the State committee shall make of the 760,000 acres is stated in the first line of page 1. It is for new farms. That is what the gentleman from Texas is striking at. He says he wants some acreage allotted to farmers, to people in Texas, who have not planted cotton since 1941. A new farm under the law now Is a farm on which cotton has not been planted in the last 3 years. Therefore, what the gentleman is striking at is this: He wants acreage available for new farmers. Under the bill the State of Texas has the right to reserve 760,000 acres and if it wants to it can use every acre of it to do what the gentleman from Texas proposes to do by his amend- ment. But that is not all. Over on page 7, each of his counties may reserve not 10 percent but 15 percent. If a county is allotted 20,000 acres of cotton the county committee can reserve 3,000 acres of it. To do what? They can use every acre of the 3,000 for the new farms that the gentleman is so much concerned about, except the 20 percent set aside for farms under 10 acres. Mr. Chairman, when we have these acreage controls, when you give to one you must take from somebody else. I do not know who the gentleman from Texas proposes to take it from. I know this, and I want it understood all day long because this question is coming up, coming up and coming up, that under the present bill we are giving to the State of Texas, the State of Missouri, the State of Arkansas, and every other State all of the cotton land they are entitled to. We have not had a single complaint from any State. We are giving them all the land they are entitled to and we are telling the people of Texas, we are telling the people of Arkansas, we are telling the people of Missouri: “Here it is. You take it. You can hold 10 per- cent at the State level, you can hold back 15 percent at the county level, you can give it to new farms, you can in- crease the allotment of small farms, you can take care of cases where a man has a big acreage on his farm but only a small cotton allotment; you can use it for certain other adjustments.” They can take it down there at the home level. The gentleman from Texas has now gone one step forward... His amendment says that a State committee may reserve 1 percent. There is noth- JULY 31 ing mandatory about it, I may say to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr, Craw- Forp], who used that word. He has not added to the authority, he has not added to what the State committee may do. He says the State committee may reserve 1 percent for new farms which shall be confined, however, to one group of new farms. A man who planted cotton the last time in 1942 cannot get any of it. A man who planted cotton the last time in 1944 cannot get any of it. Aman who planted cotton the last time in 1943 cannot get any of it. It is only for those fellows who have not planted any cotton since 1941. He has picked his crowd, he has selected his few, and the gentleman admits it is only adaptable to his district and the district represented by the gen- tleman from Texas [Mr. Beckwortu]. The State committee now has all of this discretion and much more. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has expired. Mr. BECK WORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, practically every time an effort is made to try to safeguard the rights of a group of people that are being left out, irrespective of the cause—and no one is imputing to somebody the de- sire to do wrong by somebody—but prac- tically every time an effort 1s made to safeguard for sure, as this amendment does, their rights, we hear vigorous argu- ments against such moves. I start with Van Zandt County, previously men- tioned, where they have 600 so-called new farmers who applhed for acreage, and 400 acres to distribute among the 600. And what 1s a new farmer? You know, the important thing is not the new farm, but the farmer himself. Why, a man could have grown cotton for 40 years on a given piece of land here, could have a family of five children right in the house, lose his place this very year, go out to another farm that did not have cotton on it in 1946, 1947, and 1948, go to his county committee this past spring and say, “I would like to get a cotton acreage allotment,” and he might be told, “Sorry, Mr. Jones, although you farmed cotton for 40 years, you are a new farmer, and we can only give you, as in the case of Van Zandt County, one acre, or seven- tenths of one acre, or some sum, however small perhaps none. That means that he cannot continue farming cotton; his acreage is too small. If any of you want to look at the ReEcorp as 1t actually is, I refer to you to the Recorp of Wednesday, July 26, and I can show you State by State, almost without any exception, where that very same thing that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Comss], described as having taken place has taken place in other States. Almost without exception it has occurred in every cotton State. Now, what is significant about this lit- tle fellow? It does not help him to say that the fault was with the State com- mittee; it does not help him to say that was the fault of the Department of Ag- riculture office in Washington; it does not help him to say your county come mittee did not reserve enough. That does not put a stitch of clothes on his back or a morsel of food in his stomach,! As I conceive it. the dutv of a Renrad!
1950 sentative here is to try to help those who need help; I have in the Recozy right before me this kind of disparity. It shows in some States the average pro- ducer has an allotment of 110 acres, on an average, in a county, whereas in some States you have an allotment of the av- erage produccr, on an average, of a little less than 3 acres. Gentlemen, I think that anybody knows that there is too much spread there. We have in our own State—and nobody js blaming anybody, we are simply trying to get it corrected— allotments where the average producer receives an allotment of over 100 acres, whereas in some of the counties the av- erage allotment will run not more than 8 or 10 acres, or perhaps less. The gen- tleman from Texas [Mr. Comps], as you all know, has been preeminently fair on all matters that he has worked on. He is a former county agent. He was reared on the farm and he has been close to the farm, He knows what this problem is, and he is trying as best he can to correct it, to bring about that which is justice. Mr.COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr, BECKWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. COOLEY. What does the gentle- man recommend that we should do for the people that he speaks for? Mr. BECKWORTH. The gcentleaan offered an emendment, although the time for debate was brief in late August a@ year ago, saying that any genuine cot- ton farmer recognized by his county committee as being a cotton farmer should be given a minimum of 5 acres of cotton. That is what I recommended ayearago. That is what the gentleman recommended before the subcommittee, and that is what the gentleman favors now. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, if cotton were grown in an area where there was very limited gin capacity and cottonseed oil capacity and cotton compressor capacity your acreage miseries would be less than they are under present conditions. That is why you have this controversy up here at the moment, As I understand the bill, it eliminates the crop year 1949 as being included in the base period because of course that year you had more acreage, very big acreage, and very big production, prob- ably 60 or 70 percent more than the present estimated crop, so your base pe- riod is 1946, 1947, 1948, and 1950 in- stead of 1949, The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Comss! has offered this amendment. He says that the State committee may re- serve not to exceed 1 percent, There is nothing mandatory in that. That would give Texas about 76,000 acres on the basis of 7,600,000 acres that they might re- serve up to 1 percent. Your bill pro- vides here that the State committee shall reserve an adequate acreage not exceed- ing 10 percent. As the gentleman from Texas {Mr. Becxworra! said, it might be one-half of 1 percent or it might be 10 percent. There is nothing manda~ tory in there, as I see it. There is pro- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE vision In there for adjustments in county allotments for trends in acreage, and for abnormal conditions adversely affecting plantings, and the county committee could reserve allotments up to 15 per- cent, but it is not mandatory. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield. Mr. WHITE of California. The gen- tleman said there was nothing manda- tory about that. I hope he will bear in mind that it is mandatory that an ade- quate acreage be reserved. That is what the bill says. Mr. CRAWFORD. That is to be de- termined by the local committee, so it might be 1 percent or 15 percent, based on the showing. Mr. WHITE of California. Yes; but it is mandatory that it be adequate. Mr. CRAWFORD. The local county committee deals with new farms, small farms, for farms adversely affected by abnormal conditions affecting plantings, and for adjustments by the county com- mittee in other farm-acreage allot- ments in counties in which the, 15-per- cent reserve .is insufficient to provide equitable farm allotments. I am cpnvinced that this acreage fight will be up every year. Where wheat gets to a point where you have to deal with similar controls you will have your wheat acreage fight between your States. You will have your corn acreage fight be- tween your States. You will have it on every crop except those crops which have an interdependence between the field area and the processing plant. If you had limited cottonseed oil, com- pressor, and gin capacity, you would not have to deal with this because each gin, each compressor, and so forth, would have its particular acreage around it. The industry would meet together and say, “Gin No. 1, there shall be so much acreage in your community,” and that would just settle the issue. Here you have a commodity which is not inter- dependent on some particular gin, be- cause you have so many gins as related to the reduced capacity that you are now producing. Therefore, you have ecx- cess processing equipment. Therefore, the acreage fight must come down to the individual farmers and their Represent- atives sitting here in Congress. I can sympathize with you. I am not argu- ing either side. I am just trying to ac- quaint myself with what you are up against. Mr. COMBS, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield. Mr. COMBS. The committee has contended all along that the State and county committees could meet the prob- lem I have in mind, but the committees tell me they cannot, I want to be frank to say that I went to the authorites this time who are administering the law and they helped write this provision and they say it will do the job. That is the reason I want it in the law. It does not change the law in any way. Mr. CRAWFORD. I do not think either the State committees or the county committees will ever administer this in anything like an equitable or 11397 satisfactory manner to the individual growers involved. I think it is utterly impossible for human beings to do such a thing. Therefore I see no chance of your ever being satisfied. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendment and amend- ments thereto close in 7 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the gentleman from Texas, who offered the amendment, whether his amendment provides that the State committee may or must reserve 1 percent for the pur- poses detailed. Mr. COMBS. I believe it reads “shall reserve not exceeding 1 percent”, if I remember the amendment correctly. I had only one copy of it which is at the Clerk’s desk. The gentleman may read the amendment 1f he wishes. Mr. ABERNETHY. The gentleman's amendment reads as follows: Provided, That the State committee may set aside not more than 1 percent. I appreciate the problem which con- fronts the gentleman. As a member of the Committee on Agriculture. I want to say that we, too, have been confronted with this problem and the many, many, many other problems that a law of this kind naturally brings about. I think it should be pointed out for the benefit of the gentleman’s constituents that the law as it now exists provides that the State committee in Texas can reserve 10 per- cent or ten times as much as the gentle- man’s amendment provides. Mr. COMBS. In my judgment this problem down in Texas is occasioned by the fact that these little farmers, they are little farmers, have had nobody to speak for them. They cannot go down to the central State agency and make a fight for the acreage. They are getting it in the neck because they have had no- body speaking for them. My amend- ment simply telis the committee to treat them justly and gives them the authority to do it, Mr. ABERNETHY. No, it does not tell the committce to do it. Mr. COMBS. Oh, yes, it does. Mr. ABERNETHY. The gentleman’s amendment does not provide that any- body shall speak for them. I read the amendment and I cannot see that it des- ignates anyone to speak for them. It simply limits the discretion which is placed in the State committee by the present law. Mr. COMBS. I asked those men: What will it require so that you can do the job? And they helped write that. Mr. ABERNETHY. Who were those men who wrote it? Mr. COMBS. Never mind. But offi- cials administering the program were consulted. Mr. ABERNETHY. I think the Recorp ought to show whether any members of the Texas State committee or just who down there wrote this amendment,
11398 Mr. REGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ABERNETHY. I yield. Mr. REGAN. With reference to the 10-percent provision, we had the experi- ence last year that the State committee did not exercise their prerogatives as provided in the law and they took some- thing less than 3 percent which threw many of our counties out of gear. Some counties got more of an allotment than they needed or used or required, and other counties received much less. It seems to me, as far as the State of Texas is concerned that if we say here that the State committees may reserve an adequate acreage equal to, but not ex- ceeding 10 percent, that we can get the acreage that I would like to get in the right countics down there. Mr. ABERNETHY. That is what the bill does, Mr. REGAN. What we are concerned about is to see that the State committee allocates the acreage to certain coun- ties that are entitled to and should be allowed to plani their fair share. Mr. ABERNETHY. But this bill pro- vides that the State committee shall reserve up to 10 percent and use it to meet the inequities that arise. This bill is a home-rule bill and provides for ade- quate discretionary powers to meet any emergency or inequity that might arise. Mr. REGAN. Not that we wish to call attention to the fact that the State of Texas is a big State, but it is; and there seems to be many counties of the State that the State committee has not become acquainted with. But if it says “equal to but not exceeding 10 percent,” I believe those counties would be taken care of. Mr ABERNETHY. Iam just as sym- pathetic with your problem as any Mem- ber in this House. The 27 members of the Committee on Agriculture have been studying this thing for a long, long time. Mr. REGAN. I thoroughly realize that. Mr. ABERNETHY. We have called in people from all over the Cotton Belt and from the Department, and in our considered judgment the provisions in- corporated in the bill as now before the House are much better than the amend- ment that is now pending. Mr. REGAN. The amendment may be entirely correct but what I am con- cerned with more particularly is in west Texas, where since the war much new land has been put into cultivation, and we thought last year the law would pro- tect and take care of some of those new farms, but when the Statc committee, not being familiar with west Texas, decided that 3 percent would be the maximum they would use under this 10 percent, we were seriously affected. The CHAIRMAN, The time of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. ABER- NETHY] has expired. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Wier], Mr. WIER. Mr. Chairman, coming from Minnesota, I am not too conversant with the cotton problem, except insofar as I have heard it discussed on the floor CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE of this House. I have heard a lot about the littie fellow during my 2 years in this House, but the thing I want to clarify in my mind, and which prompts me to support the Combs amendment is this fact: that in the State of Minnesota and in the Northern States, where we have other agricultural problems, there has been a great trend in the lact few years toward la-ge corporation farms. I am tempted to believe that in many of thes2 county organizations or State organiza-~ tions it is the larger units that prevail in the allocation of this cotton acreare, It is for that reason that I want to stup- port this amendme it. For instance, in Montana, where the Campbell interests represent the large grain growers, they naturally control the disposition of legislation of this kind. I want to say that the little fellow who has just returned from the service should have an opportunity to exe out an cxist- ence, and I think he has a right to an existence and I think he ought to be protected. Up to this moment in the discussion of this farm problem, particu- larly with reference to cotton, it appears the only way you are going to give that little fellow some protection and the right to existence is a designation by law that he shall have the right of recourse in the production of cotton, vather than let the large group make the designation and have the power of authorization. That is the reason I am g?ing to support the Combs amendment at this time. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Texas | Mr, Comes]. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. Comps) there were—ayes 50, noes 25. So the amendment was agreed to, Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. ALBERT. After the word “allotment” where it appears on page 3, line 21, and page 4, line 18, and page 6, line 11, insert the 1ollowing. “Fifteen per- cent of the State’s 1948 acreage was in excess of 1,000,000 acres and less than half of its 1948 allotment ” Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to restore in the pending measure a provision ap- plicable only to Oklahoma in the present law. Under this amendment, the Okla- homa State committee may withhold a 15-percent rather than a 10-percent reserve. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ALBERT. I yield. Mr. PACE. In the interest of time I may say to the gentleman that this pro- vision is in the present act and the com- mittee has no objection to the gentle- man’s amendment. Mr, ALBERT. I thank the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Oklahoma, The amendment was agreed to. Mr, ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. JuLY 81 The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. ABERNETHY: Page 11, after line 16, insert a new paragraph reading as follows. “(6) In apportioning the county allotment among the farms within the county, the Sec- retary, through the local committees, shall take into consideration different conditions within separate administrative areas within a county if any exist, including types, kinds, and productivity of the soll so as to prevent discrimination among the administrative areas of the county.” Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, the present law prov:des that in its ad- ministration the Secretary of Agri- culture, in his discretion, may establish administrative areas within the county. There was some question in the com- mittee as to whether or not this discre- tionary authority should be continued. The committee finally decided to take it out, After further considering the mat- ter I think now it is the sense of the committee thut the discretionary author- ity ought to be restored to the Secretary, Mr. PACE The gentleman is correct: it is in the present law. The committee has no objection to continuing it in the Jaw as proposed by this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Mississippi. The amendment was agreed to Mr. GATHINGS Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Gariinas Page 9, line 16, after the word “acreage.”, insert the following: “Provided further, That if the national acreage allotment is more than 21,000,000 acres, the farm acreage allotment limitations in this paragraph shall be Increased by the same percentage that the National acreage allotment is in excess of 21,000,000 acres. And” . Mr GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman, sub- section (6) of page 9 sets out limitations to the effect that no cotton farmer could plant more than 45 percent of the tilled acreage on his farm In certain in- stances this percentage could be raised to 50 percent but such 5 percent addi- tional acreage would come out of the county reserve, This bill was drafted as a reduction program to cut cotton acreage. Due to the invasion of South Korea the picture has changed. It cannot be determined at this date what acreage would be needed to produce an adequate supply of cotton in 1951. It is probable that a considerable increase over the 1950 national allotment would be asked by the officials of the Govern- ment to meet the demands of the pre- paredness months that lie ahead. Twenty-one million acres was provided as the 1950 national acreage allotment. Should it be necessary in connection with the defense program to go to 22,000,000 acres, 23,000,000 acres or say 25,000,000 acres the proportionate per- cent increase over the 45 and 50 percent will be the same. This is to make it equitable across the board so that each county will be given the same considera- tion should the acreage allotment go above the 21,000,000 acres that was al- lotted in 1950. This amendment would
