11266 in those States producing such type pea- nuts; provided, however, that the allot- ment for any State may not be increased under this proviso above the 1950 acre- age allotment for such State. There are several separate and distinct types of peanuts. First, the Virginia-type peanut, raised principally in Virginia, North Carolina, northern South Carolina and Tennessee. This nut is used almost exclusively for the edible trade. Then there is the Valencia-type pea- nut, which 1s known as the Ball Park pea- nut, becauce they are used exclusively for roasting and selling in the hull. It is very similar to the Virginia-type pea- nut and they can well be treated as one type, which will be done from now on in this discussion. This type is raised prin- cipally in Tennessee. Jn addition to the above two types, we have the Spanish and Runner type peanuts, raised in the southwest and southeast. The present law treats peanuts as one commodity, with no distinction whatever being made between types. Ever since the cessation of hostilities, there has been a surplus of peanuts, while, at the same time, there has not been a surplus in each particular type of peanut. There- fore, in fixing the national quotas, it has been necessary for the Secretary of Ag- riculture to constantly reduce the acre- age allotments without reference to types, which means that frequently there has been a short supply of the edible type peanuts. I had hope that legisla- tion could be offered to the House where- by each particular type of peanut could be treated as a separate commodity and sufficient acres allotted to each type to meet the demands of the trede, which would place the peanut program on a par with the tobacco program which has worked so well throughout the years, This was not done, and, in my opinion, this substitute proposal offers the next best solution. This measure does not call for any ad- ditional burden on the taxpayers of America, but, rather, will result in a savings in the long run. It merely per- mits the producers of a particular type of peanut to produce a sufficient quantity to meet the demands of the trade, with- out being penalized because there is an over-all surplus of peanuts in some other type or types. Under the present law, no relief can be afforded to the produc- ers of a particular type of peanut even though they do not contribute to the surplus and the demands of the trade will take care of the amount being pro- duced under the present program. I do not agree with the limitation that is placed on this bill providing that the Secretary can only allot additional acres up to the 1950 quota, because the Secre- tary should be allowed to survey the situation and allot sufficient acreage to produce enough peanuts to meet the ac- tual demands of the trade. Certainly our growers are entitled to this. However, the majority of the committee placed this restriction in the measure. The third change continues the 1950 excess-oil program indefinitely. This means simply that peanut producers are CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE allowed to produce excess peanuts for oil; but provided, however, that the excess oil peanuts produced by @ producer shall not exceed his 1947 allotment—which in almost every case was larger than the 1950 allotment, and in Virginia means about 21,000 acres—and provided fur- ther, that these excess oil peanuts shall be sold to the Secretary or his duly desig- nated agent who will at the time the peanuts are delivered pay the regular oil price for same. Then, the Secretary, if ‘t later develops that there is a short- age in the edible trade, may channel these peanuts into the edible trade to meet the actual demands, providing that the price he receives for same must be the same as that which the Commodity Credit Corporation may sell its peanuts for, which is 5 percent more than the regular price, plus the regular handling charges, storage, and so forth; and pro- vided further, that if and when this is done, all the producers of the said type of peanuts that were channeled into the edible trade are to be paid the differ- ence in the price received for said pea- nuts by the Secretary after all handling charges, and so forth, have been paid. Ir other words, if these excess-oil pea- nuts are sold into the regular trade be- cause of a shortage, the farmers raising these peanuts are to get the benefit of the increased price after all costs have been paid. At present, this law applies to 1950 only. Under the pending bill it is continued indefinitely. The other change permits a grower who fails to plant his allotment to volun- tarily surrender same to the county com- mittee and the surrendered allotment is kept in the county and reallocated by the committee. All in all, the peanut provision in this bill is a step in the right direction and is one that will be a real help to the peanut producers, without a drain on the Federal Treasury. I trust this House will receive it favorably. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tcxas LMy. BeckwortH]. Mr. BECKWORTH. Mr. Chairman, last August when this legislation was up I did my bast to point out what in my opinion would be the inequities that would result, and certainly I think the statements I made with reference to the inequities that would result have been fully justified in the last year. I have frequently mentioned some of these in- equities, and in the ConcressronaL REc- orp of today, July 26, 1950, you will find a few letters from nearly all of the cot- ton States that show that people liter- ally are being compelled to leave the business of growing cotton, In one county in my district we had 427 acres to distribute to what are called new farmers. What is a new farmer un- der the terms of this legislation? A new farmer might be a man who has grown cotton for 40 years on a given piece of land but happened to be so unfortunate that he lost the opportunity to farm that piece of land and had to move to new acreage with no history of cotton in 1946, 1947, and 1948. They would say to a man 60 years of age: “You have farmcé JULY 27 cotton 40 years, but because you did not farm cotton in the 3 years mentioned on a@ given piece of land you are a new farmer and we will give you 1 acre or seven-tenths of l acre.” Yes; there were cases like that by hundreds in my dis- trict, and the record so shows. Some of these men are returned veterans. I challenge anyone to show otherwise. You talk about dividing the pie? Why, there were some people who did not get even a spoonful of pie. Something has been said about voting. If I interpret the legislation correctly, if a man is given just 1 acre of cotton and he says, “That is too small, I cannot af- ford to grow it’ that he cannot vote this coming fall. He will not be a partici- pant. In instances you put a man out of doing what he has done for 40 years then you say, “No, you cannot vote. You are anew farmer. You get lacre. You have to quit because you did not get enough.” The same thing happened not only with reference to cotton in some of my counties; it happened with reference to peanuts. Although a farmer has grown peanuts and cotton many years, if he loses his Jand which has a history, in many instances he is out of the business of growing cotton and peanuts, or the same as out, because of the smallness of his acreage. Then you tell him to grow sweetpotatoes, The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. LarcabE], the gentlemen from Florida (Mr. Rocers and Mr. Sixes], and I went down to see Mr. Trizg about a week ago and he expressed con- siderable doubt that they would be able to do very much for sweetpotatoes this’ year. He referred to the fact that this is a permissive support price—the one for sweetpotatoes. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I said last August there would be great inequities, I have offered amendments and those who are present here know that I did seek to bring about changes. The August 3, 1949, Recorp shows this. I am glad I offered these amendments and, if given the opportunity, I am going to offer some more as consideration of this bill pro- ceeds. I have said each time this legis- lation came up for consideration that it had to be changed in order that more fairness might prevail. I am glad to say that my colleague the gentleman from Texas |Mr. Poace] informs me that our district is to get a little bit more out of this bill. I appreciate this. We need it. We need it in order for these people not to have a luxurious living but a mere living. Yes; I appreciate it, and I will go one step further and say that if this program is to endure, the day will come when sections similar to that in which I live, where we have grown cotton for 100 years, will get even more acreage. IT predict that very confidently, and I pre- dict, furthermore, the day is coming when we are going to have more peanuts in that section. The wheels grind slow- ly at times, but they always grind that which is fair and right finally. The only question is, Can we hold out until the corrections are made? More corrections will come; some have come. I have some figures I propose to in- clude in the Recorp which show that
1950 the producers tn some of the cotton counties of the South receive on an aver- age of even less than 4 acres, whercas in some of the other cotton counties the producers receive over 100 acres on an average. There is too much disparity between those two figures, I submit. In an attempt to get some idea as to average cotton allotments per producer in some of the cotton counties, I sub- mitted to the Congressional Library some figures I have been able to get from vari- ous sources. Some of the figures are not completely up-to-date However, from the standpoint of getting a picture of variations in some of the counties even pithin States, the figures are helpful, I eel, Approximate cotton acreage allotments for certain counties and States, 1950 Approx- Approx-| imate fret, county mumber| cotton States and countics of pro- | acreage ducers, | allot- 1980 mento, 1950 Alabama: Baldwin__.......--.--.- 1, 458 2.43 Escambia. 11, 879 7,04 ONE VE. eee wee eee 24, 190 11 3 Arl&nsas Crittenden. .......-...- 110, 500 64. 70 Jefferson... - 90, 836 49 77 Mississippl......------- 228, 607 63, 20 Florida Cathoun..........-.---- oo 06 1.63 Gadsden... .....-.--- eee 13 10 077 Louisiana &t Tammany...--..-.- 221 491 2.22 Tangipahoa....-------- 817 1,909 2.34 Mississippi. Coahoma....--.--.----- 988 | 100,161 } 110.49 Goorgo...- 410 876 2.14 Lamar... 1, 200 4,341 8, 62 Leflore... 1, 066 97, 470 91 44 Sunflower... 1,762 | 156, 072 88, 58 Washington............ 1,619 | 114,398 70, 66 Missouri. New Madrid...------.- 2,721 122, 546 45 04 TPemiscot...- 2,088 | 127,158 42 56 North Carolina Alexander. 1, 128 2,112 1,87 Chatham... 920 1, L722 Pender... 848 312 90 2, 006 10, 109 504 2, 155 15, 800 7 33 881 5, 420 14 2 700 5, 700 814 Approzimate cotton acreage allot‘nents for certain counties and States, 1950 Cotton acreage allotments, 1950, for selected counties barat acreage allot: (Texas) pro- allot” for each 1 ro" ducer, 1960 1,960 | 228,755 | 116 71 666 | 18%, 709 | 70 78 2,450 | 248,608 | 101 Al 1,627 | 208,782 | 125. 4, 485 | 123. 64 Approximate cotton-acreage allotments: Orangeburg County, S. C., 1950 Total county acreage allotment-_--..- TT, 067 Number of producers....--.------- . 17,000 Average acreage for each producer... 11.01 Number of farms on which allot- ments were issued_....---.------ - 4,716 Average acreage allotment per farm... 16.84 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Approzimate cotton acreage allotments, 1950, for Arizona, New Mexico, and California Arizona 2. ......2......-2-- New Mexico... ! Callfornia......0.02.-2-.. ee 9, 68: , 8b, 36 Approximate cotton acreage allotments for certain counties and States, 1950 A Approx. .| Approx- } imate Aprrox imate javerage number county | cotton Fouth Carolina counties of cotton Rev ciRe eotton | 2ereago allot- farms are , ment ry | men for cach 1050 | "1980" | farm for 1050 Abbeville... .2.2-2....2-- 1, 608 15, 724 9. 78 Ken. 222. 2, 870 33, 747 J 45 Allendale........ 674 13, 518 20 06 Anderson... .. 4,216 54, 507 12, 8 Bamberg.....- 1, 108 17, 022 16 36 Rarnwell.. 1, 338 24, 049 18 42 Beaufort 714 1, 009 141 Berkeley... 2, 006 9, 067 4 h2 Calhoun... -| 1,069 10, 769 18 49 Charleston... - 684 4 72 Cherokee... -. 2, 236 21, 787 9 75 Chester_. 2... -| 1,400 15, 862 10 64 Chesterfield... -| 2, 828 40, 384 14 30 Clarendon... -| 2, 766 37, 091 13 41 Colleton. ...- - , 300 9, 314 3 8&8 Darlington... 2, 106 31, 733 14, 65 Dillon._-.... 1, 376 24, 480 17,70 Dorchester... 1,577 11, 704 7 42 Edgoflald. -| 1,880 18, 233 9 59 Fairfleld_. -} 1,065 727 9.13 Florence ... -{ 3,681 26, 469 6,02 Georgetown. - 22 1, 819 1,61 Greenville... -} 4, 207 , 7 74 Greenwood... -| 1,100 9, 815 8.02 Hampton.... 7 24 2.00 2.72 12 22 7 87 13 00 23, 31 6 14 9 88 & 03 39 20 8.11 6. 67 16 34 5B 6M 7 49 8.67 15 9D 12, 20 8.44 1), 78 11,18 Approximate cotton acreage allotments for certain counties and States, 1950 Approx- imate imate num | otra Georgia counties ber of oulton 11267 Approzimate cotton acreage allotments for certain counties and States, 1950—Con- tinued Approx- Approx imate imate mate cotton num wonton HOLCN ZS bor of acreag allot- cotton allot ment forms, monts for each 1950 1 | farm, 1950 1950 Berrien. 70 2, 502 3.61 Bibb... 294 1,145 Bil Blockle 610 9, 861 16 16 Brantley a2 21 «OG Brovks 1, 226 6,399 6 22 Bryan 107 277 2 59 Bulloch. 1, 750 21,719 12.35 Burke... 1,420 48, 06% 33.64 Butts .... 612 8, S45 17,28 Cajhoun. 352 5, 304 15.07 Camdon... Vy. pee Candler. 580 &, 206 4B Carroll... 2, 843 26, 736 9.40 Catoosa... 620 2, 733 4.38 Charlton. 4 1,75 Chatham...... 17 20 1.71 Chattahoochee. 47 ail 4.40 Chattooga... 940 9, 481 . ¥9 Cherokeo.... 1, 268 5, 837 4.37 Clarke ..... 78 4, O87 8.49 Clay... B36 4,205 | 1278 Clavton. 360 3, 554 9 87 Clinch 44 80 1.06 Cobb ... 1, 46 8, 500 6.69 Coffees .. WN7 7, 053 6 85 Colquitt 2. 1,738 17, 608 10 13 Columbia. .. 804 4, O83 7 86 618 2, 517 4.00 1, 187 13, 891 1.70 382 2, 760 7.25 640 11, 275 17.02 338 att) 2.88 286 1,157 4.06 CAL 2,156 3.26 74 2, 006 8.36 1, 381 19, 504 1432 1, 124 23, 049 21,04 236 1, 948 8. 25 276 4, 201 5.53 1, 148 14, 592 12,71 5A 74 1.37 405 2, 4 510 1, 482 15, 487 10, 67 1, 439 22, 213 15 44 360 4, 048 11, 24 803 10, 270 12 70 1, 444 18, 187 12, 87 1, 461 10, 170 6. 06 3, #18 15, 880 9.78 1, 005 8, 024 7.98 50 83 170 876 7, 390 10 65 1, 616 16, 726 10, 35 754 2, 351 3 12 765 2, 783 10,14 2, 025 17, 036 8 41 aay 1,720 4.49 1, 580 10, 610 6 72 1,002 12, 877 12 55 1, 242 7,116 5 7% 89 3, 822 7.61 1, 637 1,727} 18 27 TH 8 138 11 06 1, 276 19, 584 18 32 602 8, 720 14 50 876 10, 655 12,16 1, 536 21, 580 14 06 463 8, 148 17 60 590 2, 06 8 61 1, 192 27, 149 22 7K 725 16, 278 22 44 867 20, 247 23 47 2 1, 820 442 528 5, 298 10 03 147 43h 2 07 2,153] 37,413 | 17.38 d 2) tid 7 8 65 51 0 625 6, 115 9 78 185 424 2 29 782 2, 416 3m Tunnpkin. 181 558 3 08 MeDuflle 861 10, 43.3 18 U4 i es Sees 736 18, 227 a7 1,605} 16,172 9 tA 465 4, 402 9 60 1,176 17, 558 14 03 725 5, 2k 720