1950 treat alt alike and permit the high-factor counties to share in any increase im acre- age asked by the Government. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GATHINGS. I yield to the gen- tleman from California. Mr, WHITE of California. So that there will not be any misunderstanding, may I say to the gentleman that I favor his amendment and I hope the other members of the California delegation, and those from the West, will likewise favor it because we have a situation similar to that of the gentleman from Arkansas who proposes this amendment. It would help us as well as him and do justice to all, I may say. Mr. GATHINGS. I thank the gentle- man. Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Myr. GATHINGS. I yield to the gen-~ tleman from Missouri. Mr. JONES of Missouri. May I say to the gentleman that I shall support hisamendment. I had a similar amend- ment I would have offered had he not offered his. Mr. GATHINGS. I thank the gentle- man. This amendment was presented to the Committee on Agriculture this morn- ing and received unanimous approval with the exception of one member who opposed the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment will be adopted. Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment. Mr. Chairman, the Cotton Subcommit- tee of the Agricultural Committee held a meeting this morning and felt that in view of the present circumstances they should approve the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas. I want it understood that when I speak I do not represent the committee as a whole. Iam merely presenting my own personal views. I would not want to let this matter pass without calling the attention of the committee to the fact that this amend- ment does allow an allocation of cotton acreage sufficient in some cases to require the producer to plant cotton after cot- ton. I for one, and again I express merely my individual views, do not be- lieve we can in good conscience tell the taxpayers of America that we are urging a sound farm program when we author- ize allotments that will require a farmer to plant cotton this year and to plant cotton next year on the same land. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia. Mr. PACE. The gentleman will re- call that this morning we had the offi- cials of the Department of Agriculture before us and inquired whether or not they favored this provision, They stated it might be necessary in order to get the needs for the defense program filled. Mr. POAGE. No, Iam afraid I do not recall just that, although I do recall that the official said they had no objection to this amendment and that undoubtedly some experiment stations would say that some land was strong enough to justify CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE planting cotton after cotton. I have heard that claim all my life. I have lived in the black lands of Texas practically all of my life and I have heard that that soil would never wear out. That has been the experience in every part of the Cotton Belt. In every part of the Cotton Belt tt has been stated that the land would not wear out, but it has worn out. I grant that the gentleman from Arkan- sas comes from one of the richest sec- tions in the world and it will probably be longer wearing out there than the red hills of Georgia, or the sandy lands of east Texas, but it will wear out never- theless. Land simply will not stand a eontinual repetition of planting cotton year after year. I think that our first duty is to pro- mulgate a program that is sound from the standpoint of soil conservation. To my mind a program cannot be sound that requires a farmer to plant cotton after cotton. For that reason I must object to this amendment, I must there- fore oppose it. I recall that in the legis- lation we passed last spring, Public Law 471, we provided that no one should be allowed to build up his cotton acreage where he would plant cotton after cot- ton. We put a limitation of 40 percent on the amount that anybody could get un- der the terms of that bill. This bill has & limitation of 45 percent, which, frankly, was & compromise, and I think a rather fair one. However, in this amendment, we are going too far and, in my opin- jon, we will see the day when those who put this thing over, if we do put it over, will be upbraided and you will have to answer the charge of depleting the soil resources of America in order to reap quick profits for a limited area of this country. There is not anything involved here except the question of somebody being able to grow more than half their land in cotton. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, certainly there is merit in the policy declared by the gentleman from Texas, [Mr, Poses], and it is the general policy of the committee to recog- nize proper soil conservation and rota- tion practices, At the same time, the committee agrees that this amendment should be approved, for this reason: No one knows what the war might bring on. The Secretary may want twenty- five or twenty-six million acres of cot- ton next year. If that should be his request, he must have producers in a position to produce that much cot~ ton. We therefore think we need to pro- vide against the contingency if the Sec- retary should ask for substantial in- creases in cotton acreage, and therefore this amendment should be approved. If it was general language to go on every year, I am quite sure the committee would never have approved it, but the committee does not believe that this could happen for more than 2 or 3 years out of a stretch of 10 or more. There- fore the amendment has the approval of the conmnittee and we request its adop- on. The CHAIRMAN, The question fs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Garnincs). The amendment was agreed to. 11399 Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr, Wirrz of Cali- fornia: Page 11, after line 16, add a new subsection 6 reading as follows: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, farms in California entitled to an allot- ment base of 5 acres of cotton or less shall have such base treated as a minimum allot- ment.” Mr. WHITE of California, Mr. Chaitr- man, this amendment was agreed to by the Cotton Subcommittee this morning and I should like to ask the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace) to confirm that for the benefit of the com- mittee at this time. Mr. PACE. I will be glad to state that the gentleman from California seems to fcel that in the 5-acre or less allotment he has a problem that is pe- culiar to his State, and the subcommit- tee does not interpose any objection to the amendment in order that that sit- uation might be met in that State. Mr. WHITE of California. Before we vote, may I use a little more of my time here to direct a question to the gentle- man from Georgia to provide some- thing for the Reconrp here. I hold in my hand a newspaper item from my home town, and it refers to the legislation we have under consideration at this time. It says: Another provision of the proposed legis- lation would reduce the small farm from 15 acres to 10 acres. I ask the gentleman from Georgia whether or not that statement is correct. Mr. PACE. In response to the gentle- man may I say there is no such provision in the bill. There is a provision in the bill that provides that for farms of 10 acres or less the county committee must use at least 20 percent of the county re- serve for the purpose of building them up toward 10 acres, but all of the other provisions of the bill continue for both the State committee and the county committee. They may make alloca- tions up to any amount within the limits of the reserve for the purpose of increasing the acreage of the small farms and it js lodged in their discre- tion whether a farm of 20 or 25 or 30 acres shall be regarded as a small farm. The 10-acre provision that the gentic- man refers to relates only to the 20- percent reserve. Mr. WHITE of California. The gen- tleman feels, I am sure, that this bill is better for the small farmer than is the present legislation because of the fact that these reserve requirements are mandatory whereas before they wcre permissive; is that not correct? Mr. PACE. They are mandatory to the extent that the bill directs the coun- ty committee to make reservations of aa adequate acreage not exceeding the lim- itation fixed for these purposes. Mr. WHITE of California. And the gentleman feels that this bill is better for the small farmers than the present law, and for that reason? Mr. PACE. I believe it is. Mr. TACKETT. Mr, Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, my purpose in rising now is
11400 to find out what the amendment is. If I understand it correctly, it is to pre- clude acreage in California from being Jess than 5 acres. You say there is some peculiar situation existing in California that does not exist in the other States. I should like to know why the State of California should have a favor extended here that is not extended to the other States in the Cotton Belt. Mr. WHITE of California, I offered this amendment because out in Califor- nia we have a number of very large cot- ton farms, as the gentleman knows, and we can afford to take care of the few people who produce 5 acres and less much more easily than other States in the Nation. For instance, take Virginia and North Carolina. Over there most of their farmers have less than 5 acres. If we would put such a provision into effect there, it would wreak havoc among those people who have 6 and 7 acres. I hope the gentleman will follow us on that. We have given it a lot of thought. The subcommittee has agreed to let us handle the matter in this way on a spe- cial basis for California, Mr. TACKETT. The _ gentleman’s amendment is asking that in California you be given a minimum; that is, the minimum that California could receive would be 5 acres, Mr. WHITE of California, Yes; but that does not take anything from any other State. I hope the gentleman re- alizes that. That is merely dividing up the pie in California after it gets there. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield to the gentle- man from Georgia. Mr. PACE. I assure the gentleman this deals only with the operations of acreage within the State of California, as handled by the State and county com- mittees. Mr. TACKETT. Suppose you do the same thing for Arkansas. If you do that for Arkansas, it will not apply to any- body except Arkansas. But it could mess up the whole cotton program, and the gentleman knows it. Mr. PACE. Let me get the gentleman straight. As Ihave tried to state several times, we give the gentleman's State just as we give my own State all the cotton they are entitled to. So far as we are concerned, we then leave it for home administration. We have just adopted the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, who in effect says, “Either I don’t think my State committee has any authority or I don’t think my State com- mittee will do this, therefore, I ask that this amendment be adopted.” In this case we have general provisions with reference to 5 acres or less. The gentleman from California comes in and says, “Well, that does not fit my picture. Iam afraid it will not be handled in this way.” So we tell the gentleman, just as we tell the gentleman from Arkansas if he has a peculiar problem in Arkansas, and wants to offer an amendment relat- ing to Arkansas, that we have no objec- tion to that. We look to the gentleman and his associates here as Representa- tives of the people of Arkansas, because when we give Arkansas its two-million- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE some-odd-thousand acres it becomes an Arkansas problem. We think that you as their Representatives truly reflect the best interests of the people there. Mr. TACKETT. I am not going to oppose this amendment since I find that other States will not be affected, but we do have a peculiar situation in Arkansas, It is, just as some of the gentlemen from Texas mentioned a while ago, that we have thousands of little farms in Arkan- sas that are not allowed any cotton. These farmers were off in the war. They are little fellows. The fellows on the big plantations were exempted. These little fellows came back to find that the plan- tation owners had not lost any of their cotton allotments. You start off in 1945, 1946 and 1947 with your allotments. Those little fellows out there that went into the Army did not get out until 1945 and did not have the money to go back on the farm. That is a peculiar situation existing all over the United States, and there is nothing we can do about it. Mr. PACE. But we have vested in the State and county committees of Arkan- sas special authority to handle that problem. Mr. TACKETT. We gave it to them at the last session and they were unable to do anything about it. Mr. PACE. Get yourselves new com- mittees. Mr. TACKETT. Ido not know about that, but there are plenty of cotton~ farming veterans down there that I can stand here and name to you, that I know personally, who do not have one speck of cotton. Somebody let them down. I do not know who did it. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. Iyield. Mr. CRAWFORD. Who makes up the local committee? Mr. TACKETT. Iam not going into that. It is a long-drawn-out affair, and we could argue here all day as to what makes up the various State com- mittees. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield. Mr. PACE. The answer is that the committee is elected by the farmers in the gentleman’s district. Mr. TACKETT. Yes; the county com- mittees, but sometimes I am a little doubtful about the method of selecting the State committees. Mr.CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further? Mr. TACKETT. I yield. Mr. CRAWFORD. Of course if the large-acreage fellows dominate who shall be on the committee, I do not think they are going to cut their acreage. Mr. TACKETT. ‘You know who domi- nates, The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Wxrre]. The amendment was agreed to. Mr, MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. MaHon: Page 8, line 18, beginning on line 13 strike out all of line 13 and following, down to and including the figures “1948,"" line 19, JULY 81 Mr. MAHON, Mr. Chairman, if I may, have your attention, I think you will de- sire to favorably consider the amend- ment which I have offered. Unlike some of the amendments which have been offered, this is not complicated or diffi- cult of understanding. Anyone can easily understand the amendment which I offer. Let me read it to you again, And if you have a copy of the bill, will you please follow me. On page 3, line 13, the committee bill reads: Provided, That the 1951 allotment for any State which received a 1950 State acreage allotment in excess of 3,000,000 acres shall be apportioned to counties— d On a 4-year basis. That is what the committee recom- mends and that is what my amendment would strike out. Now do you under- stand? There is only one State in the Union which has a 3,000,000-acre cotton allotment. Do you understand further that this proposed provision in the law would apply only to one State—Texas, Do you understand that this provision, then, is the Texas bill incorporated in the regular bill which applies to the other 47 States of the Union? I would like to make my position clear. A principle as fundamental as the government it- self is involved here. If you vote for that principle of good government and fair play you will, in my judgment, vote for the amendment which I have offered to let Texas proceed like every other State in the Union. That is all that is involved in my amendment. t Under the broad terms of the present law provision is made that some States will operate on a 1-year history basis, some on a 2-year basis and some on @ 4-year basis. Under the broad terms of the law the different States find their place in that pattern, and no one can complain. No State is singled out in the existing law for favor or for discrimi- nation. But, gentlemen, Mr. PoaGE, my able and good friend, and there can be no better Member of the House, was un- happy with this provision in the existing law because it militated against his por- tion of the State, and it would appear— though I do not charge it—that the com- mittee turned ta my friend, Mr. Poacs, and said, “Write your own ticket for Texas in the pending bill and just so long as it does not affect any other State you may have what you want.” That is what I am complaining about. Texas is receiving different treatment from any other State in the Union. Texas came under the 2-year base period. Ar- kansas came under the 2-year base. The State of Missouri, farther east, came under the 2-year base. New Mexico came under the 2-year base, and Califor- nia came under the 2-year base. Some States came under the 4-year base. While I prefer the 2-year base for Texas, I say, let Texas stand on the 1-year, 2- year, or 4-year base as such may result from the broad provisons of existing law, and let Texas ask for nothing more than she is entitled to under the broad prin- ciples of the general law applicable to the other States of the Union. You know, Texas joined the Union in 1848, and I hope my Texas friends will pardon me when I say I do not think
1950 we should be so arrogant as to claim that we should have a Texas cotton bill with- out regard or respect to the other States of the Union. But this proposed provi- sion in the law, which I seek to strike out, this Texas gadget, if I may call it that, actually means a private bill for Texas, Texas being the only State with & 3,000,000-acre allotment. Texas alone among the States would no longer be under the general law. If the proposal is good in a 3,000,000- acre Btate, why is it not good in a 1-mil- lion-acre State or a 160,000-acre State? I am shocked and amazed that my proud State should be placed in the post- tion of asking for the violation of a prin- ciple that is so fundamental to good gov- ernment. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr, MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for five additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. MAHON. Let me probe a little further. I think you will see that the Texas bill has no place in a general law, applicable to the other States of the Union. Will anybody rise on this floor and challenge the principle which I have laid down and which I think you would like to support? No. No man will chal- lenge it. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. Let me proceed for just a few moments, and then I will be glad to yield. Those who will oppose this principle will not dare assert it on the floor. But they will say, “Now, now, Mr. Manon, did not your district get an allotment this year of more than 2,000,000 acres? Did not your district get more cotton than any State in the Union with the ex- ception of Texas?” Yes. That is true. The district that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BeckwortH] represents got about 100,000 acres. My district got 2,300,000 acres simply because in many respects it is the greatest cotton-pro- ducing area in the world. We got this acreage on the basis of plantings in 1947 and 1948. Other areas would have received allotments of similar amounts had they planted a similar number of acres in 1947-48, Those who by dis- crimination would seek to take away the west Texas cotton allotment might ar- gue. “Yes, there is a rich man in town. There are more poor people in town, 80 let us confiscate the belongings of the rich man.” Is that the principle to which we have fallen? My district had the big- gest cut in acreage this year of any dis- trict in the United States, the biggest cut below previous plantings. We were cut perhaps 400,000 acres below what we planted in 1947 and 1948—the biggest cut of any area. I see the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pacx) on the floor. Should I, with en- vious and covetous eyes, look at the pea- nut district, which the gentleman from Georgia represents, and say, “You have a@ vast peanut acreage. I do not have CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE any peanut acreage. Look at Mr. Pact, ig it fair for him to have a large peanut acreage? Let me have some of those acres and level up the program.” Shall I look to the lush rice fields of east Texas and say: “I have no rice allot- ment, Therefore, give an equal rice al- lotment to our west Texas people.” Shall I look to the rich wheat fields of Kansas and say, “The wheat allotment is small in my congressional district, so on the basis of prejudice and ill-founded logic, let us take the wheat from Kansas and Mr. Hore and put it in the district I rep- resent,” Such an unfair and illogical request on my part would be ridiculous. Yet that is the type of logic which will probably be urged against my amendment. I am not alone in my opposition to the at- tempt to write a private cotton bill for Texas, Officials of the Production and Marketing Administration in Texas and officials of the Production and Market- ing Administration in Washington rec- ognize that the so-called private bill for Texas is indefensible and no official of whom I have heard has recommended the proposed language which I seek to strike out. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield. Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman seems to be trying to leave the House under the impression that we have given to the great State of Texas something which the great State of Texas does not de- serve, and that we are discriminating in favor of the State of Texas. The gen- tleman does not want to leave that im- pression, does he? Mr. MAHON. I leave the impression that the language which I seek to strike out does not apply to any State in the Union except Texas; therefore, it Just ap- plies to Texas. Cut it out and lef us rise or fall with the rest of the people of the Nation. Why discriminate? Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman states that he wants Texas to come uniformly under the law, but what he actually means fs that his district got a favorable cotton acreage allotment last year and he wants to hold to it next year. Mr, MAHON. I say, take my acreage away from me if you will, but just let my State operate on a 1-, 2-, or 4-year basis just as any other State or any other dis- trict under rules of law applicable to all States. Cut out this obnoxious and vicious language which says that the Btate of Texas should operate under an- other principle. If my district must lose acreage, let it lose on the basis of a fair law and not on the basis of discrimina- tion. In justice that is all I could ask. Mr. COOLEY. All right; but this ob- noxious, vicious, and repugnant language actually takes away from the gentleman’s district certain acreage that he has received. Mr, MAHON. It takes away 300,000 acres, three times as much as Mr. Becx- woarts has; and Mr. BeckwortH is going to get less acreage next year if the pend- ing bill becomes the law. Mr. COOLEY. While it may take something away from the gentleman's district it gives {t to others, does it not? 11401 Mr. MAHON. Unfortunately 11 or 12 districts in Texas will have smaller aore- age allotments in 1951 than they had in 1950, if the pending bill becomes the law. Mr. COOLEY. Whatever it takes away from the gentleman's district it certainly gives to other districts in the State of Texas; is that right? Mr. MAHON. Yes; in a measure !t is given to the rest, it is given to other districts. But there is no justification for devising a provision applicable to only one State in the Union just to take away from counties and cotton farmers that to which they are entitled under the law. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for four additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. Mr. MAHON. Have we descended to such @ low level as to say in this legis- lation that might makes right? I am only asking that you give us the same treatment under the law of the land that you give every other State. Mr. COOLEY. Forsooth, the gentie- man doth have an interest in this propo- sition. Mr. MAHON. I have an interest in it, but the principle is greater than Grorce MaHon or HaroLtp Cootey; it is as great as the principle involved in our great democracy itself. Mr. COOLEY. Our committee meets in wide-open sessions; there ts certainly no logroliing there. The gentleman, I am sure, knows that the great State of Texas is well represented on that com- mittee with two distinguished Members of the Texas delegation sitting on the committee. Would the gentleman be willing for the great State of Texas to settle its own problems by a majority vote on this matter? Mr. MAHON. If the gentleman wants to suggest any such change in our form of government as that, then Jet him go right over to the Library of Congress and destroy the original of the Constitution which reposes there. Mr. COOLEY. Would the gentleman leave it up to his delegation? Mr. MAHON. Is it proper to say: “Now, now, we have the advantage of you; we are going to kick over all prin- ciples of proper legislative procedure and take away your cotton acreage.” It is amazing that such an attempt should be made. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for an observation? Mr. MAHON. Will the gentleman not heckle me? Mr. COOLEY. I am not trying to heckle the gentleman. The gentleman says Texas was treated differently. Mr, MAHON. I am not yielding. I know when you point out a weakness in @ man’s position he tries to defend him- self. I think I have pointed out the in- defensible position which the commit- tee takes. Of course, I know the gen- tleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coo.ey] under ordinary circumstances