11268 Approzimate cotton acreage allotments for certain counties and States, 1950—Con- tinued Approx: Approx | 4P pron imate imate oant | cotten num iy pe facteago Ccorgia countles ber ol | i raqog | allot. cotton al ee ment farms, | won. fur each yoo | MOMS, tam, 1950 9h Oconee... eee ace nee 735 W,1 15 12 Oglethorpe 1, 280 38,074 10 63 Vaulding.. 1,044 0, 700 9 30 Peach .2.-..--- 2. eee 238 i, 204 1401 Pickens .. $26 2, 835 540 Pleo  ....2------ ft 2,414 3 RO Pike 2.2.0. 2 oe bs0 10, 87H 160 Polk... 1,323 | 12,631 9 56 Putnam - 374 3, 664 977 Pulashi.. 560} W876} 10 42 Quitman... a Js 6 98 Randolph... 626 &, Wt 14 22 Richmond... 365 4, 405 12 07 Rockdidle 2. 574 7,120 12 42 Behley........ 320 5,645 17 64 Rereven. 2... 1, 258 24, 108 17 2 Seminole. .... bbb 4,12 709 Spalding. .... wee A268 6, 7b8 12 80 Btlophens... . 450 2,076 5 87 Stewart ......---.--------- 421 427 10 (2 Sumter... wee 822 13, 875 16 88 Talbot ..... Ab} 2,018 5 44 Taliaferro... 428 4, 307 10 06 Tattnall... -. 3 6, O84 6 x0 Taylor... 604 9, S50) 16 31 Telfuit 544 6, 200 731 eriell... 024 14,013 | 20 85 Thomas......--------- 703 4, 8a 448 Tift... BAO) 6, bh 7 RL Toombs. ie 9, 5 10 A2 Treutlon. 422 6,453 12 92 Tioup.. - (ht 6, 220 & 02 UPUCl. .oee--e-eeeeeee eee (72 6, 626 9,71 Vwipes.... 618 4,nh3 9 34 Upson... 432 2, 818 6 52 Walker... 1, 2x9 6,079 § 02 Walton .. 1,320 0, 230 a) Ware... 822 660 205 Waren O72 16,454 | 24 49 Washington. 1, 268 £2, Qu 17.40 "ANP. wee Ag 3201 (034 Webster... 202 2,124 727 Wheek re. a7 4,31 9 86 White... 4fh 2,121 4 Whitfield. 1,357 § 308 3 96 Wilenx .. gon 14, 810 14 8 Wilkes... 1,027 10, 203 1000 Walkinson 506 4, 435 727 VOLUN. caeeeeewewneceneee 1,841 15,694 11 29 Total... oo. eee ee 116, 660 |1, 411, 100 12.10 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., May 31, 1950, Hon Lrno.ey BeckworruH, House of Representatives Dear Mr. BeckwortH: This is in reply to your request of May 18 for information on the number of cotton allotments, by coun- ties, for the States of Arizona, New Mexico, and California. I am enclosing a table which indicates the number of 1950 group I cotton acreage allotments for these three States. You will note that these are group I al- lotments only. The group I allotments are those given to growers who have a history of cotton production within the meaning of the legislution. These totals do not include allotments for new growers or allotments for growers who had previously produced cotton where their cotton production history was established through the appeals mechanism, Complete tabulations of the number of allot. ments other than group I allotments are not available at present, Sincerely yours, K T Hourcrinson, Assistant Secretary, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Group I—1950 cotton acieage allotments, Arizona, New Mexico, and California, by counties Acies ~-. 1,650 949 174 142 490 135 Arizona San Benito_.....2 22. oe 1 San Bernardino... o-oo 1 Stanislaus_...0. 2-2-2. 2 Tulare... eee 2, 392 State... Pee ewe eeeeee 9, 684 Bureau of Agricultural Economics Compiled from records of Cotton Branch, Production and Marketing Administration. eee Oklahoma, Approximate county cotton-acre- age allotments and average acreage allot. ments for 1950 senna eteeerereeene ee Ap Ap- | Approx: | PPox! prox tate mate mate county | age tot snnaat} num | cotton Ohlahoma countic« her of | acreage ton cotton | allot. eal farms, | ments, “Oot 50 | 1960" | nig 1950 CC 38 53 1 61 Atoka 2. --| 1, 068 4,819 4 61 Beckham 2,072} 65,500] 31 Gt Blaine... 31 12, 156 13.06 Bryan. 2, 721 26, 700 9 St Caddo 4, 162 61, 340 1477 Canadian, ORO 12, 600 12 &6 arter.... 828 4, 130 500 Cherokeu... 24h 3, 108 4 50 Choctaw .. 1,731 14, 400 U4 Cleveland §_ a Rts 6,834 6 18 “onl 200 8, 000 8 RY Comanche... 3,478) 16,883] 11 42 Cotton. 1,013 18, 960 18 72 Calg 2.2. ..cc eee 41 140 3 42 1 Fxcludes State acreage for additional allotments to small farms; State acreage reserve for new and small farms, and additional acieuge provided by Public Law 471, Bist Cong , 2d sess , aypres ed Mar 3], 1950, * Area I, 431 farms, area LI, 432 farms, JULY 27 Oklahoma: Appropriate county cotton-acree age allotments and average acieage allote ment for 1950—Continued Approx. mate Approx- Approx: average county cotton number cotton (2creage Chlahoma countics acrengo | tllot- cotton | BCTCORe | mont allot Lior cach , ments, pro- 1050 ducer, 1950 ee Creek... 16, 804 7.86 Custer. 18, 226 16,00 Delaware. . 4 80 Dewey... £40 6, 904 8.33 Fils... 452 6.75 Garfleld.. 78 11.14 Carving 2, 15, 495 8 BL Grady... cee 33, 75 I] % Greer 52, 000 87 76 Harmon 5h, 822 61 40 Haskell... 10, 000 719 Hughes... Jf, 379 7 36 Jackson... 67, 1283 82 49 Toiferson 27, (00 23:02 Johnston. 5,346 779 Kay... 2. raul) 10 42 Kingfisher. 1, 672 5 68 Kiowa . 2 62, 238 28 31 Laumer... 1,40) 3.34 1e Flore... 15, 800 7 54 Lincoln... 11, 80° 5.04 Logan .. x, 142 6 40 Love oi. 18,700 | 14 02 McClain 90,787 | 12:07 McCurtain... 21, 767 8 61 Melptosh... 38, 500 11 40 Majot 2... 7a0) 412 Marshall... 7, U8, 111 ayes. 2, 046 4 61 Murray... 2, DAR 6 41 Muphogce... 4, 232 16 69 0) 0) (or 2, 400 40 Nowatas., rin 6 82 Okfuskee.. 28, 148 11 08 Oklahoma. 2,758 7 68 Okmulgee... 32, 500 13 8&6 Osage _, II, 412 15 St Ottawa Gee ee wee 2). o. Pawnee. 11, 200 8 00 Payne. 7,038 6, 44 Pittsburg. 18, £00 10 OL Pontotov..... 4, 945 475 Pottawatomie__ 7, 2k4 5 66 Pushmataha 2,057 330 Roger Malls. , 1, 400 16 73 Rogers... 222. eee 3 320 603 Berinole_ 7,54 48 Foquovah, . 6, 247 6,74 Stephens... 18, 613 10 46 Tilman. 00, OM 38 65 Tulsa... TNT 12 41 Wagoner... 29, 408 13 92 Washington . 236 aul Washita. 1... 85, 000 31 35 Woodward... eee. weeks 145 4 21 (a) State total 22. 1,160, 070 14 02 (b) State acreage for addi ditional allotments to Small fut. oleae 8,81] |... — reserve for now farms and small farms.__.- 22... .|...2..- 49, 416 84, 910 11, 245, 207 } Area T, 31 farms, aren II, 88 farms, ‘No cotton acreage allotments or eotton farms re- arte for 1950 by the Okluhoma State PMA com- malttvc. Unirep STATES SENATE, Commirrer on FuBLic Works, July 1, 1950. Hon. Linp.ey Beckwortn, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C, Dear ConcressMAN BecKworTH: Further reference 1s made to your request of recent date in compliance with which I attach scale showing number of 1950 cotton allotments for Now Mexico,
1950 Tam glad to have been of help and at any time I can do ao, please call on me. Bincerely yours, Dennis CHavez, United States Senate. New Mezico: Number of 1950 cotton allotments anette Reneneerenen eerememeneeeee 3 Old cotton farms os re og jem lag ~ (82 [fs (22 Bags Ge 82 § County ES eB le Sl ® re erga fla! & ze eagieee F | DESIR EIE SS $ Bec ssoleze| 3 e |§ id is & gee | |e |_| CHAVOS. ...2.- ee nae ween] 192 46 1) 872) 697 CUITY cc eeee tenn ee eee + 6 5 ll Te Baca....-..--..-.- it 2 1 3 6 Dona Ang............- 1,828 | 826] 14k 1,382 | 1,806 LY am eer een ue ne 53h 33 37] M47 | 817 Varding.........-....- 9 4 3 2 Q Hidalgo...........2... 1m] 10 a] #2 15 re 467 3 12} 275 | 290 Luma... 227 Vy. 202 | 203 OTOL Leen eee enee 41 7 5} 37 ay URY , -ceceseeesee eee 361} 14 7/ 105 | 186 Roosevelt ....-.--..-0- fib} 33] @ | 78 Sierra... eee ee Wh; WB} 14] Bb] WB ROCOrTO....e.eeeeneeene 107 9 1 6 16 Valencia. .........a.. oC en en Oe Total, State... 5,508 | £01 | 346 (3, 184 | 4, 787 at Mneludes allotments for old and new cotton farms, £ Breakdown of 756 allotments not available, New Mexico: Approzimate county acreage allotments and average acreage allotments Jor 1950 Approx-| APPtox [Approx imate | imate imata eonnty # average otton | cotton New Mexico (counties) ber of acreage [acreage tenia! fot. | allot. 1030. tnente, j wents, . 19h) 1940 36,674] 46,31 vel 1,46 35 45 52, 74) 28, 87 27,798 | 60.09 a5 3.89 2,383 ) 23,83 15,833] 32,83 10,197 | 44 02 659 16.07 4,782) 13,16 7, Oe 8,8] 2047 | 16,388 178 1.06 (a) State total.............- 5, 503 | 100,926] 28,77 (0) State acreage for addi- tional allotments to small farms..........-]..cccee- 1,300 |... (c) State acreage reserve for sroall and new farms..|........] 7, 047 |........ (d) State acreage adlotment.|....0-0-| 160,082} 80,88 ‘Includes allotments for old and new cotton farms, 1 Excludes State acreage for additional allotments to small farms; Atote acreage reserve for new and farms; and additional acrcage provided by Public Law 471, 8lst Cong., 2d sess,, approved Mar, 31, 1950. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Berkeley, Calt/., June 27, 1950. Hon. Linp.ey Beckworry, House of Representatives, Washington, D, C, My Dear Congressman: In response to your request of May 6, 1950, addressed to Sacramento and referred to this office, this {s to advise you that there are approximately 32,690 cotton farms (operating units) in Callfornia, based on recently revised figures, , This information, by counties, 1s aa fol- OWS: Fresno: Area Too eee 137 Area Vee ee een eee cen ne 3, 523 Imperial.._.-.-.-2 2 54 Kern... nee 2,100 Kings...-..-..------------ee anne 1, 080 Madera... 2-2. eee ene ~ 1,260 Merced..-.22--.02..02--.-- ne 372 Riverside’ Area Tee cee e cee enn ne een ~ 4157 Area II... eee 29 San Benito... n-ne ene 1 San Bernardino... ...--..----nee 1 Stanislaus......0..0-2 2 eee 4 Tulare___..--. 2. 2-2 8,972 Yours very truly, E. H. Spoor, Chairman, California PMA Committee. California: Approximate county cotton acre- age allotments and average acreage allot- ments for 1950 Ap. {- Ap | Approxi.} Blox proxi | mate mate 1 Calitornia counties | Male cour *urcot her of | acreage | urn cotton | allot | gah) farms, | metits, | 8A 1050 1050 ments, WO —_—_— OO Fresno (total)... eeeranse 8,660 | 169,318] 46,26 Areal oo. eee eee 137 | 75,490 | 551 08 Area V1... cceee wee 3,523 | 03,810} 26 08 Jmporia)_... eee. 54 _ 922 ~ IT 07 540d | . 2,100 | 165,487 | 74 80 KINg. eee eens cee e 1,060 | 88, 164 81 3 Madera.........---- 1, 260 50, 108 39, 77 Moree) __. es. eee . 372] 19,767) 13.14 Riverside... .-.-- eee eee 186 4,07] 2 7% Area 1... .... eee eee 1 nes SPE Area Ue... eee ys _— SSeS | aa | Sor Ban Benito . 2... ewe ee 1 46 00 San Bornardino............ } 3t 00 Stanislaus...........-...... 4 11,60 Tulare... cseeneeweweennne $,972 | 128,712] 92,41 See | Seca (a) Btate total.............. 12, 600 | 626,046} 49,38 (b) State acreage for addi- tional allof¢ments to small farms.........--10. ewnene| 2, 244 J. (c) State acreage reser ve for new and smiall farms, .|........ (d) State acreage allotment.|........ 642, 1 Excludes State acreage for additional allotments to small farms; Stato acreage reserve for new and small farms; and additional aercage provided by Public Law 471, Bist Cong., 2d sess., approved Mar, 81, 1960, 11269 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PaopUcTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, State CouLEcE STATION, Raleigh, N. C., June 26, 1950, Hon, Linptzy Beckworrs, House of Representatives, Desk Mr. BECKWoRTH: As requested in recent correspondence received from you and also as requested by Senator Graham, we are attaching a tabulation by counties which outlines most of the information requested in your letter. Your letter requests the fol- lowing information: 1, How many cotton producers are in each county? The attached tabulation shows tn column (1) the number of old cotton pro- ducers and in column (3) the number of new cotton producers in each county. 2, How many farmers in each county re- ceived 5 acres of cotton or legs? Shown in column (2) of the attached tabulation, 3. How many new producers applied for acreage in each county? ‘This information ia not available tn the State office; however, column (3) shows the number of new allot- ments approved by each county. 4. How much acrenge was there to dis- tribute among the new producers in each county and how much did each get? Shown in column (4) of the attached tabulation. §. Did any receive zero acres? Yes, For Many counties ther was not sufficient acre- age avatiable to make allotments to all now applicants. 6. What percent of the new producers tn each county do you regard as genuine farm- ers? According to instructions iesued to county committees a cotton allotment was not approved by the county committee for a new grower Uuniesg the man was a genuine former. 7. How much tn . cres did the recent cot ton amendment help your new producers in each county? Shown in column (6) of the attached tabulation. 8. How much did the reeent cotton amend- ment help your oll producers? Shown in column (10) of the attached tabulation. 9. How -nany of your producers county by county receiving less than 5 acres probably will grow no cotton? Any information on thig would be purely a guess until acreage measurements have been determined for all farms and since we have not had an oppor- tunity to survey each county and visit every farm having a cotton allotment, we will not answer this questton. 10. How many will cease to farm for them- selves? This question cannot be answered since {¢ would require a personal contact with every cotton farmer. As stated in our letter of May 9 this in- formation is furnished in reply to your re- quest. We are sorry that the information was not available earlier but we have just completed the summarization of data re- ceived from our county committees, Very truly yours, G. T. Scorr, State Director, Production and Marketing Administration,
11270 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE JULY 27 1950 cotton allotments—North Carolina Number of allotments Group IT (new) allotments Acres from 471 to— Old farms Code and county Total | %9scres | Number | Acres | AVR | Now and less per farm Reappor- MQ-2 | Review | tionment | Total (1) (2) 3) (4) (5) (6) 7) (10) U5-001, Alamanco.......... weceneee a neennaenanee 126 324 7 26.4 1.5 0 0 0 th-002, Alexander... - 1,105 1, 103 48 87.5 18 1.8 0 15.3 85-004, Anson, [. .. - 985 03 40) 69 9 17 0 (hA 133.0 E5005, Atison, IL.. - 4,107 452 4 149 1 30 0 141 6 717.6 F5-007, Beaufort. -- 1, 009 (65 16 20 0 12 0 23.1 462 55-008, Bertle..... -- 1,613 1,343 4) 921 19% Q 186 7 227, 5 0-009, Bladen... -- 2, 30 1, 982 47 72 0 165 0 13 64.3 65-010, Brunswick - 24 2h § 100 12 2 3 4 65-12, Burke. . 543 232 19 32 2 i 3, 0 16.2 85-013, Cabarrus: 1,342 828 1 fh 2 09 0 64,6 620.1 55-014, Caldwel -- 106 108 7 66 09 0 ' 0 65-115, Camden... - 477 447 if 13.4 is eee a eananes cons ee Bee peeneee nee aeeenenes ee 55016, Carteret -- 138 132 k 200 25 4 0 0 17, Caswe'l... - 1 7 2 40 PS nS eS Bene a Deane 55-018, Catawba... . 2, 260 1,741 TH} 1449 14 13,8 MS 173.3 55-019, Chatham. 945 ‘71 76 4a, 1 06 0) 22 30.9 65-021. Chowan... -- 600 530) 13 230 8 0 75 12.0 G5HI23, Cloveland ca... eee cee ee seen ese nen ceeeee 4, 008 1,053 40 2e0 0 43 0 010 2, 281.9 65-024. Culumibus ee 1, 460 1, 286 47 48.8 13 0 4 197.0 55-025, Craven... -- 823 4x) 44) &4 2 1 23,8 63 81.0 85-026, Cumberlan 2,427 1, 430 6b 209 6 w2 0 320 § 745.2 65-027, Currituck... 470) 465 22 KS 25 1, 0 30.9 65-020, Javidson. - TH) 734 Aa) 405 1,2 0 75 83.5 554030. Davie... -- 1,249 1,102 fal} 81.6 14 0 2k 4 49.9 65-031. Duplin. - 1,499 1, 205 eI aly 1% 0 2K 1,03! 3 65-082, Durham. . v7 rt) 1 140 4 f 0 0 55-033. Edgecombe. -- 1,491 (82 17 fo 0 a) 0 134 3 803.8 5-084. Forsyth... -- 120 4 aT] kG 11 (0 0 0 65-085, Franklin. : 2, (17k 1, $84 #4 120.0 14 0 426 2.6 65-036, Gaston... - 1, 800 23 th JOR 6 13 0 #5 4 624.4 65-037. Cates ._.. - 1,102 {had 9 Bran) 20 0 a3 4 ang 55-030, Granville. - 405 373 24 250 V0 0 ant 38,0 65-4040, Greene . -- RIX ol6 al &2 6 27 0 Ww 9 620.3 65-041. Cuiiford.. -- 47 140 12 40 Le rae Denn De en es Perens -« 55-042, Halifax... - 8, 105 1, 698 37 M01 ak 0 27 0 216. 55-43, Varnett .. - 38,422 2, 447 Ts £67 3 4 0 (547 1,304 9 65-046, Hertford. - 1, 185 (XN 42 601 16 0 0 102 6 &5-047, Hohe. oo. 1, 10h $46 0 3310 44 0 {h] 641 8 55-048, Hyde oo. - 721 £70 3 7h oh 0 (i Q 65-049, Iredell... - _ 8, X]b 1.76 1 1b a0 0 404 438 8 65-081, Johnston. . . -- &, 504 Age 4y Jox 2 vb 0 10,2 $478 65-002, Jones. .... . 01 Wiz 0 Kd 13 422 ) 0 55-088, Lee... -- hi BES Hi oh, 4 LO ee Os es ce ee 05-04. Lenoir va) reg rs W2 0 a7 0 eo 5 W462 BRA-085, I ineotn, - 2, OMT 1,482 w . HOO )4 0 iv] & i.0.8 55-059, Martin... - $48 13 l £00 17 0 {87 Ry 7 55-060, Mechlenbnr, 7 1,077 1,040 Wh “00 14 0 CH 6 1.02 0 0 1, 66.5 55-082, Montromery ae 4h 346 m4 ag 12 0 30 106,38 0 146 55-003. Moore... .. - (20 HAH) X 14.0 09 0 4 7 my 0 217.6 55-04. Nash aa nee - 2,701 1,+5] “sb 100 13 0 205 8 2127 0 418.8 65 OCH, Now Hanover... ce eeeee eee eee ee al) Is ‘) 0 0 0 0 85 65-006. Northampton. et ne 2,303 1,144 ‘8 417 16 0 oo bi 1 5-007, OUSIOW cccceueneternectcnescunsceeneees 28 Its a2 2 0.4 () Q 95.0 BA OUR, Orange... 1M 184 M4 10,2 07 0 7,2 7.2 65-049, Parr fico... . 437 401 VM 00 7] 0 0 0 65-070 Pasquotank... 4b 40K By 447 $4 0 20 2.0 5EO?L Pender 2... - 206 aM It Wl «9 U 0 40 Bi 072, Perquimans... - sly (3 i) m8 0 28 0 03 0.3 $5074, Pitti. cee - -- 1, 748 1807 4h 74,4 17 0 76.5 180, 4 (5-075, Polk oo. cere ween 7H8 f02 24 795 83 0 "4.3 101.1 65-076, Kandolph.... . 77 107 JG su4 13 0 0 0 65-077, Richmond... se eeceecnee 1,162 Tho 41 £37, 3 26 0 67 5 1,029. 1 8-078, Robeson... nee we eeee 4, G88 J, (69 &5 2k) 1 Hi 0 67 6 1, 897.8 5f- 080, Rowan ... 5 ea wees 2, 306 1,045 124 Ts2 0 16 0 23,7 24.7 45.4 03, 8 55 O81, Rutherford... “| 3, 379 2,118 108 B15 2 29) 0 422 6 1,086 0 0 1, 458. § 55-082, Sampson.. - 4, 702 3, 183 iat) 273 6 28 0 017 5 7107 0 1, 628. 2 55-088, Beotland. - a71 186 7 180 20 eel ewenwee cen lemeemeee saulemeeecee s. lemwaaeces coe 55-084, Stanly. . 1, GOS 1,444 131 208 § 16 69 0 76 6 207.1 56-089, Tyrrell 213 210 21 22.4 | en Se 66-080, Union... wee 4,354 1, 878 £00) t02 2 24 0 198 3 210.2 55-001, Vanee.. a 1, 230 1, 024 55 453 8 0 113, 6 165.7 55-092 Wake... a 2, O86 2, 832 138 190. 5 14 0 208, 1 ‘ 0 384.9 65-008, Warren. oo... - 2, 513 1,810 100, 0 18 0 20, 2 . 87.8 55-00) Washington. mene 4M ORS 23 380.9 13 0 25 0 , 55.4 65-00% Wayne... wees 2,047 2, 054 25 90. 6 As nd weeeencer law ee Be ea eanene se [cvomananens ° 55-097, Wilkos... .- 42 42 3 4.0 1.3 0 0 2. 2.0 65-008, Wilson. -. 2, 018 1,277 oa 46 8 14 0 70,8 610.0 65-000, Yadkin... anne 126 114 fi 80 1.6 0 0 0 0 Btate total... eeeee ase eeceenseseeneeses 108, 894 70, 810 3,662 | 0, 683.4 19 163. 6, 808, 7 047.4 henner ereeeeeeeennnneeeeeeennneennenn meneame memmemmmneetniatenmieneneemenmmnnnnes neces
1950 North Carolina: Approximate county cotton acreage allotments and average cotton acreage allotments for 1950 ee . Approx-| Approx | Approx imate mato imute numbor} county | average North Carolina countios | Of | cotton | cotton cotton | aercage | acreage allot- allot- allot- ments, } ments, | ments, 1950 1950 ! 1950 Alamanon.........-.- neces 126 207 1 #4 Alexander... 222.2 2..---.e- 1, 105 2,112 1 81 Sa | Sere | Aus0N....2-2-....--------2- 2, 132 21, 310 10.00 Area I. 2.2.2 eee 965 5, 839 6 05 Area II ..2...2--22-222. 1, 167 16,471 13 2% 1, O68 1, 044 1 81 Berlia. 20.2222. eee eee 1,618 6, 320 3 92 Bluden .. 2, 324 4, G32 1.09 Biunswick. m4 2 0G Burke... 344 6 201 Caharrus. 1, 342 7, 255 641 Caldwell. 105 124 118 Camden... 477 1,176 247 Carteret... 138 209 1 61 Cuswell.. 31 31 00 Catawha. 2, 200 1,377 36 Chatham... 045 1, 686 1% Chowan......-------- G0) 2, 607 3 69 Cleveland .........2.-22 4, 00K 8,171 12. 82 Columbus-...-0-22- 1, 400 2,181 1 46 Craven._..------------- 523 735 141 Cumberland___-...--- 2,427 15, 558 641 Curituck. 2.2... 2... 470) 718 1 83 Davidson... TRO 1,170 149 Davie_... 1,249 2, O4t 2 36 Duphn. 1,49 4, 683 8 13 Durhain.. 97 167 172 1,491 16, 038 10 7% 120) 167 1 39 2,778 11, 076 4% 1, 50U 7, 90 5 1,102 3, 00 281 Cranville....2..--.-- 408 728 1. 81 Greene... 818 4, (044 4% Guilford... eee. 447 21 149 Haltfax.......---.-- 8, 105 27, 45 8.74 Harnett - 8, 422 16, 210 474 Hertford. 1,195 4, 242 8 55 Toke... 1, 106 16, 640 15 06 Hyde... 721 1, 943 270 Iredell. 3,816 16, 246 4 00 Jobneton...-- 5, G04 26, 200 44! Jones...... — 0L 632 2 65 wee ee eee 963 2, 083 2.16 Lenoir. ...... ren 3, 278 42% Tincoln. .-... 2, OBL 14, 006 6 73 MeDowell.... enee ee © £12 |... Martian _....... 48 8, 20H 348 : 1,977 | 13,160 6 63 485 1,671 B45 Moore......-- 626 1, 498 2 30 Nash... ..2----- 2,701 16, 601 5 65 New Hanovor... 2 1 90 Northampton... 8 96 Onslow........- 1.40 Orango... 1. BY Vamllog. «ort 2h uo Pondioe cece cones 1 02 Perquimans...... 3, 88 itt 3 82 Polk... 4 82 Randolph. ... 1 85 Richmnon 6. 72 10 47 4 8. 5 20 ep e Bhar MBANLSSSSAeRLSs wo eee (@ Slate total.........--..- 5, 45 b) Btate acrea tional tments to simoll farms........---|-eseacce| 00, 651 J-.-...-- © new and small farms..]........| 68 738 |........ (d) State acreage aJecewceee| 723, 158 6.6 1Excludos State acreage for additional allotments to small farms: State acreage reserve for new and sxall farms, and additional acreage provided by Fublic Law 471, 81st Cong., 2d scss., approv ar. ) 2'‘Number of ‘cotton silotments not reported by North Carolina Stats PMA Committee. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION awp Makcxerinc ADMINISTRATION, Auburn, Ala., June 23, 1950, Hon. JoHN SPARKMAN, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. Drag Senator SPARKMaN: This is with ref- eronce to your letter of June 8, 1950, with which you enclosed a request from Con- gressman Beckwortn for certain informa- tion concerning the establishment of 1950 cotton acreage allotments in Alabama For convenience, we shall list the vaiious items in the same order in which they appear in the request enclosed with your letter. 1. How many cotton producers are in each county? See column 1 of the attached tabu- lation 2. How many farmers in each county re- ceived 6 acres of cotton or less? See column 2 of the attached tabulation. 38 How many new producers applied for acreage {in each county? Column 3 of the attached tabulation shows the number of new grower allotments approved for each county We do not have any record of the total number of applications filed, since any applications which were not approved by county PMA committees were maintained in the county office files and were not for- waided to the State office. 4 How much acreage was there to dis- tribute among the new producers in cach county? The reserve for new growers was held at the State level by the State PMA committee, and this reserve acreage was ap- portioned directly to eligible farmers who filed applications within a prescribed time limit. The reserve held by the State PMA committee was slightly more than 29,000 acres and this amount was sufficient to give each eligible producer 8961 percent of the acreage recommended by county PMA com- Inittees & How much did each get? diately preceding question 6 Did any receive zero acres? It wns not necessary to establish a zero acreage allot- ment fo. any producer who files an appli- cation for a new grower allotment within the prescribed time limit and otherwise met eligibility requirements A number of zero acreage allotments were established in those cases where producers filed an application after the established closing date or were declared ineligible by the county committee for some other reason 7 What percent of the new producers tn each county do you regard as genuine farmers? We regard all new producers re- ceiving new-grower allotments as genuine farmers, due to the fact that the regula- tions and instructions required that a rep- resentative of the county PMA committee visit the farm to determine that an actual farming operation will be carried out in 1950. On the basis of these farm visits, county PMA committees disapproved appli- cations in those cases where a genuine farm- ing operation would not be carried out in 1950, 8. How much in acres did the recent cot- ton amendment help your new producers in each county? The old ones? Public Law 471 provided that “new farms” were eligible to share in the acreage available for reapportionment as a result of the sur- render or release of cotton acreage by other cotton farms. Records of the reapportion- ment made by county PMA committees to individual farms are maintained in county offices and this office does not have this in- formation. For the acreage which each county received under Public Law 471 for regular old farms, see column 4 of the ate tached tabulation. 9. How many of your producers, county by county, receiving less than 5 acres prob- ably will grow no cotton? We have no way of making an estimate which we would consider worth while in connection with this See imme- 11271 question. Production and harvesting meth- ods, however, do make it necessary for a farmer to grow a large acreage of cotton in order to have an economical operation. Moat of the cotton in Alabama is grown on famnily-sized farms where a majority of the labor 1s furnished by the farm family. For this and other reasons, we believe that the percentage of amall farms growing cot- ton will be about as high as the percentage of large farms growing cotton 10. How many will cease to farm for them- selves? Again we do not have any method of arriving at a worth while estimate on this item Please refer to our answer to the immediately preceding question We trust that the information given above and that shown on the attached tabulation will be sufficient to enable you to furnish Congressman Breck wortH the desired infor- mation If this office can prepare any addi- tional data for your use, please call on us Very truly yours, W B Crawtey, Chairman, Alabama State PMA Committce. Approximate 1950 cotton acreage allotment data for Alabama counttes Ftl Number | Number | mated Nuinber | alot new acre ye County cotton Tuents ferm required furms G acres Allot- gader Or less ments Publie Law 471 Antaugn 1,180 481 a4 end 2 Baldwin TOK 4k} 1K4 WOR Barbour 1,710 BRE rat) AY? Y Bibb -- AIO 30 124 134 8 Tilonnt . 8, 1, 655 129 1,068 3 Bavock 72 284 41 190 5 Butler. 1, +22 G4 174 (48 0 C houn_ 2. 1,781 ¥OS IK) 1,127.0 Chambers... 1,459 41 wo at 8 Cherokee. 22. 2,140 366 §3 1,785 7 Chilton... 2, 657 1, 641) a1 16 1 Choctaw 1, A357 1, 184 | 2000 Charke.. 1,007 J, 287 2H Wh i 1,739 1,007 143 2104 1,203 £00 182, 9 Coffee. 2,140 €48 16 204.4 Colbert 2,148 a7 208 2, 104 0 Conecuh, 2,355 1, 4#0 144 1,079 0 Coosp . .--.- S90 #2 (6 1b Covington... 2,703 1,116 4 775 0 Crenshaw... 1,733 HOR 40) HES Cullman .... 6,81) 1,910 RY 1,025 0 Dale _.. 1,360 600 146 25 0 Dallas, 1,640 67 8&4 3, 152 6 De Kalb. 6, 100 2,130) 124 2,000 0 kKimore. -... 2, 300 RRS 8B 334.6 ¥scambia.... 1,807 87 146 100 Jtowah, 3, 018 1,441 174 106 Fayette. 2, 358 1, 126 215 489 7 Trankhn. 2, 560 753 v4) 1,273 5 2,125 517 7 423 1 447 O44 132 240 1 1,615 640 112 1,620 § 3,343, 331 yi] 83 9 Why aan &7 520 & 4, 200 1,787 148 2, RON A Jefferson 1,820 ool 183 3At 0 Lamar....... 2,410 8 120 5048 Lauderdale. . 1 900 1,052 217 80K) 0 Lawrenee.... 3, 805 663 1,370 0 Lee__..-.-..- 1, 237 482 73 44 Limestone... 3, 487 625 32 3,319 4 Lowndes... 810 318 36 1,080 4 Macon..-....- 1, 652 5x6 73 1,126 9 Madison..... 8, & 605 65 5,505 6 Marengo..... 1, 062 057 114 2,053 2 Marin... 3,412 1,871 802 987, 4,717 1,190 48 608 1 8 $63 163 116 6 2, 176 945 149 2,209 0 Montgomery. 1,143 834 30 1,276 1 Moregan ..... 4,122 1, 275 146 1,07 1 Terry... 1,277 485 50) 757 41 Picken 2, 248 74 7 a0 7 Vike_..-... -- 1,660 347 bf) 477 4 Randolph... 2, 687 1, 138 16 2010 Russell. ..... 816 194 6U bod 6 8t. Clair... 843 872 804 RIR § Shelby... -- 964 396 124 920 Sumter. ..... 1, 223 497 36 1,715 8 Talladega... 2, 864 884 220) 2,254.9 ‘Tallapoosa... 1, 545 627 4&2 147 6 Tuscaloosa... 8, 313 1, 600 144 2,40) 2 Walkor...... 3, 232 2,041 615 2h2 & ‘Washington . 667 406 179 62 3 Wileox.....-. 1,443 €57 81 577.7 inston..... 2, 242 1,028 1% 325 8 Total..} 146, 120 57, 426 8,405} 66,170.5 ne UTES ULE EERE RIOSRERREEERnenemmnaneed
11272 Alabama: Approtimate county cotton acre age allotment and average acreage allot~ ment for 1950 Approx: Approx- |Approx- imato | imate none county average cotton | cotton Alabama counties colon acreago |ucrenge farms, allots, allot, 1950 nent, mont, 1950 1950 Antaugn...-c ewww cence nee 1,380 14, 249 12.08 Baldwin... 708 1, 458 2.06 Barbour... 1,700 18, 723 10 95 Bibb... eee ee eee AID 5, O06, 7.32 Blount... 38, Ob 2k, 600 7.419 Bullock. 812 15, 910 18, 25 Butler .. - 1, 822 12, 433 6 8&2 Malhoun. ...----------- 1,781 11,472 G 44 Chambers_...-------+- 1,459 19,176 13 14 Cherokee... 2, 169 33, 598 1h 49 Chilton... -| 2,657 13, 545 8.10 Choctay, -} 1,657 6, 678 408 Clarke... 1, 607 5, 430 3.26 Clay ..-.-.---- 1, 739 & 291 477 Cleburne... -| 1,28 7, O87 6, 28 Coffee. Jone... -e ~{ 2 140 23, 753 1110 Colbcit...ccewee eee ee 2, 48 31, 875 14.84 Coneeuh oi... eee. e eee 2,808 12, 258 fal Coosa 2... U) 4, 28 3,20 Cos ington... 2, 703 20, 241 74 Cronsbaw 0.222222 eee eee ee 1,728 Ii 852 9 65 Cullman eee. pene eee ee 6, $11 tH, 142 ®t Dale...... eee nnn ee nn ene eee 1, 360 4, 305 6.01 Dallas woe... eee eee 1, 640 36, 420 22 21 De Kalb., 5, Gu fi, 990 8 67 Etmore - 2, 309 25, 617 i 0g Kscumby 1, 407 11,879 7 38 Etowah..... 3,013 21, 030 6 OR Fayette. 2222-2 eee ee 2, 355 14, 324 6 OR Yranklin.. 2, 506 22, 980 8 96 Geneva... 2,128 24,199 11 30 reece... 1, 487 19, 831 33 34 Hale -... 1,615 21, 337 13 21 entry . 1, 343 19, 206 14. 30 Tlonston 2, 7h7 32, B08 M.77 Jnuekson. 4, 200 3, 083, 9. 16 Jefferson 1, 329 4, 620 3 48 Lamar ... 2,410 18, 965 7.87 Lauderdale.- 3, 900 41, 743 10. 70 Lawrence 3, 305 £9, 173 v 0 1,287 14, 149 1 3, 487 67, AGB 19. 36 R10 16, 087 20 97 1, 642 24,014 14 3, 538 BO, 161 22, 65 1,952 24, 704 12, 68 - 3, $12 21, 442 6.40 Marshall... 4717 50, 909 10.79 Mohile__ 627 2101 3 67 Monrme... 2,176 21, 364 0 82 Montgomery... 1,143 17, 288 15.13 Morgin... 4,122 45,009 10. 92 Perry . 4, 277 17, 450 13 07 Piekens. 2, 248 24, 80 10 98 Pike. 1, 660 25, 806 15.60 Randolph, 2,087 18, 743 6. 98 Russell... 816 14, 249 18 69 &t. Clair 1,843 9, 847 5.34 Bholby.. OM 7,719 8.01 Sumter... 1, 223 20, 668 16 90 Talladega. 2, 304 19, 706 8. 34 Tallapoosa... 1,546 18, 716 8.87 Tuscaloosa, - 3,313 28, 442 7.98 Walker ..... 3, 232 31, 594 3.69 Washington. 667 1,871 2.81 Wilcox... 1, 443 17, 546 12.16 Winstou....--2ee ee eee een eee 2, 242 14,000 6,24 (a) Total State...2.2.2.. 2. 146, 120 |1, 474, 933 10. 09 (0) State acreage for addi- tional allotments to small farms... enn. fae wanee-| 98, 201 |...-2--- (c) Etate acreage reserves for new farms and small farms...........[ecc---e- {87,720 |e (a) State acreage allotment. |...-.... 1, 070, 863 10. 76 1 Excludes State acreago for additional allotments to sina) farms, Ptate acreage reserve for new and small farms, and additional acresge provided by Public Law 471, Sist Cong , 2d rexs., approved Mar. 31, 1960. DEPARTMENT oF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Little Rock, Ark., June 21, 1950. Hon. J. W. Fuusricnr, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. Dear SENATOR FuLsRicnt: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1950, requesting certain information with respect to farm cotton-acreage allotments for the cotton counties of Arkansas. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Although we do not have a complete analy~ sis of all the information exactly as you ree quested it, we have attempted to furnish you on the attached tabulations as much information as possible without disturbing the county offices which are at this time very busily engaged in determining perform- ance with respect to the 1950 cotton, peanut, rice, and corn acreage-allotment programs, along with their many other duties. It is hoped that this information meets with your approval, and we assure you that we are always anxious to cooperate in fure nishing any needed information upon re- quest. Your continued interest in all the phases of our farm progrum js appreciated. Yours very truly, J.L. WricHt, Chairman, Arkansas State Committee, Number Nuniber Number} Acreage farm allot. | Dew: | distrib- County colton | ents | Rrower | uted to allot- loss than allot- new ments acres ments | growers Arkansas. 1, FU8 422 114 463.3 Ashley ... 1,070 217 05 616 7 Bavter.._2222.-.- 155 87 28 60.8 Benton. .....--.-|-------- er eeneree |pwweenee- wees nee Boone ....-2--.- 32 VW 2 1.5 Biadley..------.] 1, 205 246 128 605. 5 Cajhoun....----- 443 227 88 411.0 Carroll... 22... |-e----- eee eee ee wemecnna- lence 7 Chicot .----.--.- 4, 785 195 93 483.7 Clark..-..2- 1, 147 305 k1 326 0 Chiv o...... 4, 716 620 187 699.0 Cleburne. 2. - 1,740 54 150 463, 5 Cleveland... J, 233 430 197 53 1 Columbis 2, 712 53 248 1, 176.3 Conway. 2, 096 BR3 122 528.7 C1 aighead.- 4,017 321 141 735, 8 Crawford .. 208 39 3 20 2 Crittenden. 1,719 108 11 174.1 Cross... 1, O31 286 81 461.4 Dallas. . 82) 243 84 270.3 Desha.. 1,617 129 7 528.9 Drew... 1, 481 286 140 032. Faulkner. 2, $66 424 337 478.5 TFranklin.. 605 243 13 53.0 Fulton... 1,040 583, 141 290.7 Garland 200 211 6 18,4 Grant .. 669 3il 89 218,9 Greene . 3, 506 400 173 721.6 Hempstead. 2, 38 1, 016 224 853.0 Hot Spring. - «39 321 66 189, 5 Jloward.....---- 075 411 74 250, 9 Independence... 2,386 419 78 227,1 Immd.. ee... - 1,466 308 90 383.1 Jackson -| 1,680 182 62 330 5 Jefferson. - 1,956 314 122 419 5 Johnson. - - 244 83 y 39.0 Lafayette. - 1,152 267 145 926.4 Lawrence. -{ 1,980 198 86 4150 Leo. -| 2,599 86, 49 107 0 Linovin..... - 1, 448 W2 i 723.6 Little River. - $12 148 51 301.0 Logan... 1,318 494 63 190.0 Lonoke... 2, 860 204 116 544 0 Madison... eeeeeeenelewens ca feeeeeeeee | neeeeee Marion... 6 57 3 30.0 Miller... . 1,148 185 152 834.0 Mississippi. 3, 069 135 87 | 1,204.3 Monroe _..... 1, 709 139 62 A424 3 Montgomery... 383 278 32 38 0 Nevada......... -| 3,614 436 146 770 1 Newton .. oa 46 10 17.8 Ouachita. 918 310 117 601.0 Terry... £84 186 14 4.4 Phillips. 2, 727 212 91 851.3 Pike... 847 404 45 83. 2 Poinsett 2, 077 160 45 320.5 Polk... 412 202 19 44.4 Pope 1, 260 230 46 147.8 Prairio.. -| 1,296 273 89 373.1 Pulaski... -} 1,190 268 67 332, 0 Randolph........ 1, 634 455 142 403 6 St. Francis_......] 1,973 132 78 708.4 Saline... - 368 297 25 19 0 Scott. - 2 04 326, 6 Searcy. - 211 25 54.0 Sobastian. - 343 18 60.9 Sevier. - 240 55 120 0 Sharp - 267 101 444.4 Stone... - 306 1b 55,0 Union... . 423 172 477.0 Van Buren _.... 468 59 173.4 Washington. - White... .0 Vgodradt. 4 Total......] 100,401 | 20, 868 053 27 JULY 2 2 [2 ala B13 |g |g les |e |e. | EB lees i. 2 |fe|Ge| bs |e88 33 Pr a Ba | os eae) 6 Fy BS | ag 8 bos a ts 58 =| Sa lasé EH E & oe 28 EF wae ga B je |B" | 3° [$23] 2" a Bx E Ble |e lege “ Aa < < fa i] | | | None Nong Ashley- Nowe Baxter. Benton 4.2...) ----- Hoone...- None Bradley-- None Calhoun. None .|None None _|None None Noue None Clob YUPNC. wae. Cleveland... Columbia Conway None Craighead... 2. None Crawford .... |None Crittenden... {None Crosy.......-..|None Dallas. None Desha. None Drow... _ {None Faulkner. None Franklin None Fulton... None Qarland. .|None Grant... _|None Creane. . . {None Hempstead. .. {None Hot Spring... |None Howard ..-..- None Independence |None Tzard__...-... None Jackson. ...2.- None Jefferson. .....|Noue Johnson .....-. Nove Lafayette... None Lawrence... ..- None Le0. 22a eee None Lincoln. ...... Nono Little River...]None Logan, .. _|None Lonoke ...-.-./None Madison ¢.....|----- Marion........ None Miller. ....2... None Mississippi... |None Monrov........ None Montgomery._|None Nevada_......|None Nowton_......|None Ouachita... Notie None .. (None Noue _|None None None None None Randolph_...- Nono 8t. Francis None Saline. None Scott... None Sdéarcy......... None Sebastian 6._...|None Sovier..... ....|None Bharp. None Stono.. None Union... _|None Van Buren. ..,|None Washington 4__|------ White____. ....{None Wood uff......| None Yoll.. oo. None Total....|-....2]..----)nee---/56, 708 [.....-faeweoe 1 Very little, if any, additional acres allotted to any county in tho State. tis Not able to make this determination at the present me. 3 It Is not believed that any producers will cease to Sarin because of cotton allotments. 4 Noncotton county, _ _ 'No new-grower requests,
1950 Arkansas: Approztmate county cotton acre- age allotments and average acreage aliot~ ments for 1950 Arkansas counties 10,061 | 6,67 27, 953 noeeecs 185 337 9, 431 —J e 28-, Rp! Biz Im 68 Gr OE se oe BZ2SSEUGSSSz ZESNASSENLS paerstscrre BOSS op Se Saye 8 = = ae P/SBs sajponu)e nw NON 1 Exoludes State acreage for additional allotments to small farms: State acreage reserve for new and amal farme; and additional acreage provided by Public Law 471, Sist Cong., 2d sess. Approved Mar. 31, 1980. t Administrative area I, 4,775 acres; administrative area IT, 26,224 acres. * Administrative area 1, 1,182 acres; administrative area IT, 1,146 acres. «Administrative area I, 32,340 acres; administrative area II, 11,066 acres, * Administrative atea 1, 400 acres; arca IT, 2,168 acres, aren LTT, 4,668 acres. * Administrative area I, 2,845 acres; area IT, 12,850 acres. 1 Adminitrative area I, 2,186 acres; area II, 764 acres. a tivo arca I, 29,085 acres; area IT, 4,964 acres, § Administrative area I, 8,290 acren: area IT, 4,114 seres, w Administrative area 1,640 acre; aren II, 5,068 acres. 1 Administrative area I, 14,301 acres; area Tl, 4,553 acrea, % Administrative arca 1, 8,576 acres; area 11, 7,671 acres. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Department oF AGRICULTURE, PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Baton Rouge, La., June 22, 1950. Hon, Linptey BecxworrH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BeckwortH: We are enclosing a list of the parishes in which cotton ts pro- duced in Louisiana together with the number of individual farm cotton allotments estab- ished in each parish. This is in compliance with your recent request. Very truly yours, L. A, Munir, Chairman, State PMA Committee, Name of parish and approrimate number of cotton allotments Assumption... Avoyelles...-2-.- 2-0 eee eee eee Beauregard. Bienville. East Baton Rouge East Carroll_.....-.---.-- East Feliciana......-.~..- Evangeline Franklin... 2.2... -- ene anes Jackson_.......-.--.--------- aeneeee Jefferson Davis Lafayette. ..-.....--. --..----~----- Lafourche........-- La Salle_.......---. Natchitoches. .-.-.....----------sne Orleans group: Ouachita......--.-....2----- en a ees Pointe Coupee._....-..~. wonnenween= 1,090 Rapides........... Re@ River...-.-- 2-22 -- 2 eee ee eee - Richland.......-. Sabine... .......---. Bt. Helena... ne on enn nw ene nn St. James... ne ne wenn een wen ew en 8 St. Tammany.....-...-.---~..---n en Tangipahos..nnnnnenen nnn aeeeneemmn Tensas._.... an oo en fs om so co ease newnwnewe UNION. 22 nnn ce enn ennnceewnwnenn 1 Vermilion...... ee enecnnee wewncnennene 2 1 Vernon... a Washington.......... Webster... nnnnmncmnsenncencnsnnnee West Baton Rouge........-...-----.- West Carroil........---.------.-..- West Feliciana.........-..---.-.--.0 Winl. 20. non enn en nee meene nen eecenn Cemmmmamameenad Total..ceneeuneuncevenenccene 68,831 11278 Loutstana: Approximate county cotton acre- age allotment and average aotment for 1950 Louisiana counties ments, 1950 810 2,62 1,00 A voyelles.. 6,71 Beaurogard... 04 Bienville.... 8.12 Bossier .... 22, 85 Caddo .... 37. 86 Caleasien.. 3.69 Caldwell... 9. 63 Cameron... 3,08 Catahoula... 13.98 Claiborne... 13. 66 Concordin... 19.67 11. 54 3.25 32,07 9. 67 10 62 A. 34 44 88 6.10 2. 64 Jackson... .... 4.21 Jefferson Davis... 3.90 Lafayette 2... 9. 23 Lafourche 379.00 La Salle... 1.95 Lineuin ... 10 04 Livingston. 2.32 Madison. -. 30. 80 Morehouse. 20.02 Natchitoches. 21. 83 Orleans group Orleans... Jofferson . . St, Bernard. Plaquemines. .........-}...---.-|----.--5 --[--+ -- Ouachita... . 20 Pointe Cou 11.07 Apides 11.80 23.44 4.90 4,87 210 67 10.80 6.22 6. 88 2.23 2.31 35.79 7.74 8.46 1, 83 6.18 9&4 6.71 12.16 10. 41 3. 82 {8} Total (State). _.-...-..- 12, 80 6) State ac for addi- tional allotments small farms....-.-----[ 0. wees] = 19,870 |. avee (e) State acreage reserve for new farms and emal) farms.........-.------|eenn wen-| 61,803 }........ 4d) State acreage allotment.|........ 873, 297°| = 13.79 'Exchides State screage for additional allotments to small farms, State acreage reserve for new and smal] farms end additional acreage allotment provided by Public Law 471, 81st Cong,, 2d sess, Approved Mar. 31, 1050. The CHAIRMAN. ‘The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr. HOPE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michi- gan [Mr. Crawrorp}. Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to get some thoughts in the Rrcorn which I want to use in my district. I am not critical of the com- mittee for bringing this bill to the House. I simply want to point certain things out according to my own views. The Congress of the United States has gotten itself over a barrel by reason of acts which it has committed, I refer to
11274 the five or six basic labor laws which in effect have given the labor leaders of this country substantially a monopoly with reference first, to the cost; and second, to the selling price of the manu- factured goods which the farmers of the United States purchase. The Congress, finding that monopoly in operation and operating through collective bargaining agreements, wakes up and finds that the buying power of the American farmer, who grows the food, fats, fiber, forestry products and produces the mine prod- ucts and petroleum products, cannot purchase those manufactured goods with the wages which the open market gives to the agricultural worker when he turns his labor, in the form of his products, into that open market. So then the Congress—and when I say the Congress, I mean the administration, too, from the White House down—finds itself in a squeeze and proceeds then to try and legislate itself out of that squeeze by adopting so-called price-support pro- grams which have been operating the last few years. Then as those price-sup- port programs measured by the great tonnage turned out under the price- support programs for which the Federal Treasury must assist in financing, be- comes such a burden on the taxpayers, especially those in cities and who work in industrial plants and who kick about the amount of the appropriations and say “down with the farm-support pro- gram.” So then we start out and finally get into this field of marketing quotas, conferring proprietary rights on certain people who control certain areas of land. Why do we do that? We do that to pre- vent tonnage being produced which, multiplied by the price-support program, would increase the disbursement that would have to be made from the Federal Treasury through appropriations of the Congress against which certain types of . otters kick. We come along, as the gentleman from Arkansas pointed out a while ago, to where we had a great cotton crop Jast year. We had price supports last year for cotton. We had no absolute Jever to prevent acreage from being planted, and therefore the acreage was planted; therefore the big number of bales appeared on the market and the support program was loaded. Now we come along here, and we say, “We will put in marketing quotas 1 or 2 years ahead so that they cannot grow a lot of bales ¢o be multiplied by a price support per bale.” That is the thing that I keep running through my mind. I am not criticizing the committee for bringing this bill here. I just do not like the proposition of getting ourselves into a pinch where we have to do things which are inequitable to our people and which actually takes away from them the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield to the gen- tleman from California. Mr. WHITE of California. The gen- tleman realizes, does he not, that pro- ducers do not have to go into this al- leged strait-jacket which the gentleman CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE seems to think that they would have to go into. Mr. CRAWFORD. I am not talking about the people having to go into strait-jackets. I am talking about the Congress of the United States passing laws which put them in a Strait-jacket, and that is exactly what we have done. Mr. WHITE of California. Oh, no. ° Mr. CRAWFORD. Oh, yes. We fixed it so that a man cannot have a jobina factory unless he joins a union. Con- gress did that. Mr. WHITE of California. We are talking about something else now. Mr. CRAWFORD. I am talking about the thing that called for price supports on farm production so that those farm- ers, as has been argued here today, can buy those manufactured products. Mr. WHITE of California. Are not the farmers organized? Mr. CRAWFORD. Of course, the farmer demands a wage. Why should he not? On what ground can we stand to give labor the power it has and say to the farmer: “But as for you, you can live on a 10-cent-per-hour wage or a 15- cent-per-hour wage.” We find such a plan cannot work, and then we come along to the farm price-support mecha- nism of this kind to make the organized labor laws and collective bargaining ma- chinery work, the latter calling for the former. Mr. COOLEY. Myr Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield to the gen- tleman from North Carolina. Mr. COOLEY. I would just like to ask the gentieman, do I understand the gentleman from Michigan is opposed to the agricultural price-support program? Mr. CRAWFORD. In no way have I said that. I am analyzing it. Mr. COOLEY. I was confused. Mr. CRAWFORD. There is no need of being confused on what I said. The gentleman knows that the Congress of the United States put us in a strait- jacket when we approved six basic la- bor laws, and we cannot afford, from an economic standpoint, across the country as a whole, to let the farmer go along here and try to live on a 10-cent wage. He could not buy the manufactured goods, You would have unemployment by the millions of people. Your econo- my would go all to pieces and your $257,000,000,000 debt and your $55,000,- 000,000 budget could not be supported. Mr. COOLEY. So the gentleman is for the support program for agriculture. Mr. CRAWFORD. I am for the stabi- lizing of the economy but I am not in favor of the thing which forces the stabi- lization program. Mr. CROOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CRAWFORD, I yield to the gen- tleman from Indiana. Mr. CROOK. Is the gentleman op- posed to organized labor? Mr. CRAWFORD. I am opposed to the Wagner Act, which I voted against, and every chance I got I voted to repeal it. Does that answer the gentleman's question? JULY 27 Mr, CROOK. Not quite. I asked the gentleman if he is opposed to organized labor? Mr. CRAWFORD. I am not opposed to organized labor but I am opposed to the strait-jacketing provisions wherein we give labor leaders the power to take the American economy by the throat and close down any industry they desire to close down, whether it be steel, coal, or any other type of manufacturing. Does that answer the gentleman’s question? I should like to answer the question right straight on the nose. Mr. CROOK. I am not exactly an- swered on that question, but is the gen- tleman opposed to the right to strike? Mr. CRAWFORD. The right to strike against the general welfare? Yes. This should never occur. Mr. CROOK. Is the gentleman op- posed to the Manufacturers’ Association frequently taking a stand against labor? Mr. CRAWFORD. What is their stand against labor? Mr. CROOK. They have always taken a stand against labor. Mr. CRAWFORD. Let me tell the gentleman something. When a man de- nies himself comforts and saves money and invests it in machinery and machine tools so that men may have a chance to work and earn their living and feed their families, is that man who thus saved, an enemy of labor or taking a stand against labor? That kind of poppycock is no good. The only trouble is our people do not understand how the machine of savings and investment operates, and this, I believe, is largely due to a deficiency of school teaching the details of capitalism. Mr. CROOK. Do not misunderstand me. Mr. CRAWFORD. Iam not misunder- standing the gentleman. Mr. CROOK. Iam not against either, but I do believe in a spirit of intelligent compromise around the conference table so that we can all live. However, there has always been a thrust by one or the other, and we have a tendency to go too far in one direction or the other. Mr. CRAWFORD. Now I can agree with the gentleman 100 percent on in- tellige compromise and that these things should he negotiated and that the strikes should never be called, so that the people would have the goods to consume and employment would be maintained, and the national income could flow so that we can pay these bills we have to pay and thus avoid in- flationary deficit financing. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to the gentle- man from Texas [Mr. Manon]. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I should like to say to the Committee and to the Committee on Agriculture that there are certain features of this bill which in my judgment are unwise, discriminatory, and indefensible, and should be changed. I have certain amendments which I ex- pect to offer later. I am now in this situation that it is my responsibility to conduct hearings on the $10,000,000,000 supplemental appropriations budget to meet the Korean situation. Those hear- ings are now in progress. Therefore,
1950 I cannot speak at length at this moment, but at the proper time under the 5- minute rule I hope I may have the favor- able attention of the Committee in con- nection with certain revisions of the bill. Mr. GATHINGS, If the gentleman will yield, I wonder if he would have his amendments printed in the REecorp 50 we could look them over tomorrow. Mr. MAHON. I do not have the amendments ready for printing in the Recorp, but the object of the amend- ments in part would be to strike out that language which sets out the State of Texas for particular and unusual and different treatment as compared to other States. Such language appears on page 8 and in other places in the bil. Mr. HOPE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes, and at this time yield to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Marsazis]. Mr. MARSALIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of the gen- tleman from Kansas. It is my under- standing that an amendment will be offered which will strike section 6 of the bill which pertains to the 1951 wheat- acreage allotment. The gentleman's district in Kansas borders my own dis- trict in Colorado and I know that the problems are the same with reference to the effect which such an amendment would have in striking out this section of the bill on the wheat economy of the district. I would like to request the gen- tleman to explain just what the effect will be if this amendment «:riking sec- tion 6 of the bill is adopted and the pre- vious law is put into effect. Mr. HOPE. Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to do so. I want to say at the beginning that the gentleman from Colo- rado has been very diligent in his efforts to see that the people of his district and the State of Colorado secure a fair acre- age allotment of wheat and he has worked on and supported the provision which is included in section 6 of the bill, In order to fully explain the situation, I think I should go back a little and point out that last year it was necessary to have special legislation to take care of various areas in the country where wheat production was greatly expanded during the war. In those areas expansion took place at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture and the War Food Adminis- tration. The farmers in those areas made a great contribution, not only to the national economy and the war effort but in the years following the war they made a great contribution to the efforts of this country to feed the world and stop the march of communism in Europe. Until last year the expansion of acreage was required every year in order to meet our requirements and commitments, 50 far as wheat is concerned. This year— 1950—for the first time it many years, it was necessary to have acreage allot- ments on wheat and under the formula in the law full account in making allot- ments could not be given to the increase in acreage which had taken place in the gentleman's State, as well as other States in the area. For that reason, legisla- tion was enacted last year which is a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE part of Public Law 272, Eighty-first Con- gress, which increased the national acre- age allotment for 1950 and provided for its distribution. Under that provision the gentleman's State of Colorado re- ceived a large increase in its allotment. This year the same situation does not prevail, but the application of the regu- lar formula for wheat-acreage allotment would still work a hardship upon the gentleman’s State. It was for that purpose that the pro- visions which appear as section 6 of the bill were fntroduced. At the time the legislation was considercd and placed in the bill it was the understanding that the wheat acreage allotment for this year would be approximately 62,000,000 acres and it was felt in order to take care of the situation prevailing in Colorado and other States it would be necessary to have an additional allotment to the na- tional allotment proclaimed by the Sec- retary. However, the Korean war has entirely changed the situation and instead of 62,000,000 acres being allotted, the Sec- retary recently proclaimed an acreage allotment nationally of 72,800,000 acres or almost 11,000,000 acres more than the allotment which was initially contem- plated. This increase in the acreage allotment made it possible for the De- partment of Agriculture, through ad- ministrative procedures, to make changes in the allotments to the States by which it was able to entirely take care of the situation prevailing in the gentleman’s State of Colorado. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas has expired. Mr. HOPE. Mr. Chairman, I yield my- self two additional minutes. Mr, Chairman, this matter has been worked out between the Department of Agriculture and the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture, the chairman of which was the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Poace], and the subcommittee has been entirely sat- isfied as a result of these conferences thai it will be possible for the depart- ment to work out, administratively, a procedure whereby the States, which would suffer if the ordinary allotment procedures were followed, will receive an allotment which will be approximately equal to that which they would receive if section 6 of this bill remained in force. That is not universally true. It does not apply to every State, but I can say to the gentleman from Colorado that his State will receive, under the’ administrative procedure in question, an acreage allot- ment which is fully as large as it would have received if section 6 had remained in the bill. There is an advantage at this time if we eliminate that section from the bill, in that it means the Department of Agri- culture can at once send out the State acreage allotments to the State PMA committees, and those committees can make the allotments to the counties and the counties make the allotments to the farms at once. In view of the fact that winter wheat planting will begin in the 11275 gentleman’s State and in my State tn the next 30 days, there is a great advantage in having those allotments made at the present time. If we retain this section in the bill, the allotments cannot be made definitely and completely until the bill is passed or until the Congress ad- journs. For that reason it was felt bet- ter to eliminate the provision from the bill and rely upon the administrative procedure which will take care of the situation, I am sure, to the gentleman’s entire satisfaction. Mr. MARSALIS, I thank the gentle- man for his explanation. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kansas has again ex- pired. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield § minutes to the gentleman from Texas {[Mr. Poacer]. Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, reference was made a few minutes ago by my col- league from Texas [Mr. Manon] to the provisions of this bill which relate only to the State of Texas. I call the atten- tion of the members of the committee to the fact that the State of Texas ac- counts for 37 percent of the allotment of cotton in this country. So when we speak of the provisions that relate only to the State of Texas we speak of pro- visions that affect more than one-third of the entire acreage involved in this bill. The provisions to which reference was made and to which objection was voiced by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHON] merely provide that the State of Texas in the year 1951 shall be treated as other States in the Union are treated, as every one of the States east of the Mississippi River is treated. It does not place Texas under any special gadget. On the contrary it takes Texas out from the special gadget or formula which was imposed on us this year. It has come to the point in our committee where nobody wants us to call this gadget by the name of his State. But regardless of what you call it, there was a proviso placed in the bill last year that was cal- culated to assist the State of California, and which I think did assist that great State. Reference was made to it a while ago. I have no criticism of what was done for California, but representatives of the Department of Agriculture had advised the committee that this gadget would not apply to the State of Texas and it did not do so until the original acreage figures were changed. In the final calculation of figures, it was deter- mined that the State of Texas would come under that gadget by 93 acres. Out of a calculation of something more than 10,000,000 acres, they got down to such a nicety that they sald that they could be sure the State of Texas would come under the formula which had been de- vised for California by 93 acres. So they placed us under this gadget— and I want the Recorp to be clear that I have never felt that we were properly placed under the gadget or that the law placed us there, but that we were put there by reason of some calculations
11276 which I do not think were at ail justi- fied—possibly that has nothing to do with the case now because we went under it, but it meant that cotton acreage was allotted in Texas this ycar from the State to the county on the basis of a 2-year history of cotton, only; whereas, in Mississippi, in Georgia, in North Car- olina, and in the bulk of the Nation cot- ton acreage was allotted from the State to the counties on the basis of 4-year history, including the war crops that were grown during those 4 years. Those individuals in the Department of Agri- culture who revised these acreage figures to bring Texas under this gadget did not want to count war crops. Public Law No. 12 plainly said that we would count those war crops. It is not a question of whether war crops should be counted or not; you, this Congress, passed this leg- islation that provided that they should be counted. As I see it that question is closed and I cannot agree that anyone has a moral right to juggle the figures just to keep from carrying out the pro- viso Congress made. In the State of Texas it happens that a portion of our State, to wit, the three congressional districts on the extreme western side and one on the extreme southern side of the State, received a greater allot- ment of acreage this year as a result of that gadget than they would have re- ceived otherwise. The following tables, prepared by the Department of Agriculture, show the ef- fect which may be expected in the way of shifts in cotton acreage allotments between the congressional districts of Texas and the effect of this legislation on the counties of the Eleventh Congres- sional District of Texas. I am sorry I do not have the same figures for all of the counties of the State. Indicated 1951 cotton acreage allotments tn Tezas by congressional districts computed on the basis of the provisions in Public Law 272 and H.R. 91092 Indicated altot. | HAleated allot monts under | ents under Congrcasional district th the provisions e provisions of Public of H R. 9109 Law 272 Acres Acres 353, 599 351, 341 38, 697 29, 245 100, 987 96, O88 648, 660) 612, BOR 60, 476, 64, 131 712, 030 648, 703 132, B09 103, 660 4,875 4, 030 30K, 405 374, 270 862, 342 338, 60:3 426, 240 40}, 261 73, 039 (4, 651 339, 207 299, 839 469, 057 450, 705 406, 346 448, 408 124, 178 187, 560 330, 388 281, 255 423, 362 436, 634 1, ov2, £09 2, 347, 847 & 167 4, 287 267, 240 216, Bt 7, 637, 029 7, 637, 029 {The above indicated allotments are based on (a) an assumed national acreage allotment of 21,000,000 aercs, and (6) apportionment of all of the State acreage allot ment undor the basle formulas provided in Public Law 272 and H. KR. 9100 without retaining any Ptate acreage reserve, ‘lhe ahove-indicated allotments are theoretical and would be subject to change because of actions taken by the State committee with respect to the State acreage reserve, change in the naUlonal acreage allotment, and additional revision in basic data for the base years CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Cotton acreage allotments for 1950 and indt- cated allotments for 1951 for the Eleventh Congressional District, Teras, under the provisions of H. R. 9109 and Public Law 272 —— 1051 indicated allotment . 1950 cotton County allotment ! I, R. 9109 Public Law Acres Acres Acres Bell. .... BI, S04 92, 619 85, 076 Basque 16, 586 16, 00W 15, 661 Carvel 22, 125 25, 047 21, 670 Falls... - 95, O15 105, 148 99, 750 McLennan....... 109, 386 117, 960 113, 759 Milam___--2-..-. 64, 657 69, 560 05, 436 District... 38S, 473 426, 240 401, 261 ! Subject to munor tncreases from certain State reserves. Nore.