11402 would not dream of supporting the lan- guage which I seek to strike out. Again, I renew my appeal that my amendment be adopted and that the special discriminatory language on page 8 which applies only to Texas be stricken from the bill. Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr.MAHON. Not at this time. Mr.POAGE. Does the gentleman want an answer or is he simply making a speech for the Recorp? Mr, MAHON. I am making a speech for the House. The gentleman can get time in his own right if he wishes to speak, and he will no doubt wish to do so. The simple proposition is that Texas should be on the same basis as all other States, taking her chance under the broad terms of the general law of being on the 1-, 2-, or 4-year basis. Mr. PACE, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment and I ask unanmous consent to speak for five additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia? There was no objection. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, there is an issue here that certainly I do not desire to have any partin. It is a Texas issue. But I regret the gentleman from Texas \Mr. Maron] finds it necessary to be critical of the House Committee on Agriculture. The gentleman knows that his district received about 350,000 acres of cotton this year that the committee had not intended. I want to say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MaHon] that his State is well represented on the Committee on Agriculture. It is a matter of keen re- gret to me that he finds it necessary to come here and indirectly attack the gen- tleman from Texas [Mr. Poacr]. I want to say further that I regret the gentleman made the statement a mo- ment ago against the whole committee, that it had thrown fair play out of the window. For the purpose of the Recorp, and in order to make this a Texas matter, I am going to make the unusual request that every Member of the House, when this amendment comes to a vote, except the Texas delegation keep their seats and let the Texas Mem- bers vote on it. Whatever the Texas delegation does it will be the pleasure of this committee to go along with. If the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poacr] has done wrong, let us see whether or not his action is in accord with the over- whelming majority of the Texas delega- tion. Iam going to keep my seat, and I am going to let you gentleman from Texas settle this question. What is the situation? The gentle- man has a congressional district that has lots of cotton. There are 21 con- gressional districts in Texas; it is a great State. This year, and I think every- body needs to understand this, leaving out the State of Texas, the congressional district represented by the gentleman from Texas {Mr. Manon] received more cotton acreage than any State in the Union. May I repeat that? Outside of the State of Texas the congressional dis- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE trict served by the gentleman from Texas received more acreage than any other State in the Union, including the State of Mississippi and the State of Arkansas. Mr. MAHON. My. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PACE, I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. MAHON. So what? Mr, PACE. Well, I am going to ex- plain the situation that arose. Mr, MAHON. Do not other States rank above me in peanuts and in other crops? We always had the largest amount. Mr. PACE. As I said before, I am going to get out of this fight but I think the House is entitled to know the facts. As I stated earlier in the afternoon, we asked the representatives of all cotton growers of the United States to get to- gether and try to settle this division of how much cotton acreage each State would get. They got together. Texas was represented; my State, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and all the others. They reached an agreement to take care of three or four States, mainly in the West, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Arkansas. We were assured at the time that Texas would not come under what was known as the California gad- get; that is, our committee was. After the bill had been prepared and the fig- ures were run up, Texas did not come under that gadget. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Manon] had nothing to do with this. I know he did not, and I want in make that crystal clear. But, some- body changed the figures of the State of Texas and brought that State under the California gadget. By doing that they shifted acreage throughout the State of Texas to one or two other areas. It was contrary to the intent of the committee and through that manipulation, with which the gentleman from Texas |Mr. Manon) had nothing to do and did not even know about until after it happened, the gentleman’s district received about 350,000 acres of cotton land in the high plains of Texas which the commit- tee intended should have gone to the other cotton farmers of Texas. In addi- tion, the law provides for credits for war crops, for which the State of Texas was entitled to 1,400,000 acres. By throwing Texas under the California gadget, it meant that the farmer who had earned credits for war crops did not receive cot- ton acreage for it, but other farmers who did not earn it, did receive it, which I think was most unjustifiable. That is all I intend to say on this question. I had not intended to say a word, but after the gentleman criticized the committee, I felt called upon to make this statement. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PACE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. MAHON. Any statement made by the gentleman from Texas charging the committee with unfairness was not in- tended. I did mean to say that the pro- vision was unfair, in my judgment. Let me say further that I conferred with the officials of PMA in Washington and Texas, and they told me that they told JULY 31 the committee they did not claim that Texas would be under the gadget prin- ciple, and if the gentleman would have anything in writing here showing it would be under the 2- or 4-year basis, it would be interesting. Missour!, Arkan- sas, Arizona, and California came under the 2-year program. Why change the law and say that Texas shall not have the privilege? Can the gentleman de- fend that? How can you change the law for just one State? Mr. PACE. The pending bill merely declares the law as originally intended by the committee in the law passed last year. Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas be permitted to proceed for five additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas. There was no objection. Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Georgia has ex- pressed the situation better than most of us could. Certainly he has explained it far better than I might. The gentle- man from Georgia cannot be charged with having a personal interest in this matter. Of course, every one of us from the State of Texas will either gain or lose depending upon the formula that 1s adopted in the State of Texas. There was a formula placed in effect in my State this year that had the effect of transferring approximately half a mil- lion acres of cotton from the older grow- ing sections of the State, largely to one district in the western section of our State. There are four congressional dis- tricts involved, but most of this acreage— more than 355,000 acres out of the half million—went to the Nineteenth District of Texas. It is a great district, it is rep- resented by a great Congressman, and it produces a great cotton crop. It is reported that this district alone grew more cotton this past year than any State in the Union outside the State of Texas. Those counties had a large cotton fac- tor without applying any special gadget. Many of the counties of that district would run well above 40 to 45 percent without applying any special gadget, Think of that—those of you whose counties got 6 and who got 8 and who got a 10-percent factor. Many of the counties of that district would get 45 percent of their total cultivated land in cotton without applying any special gadget. The gentleman from the nine- teenth district of Texas complains bit- terly that we should not pass legislation which has special appHcation. Last year this committee did pass legislation with @ special application. We passed it be- cause we were convinced that there was a situation in the State of California and possibly in New Mexico and Missouri which required special legislation in or- der to do equity in those States. In an effort to do equity the committee did pass special legislation which applied only to certain areas where certain fig- ures developed. Now, the gentleman makes a great point of saying: “Can you produce a shred
1950 of written evidence? Can you produce a@ document showing that the Depart- ment of Agriculture told you that Texas would not be involved?” No; I do not think we can produce a written instru- ment. But for 6 months the committee sat there, and day after day in every one of those meetings that we had the repre- sentatives of the Department of Agricul- ture present and I repeat to you, as did the gentleman from Georgia, that it was the definite understanding of the mem- bers of the committee that if we adopted this special formula to take care of a situation which we felt might result in inequity in certain States, that it would not apply to the State of Texas. No; this assurance was not in the form of a letter. Nobody asked that it be in the form of a letter. At that time we felt we could rely on the informal assurance of the Department. Time after time we discussed this matter with the repre- sentatives of the Department. We talked about it in committee with them, but not one time that I can recall was there ever a suggestion that this formula would apply to the State of Texas. On the con- trary I think the gentleman will find that the recollection of every member of that committee is the same as that of the chairman of the subcommittee [Mr. Pace}, who has just addressed you, and my recollection when we say that we had no intimation from the Department that this special formula could possibly apply to Texas. On the contrary we had every reason to believe that this special for- mula would not apply to the State of Texas, Mr, MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield. Mr. MAHON. Is it not true that you laid down ea broad principle of law ap- plicable to all the States and that you did not know whether {tt would apply to the State of Texas or not? Of course it would seem that perhaps some of the witnesses may have been asked this sim- ple question at some of the numerous hearings: Do you think it will apply to Texas? It just happened under the broad prin- ciple of the law that Texas, to the sur- prise of the gentleman from Texas, and I have no view to the contrary, came under that provision of the law on the 2-year basis. Let us go on the 2-year basis under the broad terms of the general law or whatever bracket we come in, insofar as the law may apply to our State. That would seem fair to all concerned. Mr. POAGE. The gentleman has asked if we did not think maybe the special formula would apply to the State of Texas. The answer is we did not so think, and the Department of Agricul- ture did not so Jead us to think. On the contrary they definitely led us to believe it would not apply to the State of Texas. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? . Mr. POAGE. I yield. Mr. ABERNETHY. I think it should be pointed out that the thing that brought about this shift of 350,000 acres of cottan from the central and east sec- tions of Texas to the west section of Texas was a mere 93 acres of cotton. Mr. POAGE. That is right. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Myr. ABERNETHY. And that if the State of Texas had planted as much as only 93 acres of cotton less than it did plant, that 350,000 acres would have been distributed in the sections of Texas where they have had the most trouble administering this law. Mr. POAGE, That !s right. It took acreage from the very areas where the factor was already low and took it to counties that already had a very high factor. Mr. ABERNETHY. And that is in the gentleman’s district, in the district of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Becx- ‘wortH], and in the district of the gentle- man from Texas, Judge Comss, and others who have had trouble with this law in that respect, is that correct? Mr, POAGE. That is absolutely cor- rect. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield’ Mr. POAGE. I yield. Mr. ALBERT. Did it take an extra 1u,000 acres to bring Texas under the California gadget? Mr, POAGE. After the Department had factored away 117,000 acres of 4-year history from Texas it still re- quired a further addition of 9,907 acres additional of 2-year history to bring Texas under the gadget. The Depart- ment conveniently found a 10,000-acre error in the Texas figures, going back to 1948, but they did not find it until after we were making the allotments in 1949. They needed 9,907 acres to bring Texas under this gadget and they found 10,000 acres. Mr. WHITE of California, Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr, POAGE, I yield. Mr. WHITE of California. I want to say to the California delegation, as well as to the Arizona, New Mexico, and Missouri delegations, that when this matter comes to a vote, if they do not choose to keep their seats, as the gen- tleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] rec- ommended, that they do vote with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poace), for the reason that the gentleman from Texas {Mr. Poacr] was trying to protect those four States, especially California, to give them a fair deal in acreage dis- tribution when we got into this mess, and it was by a mere accident in statistics that we did get into this trouble, and it was never intended. I reiterate, it was never intended in the Committee on Agriculture that Texas should come under the so-called California gadget. Mr. POAGE. The gentleman from California was a member of the sub- committee. Did he ever get the intima- tion from any representative of the De- partment of Agriculture that the State of Texas would be brought under this gadget? Mr. WHITE of California. Not at any time. Mr. POAGE. Let me say this further in that connection: The gentleman from the Nineteenth District of Texas has made much of the point that he did not want special legislation. The legislation which placed 855,000 acres of cotton in his district, which he would not otherwise have received this year, was special leg- islation in every sense of the word. It was special legislation intended to assist 114038 in the correction of a situation in Cali- fornia and certain other States, where the committee felt there would otherwise be inequity. I want to make this clear when we gave special legislation to take care of California and the other States, we did it on the showing that an injus- tice would result if we did not do it. Has there been any showing that any in- justice would result in the Nineteenth District of Texas if we apply the same law in Texas that applies in Mississippi, that applies in Georgia, that applies in North Carolina, that applies in Alabama, and across the helt? Has there been any effort on the part of the representative of the Nineteenth District of Texas to show you that it would work unfairly if we applied the general law in the Nine- teenth District of Texas? Has he at- tempted to point out where anybody who was entitled to a cotton allotment would not receive it, in his district, under the general law? He has made a very elo- quent plea to apply the general formula, The bill now before us, the provision immediately before us, does nothing in the world except make sure that the State of Texas will fall under the gen- eral formula for the distribution of cotton. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas may proceed for five addi- tional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. POAGE. I ask the House to place this on the basis that the gentleman from the Ninteenth District of Texas asked for, and to give to all Texas, in- cluding the Ninteenth District, and all the 17 districts that were slaughtered by the application of this provision this year—to give to all of them exactly the same formula that applies over the rest of the Nation, except where they do have some special formula. In other words, let us take Texas out from any special gadget. I want further to call to the attention of the gentleman from the Nineteenth District of Texas, when he charges that we were trying to be unfair to his dis- trict, that we have not, in any part of this bill, taken away from him the his- tory that he built up this year. Oh, he drew one-third of a million acres that belonged to 17 other districts of Texas, and he got the money in his pocket for it. He cashed it out and this year he grows a third of a million more acres that belong over in east Texas, north Texas, central Texas, and on the coastal bend. He grows it, he sells it, t.e puts the money in his pocket. We are not asking that he return these profits. On the contrary, we give him the history he has acquired by reason of growing this excessive acreage. We have no animus against the Ninteenth District; certainly we prove this when we do not ask him to forego the history that he built up with this one-third of 2 million acres. This bill gives to his district the history that it built up by planting those acres that he found lying on his doorstep, that he knew came from down in central
11404 Texas, Oh, he could recognize them; they had our names on them. His dis- trict had 118,292 acres from your dis- trict, Mr. Lyte; they had 12,999 acres from your district, Mr. BeckwortH; they had them from all over the great State of Texas, and they could recognize where they came from. They were able to take them in through the operation of the special gadget which he now condemns and says this Congress should not be so little as to engage in special gadgets. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield, Mr. COOLEY. I just wish to ask the gentleman if as a result of these myste- rious calculations in the Department of Agriculture which has the result of throwing Texas under the California gadget, it did not actually deprive Texas of war crop credits which they were just- ly entitled to? Mr. POAGE. It absolutely did; and, of course, the gentleman knows that that is at the root of the opposition by certain officials in the Department of Agriculture who have never believed in carrying out the contract that this country made—not the Department, but this Congress made—with growers of war crops. Whether it was a wise contract or not, we promised it; and it is my opinion that we should carry it out. But they say “No;” and the gentleman from the Nineteenth District says with his amendment “No.” The man who down in your district, Mr. FisHer, grew war crops under this amendment will be blocked off from claiming that credit and be unable to re- ceive the benefits promised him by this Congress Ido not think that is fair, Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield for a question. Mr, MAHON. My district took a re- duction of 400,000 acres, I believe. Is it not true that we got the acres which we did get out of a bill passed by this com- mittee, which the committee said was a gocd bill a year ago, but which it now seemingly 1s attempting to repudiate? And is it not true that all I am asking for in my amendment is that you not sim- ply single out Texas for special treat- ment? Mr. POAGE. All the gentleman is asking by his amendment is that his district be protected in the advantage it reccived under this gadget. At the same time he complains that a special gadget used by anyone else is harmful and im- moral, but so long as it gives his district 355,000 acres additional then he is will- ing that we should continue this im- moral and unconstitutional special gadget Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from the Twenty-first District. Mr. FISHER. I will ask the gentle- man if it is not true that under the terms of the bill now pending—and I think the House should understand this very clearly—Texas will have exactly the same treatment that the other cotton- producing States will have? Mr. POAGE. Exactly. Mr. FISHER. It will have exactly the same treatment as Mississippi, the same CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE as Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, and all the other States; is not that correct? Mr, POAGE. That is right, with the exception of those that come under the California gadget, which is the gadget which gives the gentleman from the Nineteenth District 355,000 acres, It is the gadget which he vigorously applaud- ed this year as being a just and meri- torious proposition. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas may proceed for five addi- tional minutes, The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentle- man from the Twenty-first District. Mr. FISHER. I think it is important, as has been pointed out here, that all of these other cotton-producing States are now operating under the Public Law 12 and are guaranteed a credit for war crops grown during the war period. Is not that correct? Mr.POAGE. That is right. Mr FISHER. If this bill is not passed without amendment then we will be deprived of the war-crop allowance which was guaranteed and assured in Public Law 12. Is not that correct? Mr. POAGE. That is exactly right. Now, let me summarize this if I may: Last year the Congress in an effort to do justice to California and certain other States passed a special gadget which worked very materially to the advantage of the gentlemen from the Nineteenth District of Texas at the expense of the 17 other districts in Texas. Regardless of how it came about, and the chairman of the subcommittee has pointed this out, as have other members of the committee who heard all of the evidence, it is the clear opinion of the subcommittee it was done deliberately, but, regardless of how it happened, 1t did happen. An injustice was done to 17 districts in Texas. We simply ask that next year Texas will not operate under any special gadget but that Texas will be on the same basis in distributing its cotton acreage within the State that all the other States except those that showed there was some reason for giving them a gadget, as is the case with Cali- fornia, Mr. WERDEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. WERDEL. I think the gentleman should point out why in the State of Texas the State committee, by withhold- ing its 10 percent, cannot clear up this problem. Mr. POAGE. I feel that that was probably pointed out before, but the State of Texas cannot clear up this problem, even by use of the State re- serve. The State committee did not use the State reserve, that is true and doubt- less aggravated a certain situation. But the basic problem here is that there was JULY $1 a shift of a half million acres from sec- tions in the State that would have re- ceived it under the general law to areas that received it simply because of the special gadget; but those areas in Texas that had the special gadget made no effort to show that they had any merit or that there was any reason for receiving the special gadget. The State of Califor- nia showed they had some reason for it. Not so in the Nineteenth District of Texas. It was simply a windfall that fell on their doorstep or their broad plains, Again I call attention to the fact there was no malice on the part of the com- mittee, that we are leaving the Nine- teenth District, and I want to make this plain, with a third of a million acres of production this year for which they are getting cash. We are leaving them with a third of a million acres of history which will go on and on as long as they grow cotton. Yet the gentleman from the Nineteenth District says we have animus against his district, that we are prejudiced against it. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. COOLEY. Is it not a fact that when the law was written in 1949 it was clearly understood that Texas would not come under the California gadget? Mr. POAGE. It was so understood, and every member of the subcommittee I have heard express himself points out that that was the understanding with the Department of Agriculture. I want to call attention to the fact that not only was that understood but the gentleman from the Nineteenth Dis- trict does not claim he had any other understanding. He simply found it ly- ing on his doorstep. Of course, he used it. I do not blame him, and we are charging him no rent for the use; we are not trying to penahze him; but we are saying that because they had a special gadget out in the Nineteenth District in 1950 it does not entitled them to perpetually take advantage of this. Mr. BRAMBLETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. BRAMBLETT. I want to reiter- ate the fact that as a member of the committee it was my understanding that Texas did not come under the gadget. Mr. POAGE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. MAHON. I am absolutely as- tounded and amazed that somebody did not ask the witnesses when they were be- fore the committee, or ask the Depart- ment if Texas was under the 2-year gadget. What you did was to write an over-all bill that applied to all States. The gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Gatuines] did not know for sure that his State would be under the 2-year base program. Mr. POAGE. May I say to the gen- tleman from the Nineteenth District of Texas that of course we did not suppose the representatives of the Department would run out on what they had told us
1950 informally. We had a lot more confi- dence in them then than we have now. We thought at that time we could rely upon what they were telling us. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr. LYLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, this measure very likely would not be before you today except that the Department of Agri- tulture succumbed as so many of the executive branches have throughout the years to the desire to not only ad- minister but to also write the laws of the land. Therefore, the integrity of our system of government is somewhat at stake, for we must impress upon the executive branch the necessity for them to stay in their fleld of administration and permit us to write the laws. It seems at times that they misun- derstand the word “executive” and take it to mean that they should execute the laws that Congress passes and that is what happened to Public Law 272. The Department of Agriculture executed it by misinterpretation. Cotton is important to the Nation, but it is vital to areas such as I represent. Homes depend upon it for existence and children depend upon it for their food. Although the impression may have been left that this is a battle for ad- vantage for one section or another in Texas, that is not true. The question is whether or not this Congress should write legislation which will fairly and equitably distribute cotton acreage al- lotments in the State of Texas and not leave them subject to the whims of the Department of Agriculture. I do not seek advantage over my neighbors, but I do ask that my district be treated as the law directs and has directed for a number of years. Our Committee on Agriculture has attempted to write this legislation in such a manner as to accomplish equity and I ask you to follow the committee in this bill. Mr, BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word and rise in support of the amendment. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman yield? Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gen- tleman from North Carolina. Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman’s dis- trict got about 82,000 acres more under the California gadget than it would otherwise have received. Mr, BENTSEN. That is quite correct. Mr. COOLEY. Of course the gentle- man wants to keep that 82,000 acres. Mr. BENTSEN. Absolutely. Mr. COOLEY. I do not suppose we could find fault with the gentleman in- dividually on that issue, but actually the State of Texas will not lose any acreage as a State if we pass the bill now before us; is that not true? Mr. BENTSEN. It is my understand- ing that the districts of Texas will lose acreage by the passage of this bill from what they received in their 1950 quota after Public Law 471 was enacted. Mr. COOLEY. No; all States will be treated alike at the State level My question is, when the State of Texas re- XCVI--—713 will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ceives its State allotment it will be fair and equitable among the other States of the Nation, Texas does not stand to lose one acre by what we are trying to do ere. Mr. BENTSEN. I do not know that I would say that. Mr. COOLEY. We are attempting to bring about a redistribution of the acre- age within the State of Texas. Mr. BENTSEN. That is exactly right. That is the point I was going to make. I believe it is more fair that you put the cotton quota where the cotton is planted; that you not go back as far in history as you can go to try to see what they were planting 1n 1945 and 1946. I think you should put this cotton where it is being planted and where you can encourage its being efficiently grown, as in the vast reaches of west and south Texas. It would be economically unfeasible if you tried to protect the areas of high-cost cotton production, areas that evidently want to go out of the cotton-production business, and penalize those who are in- creasing their production. . Mr. Chairman, we have before us today a bill having a provision which for Texas alone changes the apportionment of the cotton acreage for 1951 from what it was for 1950. The provision, in my opinion, is a most inequitable one. The Agricul- ture Committee has agreed to a piece of legislation for Texas that penalizes prog- ress and efficient production of this ma- jor commodity in the districts of south and west Texas. Rather this bill says to those areas who have been reducing their cotton acreage because they can profit more by diversifying their farming en- deavors, we want you to plant cotton, We have a bill that will give you a quota that will help keep you in cotton, a quota that will help stop this trend of diversi- fication of farming, a bill that will help stop those new areas of Texas with their modernized and mechanized production from farming their just share of the cotton acreage. A bill that docs not con- centrate on giving quotas to where cotton is planted, but to giving quotas based on history of what was planted as far back as 1945, This bill says let us go back to the year 1945 and see what you planted in the way of cotton then. Let us not start with the year 1947, when the new areas of Texas were reaching the peak of their progress. Nineteen forty-seven, when thousands of war veterans were planting their cotton in these new areas of Texas, on new lands because the land with the old cotton histories was beyond reach in price. In short, this provision in this bill for Texas says, “Let us stop progress and trends: let us continue business as usual.” Not only does this bill drastically reduce cotton acreage of the districts who have been expanding their production of 1947 and 1948, but it goes a step further to punish these new areas, The bill gives to the affected counties a 1950 cotton acreage history equal to the acreage which would have been allotted if this year’s State allotment had, been apportioned on the basis of 4 years in- stead of 2 years. It was stated last Thursday in the de- bate, “it does not make any difference to those who live in other States of the Union whether Texas operates under the 11405 provisions of this law or operates under the provisions of the present law. The State as a whole will get exactly the same.” This is correct insofar as saying that Texas as a whole will get exactly the same, but I cannot help but believe that it does make a difference to the Members of this House if an injus- tice is done within the boundaries of any State as a result of the legislation passed by this House. It has been point- ed out that of the 21 congressional dis- tricts in Texas, 17 received less acreage because of the use of a 2-year average for 1950 quotas. I put it to you thata majority in numbers alone does not make it right that the acreage of these 4 dis- tricts should be divided among the other 17. Now, I say to my 17 friends and col- leagues from Texas who may covet that which I believe rightfully belongs to the farmers of my district by law, study this bill and its applicable quotas carefully before voting for it. A table was placed in the Recorp Thursday which showed that 17 of our Texas congressional districts would re- ceive more cotton under this bill than under Public Law 272. The joker in this table is that it does not show you your true 1950 quotas after the passage of Public Law 471. Actually, according to estimated figures prepared by Mr. B. F. Vance, chairman of the State committee in Texas, out of 254 counties in Texas, only 71 will receive a higher quota for 1951 under this bill than that received in 1950, Eleven of the 21 congressional districts will receive less cotton quota under this bill than was allotted them in 1950. I ask you to try to explain to your farmers why you voted for a bill that in the great majority of the coun- ties in Texas reduced their quotas for 1951 below what they were in 1950, Re- duced their quotas at a time when the country faces its most serious interna- tional crisis since World War II. Re- duced their quotas when we are spend~ ing that farmer’s tax money to stockpile rubber, manganese, tin, copper, and yet this country faces a rapidly dwindling Government stockpile of cotton, which is just as essential and which has dropped from over 6,000,000 bales on January 1, 1950, to less than 4,000,000 bales today and is continuing to rapidly drop. I ask your help in defeating this bill, I will vote against its passage. A MISTAKE—NEVER INTENDED Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, as disclosed here on the floor by a number of speskers, the amount of cotton received by the four districts referred to as favored districts, and I do not criticize their Members for defending the rights of their constitu- ents to have anything that is good for them, was purely a mistake. It was never intended. Our people—the people in Texas—were trying to help the States, like California, New Mexico, and Mis- sour! write a special formula for the benefit of those special cases because they would be discriminated against without this special formula, It was thoroughly understood at all times it would never epriy 10 Texas and it would
11406 not have applied to Texas, except for the fact that some person in the De- partment of Agriculture discovered two gins out there in west Texas that had ginned, it was claimed, 93 bales more of cotton that particular year than the records disclosed. The records that the committee were acting on were the records which did not include the 93 bales of cotton. So, discovering the 93 extra bales only, Texas came within that special formula intended for Missourt, New Mexico, and California, and coming under that formula which was never in- tended, it gave our distinguished friend from the Nineteenth District (Mr. Mawon] 355,000 extra acres of cotton in 1950, which was never intended to be given to him or his district. We want all districts treated the same, and just like other districts are treated. As a result of that, in the eastern part of the State and in the middle section of the State where we have small cot- ton growers, they were discriminated against. They could not get as much as a half acre of cotton allotted to them to plant, and now where they have planted an acre and a half, some of them have to plow up half of that cotton, because, by reason of that accident, they came with- in the California formula and all this acreage was transferred to west Texas. That is not right. Hundreds of families in east Texas and central Texas have been denied the right to make a living with their hands by pro- ducing cotton which they have always produced, by reason of this mistake which was made. May I inform you, too, that many of these families are headed by veterans who came back from the war and now are unable to make an honest and decent living performing their duties as farmers as they have al- ways performed because that mistake was made. Thousands of World War veterans with distinguished records have been denied the privilege of making a living because of that mistake. So all we are doing is asking you to right a wrong. A wrong has been committed—accidental- ly—never intended—never intended in the world—but it has been actually com- mitted. And certain parts of our State and thousands of our people have been discriminated against and denied the privilege and opportunity of earning a living on the farm because of that mis- take. We are asking you to carry out the original intent of the law by voting against the Mahon amendment and vot- ing for this bill in that respect as it is now written. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PATMAN, I yield. Mr. COOLEY. If we vote down the Mahon amendment the State commit- tee will have 10 percent of the State allotment of 760,000 acres with which they can adjust any inequity? Mr. PATMAN. Certainly. Not only that, each county will have 15 percent to make adjustments within the county. We should leave this to Texas, and let the Texas committees handle it. That 4s the way the bill is written, and I hope the bill, as written in that respect, is adopted, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patmaw] has expired. Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, the good faith of the United States Government is in- volved here. The issue is a very simple one. Back in 1945 this Congress passed a bill which is known as Public Law No. 12, a copy of which I hold in my hand. It was approved February 28, 1945. In that Public Law No. 12 the Congress told the cotton farmers of America that in future allotment programs they would be given credit for war crops which they were encouraged to raise during war times for war purposes and to better meet the demands of the war emergency. Acting in accordance with that public law, and believing, of course, in the good faith of the Federal Government in pur- suance of that law, many of the farmers turned to war crops. Now, with the war over, and it being found necessary to im- pose quotas and restrict the number of acres that can be planted, the farmers find to their amazement, as a result of a departmental interpretation of the law that we passed last fall, that the Texas farmers did not get credit for war crops as they had been assured in Public Law No. 12, Is there anyone who will say that they were not assured in 1945 that they would be given credit for the war crops? Of course not. Everyone knows that is part of that law. It constitutes a contract between the Federal Govern- ment and the cotton farmers of America, those who wanted to be included in its provisions. It happens that a few States had a sit- uation which was unusual, and they brought that to the attention of the committee. They made a special gadget to take care of their particular situation. Everyone understood it did not apply to Texas. There is not a single member of the Committee on Agriculture, from what they have said and from what I have heard previously, who understood it to apply to the State of Texas, But because of the interpretation it was made to apply. Now, to undertake to perpetuate an old law which was mis- interpreted, and which would deprive the Texas cotton farmers of their rights to war-crop allotments in making credit during this base period, would be to break faith with the farmers, and, as I have pointed out, contrary to Public Law No. 12. The good faith of the Govern- ment is involved. I do not see how this Congress could be impressed by the argument that Texas should be put under a special gadget, which was never intended by the law last fall, and con- trary to the intention of the members of the committee and which would be con- trary to the express provisions of Public Law No. 12, upon which the farmers in the part of the country where I live have always depended, If there are injustices which arise in any congressional district or in any part of the State, they can be corrected through withholding the 780,000 acres by the State committee and reassignment to areas which have been adversely affected, where they can show that they are entitled to it, JULY 81 So, Mr. Chairman, I earnestly hope that this committee will keep Texas where it belongs; that is, in the same category with Mississippi, Georgia, and most of the southern cotton-producing States. Give them the credit that they were told they would have in 1945. Do not treat them differently. All we want is the same identical treatment as is given the other cotton-producing States. As far as my individual district is con- cerned, we want no advantage over any other district in Texas. We want the same formula to apply, and we want that formula to be in accordance with what the farmers were told they would have when Public Law 12 was written in 1945. When we have that we have no right to ask for more. It is our belief that Texas is entitled to the same treatment as the other States. We do not want any more, and we do not think we are entitled to have any less, Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, there is little complaint in my district concerning the amount of acreage this year or last year, but there is considerable complaint as to the way the county committees are to allocate that cotton. For that reason I should like to ask some member of the commit- tee three questions. The first question is: Does the bill require the county com- mittee to allocate cotton to a farm where cotton was planted in 1941 for the last time and war crops were grown in 1947, but the planter intends to plant no cotton in 1950 or future years? Can the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] answer that, please? Mr. PACE. The gentleman has refer- ence to the war crop credit? It 1s neces- sary for farms to have a 1950 cotton al- lotment in order to get the benefit of the war crop credit. Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman yield? Mr. TEAGUE, I yield. Mr. ALBERT. The gentleman is talk- ing about another matter. Any cotton farmer has the right under this law to surrender his acreage; he does not have to plant it if he does not want to. Mr. ‘TEAGUE. But if this ‘farmer planted cotton for the last time in 1941, then planted war crops fn 1947, the county committee is required to allocate cotton acreage even if he does not intend to plant cotton in future years? Mr. ALBERT. He would be entitled to a cotton quota. Mr. TEAGUE. Is not the county committee forced to allot him whether he plants cotton or not? Mr. ALBERT. That is correct, Mr. TEAGUE. And will continue to be entitled to this allotment in future years if not planted. Mr. ALBERT. Yes; if it is not planted. Mr, TEAGUE. Does the gentleman think it would be fair, then, to let that county committee reallocate that acre- age? Mr. ALBERT. That authority is in the law, if it is voluntarily surrendered. Mr. TEAGUE. But if it is not volun- tarily surrendered the county committee would not have the authority to reallo- cate the acreage, will
1950 Mr. ALBERT. No. The same prin- ciple applies in any other State of the Union. Mr. TEAGUE. Is this bill more flex- ible than Public Law 272 in the matter of allotments? Mr. ALBERT, Much more. Mr. TEAGUE. In what way? Will the gentleman state, please? Mr. ALBERT. Certainly. The lan- guage is such as to make reserves man- datory. Another thing, it contains the right to surrender and reallocate. For another thing, the 65-percent base which was an addition to Public Law 272 by Public Law 471 is maintained. In a number of ways the bill is more flexible and will allow greater latitude on the part of the county committee and the State committee in allocating the acre- age allotted to them. Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, later I will offer an amendment which gives county committees authority to reallo- cate cotton which is not planted within the county. Time and again it has been said to me by county committee after county committee that we have plenty of acreage allotment for our counties if we could only put it on farms where the producers want to grow cotton. Now, Mr. Chairman, my proposal that the county committee be given more latitude in making allotments to farms is based upon the fact that I believe county and community committees are in a better position to know the individual circum- stances in our respective communities and counties and therefore are in better position to make just and equitable al- lotments to bona fide cotton producers in the county than any formula could possibly give the farmers particularly if that formula is applied to all cotton farmers in the Nation. I believe these committees will assume the responsibility, and since they are elected by the farmers in the community and county, if they do not assume the responsibility in the making of equitable allotments they will be replaced and others will be put on the committees to do the job for the following year. Mr. Chairman, I want to quote a part of a letter which I received this morning as a result of a request of mine from Mr, B. F. Vance, the chairman of our State PMA committee: Just today I discussed the county allot- ments with the chairmen of the county com- mittees in 12 east Texas counties, and each chairman was of the opinion that the allot- ment received for his county in 1950 was ample if it could have been placed on farms where the farmer desires to plant cotton. Mr. Vance, as chairman of our State PMA committee, whose other members are Mr, W. Lewis David, Mr. J. R. Adams, Mr. V. L. Cade, Mr. Howard T. Kings- bery, and Mr. Ide P. Trotter, make up the State PMA committee in Texas, This committee from Texas has worked hard and done everything possible to make this bill work the way Congress intended it to work. Mr. REGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this seems to be Texas afternoon; we have all been up here. ‘We have some little difference of ideas about this bill, but I do speak in behalf of the Mahon amendment for the reason CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE that I believe your law is adequate to take , care of all the discrepancies that may be found throughout the various districts, I do not think Texas should be singled out and put under any particular gadget. We do not seek any gadgets. We think we ought to be put on a 1-, 2-, or 4-year basis as the State committee sees fit. Let the State committee have a 10 per- cent leeway there to allocate the acre- age among the various counties. We know that under last year’s allocation the State committee only saw fit to use a very small part of that 10 percent which was allowed by the law, less than 3 per- cent, I believe. They allocated cotton to land in many counties that were not planted. to cotton. We have in the El Paso Valley land that has been in cotton for more than 50 years, some of it for 100 years. Now, all at once they come along here and find that they are going to come under a special law which will permit the State committee to take from the farms out there some 15,000 acres of land that have been planted to cotton. If the Mahon amendment is adopted, everybody in Texas will receive fair treatment. Under that you have the 10 percent provision. Why do we have to put Texas under a special provision of 4 years when Texas might see fit to do better under the 1-, 2-, or 4-year basis? Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Mahon amendment be given serious considera- tion in fairness to all of Texas. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words, Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the Mahon amendment. The good faith of the Government is at stake. The Con- gress promised all the farmers in Public Law 12 that in any future acreage al- lotment programs they would be given credit for war crops planted during the base period. If the pending amendment is adopted, no farmer in Texas will be given credit for one single acre of war crops raised during this base period. This applies particularly in the north central portion of Texas where many of our farmers, in response to the urgent request of the Government during the war, turned to war crops instead of con- tinuing to plant cotton. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I repeat that the good faith of the Federal Govern- ment is involved. This amendment should be defeated. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the requisite number of words. . Mr, Chairman,:-members of the Louisi- ana delegation have not taken the floor on the bill under consideration for the reason that we have been in constant contact with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pacer], chairman of the Cotton Sub- committee, and we had been advised of the findings and recommendations of the subcommittee, and while we do not feel that the bill under consideration is per- fect, we believe that considering the many phases and complexities of the sub- ject that, the committee has conscien- tiously done the best job possible in an effort to meet the situation in what they consider a fair, reasonable, and equitable manner, ’ Early in the year the Louisiana dele- gation held a meeting in regard to dis- 11407 cussing the Cotton Acreage Allotment Act, and I ask permission to include in these remarks a copy of the resolution agreed upon at that meeting by the Members present, as follows: The Louisiana delegation in the House of Representatives met today for the purpose of discussing the situation arising out of the application of the Cotton Acreage Allotment Act passed in the last session of Congress, At this meeting were present the following: A. Leonarp ALLEN, Overton Brooxs, F. Ep- WARD Hisert, Henry D. Larcapx, Orro E. PASSMAN, Haim Bocas, Epwin E, Wiis, and JAMES Morrison, After considerable discussion, the group present unantmously felt that some modifl- cation of the act was imperative and that this change should be brought about as quickly as possible in order to reassure cot~ ton farmers and relieve injustices. The dis- cussion centered around proposed changes of the law which would guarantee that no cot- ton farmer should be compelled to reduce his cotton acreage by more than 30 percent of the average acreage planted during the years 1946, 1947, and 1948. The discussion further centered around the idea of unfreez- ing unused cotton acreage presently frozen. Cotton is still a basic crop in the State of Loutsiana; and any action which unduly de- creases the production of this staple crop in effect injures the economy of our entire State. In addition to this, any law which in its application results in equities and in- justices will produce dissatisfaction among our farm population and cannot bring about wholesome results. Mr. Chairman, in my own district in Louisiana I met with the leaders of the cotton industry and at that time they agreed upon the general principles indi- cated in a letter written to me by Mr. qG. J. Durbin, district field man, of Baton Rouge, La., which I also ask permission to include at this point, as follows: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Baton Rouge, La., December 20, 1949, Congressman Henry D. LaRcabé, Jr, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr, LarcadE: In accordance with the agreement in the Opelousas meeting yester- day, I am outlining below the thinking of the group from &t. Landry, Evangeline, and Acadia Parishes of what changes it might be best for Congress to make in the law for establishing 1950 cotton allotments. The group felt that farmers having more allotments than they want should be per- mitted to release part or all of their allot- ments to the PMA County Committee for reapportionment to other farms which the county committee determines received in- equitable allotments. The group also thought that the acreage released should be considered released for 1 year only and that for the purpose of establishing acreage allot- ments in 1951 and subsequent years the acre- age released in 1950 by a farm should be considered the sume as acreage planted to cotton in 1950 on that farm. This change in the law would not increase the national acreage allotment but would, in the opinion of those attending the meet- ing, provide a more equitable distribution of the national allotment. Very truly yours, G. J. Dugsin, District Field Man, Mr. Chairman, I have listened to most of the debate on the bill under consider- ation, and I was just a little surprised at the remarks of my good friend and col- league, the gentleman from California {Mr, Pururps] on the floor on Thursday
11408 of fast week. The gentleman from Call- fornia [Mr. Pamures] was complaining about the State of California having been discriminated against in the alloca- tion of cotton acreage in favor of the Southern States, and as was well ex- plained by the chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentle- man from North Carolina [Mr. CooLzy], instead of being discriminated against, California has a substantial advantage tn allocation over the Southern States, and if anything, the shoe is on the other foot. The same advantage held by Califor- nia in the present situation also obtains, in my opinion, as obtained in the allo- cation of acreage for rice. As a matter of fact, I appeared before the House Committee on Agriculture and presented facts and figures and objections by my constituents showing that Louisiana, one of the largest rice-producing States had been discriminated against in the allo- cation of rice acreage in favor of Cali- fornia and Texas due to the formula used in making the allocation. Of course, it is true that California and Texas in- creased their rice acreage, as they have increased their cotton acreage in the last 2 years, and taking the 5-year Louisiana average, under the formula used for California and Texas, Louisiana was penalized in their allocation of rice acre- age allocation. Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel with, nor am I hostile to my neighboring State of Texas, nor to the State of California. On the contrary, I wish to cooperate with both States in any way possible; how- ever, I cannot let the occasion pass with- out speaking in order to keep the record straight, and at least let it be known that, instead of the State of my good friend, Mr. Puruurps, being discrimi- nated against, Califorina has profited and in fact, instead of being discrimi- nated against in the cotton-acreage pro- gram—it not only has an advantage in acreage allotment in cotton, but also in rice, at least compared to Louisiana under the formula used in both instances. Mr, Chairman, in conclusion, I cannot refrain from calling to the attention of the House my insertion in the ConcrEs- stonaL Recorp of March 27, 1980, outlin- ing the proposed farm plan of the Asso- ciation of Southern Commissioners of Agriculture, as proposed at a meeting of that association held in Atlanta, Ga., on December 10, 1949, and while I am not an expert on agricultural problems, it ts my opinion that this plan ts worthy of study by the Agricultural Committees of both Houses and the membership as well. ‘The article discusses the cotton support price problem at length and I believe that the suggestion is worthy of con- sideration. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas {Mr. Manon], The amendment was rejected. Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Beck worrn: Page 11, after line 16, insert the following: “gxc, —. Section 346 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: “‘(e) The penalty provided for in this’ section shall not apply with respect to cotton produced by any veteran of World War II who ts recognized by the county committee as being a cotton farmer if his total acreage planted to cotton during the year in which such cotton was produced did not exceed 5 acres. As used in this subsection the term “veteran of World War It” means a person who served in the active military or naval service of the United States on or after De- cember 7, 1941, and before September 8, 1945, and who has been honorably separated from such service.’” And renumber the following sections ac- cordingly. Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very brief and very simple. It simply says that if a veteran ts recognized by his county committee as being a cotton farmer he can plant 5 acres of cotton without being subject to penalty. It is my opinion that this amendment should go even further, and I do have an amendment that goes fur- ther; it would provide that any genu- ine cotton farmer, if he is recognized by his county committee as being a gen- uine cotton farmer, would receive a min- imum of 5 acres. It is said over and over again that this legislation is mighty fair, which may be true, but in some instance it has worked injustices, and admittedly so. I have here a letter from one of the Virginia districts that says: Number of cotton farmers that received tees “ & acres that will cease to grow cot- ni e We have one here: Number of producers ceasing farming for themselves in 1950: 20 estimated. That is in one county. Number of producers receiving leas than 5 acres that will not plant cotton: 160. This is in Wilson County, N. C.,, incidentally. Here is another one: Estimate of number of producers recetving Jess than 5 acres that will probably grow no cotton in 1950: 100. This is from your county committees: Producers receiving less than 6 acres who probably will grow no cotton: 260. This is from an Alabama county. Mr. PATMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, why are they not producing cotton? Because of an in- sufficient amount of land? Mr. BECKWORTH. There is no ques- tion about that. If you give a person one-tenth or one-seventh or half an acre or 2 acres or 8 acres, you are likely giving him so little that he cannot afford to grow cotton. Incidentally, I am going to include as part of my remarks letters that have come from many cotton States, from commissioners of agriculture, from the Farmers Home Administration, and others, that say it is uneconomic for a person to grow less than & acres. Ina Gumaber of instances these letters say When you talk about siding the farmer, let us mean not one segment of the farmers. Let us refer to all the farmers. Incidentally, I was pleased when you adopted the Combs amend- JULY 31 ment. I certainly express my apprecia- tion for the fact that this House did adopt that amendment. That is a good amendment. I happen to know a good deal about that amendment. This, though, is one additional step, and if you truly want to help the family-sized farmer to stay on the farm and earn a Hving there, it will certainly help to do the job. Mr. COOLEY. Will the gentleman yleld? Mr. BECK WORTH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. COOLEY. Is it the purpose of the amendment to give a minimum acre- age of 5 acres to every veteran? Mr. BECKWORTH. A veteran who is recognized by his county committee as being a genuine cotton farmer; yes, sir. Mr. COOLEY. That means if a vet- eran came in and showed that he had a piece of land upon which he could grow 5 acres of cotton, that they would give him 6 acres? Mr. BECKWORTH. If the county committee said the veteran is a genuine cotton farmer, they would give him 5 acres of cotton to produce. Mr. COOLEY. So it would be entire- ly possible that the 14,000,000 veterans of World War II would each receive 5 acres, Mr. BECKWORTH. ‘The gentleman knows that that is not the case, for this reason: There is no county committee in North Carolina that would recognize a New York City or Brooklyn veteran who would be one of the 14,000,000 you are talking about as a genuine cotton farmer. Incidentally, I have a letter from the Department of Agriculture, which is in the Recorp now, that says that these PMA committees would be in @ position to judge which is a genuine farmer and which is not, and I will be glad to show that to the gentleman. My. COOLEY. What is a genuine farmer, except a man who desires to hon- estly till the soil and to grow something on the soil? Mr. BECKWORTH. What is “ade- quate” which is used in this legislation? Mr. COOLEY. What does the gen- tleman mean? Mr. BECKWORTH. What is “ade- quate’? I will say this, you have to rely on judgment, and your committee is re- lying on the judgment of these county committees when it talks about reserving an adequate amount up to 10 percent. Mr. COOLEY. That is right. We re- serve 15 percent to the county, and that 15 percent can be used for the very pur- pose for which the gentleman desires ad- ditional acreage. Mr. BECKWORTH. The gentieman asks, “What is a genuine farmer?” I think it ts as easy to identify a genuine farmer by your county committee as it is to know the meaning of the word “adequate.” The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. My, Chairman, I think it is plain to see that if this amendment is adopted it would be utterly impossible for the ad- ministrators to put into effect any satis- factory program. It would make possible
1950 the granting of a 5-acre minimum allot- ment to every veteran of World War IT to the exclusion of all of the veterans of World War I who could show to the satis- faction of the local committee that he was in good faith a farmer and intended to plant the acreage that he was requesting. If you were to grant a 5-acre allotment to all of the veterans, you would throw the whole program out of gear, and it would result in having no program at all. I should like to say further that the State of Texas is well represented here with two Members of the Texas delega- tion on the Committee on Agriculture. They have worked diligently in the prep- aration of this bill. I know that they conducted hearings that extended not only for days and weeks but for months. The distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. BEcKworTH] appeared before our committee, and he was then suffering from no limitation of time. No time was fixed for the presentation of his views. This proposition was never offered in the House Committee on Agriculture. I sub- mit to the House that it is not now worthy of consideration here on the floor of the House. It is ill-advised and entirely im- proper to single out the veterans of one war, the war that was waged in the days of his age and generation, to the exclu- sion of those of my age and generation who engaged in World War I. It would be mighty hard for me to sit on a com- mittee and deny to an old soldier of World War I the same fair treatment that the gentleman is anxious to give to the younger men of World War II. Mr, BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentle- man from Texas. Mr. BECKWORTH. The gentleman made the statement that I said nothing about this idea before the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. COOLEY. I said the gentleman did not offer the amendment. Mr. BECKWORTH. Yes, I did offer some amendments incorporating this very idea, extending it not only to the veterans but to all genuine farmers. If the gentleman will print the hearings, and I ask him to do that, he will certainly find that in the hearings. Mr. COOLEY. I have the hearings in my hand, and I find that the gentleman’s testimony runs from page 703 to 711. Mr. BECKWORTH. Does the gentle- man find the amendment there? Mr. COOLEY. Let the gentleman come here and see if he can find it. Mr. BECKWORTH. I know I intro- duced before the Agriculture Committee an amendment, which in my opinion in- corporates this idea. Mr, COOLEY. Here is the record, if the gentleman wants it. Mr. BECKWORTH. The gentleman is the one who made the statement. I said I offered the amendment that would ex- tend this idea to everyone who js recog- nized by the county committee as being a cotton farmer, which would include all veterans, of course. Mr. COOLEY. Here is the record. I do not have the time to read these pages but I will give them to the gentleman. Will he point out where he offered this amendment? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. BECKWORTH. The gentleman is the one who made the statement. Let him point it out. Mr. COOLEY, It is not here to point out, Mr. BECKWORTH. It is there. Mr, COOLEY. Let the gentleman find it, then. Mr. BECKWORTH. Let the gentle- man find it. He is the one who made the statement, and the statement is just a mistake. Mr. COOLEY. Ihave the record here, The gentleman wanted all of the record. Let him show that the amendment was offered. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amend- ment. It ought to be defeated. I should just like to know why the gentleman picked out the men who fought the war in his day to the exclusion of those who fought in World War I. Mr. BECKWORTH. I did not pick them out. As I stated I have offered and do offer an amendment which includes all farmers including all veterans. Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman singles out World War II veterans. Mr, BECKWORTH. I did not pick them out to the exclusion of anyone. The amendment I have offered before definitely includes all of them. Mr. COOLEY. How much acreage will the gentleman’s amendment take? Mr. BECK WORTH. How much does the gentleman say it will take? Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman is the one who offered the amendment. So it is plain to see the gentleman does not know anything about the full effect of his amendment. He comes to the floor of the House and offers an amendment to give relief to the veterans of World War Il to the exclusion of all other veterans and the exclusion of all other worthy cit- zens, Mr. BECKWORTH. Ido not interpret my amendments as you do. Te asked me how much acreage ft would take. Mr. COOLEY. And what did the gen- tleman tell me? Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amend- ment be defeated. Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word, Mr. Chairman, I do not want and I do not intend to take issue with this fine Committee on Agriculture, but there is some merit to this amendment that has been offered by the gentleman from Texas. I mentioned to you a while ago, dur- ing the 5 minutes I had here on the floor, and all of you know many instances just like the one I mentioned. A lot of these fellows who had little, bitty farms went off to the Army. But the fellows who had big plantations stayed here to build up their history which they are now re- lying on to get this cotton acreage. It has been mentioned that you are taking the World War II veterans and exclud- ing the other veterans. That is not true. The basic period which is under con- sideration was the period immediately following World War II. Of course the World War I boys were farming and rais- ing cotton during the time of the basic period involved. The amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Texas plainly states that only those who ere 11409 actual cotton farmers would be protected under his amendment, and would receive any benefits from it. Gentlemen, it is not a laughing prop- osition. These fellows in my district on these little farms came back home and were not able to go back on the farm in 1945 and 1946 and are excluded under this cotton program by virtue of the legislation now before the House. I honestly and sincerely feel that they are entitled to some consideration—not just merely because they were veterans, but because of the fact they were not allowed to farm and participate at the time they were building the basic period. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TACKETT. I yield. Mr. COOLEY. How about the men who left the farms to go into the ship- yards and the munitions plants and all the other war activities? Would you also accord them the right to come back to the farm and get 5 acres of cotton? Mr. TACKETT. If it were absolutely necessary for them to go to the shipyards and they did not go there to make money, I think they should be included, but that situation is not covered by the proposed amendment. All these boys whom we are consider- ing here did not go to the shipyards to make money. Mr. COOLEY. Whom would you au- thorize to make the determination whether a boy went into a shipyard to make money? Mr. TACKETT. This amendment does not say anything in the world about shipyards. We are talking about boys who did the fighting, Those are the fel- lows I am trying to help. If you want to bring in a shipyard amendment, you bring it in. Mr.COOLEY. Iam just asking if you favor that. Mr. TACKETT. I am not interested in any shipyard amendment. Mr. COOLEY. You are not interested in the man who left the farm to go into war activities? Mr. TACKETT. I am interested in those who had to leave the farms, Mr. COOLEY. That is, only those who were drafted, and not those who volun- teered? You would not give a man who volunteered the same benefits? Mr. TACKETT. Oh, you are trying to get off into deep water where you can- not swim. Mr. COOLEY. You said only those who were forced to go. Mr. TACKETT. Ihave in mind those who actually went, and tried to contrib- ute to the war effort as a soldier. Mr. COOLEY. And you would give every one of those 5 acres? Mr. TACKETT. I would give those who were farming, and farming cotton, at the time they left here. Mr. COOLEY. So if a man had five boys who went into the armed services who came back, he would get 5 acres for each one of those boys? Mr. TACKETT. Let me tell you some- thing, Mr. CooLey—just listen a min- ute—you are mot trying to listen. Mr. COOLEY. No, I am not, because I consider it absolutely ridiculous and unthinkable,