— The above-indicated allotments are theoretical and would he subject to change because of actions taken by the Stute committee with respect to the State acreage reserve, Change in the national acreage allotment aid additional revision in basic data for the base years, ‘Tho above-indicated allotments are based on (a) an assumed national acreage allotment. of 21,000,000 acres, and (b) apportionment ofall of the State acreage allotment under the baste formula provided in Public Law 272 and H. K. 9100 without retaiming any State acreage reserve, Seventeen congressional districts in Texas, all of the districts of the State except 4—17 congressional districts in Texas—reccived less cotton as a result of the operation of the gadget than they would have received had we received the 4-year history, including war crops, to which we were plainly entitled, until our State was placed under a special gadget for which we did not ask. Bear this in mind, those of you who are not from Texas, bear this in mind, that this bill does not change the total Texas State allotment. This proviso referred to in nowise bears upon the question of how much acreage the State of Texas gets or what percentage of the national allot- ment our State gets. The State of Texas will receive the same percentage of the national allotment under this bill that it will receive under the existing law if it is left unchanged. It docs not make any difference to those who live in other States of the Union whether Texas operates under the provisions of this law or operates under the provisions of the present law. The State as a whole will get exactly the same. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman five additional minutes. Mr. POAGE. The State of Texas will receive the same State allotment under this bill and under the present law. The only question involved is, How will it be distributed within the State of Texas? We are asking that it be distributed within the State of Texas on the same basis that cotton acreage is distributed in the State of Mississippi, in the State of Georgia; that is all we are asking. We are asking that in the State of Texas each county get its cotton allotment on the basis of the 4 years’ history, includ- ing war crops. That is the way they get it in North Carolina. I want to clearly point out that no man can have grown war crops where cotton was not grown before. While war crops are those crops which the Gov- ernment asked farmers to grow as a re- sult of the war need, it does not follow that all of these crops are war crops. JULY 27 Peanuts, grain sorghums, and flax, may all be war crops if they took the place of cotton, but not all peanuts, not all grain sorghums, or all flax was war crops by any means. Unless the farm had a cot- ton allotment at the beginning of the war, it could never grow any war crops. No farm could ever grow more war crops than it had been growing cotton, and it could only get war-crop credit to the extent that it diverted cotton acreage into the needed crop. If the farm grew more ;.eanuts or maize than it has previ- ously grown in cotton, there was no in- crease in its cotton allotment. For in- stance, a given farm of 100 acres had a 5C-acre cotton allotment in 1941, and grew no maize that year. In 1945, ’46, or 47 that farm planted 50 acres of maize and no cotton. All the maize would be war crops, but if that same farm planted 50 acres of maize and 50 acres of cotton, it would have no war crop. If it planted only 20 acres of cotton in 1945 and 50 acres of maize, only 30 acres of the maize would be war crops. The point I want to make clear is that no credit was ever given for war crops which had not previ- ously been given for cotton. The loose statement that farms which never planted cotton got credit for war crops simply will not hold up. It was suggested a while ago that this bill propose to do something special for the State of Texas. All we are asking is that you take us out from under any special gadget. We do not want to be under any special gadget; we want to be treated like the rest of the United States. We are just asking to be treated like everyone else; we are just asking that we be given our 4-year history, including our war crops. We ask that the Texas State acreage be allocated to the counties of Texas on the regular 4-year history. This year our counties get their allotments on the basis of a cotton history of 2 years. The indi- vidual within the county who had not grown any cotton within those 2 years, but who grew war crops back 2 years before that time, was still considered, and will be considered, if you do not pass this bill, as an old cotton grower, and he will be entitled to share in the amount of cotton that there is in the county. If there were but 200 acres in the county farmed by two growers, one who had grown 100 acres of cotton in the years 1947 and 1948 and the other with 100 acres which he had planted in war crops in 1946 and 1947, the county would get an allotment based on a his- tory of only 100 acres. But it would have to be divided between the two growers. The result has been grievous inequity in all of that vast area of Texas where there had been a substantial amount of war crops grown. We ask that you let us make sure that next year in Texas the same formula will prevail for the distribution of cotton that we have in the nongadget States of the United States. Mr. FISHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. FISHER. Of course, under old Public Law 12 the cotton farmers of
1950 Texas and every other cotton-growing State in the country were assured by the Federal Government in that law that they would be given credit for the war crops. Mr. POAGE. That is right. Mr. FISHER. Therefore, the good faith of the Federal Government is in- volved in seeing that that promise or that assurance is carried out. Mr. POAGE. I think it is just as much the obligation of the United States Gov- ernment to carry out that assurance as it is for the United States Government to make good on its promise to pay a dolar for a dollar bill, Mr. FISHER, If Texas is treated the same as other cotton producing States of the South, that will be carried out. Mr. POAGE, Yes. All we are asking is that we be given the benefit of the law as it reads, that we be treated the same as everybody else. This year there was a different treatment accorded Texas. It was a treatment that was cal- culated to take care of the situation the gentleman from California described a while ago in those States where there had been an influx of people; but applied in Texas where many of those people had moved on west, it worked a grievous injustice. We are not asking that you change it for those sections of the Na- tion, those States that want it; we merely Say that we do not want it in Texas. It so happened that there were 355,000 acres of cotton allotted in one congres- sional district of Texas that did not be- long there under the regular 4-year his- tory including war crops as provided by general law. Mr. COOLEY. Who represents that district? Mr. POAGE. Mr. MAHON. Mr. COOLEY. How many acres did his district gct? Mr. POAGE. His district got over 2,000,000 acres; but he got 355,000 acres as a result of this 93 acres that the De- partment of Agriculture placed in the State of Texas. Mr. COOLEY. But for that miscalcu- lation in the Department of Agriculture he would not have gotten this additional acreage? Mr. POAGE. The 93 acres caused the situation. We are merely asking that that 355,000 acres be distributed back into those districts of Texas from which it was taken; back into that area Mr. Brecx- ‘wortH spoke about, back into all that area that was growing that cotton and that had built this history in the manner provided by law, rather than to give it to an area which was getting a very gener- ous allotment anyway. This acreage went into an area where many counties are able to plant more than half their total farm land in cotton. It came from an area where many counties were cut to less than_10 percent of their tilled acres. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the genileman from Texas has expired. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman five additional minutes, The gentleman, who is a very distin- guished member of the House Commit- tee on Agriculture, who is now addressing the House, is likewise a member of the cotton subcommittee, fs that true? Mr. POAGE. That is true. XCVI-——710 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE Mr. COOLEY. Not only fs the great State of Texas represented on our com- mittee by the distinguished gentleman who is now speaking but has been con- stantly represented by another Member of Congress from the State of Texas? Mr. POAGE. That is right. Mr. COOLEY. The gentleman is sat- isfied with the fairness of this bill that we now have under consideration? Mr. POAGE. Iam. I think this bill corrects a serious injustice within the State of Texas. Mr. COOLEY. Iam delighted to hear the gentleman say so. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr.POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. WHITE of California. I may say that I am very appreciative of the great assistance the gentleman endeavored to render to me in trying to get a just and fair alloment of cotton for California in the previous bills. As the gentleman well knows—I think it is common knowl- edge—I am not satisfied with the allot- ments which California will receive in 1952 and 1953 which came out of the so-called Memphis agreement. The gentleman will recall that I offercd a proviso at that time which would have alleviated that situation for California and put it on an equitable basis clear through the years. Mr. POAGE. I remember that. Mr. WHITE of California. I deeply appreciate his assistance. It recalls to my mind that the thing that caused the gentleman’s trouble about which he is now complaining and which this bill would correct, is the fact that he was trying to give us a square deal in California. I hope every Membcr of the California delegation will vote with the gentleman in protecting the portion of the bill which he seeks to have retained. Mr. POAGE. I thank the gentle- man. I appreciate that coming from the gentleman. Mr. GUILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentle- man from Texas. Mr. GUILL. Is it mandatory at this time in this bill that the State commit- tee shall retain 10 percent? Mr. POAGE. It is mandatory that the State committee shall retain enough cotton, not to exceed 10 percent, to make adjustments in county allotments for trends in acreage, for abnormal condi- tions adversely affecting plantings, for incomplete or inaccurate basic county cotton data, and, upon proper showing by the county committee, for inequitable county allotments; and for new farms, small farms, for farms adversely affected by abnormal conditions affecting plant- ings, and for adjustments by the county committee in other farm acreage allot- ments in counties in which the 15-per- cent reserve is insufficient to provide equitable farm allotments. The State committee must preserve enough acreage to make these adjust- ments provided it does not exceed 10 percent. Mr, GUILL. Will the distinguished geatleman answer this question? Our 11277 distinguished chairman made this state- ment that one reason we had trouble before was because some of the State committees failed to retain enough acreage to take care of the situation. Mr. POAGE, That is right. Mr, GUILL, And this bill will rectify that mistake? Mr, POAGE. This bill will place the burden on the State committee and the obligation by law to reserve enough acreage to make the adjustments I men- tioned. In our State it will mean that the State committee can reserve three- quarters of a million acres of cotton, and I believe with three-quarters of a million acres of cotton they can take care of a great many of those trends and a great many of the small farmers that the gentleman from east Texas discussed. He got 50 acres from the State reserve for his entire district last year for new farmers when the State could have dis- tributed three-quarters of a million acres. The bill says they have got to do that in order to take care of these cases. Mr. GUILL. I have two different types of farmers in my district; the old farmer and the new trend. I want to be in the position where some of the new farmers can have a little extra cotton this year, just the same as the gentleman from Texas |Mr. BEckKwortn]. If I knew that that was going to happen, I would be happy. Mr. POAGE. The State committee is required by this bill to reserve enough to take care of these trends. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. JENSEN. Did I hear the gentle- man say that somebody had made a mis- take in allocating cotton acreage in Texas or in the United States; a mistake of over 300,000 acres? Mr. POAGE. I did not say that. I said that I thought a mistake was made, whether it was a mistake or whether it was intentional, at least, a miscalcula- tion of cotton acreage in the State of Texas, which brought the State of Texas under the California gadget by 93 acres, thereby resulting in transferring 355,000 acres from 17 districts of Texas into 1 district of Texas; yes, sir. Mr, JENSEN. Who made the mistake? Mr. POAGE. ‘The Department of Agriculture. Mr. JENSEN. Does the gentleman think it was a mistake? Mr. POAGE. I think it was one of those mistakes that were intended to be made. Mr. JENSEN. And the gentleman has done nothing about it? Mr. POAGE. Yes; we have done a whole lot about it. Mr, JENSEN. What have you done? Mr. POAGE. We have had them be- fore us day after day. Mr. JENSEN. But you have accom- plished nothing. Mr. POAGE. We are trying to accom- plish something right now. This very legislation will accomplish a correction of this situation. Mr, JENSEN. I am not opposing this legislation, the centleman understands,
11278 Mr. POAGE. Iknow. This is the first chance we had to come before this House, and this bill will accomplish something if you pass this, and we will have a clear understanding in black and white. We think Texas should be treated like any other State in the Union, and that is what we are asking. Mr, JENSEN. This man that got this Job done must be a powerful gentleman. I would like to know him. Mr. POAGE. I do not say that any- thing was done intentionally by anyone who could profit by it. Mr, JENSEN. I was afraid of that. Mr. POAGE. I do not want to state that at all. I do not mean to suggest that any of my colleagues deliberately made this miscalculation, Mr. JENSEN. Do the people appre- ciate it? I hope they do. Mr. POAGE. He was returned by a wonderful majority, and I am glad he was, because he is an excellent Member of this House. He just got something he had not expected. Now he hates to give it up. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. POAGE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. COOLEY. Is it not fair to say that the gentleman who represents that district did not know anything about it until it all happened? Mr. POAGE. That is right. Mr. COOLEY. Neither did the gentle- man who is now addressing the House know anything about it until it was brought to his attention. Mr. POAGE. On the contrary I had received the assurance of the represent- atives of the Department that Texas could not possibly come under the terms of the special gadget. Mr. JENSEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, then some- body down in the Department of Agricul- ture must have made a mistake; is that not true? Mr. POAGE. That is exactly what I say, the Department of Agriculture. Mr. JENSEN. Is this a fair example of the kind of figuring they do down there? Mr. POAGE. I do not think it is a fair example. I think it is a very unfair proposition, and I think it was delrber- ately unfair. I think it was intended to accomplish a repudiation of the promise this Congress made in Public Law No. 12. Mr. JENSEN. Well, is it a good ex- ample? Mr. POAGE. It is a bad example, a very bad example. Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to section 8 of this bill, which I conceive to be of considerable importance, and which probably has been and may be overlooked in the press of considering the acreage allotments. This bill con- tains on page 17 in section 8 a proviso extending the powers granted by the Soil Conservation Domestic Allotment Act to the PMA to carry on what we generally know as the soil conservation program, not the United States Boil Conservation Service but the soil con- servation program under which the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE PMA sponsors soii-conservation prac- tices. It involves vitally farmers all over the United States. If this bill or some other bill containing a similar provision is not passed at this session you will not have, after the Ist day of January, the continuation of this soil conservation program of the PMA. If you do not have it, you all realize what it is going to mean in the way of a breakdown of the program in your area, because the present law, which expires on that date, or at least it puts this work in the hands of the States rather than the Federal Government. Practically no State is ready to undertake it. Earlier this afternoon I suggested that I would offer an amendment in regard to wheat. That that record may be clear as to the basis of the agreement in this regard, I insert a letter which I received this morning from the Department of Agriculture, which I believe explains the situation, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ProDUCTION AND MARKETING ADMINISTRATION, Washington, D.C., July 27, 1950. Hon. W. R. Poage, Chairman, Subcommittee on Wheat, House Commitiee on Agriculture, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Poace: This is in reply to your request for a statement with respect to the policies and statistical methods to be fole lowed in the : pportionment of the 1961 na- tional wheat-acreage allotment to States and counties. On July 14, 1950, the Secretary of Agricul- ture proclaimed a national whent-acreage allotment for the 1951 crop of 12,784,810 acres. In arriving et this acreage for the national allotment, due consideration was given to the need for maintaining an ade- quate rupply to meet such emergencies as may arise out of the Korean war situation. The national allotment as determined pro- vides for an acreage in 1961 equivalent to the 1050 allotment, including the additional acre- age resulting from the application of the provisions of section 6, Public Law 272, which was approximately equal to the acreage actually seeded to wheat for harvest in 1950. The national allotment as originally an- nounced by the Secretary for the 1950 crop of wheat was 68,944,099 acres. To this allot- ment was added 38,831,754 acres under the provisions of Public Law 272, which resulted in a total allotment for the 1950 crop of 72,775,853 acres. Although for the United States as a whole no reduction from the 1960 acreage is called for in 1951, the determination of State and county allotments by the application of trend adjustments would result in allotments for some States and counties being less than was assigned for the 1950 crop. In other instances, trend adjustments would result in allotments for 1951 being in excess of the allotment assigned for 1950. These shifts in acreage would be especially pronounced in some States due to the fact that a consider- able portion of the Puble Law 272 acreage would be prorated to other States if the standard trend adjustment formula were em- ployed. To minimize this shift in wheat- acreage allotments, and to provide for a more equitable apportionment of the national al- lotment to States and counties, the Depart- ment has modified the trend adjustment formula to limit the extent of change which otherwise would restlt from such adjust- ments, This modified formula is as follows: (a) After making necessary adjustments for abnormal weather conditions, war crop credits, and the acreage diverted from wheat JULY 27 under previous AAA programs, the 10-year average acreage seeded for the production of wheat in each State during the years 1940-49, inchusive, is adjusted for trenda by averaging such 10-year average with the avorage acre- age seeded to wheat during the years 1947-49. This Is the standard formula for making ad- justments for trends in acreage for both wheat and corn (b) The tentative State allotment is com- puted by apportioning the national acreage allotment to States pro rata on the basis of the 10-year average as adjusted for trends under (a) above. {c) The tentative allotment to any State which falls below an amount determined by multiplying the average acreage seedcd to wheat in such State during the years 1947-49 by a factor obtained by (1) dividing the 1951 national allotment by the average acreage seeded to wheat in the United States during such S~-year period and (2) reducing the per- centage figure obtained under (1) by five per- centage points shall be adjusted upward to such amount. (d) The tentative allotments to States not receiving adjustments under (c) above are adjusted pro rata so that the sum of all State allotments is equal to the national acreage allotment. The national acreage allotment for the 1951 crop of wheat will be apportioned to States on the basis of the foregoing formula, Basically this modified trend formula will be followed in the apportionment of the State allotment to counties. At the county level consideration will be given to additional in- formation when making adjustments be- tween counties The use of PMA records of the acreage seeded to wheat as reported to county committees by producers will enable State committees to obtain a more equitable alinement of counties for the apportionment of the State allotment. It is believed that by apportioning the na- tional allotment to States as indicated above, and by following the sume method generally in apportioning the State allotment to coun- ties, equitable allotments for the 1951 crop of wheat may be established within the na- tional allotment as proclaimed by the Secretary. With State and county allotments deter- mined in this manner, it seems that there would be no need for the pending legislation as set forth in section 6 of H. R. 9109, and we recommend its deletion from the bill. Sincerely yours, Franx K. Wootier, Deputy Administrator, Mr. HOPE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Javits]. Mr.. JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Mr. JAVITS, Mr. Chairman, I take this time to inform the House that I have today introduced a bill to create a mo- bilization and production board and a food conservation agency, following out the recommendations made yesterday by Bernard Baruch, for the reason that while this debate is going on as to wheth- er we should have rationing and controls some management is urgently required. We have learned from experience in World War II that we cannot get high- level management to do the kind of mo- bilization job which the Nation faces ex- cept by the creation of an agency of this kind which will attract the best brains in business, labor, and agriculture,
1950 I have provided in this bill for the creation of a food conservation agency because, again, consumers need advice, consumers need guidance, and the dis- tributors and producers of the country also need guidance and mobilization to resist what can easily become an eco- nomic disaster in the hoarding and panic buying which is going on. We know that 90 percent of the Amer- icans are patriotic and are restraining themselves and imposing self-discipline upon themselves, but there is always the unscrupulous 10 percent. I invite consideration, therefore, to this urgent need for establishing this major agency, a mobilization and pro- duction board, which will give us the kind of high-level management we learned to value so highly in World War II and which this present mobilization effort so urgently requires, I thank my colleague for giving me this time. Mr. HOPE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Cah- fornia {[Mr. WERDEL]. Mr. WERDEL. Mr. Chairman, I re- gret my physical condition has not been such that I could keep current on some of the details of this bill. I also regret that I do not see more members of the Committee on Agriculture present. I think some of the remarks I am going to make should be made by a member of that committee. I know any time we have a statute on the books of any government, State or national, which undertakes to interfere with the economy of the country and its citizens we then set up a statutory provision which lashes us session after session around a vicious circle of occa- sional argument and temporary expe- dient. Argument for the occasion, if you please, and in most instances we develop a temporary political expedient, To be sure, I am not speaking on a par- tisan basis, and I am not speaking to you solely for the interest of the State of California. What I have to say is, I think, in the vital interest of the whole people of this great country and the war effort we have to make. There have been many remarks made by previous speakers which are both amusing and interesting. It has been said that never have we allocated wheat or cotton or commodities on a popula- tion basis within the States. Yet an- other gentleman says: What are our peo- ple in Texas going to do if in a free competitive market we let cotton go to another area? Of course the answer to that question is that those people would do the same thing that his people do when they leave Texas and go to Cali- fornia, and I am one of those who is inclined to think that many of you gen- tlemen represent people who are tem- porarily creating problems for you which will be permanent problems for me and my colleagues from California because you represent people who to a large ex- tent, by the evidence of the hour, are on their way to California, We are get- ting about 28,000 new people a month in the State of California. I believe a little background to what I want to say is necessary, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE In the first place, in the 1938 act we had in California what the rest of the Nation had—a pei manent law that some way or other had to be lived with, and whether we liked the basic principle of the law or not is immaterial at this time. The point is that in a free competitive economy during the war the West, the country that could grow the commodi- ues which we needed during the war, took the acreage on a competitive basis. Of course there were other acts passed during the war which helped certain areas of the country and the Congress guaranteed those people a cotton history if they raised certain war commodities, It is all well and good to stand up here and speak patriotically of your district which raised war crops. But the answer is that the people in those districts who raised such crops did so because they made more money out of those crops. Mr. PACE. Mr, Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WERDEL. I yield. Mr. PACE. I think the gentleman will find upon examination of the rec- ord that the return per acre during the war on cotton exceeded the return per acre on most of the war crops, certainly on peanuts. May I repeat that, that the return to the producer per acre dur- ing the war on cotton exceeded the re- turn per acre on peanuts, Mr. WERDEL. I respect the distin- guished gentleman, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Cotton for his ability and his knowledge of the subject of agriculture. I believe his remark is not pertinent to what I have in mind. Mr. PACE. If the gentleman will yield. I did not want to make an imper- tinent remark. I thought the gentleman said that people had gotten into raising cotton because they made more money out of it. I wanted to cite the fact that that did not apply in the case of pea- nuts. Mr. WERDEL. I would say to the gentleman from Georgia that I know nothing about peanuts, except that I like them at ball games, I do know something about human nature and I doubt if there was anyone raising pea- nuts during the war who thought he could make more money raising cotton. There may have been 1, there may have been 10, but the fact remains that we have before us a bill to perpetuate cot- ton acreage in the South during war- time. It is also a fact that the same gentlemen who proposed this bill sub- mitted to the Congress a bill during the last war which permitted a war crop his- tory for cotton acreage. That law did not command farmers to raise war crops. It let them do it on a competitive basis if they thought they could make more money. Mr. WHITE of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WERDEL. Not at this time, please. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Pace] has made a very true state- ment when he says that the Secretary of Agriculture must see that we must raise cotton sufficient to equal the estimated consumption, plus exports, plus 30 per- cent. I believe that is a reasonable in- terpretation of the language of the bill 11279 before the House. But that is not the point. The point is that section 1 of this bill will provide that the Secretary must put on controls if the total supply of cot~- ton for the marketing year, beginning in the then current calendar year, exceeds the estimated domestic consumption, plus exports for such marketing year. The 30-percent provision is out, at least for the years 1951 and 1952; and the per- manent pattern for permanent controls, regardless of market conditions, is placed in the law by the pending act. I will offer an amendment to put that language back as it is in existing law. I will offer that at the proper time, unless my colleague from California offers a similar amendment, in which case I will support his amendment. Mr. WHITE of California. If the gentleman will yield, I have such an amendment already prepared, and it is my intention to offer it. Mr. WERDEL. Iwill be happy to sup- port your amendment. The reasons for the amendment are these: In competitive years in Califor~ nia, when California’s cotton acreage grew from 385,000 acres to over a million acres of planted cotton—when its econ- omy in that field demanded that cotton gins, oil-reduction plants, and cotton compressors be built and financed, and a@ labor supply planned for the indus- try—with support prices, California farmers developed marginal land for cotton. The act passed in the first session of this Congress gave such marginal land history. The same act took over 300,000 acres of California's best land out of the production of cotton. When the controls went back on and the act last year was passed we in Cali- fornia found that we had marginal land actually worth more money than better land close to it for the purposes of rais- ing cotton, We found that we had created a situation such as California created when it granted liquor licenses at no cost to the licensee a few years back. We now find these licenses selling for $20,000, because new ones are not al- lowed unless population increase reaches a certain point. This created an artifi- cial condition. I submit to you that H. R. 9109 creates the same artificial condition for approximately 7,000,000 acres of marginal] land to the old cotton States, I want to direct your attention to fig- ures that have today been compiled for me by the Congressional Library. Mis- sissippi in 1930 raised 4,163,000 acres of cotton. In the five competitive years prior to 1945, war years, it raised an av- erage of 2,286,000 acres of cotton. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WERDEL. I yield. Mr. ABERNETHY. Would the gentle- man give the production by bales? He is speaking of the acreage planted, Mr. WERDEL. I think I have it; I will get to it in a moment. Mr, ABERNETHY. The fact is that the production was almost identical al- though the acreage was considerably less, was just about half. Mr. WERDEL, That may be true,