11410 Mr. TACKETT. I know you think it is ridiculous. Mr. COOLEY. I think it is ridiculous and unthinkable that you should get up on the floor of the House and ask for this sort of an amendment. Mr. TACKETT. Let me ask you something. Suppose I am a cotton plan- tation owner and I have 1,000 acres of cotton land which I was farming in 1943. Suppose my neighbor has a little 40-acre farm and he has 5 acres of cotton. Of course I am producing war materials for the war effort. They take this ttle fel- low off the 40-acre farm and send him into the Army. He comes back and he is not able to go on the farm in 1945 or perhaps he is stiJ] in the Army. It does not make any difference. He does not have any funds to go back there and raise cotton. He has to try to make a little bit of money to get back on the farm in 1945 and 1946 and 1947. But still the big plantation owner—me—lI get the benefit of this legislation that you are passing today to the exclusion of the boy who went over there and fought for the principles of democracy that gave me the opportunity to raise the cotton. Now laugh that off. You Know it is true. Mr. COOLEY. I will not laugh it off. Mr. TACKETT. You have laughed off every amendment that has come be- fore the House. Mr. COOLEY. I am just telling you that the farm whieh that boy was on before he went into the Army still is con- sidered in the history of that farm. The farm is still given the allotment. You fellows who were not here and did not help draft the basic legislation do not seem to understand that no provision is made for any man, the provision is made for the farm, and not to the farmer. Mr. TACKETT. That jis exactly my complaint. Mr. COOLEY. That is the reason why you want to change the whole philos- ophy. Mr. TACKETTY. No; I do not want to change the whole philosophy. I want to help those fellows who did not have an opportunity to build up a cotton-plant- ing history. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas has expired. Mr. TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for two additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. Mr, TACKETT. Mr. Chairman, I re- alize that it is necessary to have a cot- ton allotment program if the Govern- ment is going to subsidize the farmers in raising cotton. I fully realize that I do not want to tear down the cotton program, but I do think there should be some exceptions to the cotton program. I do not know of a better exception than the one the gentieman from Texas has brought to the attention of the House. You men who live out in the country know, as I do, that it is not fair for the plantation owners to get all the cotton and the little farmers, who were ex- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE cluded from the opportunity of growing cotton, to participate in the program. That is exactly what you are doing. When I was home a few days ago I talked with 10 or 12 fellows who were raising cotton before they went to war in 1943. They came back in 1945 and 1946 and were not able to go back on the farm because they did not have the money to do it with. They eventually got back out there. The GI fund that this Congress provided gave them an opportunity to go back to the farm, and now they cannot raise cotton. They were just as good cotton raisers before the war tore up their economy and tore up their way of living. Certainly, the fellows in World War I and the Spanish- American veterans were raising cotton and they were not hampered in any way from building a record. But the World War II veterans were hampered. I have never stood up here and insisted that all the legislation in this House should be on behalf of the veterans. I do not think the veterans should, or de- stre, to tear up the economy of this coun- try, but I honestly and sincerely feel that they should be able to go back and raise cotton as they were doing before they were taken off the farm. I do not see anything wrong in this Congress giving them an opportunity to go back and raise cotton. I do not believe there will be such @ great number of acres involved in any event. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arkansas has again expired. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. COOLEY. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a unanimous-con- sent request? Mr. MORRIS. Yes. Mr. COOLEY. I ask unanimous con- sent, Mr. Chairman, that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 15 minutes, 5 minutes to be reserved to the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. PATMAN. Reserving the right to object, does that include 5 minutes for me? Mr. COOLEY. Five minutes for the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Morris], 5 minutes for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Patman], and 5 minutes to be re- served for the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from ite Carolina |[Mr. Cootry], as modi- fled? There was no objection. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, this appears to me to be a good amendment. I do not believe it will add 1 acre to the requirements, assuming that the law will be administered equitably and fairly. I will tell you why. In the first place, in answer to a suggestion that has been made, I can assure you that the veterans who live in the Northern States are not going to flock down to the Southern States to get 5 acres of cottan. Anyone who knows anything in the world about cotton knows that that will not happen. In the second place, it only applies to half a dozen, a handful, figuratively JULY 31 speaking and proportionately speaking, because nearly everybody is going to get far more than 5 acres. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Becxwonr?H] is trying to see that the little fellow is guaranteed at least 6 acres. Nearly everybody gets far more than 5 acres, He wants to see that nobody gets less than 5 acres. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentieman yield? Mr. MORRIS. I yield. Mr. COOLEY. Does the gentleman know that in the State of North Caro- lina 50 percent of the farmers receive less than 5 saecres? That shows what on important problem we are dealing Mr. MORRIS. That is a deplorable condition. I am sorry the gentleman has to make that admission. If that is true, there ought to be a change in the law, because that is not right. Mr. COOLEY. That is true in seven other States. Mr.MORRIS. It just is not right that that situation should develop, and that is why this amendment should be adopted. Anyone who ts a valid farmer ought not to have less than 5 acres of cotton; that just should not be. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MORRIS. I would like to yield to my colleague from Georgia [Mr. Pact], but I hope he will let me proceed just a little further. If this amendment prevails it will be to the general country just what the recent amendment was to California. We gave a similar right to California just a few moments ago, did we not? This amendment does not go far enough. I am going to support this amendment, and I am going to support the amendment the gentleman from Texas has indicated giving every valid farmer in America the right to have at least 5 acres. If we cannot write a law here, Mr, Chairman, giving the people of this country who validly grow cotton at least 5 acres apiece, there is something wrong. I want to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to this great Commit- tee on Agriculture—and what I say here is not intended in any way as a criticism of this great committee. I wish the gen- tleman from North Carolina would give me his attention. I have watched the gentleman from North Carolina, the chairman of this great committee; and I have watched the gentleman from Georgia {Mr. Pace], chairman of the great subcommittee, atid these other members, and our own beloved member from Oklahoma [Mr. Atsrrt]); I have watched them work diligently week after week. You gentleman have performed @ great service to agriculture in this country. I take my hat off to you; as @ matter of fact, you draw me to your hearts by reason of the efforts that you have made, and I am not standing here criticizing you. I am merely suggesting to you that you with all of your great- ness, with all of your astuteness, with all of the energy that you have put into this bill, you are not omnipotent, neither am I, and neither is the great Speaker
1950 of this House: neither is the President of the great United States. No one is omnipctent. We all make mistakes, and you are making a serious mistake, in my estimation, great as you are, in op- posing an amendment like this, because it is a guaranty to the little fellow that he at least will have enough money out of his year’s work to buy his children just a little food to eat and just a few things to wear. I know, of course, that the speech I am making might indicate that I am kind of demagoging here, but I most certainly am not. I do not intend to mail this speech out to my constituents Asa matter of fact I have never mailed out to my constituents even one, no not one of those I have made since I have been here Not one speech have I mailed to my constituents in the 314 years I have been here No, my friends, I am not demagoging, I am in dead earnest The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oklahoma has expired Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for two additional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Time for debate has been limited The CHAIRMAN The Chair rccog- nizes the gentleman from Texas IMr, PatTman!. Mr. PATMAN There are many vet- elans who have purchased homes from the Farmers Home Administration. They are in this ironical position: They are honest, hardworking people and could pay for their homes if they were privileged to produce es much as 5 acres of cotton per year They are not privi- leged to do that, and a lot of them can- not cven meke pavments to a Govern- ment agency for the farm home they have purchased, because of their inabil- ity to get the small amount of 5 acres of cotton allotted to them. One of the best bills we passed preced- ing the end of the war was the GI bill of rights which gave these boys an op- poriunity to finish up their education after they got cut of the serv.ce, One of the greatest losses we had during World War II, outside of the loss of hfe and limb, was the educational loss of these fine young men. We induced them, and properly so, to go back to school and to college and to follow up their education that was interrupted by their war serv~- ice. But by reason of that act which we passed which was attractive to them, they lose their cotton allotment when they come back home, and the county committees know that they are genu- ine farmers They are genuine farmers, but they cannot get an allotment of even 5 acres. Sometimes a half acre is pro- vided them. As the gentleman from Texas mentioned here a while ago, many county commitices will tell you frankly that less than 5 acres is an uneconomic operation of a farm. You cannot suc- cessfully operate a cotton farm with less than 5 acres of cotton. We are beginning to see monopoly rear its ugly head in the farming busi- ness. Did you know that since it has been made so attractive for farmers to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE make an honest living, if they work for it, the factory-type farm is coming into being? Did you know that last year 1.7 percent of the farmers produced 25 per- cent of the farm income? I may say to the chairman of this committee that if the 5 acres is too large, why does he not suggest something else? I ask him to give this serious considera- tion because it is not an idle dream. It is something that means a great deal and should have careful consideration. If the 5 acres is too much, tell us why and offer something that will be fair. In the end this acreage will probably come principally from the factory-type farm, the 1.7 percent that are producing 25 percent of the farm income. Mr, COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr PATMAN I yield to the gentle- man from North Carolina. Mr COOLEY. Under the law for 1949 We provided that anyone who had planted less than 5 acres during the 3-year period would not be required to make any contribution to the reduction program. In other words, he would have an allotment exempt from any reduction of his planted acreage. Mr. PATMAN. Does the gentleman mean exempt him under 5 acres? Mr. COOLEY. Yes. Mr PATMAN. Yes, but say it is one- tenth of an acre. He is still exempt. Mr. COOLEY We permit him to plant the highest amount of acreage he had planted in the 3-year period. Mr. PATMAN. Suppose he was going to school under the GI bill of rights and he is away from home. He has lost his cotton acreage. Why can he not come back and reclaim that cotton acreage? Mr COOLEY. Icanrcad from the law the protection which we alrcady have for the boy who was forced to zive up growing cotton and had to go to war, The gentleman is not familia: with the law now on the books Mr. PATMAN. Will the gentleman do that in his own tume? Mr. COOLEY. Yes. Mr. PATMAN. The question here is, Are you going to discriminate against the veterans who are going to school and who lost their allotments in favor of the factory-typ2 farm that has been growing cotton and geiting bigger and bigger and bigger during the past 5 or 10 years? Are you in favor of giving this veteran just a small acreage of 5 when it will not come from any others except those who have greavly increased their acreage during this time of prosperity on the farm? We should not further encourage the factory-type farm. We shouid encourage the family-type farm. The way to get away from even the danger of socialism and communism in this country is to encourage farm and home ownership. We are encouraging farm ownership, but you cannot continue it fully unless you give the man enough acres to make a living on that farm. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pacel. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I should lke to repeat here again that when the 11411 Secretary of Agriculture says there shall be but so many acres of cotton produced in a year, when you give it to somebody you have to take it away from somebody. Do not be too much misled by this veteran angle. We have had similar proposals before the committee. Well over half of the cotton farmers today are veterans. Do not go wild about the veteran end of it. What about the veter- an who has 6 acres and that is all he has? Are you going to come along and take something away from him? There is no such thing, Mr. Chair- man, as just getting cotton acreage out of thin air. You do not have any quotas when that goes on. Like this year we are going to have so many bales of cot- ton that require so many acres; then whenever you go out and give to some- body, you must take. In 1945 we passed an act and provided that every cotton farmer who left his farm to go into the service, he will be regarded as having planted cotton every hour he was in the service. That is Public Law 12, of the Seventy-ninth Congress. It says that when he is in the service he is taken care of, and that is the only question that his amendment applies to, because the gentleman’s amendment says that the county commitiee must regard him as a cotton farmer, and he cannot be a cotton farmer under this amendment unless he was planting cotton before the war. Every one of them are being taken care of now if, as a matter of fact, he was a real cotton farmer and wanted to get back into cotton production. But, in addition to that I want to re- peat again that we have given to the State committee of Texas the right to reserve 760,000 acres and give every acre of 1t to the veterans if they want to. ‘We have authorized every county com- mittee in the State of Texas to reserve 15 percent of the county allotment and give every acre of it to the veterans. We cannot get an estimate as to what this would take in acreage, but the gentle- man offered a similar amendment last year when the bill was up, which was de- feated, and then we did get an estimate that it could take from five to ten million acres. If you do not have but 20,000,000 acres allocated, and this amendment giv- ing veterans 5 acres, that will take five or ten million acres, what are all the other veterans that are really cotton farmers going to have? Where are they going to get their cotton acreage? You do not have but so much to allot. What we have done in the bill is to put that into the hands of the home people. If the county committee wants to give every acre of it to a group of vet- erans, they have the right todoso. But, I appeal to you, do not wreck the en- tire program to meet a situation that happens to exist down in one county of the gentleman from Texas |Mr. Breck- worTH]. He has been talking about that county for the last 18 months. I am willing for him to put a local amend- ment in here to take care of that county if the other Members from Texas will agree, But, my friends, please do not
11412 wreck the entire program. Do not de- stroy the whole equitable system that has been set up. We have no State lines on this amendment. The gentleman from California was in here this morning talking about his situation. Let me tell you that if this amendment goes in, it utterly destroys the protection that our States have now, because whenever this group can come in and take five or ten million acres, then you take whatever is left, that is all. As I say, you are taking it from veterans and you are giving it to veterans who now, under the law, if they were honest, real cotton farmers, could go back and get it under the law as it now exists. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has expired. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr, BeckwortH]. The question was taken; and on a divi- sion (demanded by Mr. BeckwortH) there were—ayes 15, noes 46. So the amendment was rejected. Mr, TEAGUE, Mr, Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Teacue: On page 8, line 8, after “is”, strike out “volun- tarily surrendered to the county committee” and insert “not to be planted.” Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, under present law the county committee is forced to allocate cotton to any farm which last planted cotton in 1941, planted war crops in 1947, and has no intent of planting cotton again, This amendment will give the county committee authority to take that allotment and reallocate it within that county to a farm which will plant cotton. Mr, PACE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TEAGUE. I yield to the gentle- man from Georgia. Mr. PACE. Would the gentleman help us by trying to explain how the county committee could ever find out, if the planting season was over, whether or not a man was going to plant his allot- ment? Mr. TEAGUE. On line 10 the bill states that “under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.” Therefore he can require that a farmer say whether or not he is going to plant his cotton. Mr. PACE. We have attempted to do that in here. We say if he is not going to do it, he can surrender it. Mr. TEAGUE. The gentleman from Georgia well knows that in cotton dis- tricts the value of your land is based on your cotton allotment, Therefore, most farmers refuse to surrender the acreage which they do not plant because they are afraid they will lose that allotment to their farm. Mr. PACE. The farmer loses as much by not planting as he does by surrender. He does not gain anything by hanging onto it and not planting. Mr. TEAGUE, If the farmer does not plant over a certain period he loses that acreage and the State loses that acreage. This amendment gives the county com- mittee that acreage, and they will keep it CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE within the county and keep it within the State. Mr. PACE. I just do not see how the county committee could know until after the planting season was over whether he is going to plant. Mr. TEAGUE. Is it not true this is. the same provision that is in the wheat law? Mr. PACE. I am not familiar with that. Mr. TEAGUE. One member of the gentleman’s staff just told me it was. Mr. PACE. What the committee did was to say that you can determine when a man is going to plant it by going to him and asking him, “Are you going to plant it?” “No.” “Will you sign this surrender?” ‘That closes the book. Mr. TEAGUE, If he says “No,” there is nothing you can do about that acre- age, and the great majority of the cotton farmers will not surrender their county acreage. Mr, POAGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TEAGUE. I yield to the gentle- man from Texas. Mr. POAGE. Suppose the gentleman's amendment is agreed to, and by the middle of May a farmer has not planted, and the county comes to him and says, “Do you intend to plant that acreage?” and he says, “Yes,” would the gentleman still suggest the county committee should go ahead and take that cotton away from him? Mr. TEAGUE. If there is evidence to indicate he has not planted it and that he will not plant it. Mr. POAGE. What would be that evidence? Mr. TEAGUE. If he has not planted cotton since 1941, and he has made no preparation to plant, I would say that was sufficient evidence that he was not going to plant it this year, Will the gentleman answer my ques- tion about wheat? Is not this the same provision that is in the wheat law? Mr. POAGE. I confess I am not fa- miliar with the wheat law. Perhaps it is not in the wheat law, but the wheat law allows a great deal more liberality on the part of the local committees than the cotton law does. If we want to change the cotton law so that we do not have legislation, but simply leave it up to the county committee, of course this bill goes a long way in that direction. However, it strikes me the bill goes about as far in that direction as we can afford to go. Mr. TEAGUE. The county committee is elected by the people in the county, and I would have no fear as to what that county committee might do as far as reallocating this cotton acreage is concerned. Mr, CRAWFORD. Mr. will the gentieman yield? Mr. TEAGUE. I yield to the gentle- man from Michigan, Mr. CRAWFORD. Suppose farmer A, who grew cotton in 1941, has a 25-acre allotment coming to him, say for 1951, if he wants to use it. He states he does not intend to plant for 1951, and they allocate the acreage to some other land. What is his status in the spring of 1952? Chairman, JULY 31 Mr. TEAGUE. On page 8, line 15, the bill reads: Any transfer of acreage in 1960 shall not operate to reduce the allotment base for any subsequent year for the farm from which such acreage is transferred. Mr. CRAWFORD. In other words, by stating any particular year that he does not intend to grow cotton that year, he does not lose the right to grow cotton for some subsequent year. Mr. TEAGUE. But if he does not plant it over a certain period, he loses it, the county loses it and the State loses it. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. TEAGUE. I yield. Mr. PACE. I want to correct that. The next year and the years aftér he does lose it. We simply said that he did not lose it in 1950, because of the act that we passed in April we said he would not. But we have changed that, and hereafter he will lose it. Mr. TEAGUE. He will lose it. If you transfer it or do not plant it, you lose it. Thatis, if you do that for 3 years. Mr. CRAWFORD. So that you come to the spring of 1951, and you say: “Are you going to plant this acreage”-—— The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the pending amendment close in 2 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? There was no objection. Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield. Mr. MORRIS. A short while ago I was stopped in midair. Mr. COOLEY. I am sorry. Mr. MORRIS. That was unfair to me. Not that the gentleman from North Carolina was unfair, but the situ- ation was. I made a statement which might on its face appear as if I was mak- ing a demagogic statement. But I say to the gentleman and to the Members of the House that I was not. I was in dead earnest. I have not sent out one speech—not one in 344 years—and I was not making the speech to be broadcast. I was making it because I believe in the justice of this amendment. I have not sent out any speech, and I do not intend to send this one out. Mr. COOLEY. I agree that the gentleman was left hanging in mid-air because of the circumstances which we faced at the time, to wit, that the tim had been fixed. . Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield. Mr. POAGE. May I call attention to the fact that if we adopt the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, it will leave any man who tried to diver- sify by planting cctton only 1 year out of 3 in such position that I do not see how he can continue with jis program. Mr. TEAGUE. The Secretary has the right to write th? rccgulation on that, and will
1950 what the gentleman states in my opinion is not correct, Mr. COOLEY. The law provides that if he does not plant once in 3 years he loses it, and if he does plant once in 3 years he retains it. As the gentleman from Texas [Mr. PoacE] says, we are trying to encourage a program of diversi- fied agriculture so that farmers would engage in rotation practices, and I am very much afraid that the gentleman’s amendment would destroy that program. Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. COOLEY. I yield. Mr. TEAGUE. The State chairman of Texas wrote this yesterday: I discussed the county allotments with the chairmen of county committees in 12 east Texas counties, 1nd each chairman was of the opinion that the allotment received for his county in 1950 was ample if it could have been placed on farms where the farmer desired to plant cotton. Mr. COOLEY. That is right, but if the farmer desired to surrender his acre- age, he may voluntarily do so. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amend- ment be defeated. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Texas |Mr, TEAGuE]. The amendment was rejected. Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. BeckwortH: On page 11, after line 16, insert the following: “Section 346 of the Agricultural Adjust- ment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereot the follow- ing new subsection (e) the penalty provided for in this section shall not apply with re- spect to cotton produced by any person who is recognized by the county committee as being a cotton farmer if his total acreage planted to cotton during the year in which such cotton was produced did not exceed 5 acres.” Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that was men- tioned several times a while ago. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a unanimous-con- sent request? Mr, BECKWORTH. I yield. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment, and all amendments thereto, close in 7 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from North Carolina? Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I ob- ject. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment, and all amendments thereto, close in 7 minutes. The motion was agreed to. Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, as I said, this is the amendment that has been talked about heretofore. I of- fered it a year ago, on August 3. Inci- dentally, things have not been nearly as serene today as they were a year ago. It is obvious there have been inequities ex- isting in the year gone by. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE I do want to say this: that there have been some figures used here. Five mil- lion and ten million were used as an es- timate a year ugo. Those same figures were used. I happen to have the August 3 CoNGRESSIONAL Recorp, and here is what I said: The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. PACE] spoke about 6,000,000 bales. On July 256 the Department wrote me a letter as to the number of farmers growing five bales or less, on an average, and there were 601,273. Now, that refers to bales, but it also gets its origin from the acres, which is found in the August 3, 1949, ConcrEs- SIONAL Recorp. I said there: 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, 1949, that this particular figure I have given, and I ask Mr. Pace to supply the source of his figures. Later on Mr. Pace wrote me this year. I answered that letter, and I asked Mr. Pace again to give me the source of his figures. Before the House I simply want to ask that the source of these figures and the figures be given to me, that I might find them, because honestly I have not been able to find any such fig- ures. The contrary is true. I have these figures that were supplied me on July 25, 1949, by the Department of Agri- culture (CONGRESSIONAL Recorp, vol. 95, part 8, p. 10710), the latest figures I have been able to get. If we have later fig- ures, I simply want to courteously ask that they be given. Mr. PACE. Do you want me to give them to you now? Mr. BECKWORTH. No. I asked you in a letter, and you have not answered my letter. I also stated in the August 3, 1949, Recorp that I would appreciate your giving me the figures. AllI ask him courteously today is to send me the figures. This shows that 601,273 farmers were growing 9 acres or less—not 5 acres or less—in 1945, out of over 1,000,000 growers. If all of them grew 5 acres, that would be only a dactle over 3,000,000 acres, and it is for that reason that I am anxious to gct the source of the 6,000,- 000 or the 10,000,000 figure, in writing, or on the floor of the House, as I have heretofore requested. I think it will be conducive to helping clarify this whole picture. I assure you I will be very grateful to have it. : This same amendment which I am referring to would simply permit any recognized cotton farmer to have 5 acres of cotton, Incidentally, in many sections that will not grow more than two bales of cotton; in fact, not two bales. I propose to include in the Rrc- orp at this point some figures and some letters from authoritative agricultural people showing that. My suggestion is this: If you cannot do this for the smallest, there is somo- thing wrong with the program, because I do not believe anybody will make the argument that he feels a man can g0 out and produce 5 acres of cotton and make very much of a living doing it if this is his chief money crop. I do not think anybody will make the argument 11413 that that can be done, if that is his primary money crop. If anybody feels that that is his primary money crop and he can make a living on 6 acres of land, I would be glad to have him ex- press himself, that a man can do well when and if that is his main money crop. Mr. MORRIS. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BECKWORTH. I yield, Mr. MORRIS. As a matter of fact these reservations of the State and county committees in substance are in- tended to relieve hardship cases, are they not? Mr. BECKWORTH. That ts exactly right, Mr. MORRIS. If it is carried out as it should be, no one should have less than 5 acres, should they? Mr. BECKWORTH. There are many, as will appear from the Recorp tomor- row who say that is their belief. Mr. MORRIS. Then, the truth of the matter is that this would just be guar- anteeing to the little fellow that he would have 5 acres, Mr, BECKWORTH. That is right. You could not tell him: “You can have one-tenth of an acre, one-half of an acre, that is all.” You could not tell him a thing like that. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, July 27, 1950. Hon. Linpitry BEcKWwORTH, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. BecKwortH: This will confirm the information given to you by telephone today to the effect that we have had no re- quest from the House Committee on Agricul- ture, nor have we reported to them on H. R. 9109. Sincerely yours, E. J. OvEeRBY, Assistant to the Secretary. House oy REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., July 28, 1950. Mr. B. F. Vancx, Production and Marketing Adminis- tration, College Station, Tez. Dear Mr. B. F. Vance: I have received the letter of July 28 and the list which you sent me at the request of Jir. Tracur. You men- tion 12 East Texas counties, I would like a@ Mst of the counties to which you refer, Sincerely. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, College Station, Tez., July 26, 1950. Dran ConargessmMaNn: At the request of Con- gressman Teacus I am enclosing herewith a list of Texas counties giving the 1950 county cotton allotments under Public Law 272 and the total allotment after applying Public Law 471. In the last column I have listed the approximate allotment each county would receive in 1851 under H. R. 8969, assuming that the national allotment will be the same in 1951 as was announced in 1950 before Public Law 471 was passed. You realize, of course, that these figures are purely estimates since the bill provides for certain adjust- ments and I am not in a position to know just what adjustments would be made when all the facts are available. I am of the opinion that certain amend- ments should be made tn the present law; however, I think the most urgent need is for more flexibility in making allotments to
11414 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Juty 81 farms. Just today I discussed the county 1950 county cotton allotments, Texas—Con. 1950 county cotton allotments, Teras—Con, allotments with the chairmen of the county (Preliminary, July 17, 1080} {Preliminary, July 17, 1950} committees in 12 East Texas counties, and each chairman was of the opinion that the Esti- allotment received for his county in 1950 Under {Under} Other | Total | mated Under [Under] Other | Total | mated was ample if it could have been placed on La Law | Law fadjust-| allot- | 1951 272! | 4711 jments!|ments!| silot- farms where the furmer desired to plant cotton. T hope this information will be of value to you. @) a) Very truly yours, Parker Cy B. F. Vance, 40,160 =Parmer....... e008 Chairman, State Commuttee. 1950 county cotton allotments, Texas [Preliminary, July 17, 1950} To BEE 0 B50 83 go BSBERERR8 Red River... Reeves... BE $5 bine San Augustine . - 8an Jacinto... naneenes 280 1, 834 Hays = -~] 11,966 | 11, 73: San Patriclo... 4 OBE 1 Atascosa Anstin.. Batley. . Bandera, 28, 049 Wy) eee ee) 7, 607 16, 118 6 72 110, 612 Terry.......-- Throckmor- Mcelennan... MeMallcn.... 1 Actual acres are rounded and therefore do not add to actual totals based on acres and tenths of acres. - a4 ~-.| 1, 2! ’ 8 Estimated 1051 allotment under H, R. 8069 assuming i 8, Matagorda._..] 16,742] 762 [7..-... 4 State allotment for 1051 Is same as 1960 allotment before DeWitt. ...... Maverick. applying Public Law 471, < 34 83, 863 Medina # No cotton. AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL CoLurax oF TEXAS, College Station, Tex., July 25, 1950. Hon. LinpLey Breck wortH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mk. BecxwortTH: Your letter of in- quiry regarding the minimum number of acres in cotton a family of a man, wife, and three or four children need in order to make ® living in the South was referred to our Mr. C, A. Bonnen who heads up our research work in farm management. Mr. Bonnen has written you giving you the benefits of 836 32, O13 Buch research and observations that we have
1950 made along this line. I have discussed this with Mr, Bonnen and have no further com- ment to offer, I feel that the most compre- hensive and useful study that has been made along this Hne was that made by the Southwide Committee of which Dean Frank Welch, of Mississippi State, was chairman, Sincerely yours, L. P. GABBARD, Head of Department. THe FeprraL LAND Bank or Houston, Houston, Tez., June 5, 1950. Hon. Linpity Brceworts, House of Representatrves, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. BeckwortH: I am sending your letter of May 25, 1950, to the research divi- sion of A. and M. College and asking that they make reply to your inquiry; namely, what is the minimum number of acres in cotton a family of a man, wife, and three or four children need in order to make a living in the South. Very truly yours, Sreruina C. Evans, President. — DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., June 6, 1950. Hon. Linptry BEckworTH, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: This acknowledges your inquiry of May 13, 1950, regarding the minimum number of acres of cotton the average family in the upland area of the South, with cotton as the primary money crop, would need in order to make a living for the family. Such an estimate, as you well appreciate, would need to be based on average condi- tions, because of soil type, rate of fertiliza- tion, kind of power available, and other con- ditions that influence production. The aver- age gross cash income of our operating loan borrowers in Texas for the 1948 crop year was $2,283. The average gross cash income of such borrowers in Arkangas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Oklahoma for the same period ranged from 61,381 to $2,204. The operating loan borrowers referred to are operators of not larger than famlly-type farms to whom the Farmers Home Administration has ad- vanced production loans. To produce a gross cash farm income of $2,000 under pres- ent market prices, with 80 percent of the in- come from cotton, would require 16 acres, averaging approximately 450 pounds of lint cotton per acre. Throughout the cotton areas of the South, there are many thousands of farmers who produce less than an average of 450 pounds of lint cotton per acre. For such farmers to obtain a gross cash farm income of $2,000 would require a proportionately larger acre- age of cotton or the making of adjustments in their farming operations to provide addl- tional sources of income. Should additional information regarding this question or any phase of our activities be desired, we shall be glad to furnish it upon request. Sincerely yours, DrtarD B. LASSETER, Administrator. — DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Farmers Home ADMINISTRATION, Montgomery, Ala., May 26, 1950, Hon. LINDLEY BECKWORTH, House of Representatives, Dear Ma. BeckwortH: Your communica- tion of May 15 is requested our Judgment ag to the minimum number of acres in cotton the average upland family in the south, with cotton as their primary money crop, would need in order to make a living for the family. Such an estimate, as you well appreciate, in- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE volves many variables but, In my opinion, a minimum of 15 acres would be required. Sincerely yours, JULIAN BROWN, State Director. — DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BuREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, Montgomery, Ala., May 18, 1950. Hon. LINDLEY BECK WORTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Str: In reply to your letter of May 13, addressed to the Commissioner of Agricul- ture, you are advised that the number of acres of cotton necessary to meet the needs of a family of five varies with the general type of farming done by the particular family. In some instances six or eight acres might be sufficient, in other cases three or four times that number of acres might be re- quired. Since we have no factual data on this subject, we are hesitant in suggesting a minimum acreage. I am sorry that we are unable to give you some definite information. Very truly yours, J.C, GARRETT, Agricultural Statistician. ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, Auburn, Ala., June 12, 1950. Hon. LInpLryY BECKWORTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Drak Mr. BecKwortTH: Your letter ad- dressed to the Alabama A. & M. College at Auburn has been referred to me. Iam sorry to have to report that it is quite impossible to give you an answer to your question that can be defended. In certain areas it may take 4 acres of cotton to make a bale, while in other areas a bale per acre can be made with no great difficulty under average seasonal conditions, The number of bales of cotton that might be picked depends on the number of persons in the family who might be willing or forced to pick cotton, A number of these kinds of considerations might be listed, all of which show that a real, usable answer cannot be given to your question. Very truly yours, M. J. FuNcntss, Dean and Director. — DEPARTMENT or AGRICULTURE, BuREAv oF AGRICULTURAL ECONoMmICcs, Montgomery, Ala., June 6, 1950. Hon LINDLEY BECKWORTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sm: In reply to your letter of May 26, addressed to the Commissioner of Agricul- ture, you are advised that the number of acres of peanuts necessary to meet the needs of a family of five varies with the general type of farming done by that particular fam- ily. In some instances 6 or 8 acres might be sufficient, in other cases three or four times that number of acres might be required. Since we have no factual data on this sub- ject, we are hesitant in suggesting a mini- mum acreage. T am sorry we are unable to give you some definite information. Very truly yours, J.C, Garret, Agricultural Statistician. STATE AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, Magnolia, Ark., July 3, 1950. Congressman LINDLEY BECKWORTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Drar CoNorrsSMAN BECKWoRTH: I have our letter of June 27 inquiring about the 11415 advisability of acreage allotments of leas than 3 acres. In my opinion, regardless of the type of land and the type of farming opera- tion iavolved, no farmer could afford to in- clude cotton in his diversification program and plan’ less than a minimum of 6 acres. I base this statement on farm-management ccurses studied in college and on my ex- perience in owning and operating farms. In my opinion, your personal information gathered as a young man in east Texas would be sufficient on which to base your Judg- ment. I believe you understand the small farmers’ problem as well as any other Mem~- ber of Congress. Please call on me at any time that I may be of service to you. Sincerely, Cwrartie S, WILKINS, President. — Srave AGRICULTURAL AN» MECHANICAL COLLEGE, Magnolia, Ark., June 12, 1950. Hon. Linpiry BeckwortH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiry of June 7, 1960, Y would say that the very least num- ber of acres of upland cotton a farmer could afford to grow economically in our State would be 10 acres. This could be made eco- nomtcal only on a highly diversified plan, in which the farmer expected to realize not more than one-fifth of his total farm income from cotton. Sincerely yours, ° EB, E. Granam. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Tallahassee, Fla., May 17, 1950. Mr. LinnLe&y BecKwonrTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of May 12, 1950, relative to acreage required where a family of a man, wife, and three or four children depend on cotton as their primary money crop. In my opinion, through observations, the minimum would be eight acres per family of this size, Yours very truly, Martin D. Horst, Chairman, Leon County PMA Committee. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FARMERS HOME ADMINIE TRATION, Atlantu, Ga., June 1, 1950. Hon, LINDLEY BECKWORTH, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: Your communica- tion of May 15, 1050, addressed to the State Director of Farmers Home Administration for Georgia regarding cotton acreage was re- ceived on May 25. You asked for our opinion as to the minimum number of acres of cot- ton a man, wife, and three or four children should have in order to make a living where cotton is the primary money crop. In order to arrive at a figure which may represent an average, wo will have to con- sider many factors. In the first place, in financing farmers under our program we con- sider the land resources of the individual operator, its adaptability to cotton produc- tion, family resources and the ability of the family to produce cotton under boll-weevil conditions. We also have to consider the county average yield. In some counties in Georgia where cotton has previously been the major cash crop, we now recommend planting less than one-half of acres formerly planted to cotton. In counties where ylelds under good farming methods are less than 400 pounds of lint we discourage cotton pro- duction except a small acreage during the
11416 transition period to other cash enterprises. Generally speaking, farmers in the northern half of the State are getting pway from cot- ton as a primary cash crop. In our opinion, a Georgia farm family of the size referred to above should have as a minimum a gross cash income of $1,500 plus adequate subsistence crops in order to enjoy a fair standard of lving. Based on present price levels and average yields which are leas than 400 pounds of lint in many counties, you can readily see that it would require from 15 to 17 acres of cotton in areas where cotton is the primary crop. In our program we aie recommending 8 more diversified type of farming which calls for less cotton acreage with better oultural practices and more livestock and livestock products. The above comments are largely related to our program in Georgia and may not reflect the thinking of all the agricultural leaders in the State. Sincerely yours, R. L. VANSANT, State Director. — DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FaraMens HOME ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, Ga., June 28, 1950. Hon, Linptey Beck wortH, House of Representatives. Dear Ms. BeckwortH: We have your com- munication of June 7, 1950, in which you ask our opinion as to the least number of acres of upland cotton a farmer can afford to grow or economically grow in Georgia Our letter of June 6 6n a similar subject reflects our thinking as to the number of acres of cotton a family-type operator should have where cotton is the primary cash crop. The question in your last com- munication is more difficult to answer for the reason that you refer to farmers in general and not a special group. We have a number of farmers in Georgia who cultivate and harvest their cotton crops with mechanized equipment. This type of operator can util- 4ze more cotton acreage than a farmer with less facilities. After considering the above and all the factors outlined in our letter of June 6 and based on our observations, it ts our opinion that the average cotton producer whose ma- jor cash income is derived from cotton needs from 15 to 20 acres in cotton. We have not taken into consideration a few large opera- tors who use all mechanized equipment and employ hired labor and share croppers Should additional information regarding this subject be desired, we shall be glad to furnish it upon request. Sincerely yours, 8. L. VANLANDINGHAM, Acting State Director. GEoRaIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT Sration, Experiment, Ga., June 6, 1950. Representative Linoter Brcxwortn, Congress of the United States, Washington, D. CO. Dear Sir: Your request of May 25 addressed to the president of the University of Georgta for information on the minimum number of acres in cotton needed to make a living has been referred to me. I am enclosing copies of two reports con- taining information bearing on your ques- tion, one of which is Project I Agricultural Adjustments Toward an Efficient Agriculture in the South, a statement presented to Special House subcommittee on cotton on July 7 and 8 1947. Table 6 of this report shows estimates of acreages needed in va- rious subregions of the South, You will note from the other publication (see p. 28), Farm Adjustment Opportunities in Greene County, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Ga., that we do have many families making a living on 30 acres or less of cultivated land. This obviously may not be a very satisfactory living. T hope that this information will be helpful to you Sincerely yours, W. E. Henoer, Agricultural Economist. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Atlanta, Ga., May 26, 1950. Hon. Lriwpiey Beoxwort#, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear CONGRESSMAN BECKWORTH: I am in receipt of copy of your general letter in which you asked the question, “What is the minimum number of acreage in cotton a family of man and wife and three or four children require when depending on cotton as their primary money crop?” Naturally, this is a difficult question to at- tempt to answer as there are so many factors involved—type of soll, ability of the farmer to produce, and many other things. I would rather think of the question not in number of acres needed, but the production neces- sary to give this family a reasonable cash Income Certainly not less than 8 to 10 bales of cotton are necessary for such a family when depending on cotton as their main source of income, As a matter of fact, I am definitely of the opinion that that type of farmer should not be restricted at all, but given the opportu- nity of producing all he can, with a mini- mum guaranteed price announced at the be- ginning of the year for a certain portion of his production, based on the amount of cot- ton that is to be consumed domestically. I am mailing you, under separate cover, a mimeographed copy of my editorials that appeared in the Market Bulletin last No- vember and December in which I have at- tempted to analyye the permanent farm plan that has been approved by the south- ern commissioners of agriculture. I hope you will have the opportunity of reviewing this plan, as we think it is the only logical and reasonable farm program that has been proposed so far. With kindest regards, I am Bincerely yours, Tom LINDER, Commissioner of Agriculture. Grorara State OFvice, Athens, Ga., May 16, 1950 Hon. LInpLey BeEcKWwortTH, House of Representatives. Dear MR. BeckworrH: This will acknowl- edge your letter of May 12 requesting obser- vations or information in regard to the mini- mum number of acres of cotton per family. We would like to state at the outset that your question is very broad, and the assump- tion much too general to allow for a definite answer. Since the agricultural picture in the Southeast has changed so radically in the past 7 years, and we have tended to lose sight of actual cottom farm conditions be- cause of our loss of contact with the cotton farmer, we are not at all certain that the “family cotton crop” is the basis for the pro- duction of this commodity as it was 10 years ago. There are undoubtedly still a large number of “family crops” of cotton still be- ing produced, however, there are certain in- dications that the relative number of people producing cotton on this basis has substan- tially lessened. A great deal of the produc- tion of these unite has been taken over by subsistence farmers; the increasing numbers of farmers operating with motorized equip- ment; and those persons producing cotton to maintain labor for other crops and farm products. JULY 31 For your information and study, we are enclosing a tabulation for Georgia showing by counties the number of cotton acreage allotments in various acreage ranges. These acreage ranges refer to the cotton acreage allotments established for farms, and the tabulation was prepared subsequent to the establishment of “new grower” cotton allot- ments, but before putting into effect of Pub- Uo Law 471. Another point in your question thet pre- vents a direct answer is the lack of a defini- tion of what would constitute a “living for the family.” The constant pressure to im- prove social and economic conditions has caused an elevation which probably is ap- proaching the limit of the physical capacity of the family unit to produce cotton sufil- ctent enough to provide them with the means for reaching the levels toward which they are being educated. We dislike having to evade your question but it ts not felt that an adequate answer could be made based on conditions that were predominant in the past and the exist- ence of which are not positive at this time. If it will be of any assistance to you in the formulation of your idea in this matter, we are outlining below a few of the accepted costs and value estimates regarding cotton in this area The various cost figures are for the actual cost of the items and do not include any incidental cost connected with the business of farming. Cost of: Seed... ----.- nnn nnn ne wwa~ per acre... $3 Fertilizer --.....---.- ween wnnne do... 10 Insect control._......---.----- do... 10 Ginning..-.-.----~-. o--- ee per bale.. 8 Picking........ e------per hundred... 8 Gross value of cotton and cottonseed per acre: 1948, $106 50; 1949, 964. Very truly yours, T. R. BreEpiove, Chairman, State PMA Committee. — LoviIsiaNa DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND IMMIGRATION, Baton Rouge, May 25, 1950. Hon. Lino.ey Beck worth, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dean CONGRESSMAN BrcKWORTH: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of the twelfth making inquiry as to what, in my opinion, is the minimum number of acres planted to cotton necessary for a family of from 5 to 6 to make a living on from the production of cotton in the average upland cotton area of the South. T fee: that a minimum of 25 acres are nec- essary for a family this size to make a rea- sonable living. Sincerely yours, W. E. Anperson, Commissioner, —— Lovistana Srare UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, Baton Rouge, La., May 26, 1950. Hon, Linpitxy BeckworTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear CoNorrssMAN Beck WORTH: Your letter of May 12 to Mr. L. A. Mullin, chairman, State PMA committee was referred to me for further attention, There are many var- fables in the problem with which your ques- tion is concerned, such as the ages of the children, the normal yield of cotton, the price of cotton, and other farm enterprises in addition to cotton. After discussing the matter with Mr. Felix Stanley, our farm management specialist, we would say that the average upland cotton farmer who depends primarily on cotton for cash income should have 30 acres of cotton and 80 acres of other cropland as a minimum in order to make a living for his family
1950 above out-of-pocket costs of operation. This conclusion is based on an assumed average cotton yield per acre of 250 pounds and a market price of 30 cents per pound. Summary Estimated cash income_......-.--.-. $2, 400 Estimated expenses for labor, mule work, picking, machinery, mate- rlals and services_...--....--.---- 1, 057 Farm income._.......----. ~ 1,348 Less interest on investment......... 300 Labor income...-...-....... - 1,043 If the farmer should own all the capital Involved, he would of course return for him- self the interest earnings. Kindly write me if you have need for fur- ther information. Sincerely yours, B M. Giuez, Head, Department of Agricultural Economics. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE, Jackson, May 18, 1950. Hon LINDLEY BECKwortH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: We have your letter of May 13 with reference to cotton acreage. In the old days when most cotton was pro- duced on the small farm by mule power it was believed that from 15 to 20 acres was all of the cotton which could be properly planted, cultivated and harvested by the average small family. This same situation would exist today in the hill section with the poorer class of farmer. On the other hand if the farmer has a tractor and other machinery and if he employs day labor dur- ing peak seasons, this acreage could easily be doubled or tripled. The amount of cotton acreage would also depend on the amount of time consumed on other crops, livestock, poultry, dairying and so forth. I believe you will understand from the above many factors enter into acreage and production. TI would say that 20 acres 1s still not a bad estimate, but I would further say that the average family with little means, doing its own work, can live, but would make a bare existence if 1t depends on cotton production. Very truly yours, ALLAN McCuueR, Chief Inspector, STATE OF MISSISSIPII, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE, Jackson, June 13, 1950. Mr. LINDLEY BECKWORTH, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BeckworTH: We have your re- cent letter with reference to the minimum acreage of upland cotton in this State. I would say that many of the most pro- gressive small farmers in upland counties grow no cotton at all. The minimum acre- age would depend entirely on other pursuits which were carried on at the same time. If a farmer depended on cotton alone I would say a 10 acre minimum. If, on the other hand, he produced hay, grains, hogs, beef cattle, dairy products, vegetables, poultry, and the many other pursuits which sre open to him, he would probably be better off with 2 or 3 acres or no cotton at all, Very truly yours, ALLAN McCuurR, Chief Inspector. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mississiper State CoLuzce, SCHOOL or AGRICULTURE AND EXPERIMENT STATION, State College, Miss., June 6, 1950. Hon. Linpiry BECKWoRTH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dean CONGRESSMAN BEcKWoRTH: Your let- ter of May 25 addressed to the President has been referred to me for reply. It appears that no categorical answer can be given, good for all times and places, on any definition of “a Hving for the family.” It depends on the price of cotton and cotton- seed, or rather their buying power, their rel- ative price; and on yields per acre, which vary greatly not only as between areas but also from farm to farm within most areas. It also depends on what else can be advan- tageously produced—on what combination of farm enterprises, in a given locality with its marketing opportunities and its natural advantages, will accomplish the best use of all resources, including labor especially, 80 as to bring the largest net returns from the whole enterpriso. And such matters as soil conservation must also be considered. The adaptation of the land, because of topog- raphy, to the use of farm machinery ts an- other variable factor, influencing the poten- tialities. We enclose two publications which we seug- gest you look over, along with two maps which you can obtain from Mr. Ralph R, Botts, Principal Agricultural Economist, Di- vision of Agricultural Finance, BAE: ‘County Averrge Yield of Cotton for Period 1939-46” and “Coefacient of Variation in County Aver- age Yield.” Unless, by use of the new insecticides, the boll weevil is controlled, not all the cotton acreage that a family can cultivate in hill areas of the lower South, east of the Texas high plains, will make a decent American living for the average prcducer or the below- average producer; unless, indeed, economical fully mechanized cultivation and picking become practical in those arcas--and it can hardly be said that this {s now in sight. The farm family of a man, wife, and three children, no matter how large the farm and even without legal limitation on acreage, is not likely to undertake, or be able, to cul- tivate more than 10 acres of cotton - maybe 12 sometimes. The average in scores and hundreds of counties is below 250 pounds per acre, county-wide average; and half the cot- ton land makes less, of course. In a large number of counties it is below 200 pounds. Four or five bales, therefore, 1s average, per farm family of the size mentioned, when cot- ton is the main cash crop. Such a family cannot carry on much else but cotton farm- ing, because of the high labor requirement in the two peak periods, At present prices, the gross sales from the farm 1s, therefore, likely to be less than $1,000; and the net only a fraction of that, because costs are, with low ylelds, a relatively large part of the gross, In other hill areas there are a relatively few counties that have an average of 350 or even 400 pounds per acre; and there are some farmers in most counties in the Cotton Belt that average as well or better. Without stating this as an official view of the college, I may say that many of us believe that where yields are below 250 pounds, at least, on an average, more farmers still should go out of cotton production; because there ig ttle if any profit—unless the yields can be raised. In any case, in most hill areas especially but in the Delta also, we do not believe it 11417 most profitable for a family to cultivate all the cotton possible; rather, it is advisable to select the cotton land, and to organize the farm enterprises for diversified production. If such a family grows cotton, perhaps six or seven acres of cotton, together with 8 to 12 dairy cows where dairying can be carried on, with some other production, would be ad- visable; and a minimum size for the farm might be 50 or 60 acres of reasonably good open crop and pasture land. A family might make a minimum standard of income on such a farm. If beef cattle, then a larger farm is needed. And we, in fact, see the family farm of the future (except for spe- clalized poultry and the like) to be from 80 to 150 cpen acres, up to 250 acres, in average hill areas. In sum, we do not see how it is practicable for an average family, with cotton as the almost sole money product, to make a living that is acceptable, outside areas lke the high plains, unless economical fully mechan- ized operations become practical—in which case the family farm would be much larger. We may say, Congressman, that we know now of many hill farms that are making & living and some of them include cotton; but we need fleld studies of these family farms in the hills~—-and need funds in order to make these studies. These statements are as precise as we feel we can make. If there is anything else you wish of us, please advise us. Very truly, H. P. Topp, Assistant Agricultural Economist, Erate oF NorTH CAROLINA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Raleigh, May 19, 1950. Hon LINDLEY BECKWORTH, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. Dear MR. BECKWoRTH: This acknowledges your letter of May 12, 1950, requesting my opinion as to the minimum number of acres * of cotton necessary to produce a living for a family of five or six, a man, his wife,and three or four children. This is a rather difficult question to answer since it would depend on a& number of factors such as the age of the children, productiveness of the soil, and the standard of living, and whether or not it was an independent operation in which all of the work had to be done by hand, or whether or not it would be a part of a large opera- tion in which more mechanical devices would be used. On an independently operated farm in North Carolina where cotton is the primary money crop, I would say that a man, his wife, and three or four small children could handle only about & or 6 acres. This, of course, would produce a very meager income for a family of that size, In cases where the children are large enough to work, the family could handle considerably more acres, say up to 12 or 15 or more. It is hard to discuss the acreage needed without determining the amount of acres that the family could harvest. At any rate, I would not suggest that a family of a man, his wife, and three or four children, small, should have less than 5 or 6 acres of cotton. Even then, the family would need consider- able supplementary income from other phases of his farming program. The above suggested acreage is predicated on a produc- tion of not less than 400 to 500 pounds of lint cotton per acre, Very truly yours, L. Y. BaLLENTINE,
11418 Norra Caronina State COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND ENGINEERING OF THE UNIVERSITY or Nort CaRoLrna, Raleigh, May 30, 1950. Representative LinpLry BeckwortsH, : Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BecxworTH: In re- sponse to your Inquiry of May 25 addressed to Chancelor Harrelson, I would like to make the following comments: 1. It ts difficult to answer your question unless it is framed in a given set of circum- stances 2.1 do not believe & small farm family can grow enough cotton using conventional or workstock methods of production to af- ford the kind of standard of living which is usually recommended. To attain an ac- ceptable standard of living, it would be nec- essary to produce a good many things in ad- dition to cotton. 3. The maximum acreage which a family of four or five can handle in cotton under present workstock methods of production is approximately 10. If this is the primary source of income, it would not afford a very high standurd of living unless the price was extremely high. 4. I'am enclosing a bulletin entitled “Op- portunities for Adjustments in Farming Sys- tems Southern Piedmont Area, North Caro- lina” which will give you additional infor- mation on this subject. if I can be of additional assistance, please let me know. Very truly yours, H. B. JAMEs, Head, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics. —_— DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Farmers HomME ADMINISTRATION, Oklahoma City, Okla., June 30, 1950. Hon. Linviey Beck wortH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Beckworrn: In reply to your in- quiry as to the minimum acres of upland cotton a farmer can afford to grow or eco- nomically grow in Oklahoma, we advise you that, generally speaking, we believe from 12 to 15 acres is the very least such a farmer can afford to grow and that would be as a cash crop in conjunction with other enter- prises. Our experience indicates that where cotton farmers have too little of their major crop, there is a tendency for failure. Sincerely, E. Lee Ozzie, State Dtrector. —e PANHANDLE AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, Goodwell, Okla., May 31, 1950. Hon. Liwo.ey Beckworrn, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Sir: In response to your letter of May 25 I wish to say that a lot of things would enter into one’s estimate as to the number of acres of cotton a family of five or six would need in order to make a living. The type of land, rainfall, and the price of cotton would all enter into the picture, It is my honest opin- ion that a person would need a minimum of 60 acres of average Texas land planted to cotton each year in order to have anything like an average standard of living, I would like to point out this is just an estimate. From my observations while living in the cotton area, it is my belief that the average family does not have adequate living conditions, comparable to those of families producing other agricultural products. Yours very truly, Marvin McKEE, President, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE House or REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., May 25, 1950. First NATIONAL BANK, Stillwater, Okla. Dear Mk. Presipent: In the average upland cotton area of the South where a family of aman, wife, and three or four children de- pend on cotton as their primary money crop, in your judgment, what is the minimum number of acres in cotton this kind of family needs in order to make a living for the family? Any observations or information you may give me in this connection will be appre- clated. Sincerely, Lryp.ey Breck wortTH. (Answer:) 30 acres of cotton; 50 acres of feed crops; 30 acres of pasture; about 5 cows, 2 sows, 60 hens, and desirable number of good roosters. Of course presuming that he has four good work horses or a tractor with other necessary implements to go with them. With the above he may come out even. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Farmers HoME ADMINISTRATION, Columbia, S.C., July 11, 1950, Hon. Linptey BecKwormTt, House of Representatives. DeaR Mr. BeckworTH: Present cotton- growing requirements, especially insect-con- trol equipment, make it necessary for the average grower to have five or more acres in cotton if he is to follow a well-balanced farming program. On our opinion, a cotton allotment in excess of 5 acres lends itself admirably to proper diversification and good farming prac- tices until it reaches a point of occupying one-third of the cultivated acres on the farm. Sincerely yours, R. F, Kous, State Director. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Farmers HoME ADMINISTRATION, Columbia, S. C., May 18, 1950. Hon. LinpLey Beck worrnH, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: Our State average cotton yield for the past 10 years (1941-49, inclusive) 1s 306 pounds of lint. The aver- age price per pound over a like period 1s ap- proximately 21 cents, resulting in about $600 income from 10 acres of cotton. Based on these figures and the labor re- quirements in this section, it is our belief that a minimum of 10 acres of cotton when properly balanced with other farm enter- prises will be required to support a family of five or six on a fairly satisfactory living standard. Sincerely yours, R. F. Kors, State Director, STaTe or TENNESSEE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Nashville, May 19, 1950. Hon. Lrnpiey Breck wort, Member, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. Dear ConoressMAN BeckworrH: Our esti- mate in this department is that 12 acres in cotton are necessary for a family to make & living in Tennessee. The average for the State is about 8.5 acres. Yours very sincerely, Enwagp Jones, Commissioner, — DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Parmrrs Hons ADMINISTRATION, Nashvilie, Tenn., May 19, 1950. Hon. Linpiry BeCKWORTH, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: It is my thinking that 10 would be a minimum number of JuLy 31 ootton acres as outiined in your letter of May 15. Sincerely yours, . B. 8. Beasizy, State Director. Stare oy TENNESSEE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Nashville, June 9, 1950. Hon. Lrnpiry Beckwortn, Member, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear CONGRESSMAN BecKworTH: It is the consensus of opinion in this department that the least number of acres of cotton a Ten- nessee farmer can afford to grow economi- cally in this State is 12 acros. Yours very sincerely, Epwarp Jonss, Commissioner, STATE oF TExas, DeparTMENT of AGRICULTURE, Austin, June 12, 1950. Congressman LINDLEY BECKWORTH, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Linpirr: Absence from the office and a desk piled high with correspondence ac- count for the delay in answering your two letters. In one you ask, “In the average upland cotton area of the South where a family of @ man, wife and three or four children, de- pend on cotton as their primary money crop, in your opinion what is the minimum num- ber of acres in cotton this kind of family needs in order to make a iiving for the family?” Lindley, you asked the 864 question. Acres do not mean production since climatic con- ditions enter the picture. Therefore, no farm program which makes allotments in acres will ever succeed. The allotments must be in units such as bales, bushels, or pounds, based on acreage and soil fertility. Since we have small farmers, medium sized farmers, and large farmers, all of whom have equal rights as citizens and pay taxes in proportion to the property they own, it is very evident that any farm program which will be constructive and enduring must allot to each farmer—according to the acreage and fertility of the soll—his fair share in the American market, allotments to be made in units upon which he must receive full parity price, Regardless of whether he be a small, medium, or large farmer, he must be per- mitted to use his own judgment as to whether or not he will produce in excess of his domestic allotment for sale in foreign markets at world market prices. No demo- cratic government can discriminate for or against citizens just because they have more or less of this world’s goods. When a farmer is given his fair share in the American market, according to his acreage and the soil fertility, that is as far as the Government can go. Some think that there should be a family exemption up to so many bushels, bales, or pounds, but that would bring such complexities that !t would not work. Wishing you everything good, I am, Sincerely yours, J. E. McDowatp, Commussioner, The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coorey) is recognized for 2 minutes. Mr, COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana such time as he may desire. Mr. LARCADE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to extend my re- marks at this point in the Recorp. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana? There was no objection,