11280 Louisiana had @ production in 1930 of 1,900,000. In the five competitive years prior to 1945, competitive free enterprise years, it averaged 819,000 acres. Ala- bama had 3,596,000 acres in 1930, but the 1945 average showed she had 1,390,000 acres, Georgia in 1930 had 3,464,000 acres; the 1945 average gave her 1,260,- 000 acres, and so on for the 11 southern cotton States, Mr. Chairman, section 1 of this bill provides that even though yesterday in a@ war effort when we had to produce war crops at full capacity, we produced cotton on a competitive basis. The pro- posed amendment to section 342 will have the Agriculture Act, as amended, say that for the years 1951-52 controls are mandatory, regardless of the condi- tion of the market or the needs of the country. If the Department of Agricul- ture follows the law, under no circum- stances will it find itself in a position where controls are not mandatory by the new language. The new language, there- fore, says that even though we know that on a competitive basis, during a war effort, yesterday about 7,000,000 acres in the South was marginal land and vol- untarily stopped growing cotton. We are now going to make it mandatory that about 26 acres of that marginal land must be planted to cotton to 1 acre of land in the Western States—States that yes- terday demonstrated it was the proper land to raise cotton in a war effort. The new language in H. R. 9109 says that even though we may need 3,000,000 acres of cotton in 1951 and 1952, the existing cotton gins, cotton-oil plants, and cotton compressors of the Western States must operate at less than capac- ity until the marginal land of the South is planted. There is no discretion in this regard left with the Secretary of Agri- culture, and, in my opinion, the law would be bad if any man had such dis- cretion to accomplish the proposed result. The proposed amendment forces the same ratio of acreage between the States under mandatory controls into the years 1951 and 1952, As an example, Mississippi now has a State allotment of about 2,000,000 acres, whereas California’s acreage is about 685,000 acres. If the Secretary finds it necessary to quickly expand cotton production, he will have to require Mississippi to raise 3 acres of cotton to California’s 1 acre, even though it has been demonstrated that any large expansion of production in Mississippt would require the planting of marginal land. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WERDEL. I yield. Mr. ABERNETHY. I think I under- stand the gentleman’s point, but I think he overlooked, unintentionally, I am sure, the production figures. I do not have al] of the acreage records for the years he mentioned, but I do have the records for the last 22 years. Mr. WERDEL. These are the average acreage for 5-year periods. Mr. ABERNETHY. In 1928, Missis- sippi, to which the gentleman referred, planted 3,954,000 acres of cotton and produced at that time under the farm- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE ing practices as of that day only 1,475,- 000 bales. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. HOPE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman five additional minutes. Mr. ABERNETHY. Now, 20 years later, the State planted 1,400,000 less acres, but produced almost a million more bales of cotton. Mr. WERDEL. The figures I quoted for 1945 were the 5-year average up to 1945 during this competitive free enter- prise year in the production of cotton. I am not making any remarks about the Gepth of the topsoil of Mississippi. I am talking about facts. In the year 1930 the population of Mississippi was 2,821,000, In 1940 the population was 2,183,000. In the estimate as for 1950 it has fallen to 2,171,000. The gentleman remarked about bales of cotton. I have asked them to compile figures as to how much they have gained by the agricultural program in the South. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WERDEL,. I yield to the gentle- man from Mississippi. Mr. ABERNETHY. Will the gentle- man be willing to place his cotton acre- age on the same 6-year base that the rest of us bast ours on? Just answer that. Will he be willing to base his acreage on the same 5-year history that we base ours on? Mr. WERDEL. No, because the gen- tleman said a while ago when he had the floor that something was given the State of California, The only thing that has been given California is population, if we look upon this country as a free enter- prise country. A controlled program for agriculture must consider population shifts in peacetime economy and maxi- mum production with the least effort in a wartime economy. In California a small ranch is 40 acres with its water well and its development. In the South, where I have not been too often, cotton raising reaches a peculiar economic extreme. In that extreme we see a mule being used to drag a meadow buster down through the meadow. We then see a little seed planted and the farmer praying for rain. He then goes cat fishing and lays in the shade, and sends a new population to California. If it rains, he may ptck 180 pounds of cotton to the acre. Yes, he may pick a bale of cotton. My figures indicate that the average planting in Mississippi for the 5 years prior to 1945 was about one-half of that State’s planting in 1930. In 1930, Mis- sissippi’s income from cotton was about $71,000,000, whereas in 1945 her income was about $185,000,000. In other words, by planting one-half the average she re- ceived two and one-half times as much in revenue. My figures also indicate that by planting approximately the same av- erage in the 5-year period, preceding 1940, as she did in 1945, she received three times as much revenue in 1945, as she did in 1940, Mr. Chairman, if you say you are giv- ing something to California, and you have a statute on the books which is be- JULY 27 ing amended by the proposed legislation, it should be understood that you are only tempering existing law that has already placed California in a strait-jacket against the interests of the economy of that growing State and against the in- terests of the whole country if we must make a war effort. Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman iridicated that we have pro- duced six times as much wealth on one- half as much land, and at the same time he made the remark that we were cat fishing down our way. That does not appear to be so, does it? Mr. WERDEL. It is in effect true in general terms. It is true of Alabama and it is true of Georgia. Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WERDEL. I yield to the gentle- man from Georgia. Mr. PACE. After listening to the gen- tleman I wonder if he feels he is making a contribution to the adjustment of cot- ton acreage in 20 cotton States by mak- ing these comparisons between the States, which may not be so graciously received. You know, this question was settled among all the States last year. I wonder if we should not go back to the States if we want to change the agree- ment that has been made. Mr. WERDEL. In answer to the dis- tinguished gentleman from Georgia I will say this: When the representatives of the cotton people of California were out here and I had an opportunity to talk to them and they had an opportu- nity to talk to the committee, the sub- ject mentioned by me in connection with the new language in the first paragraph was not considered or discussed. And it came out of committee suddenly and without notice either to my constituents or to myself. I am firmly convinced that it must be opposed by all of the Western States. The remarks I am making are for the interest not only of California but of the war effort that I sincerely be- lieve must be made in the immediate future. In answer I will say only this, that we as a nation of 150,000,000 people, working 5 days a week, apparently squared off on the outside of a circle against 190,000,000 people working 7 days a week, 12 hours a day, with 700,000,000 additional people to use as pawns, and satellites to create trouble, we have a full day’s work ahead of us. Russia has put a mirror behind our abil- ity to produce, our ability to transport, our ability to mobilize. She studies our every effort. Gentlemen, we in this Con- gress who will not stand up and say the American people have to go to work and produce the necessities of this war on the best available land are doing an in- Justice not only to the West but to the American people as a whole. I under- stand, and I am very much disturbed that no request was made of the Depart- ment of Agriculture for an opinion on this legislation. If I am wrong, I want to be corrected. I also understand that Mr. Ralph 8. Trigg, Administrator, Pro- duction and Marketing Administration, has expressed himself as opposed to the discriminatory provisions of H. R. 9109.
1950 If I am wrong, I want to be corrected. Gentlemen, we have before us a bill that has to be amended in the interests of our country. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WERDEL. I yield to the gentle- man from North Carolina. Mr. COOLEY. What are the dis- criminatory provisions of this bill? Be- fore the gentleman answers that, may I make one brief observation that the great State of California, like the great State of Texas, has been very ably and well represented on our committee at all times by two distinguished Members of this House, one on the gentleman's side and one on our side. Mr. WERDEL. I realize that. Mr, COOLEY. And I know that they have been wide awake and alert at all times in an effort to look after the cot- ton farmers of California. Now, what are these discriminatory provisions? The gentleman stated a moment ago he was not willing to be treated as other cotton-growing States with reference to the 5-year historic basis. He wants some special treatment, something more given to California than has been given to the other cotton-growing States of the Union. I think the gentlemen from California {[Mr. Wuite and Mr. Bram- BLETT! have looked after the interests of Cal fornia at all times on our committee. Mr. WERDEL. Apparently I did not make myself understood. Any provision in the agricultural law which prohibits us from making our maximum effort in time of war, or which freezes production of basic agricultural commodities in particular areas of our country, with price supports for those areas, must at least take into considera- tion population shifts in times of either war or peace. Mr. HOPE, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the minority leader, the gen- Sleman from Massachusetts LMr. Mar- rIN |}. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Mr. Shairman, I take this time in order that the House may know the program for 1ext week from my distinguished friend she majority leader. Mr. McCORMACK. I am very glad ny friend has asked that. I have the drogram arranged for next week. On Monday there will be a continua- jon of the consideration of this bill, un- ler the §-minute rule—that is, the cotton icreage allotment and marketing quotas Hill. If that is disposed of in time we vill take up H. R. 5967, the freight for- warders bill. There will be a recess on Monday at '2:15 to mect members of the Japanese Diet on the floor, and to greet other dis- inguished Japanese visitors {n the gal- ery. There will be no joint session, lowever. On Tuesday there will be a short re- ‘ess to receive the Prime Minister of Australia, the Honorable Robert Gordon Menzies. There will be no joint session, 't will be a session of the House. On Tuesday H. R. 9176, the Defense >roduction Act of 1950, will be taken up ind its consideration will proceed until tis completed. If the freight forwarders CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE bill {is not disposed of on Monday, that will be displaced by the Defense Produc- tion Act of 1950. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. We expect that general debate on the de- fense bill will take all day Tuesday? Mr. McCORMACK. I think so. I do not know what the rule will provide as to general debate. However, Tuesday is a primaries day, and we have the usual understanding that if there should be any roll calls they will go over to the next ay. I see my friend from Massachusetts assumes that that bill will not be dis- posed of on Tuesday, and my assump- tion is the same, but its consideration will continue until it is completed. If the freight forwarders bill is not disposed of on Monday, it will be brought up again at the completion of the con- sideration of the Defense Production Act, unless in the meanwhile other legis- lation with priority should be reported out of committee and a rule be granted on it. Following that will be the Federal judgeship bills, which I am bringing up when opportunity presents itself. I have an important announcement to make in connection with the Social Se- curity conference report. It will be brought up on Friday, August 5. I would have liked to bring it up on Thursday, but on that day, again, primaries are be- ing held in some States, Tennessee, for instance, so the social-security con- ference report is assigned definitely for Friday, August 5, Other conference reports may be brought up at any time. Of course, we understand that the leadership on the minority side will be advised in advance if any are to come up. Any further program for next week will be announced later. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. Is it the intention to adjourn tonight until Monday? Mr. McCORMACK. We are going to adjourn tonight until Monday. Mr. HOPE. Ihave no further requests for time on this side. Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 minutes to the distinguished chair- man of the subcommittee on cotton, the gentlema. from Georgia [Mr. Pace], Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I should like to have as close attention as possible that I may undertake to go through the bill and explain its provisions. I shall try to speak clearly and carefully, be- cause by reason of the fact that I speak in behalf of the subcommittee, what I say will become a part of the legislative history of the legislation. In the last Congress we enacted a new cotton-quota law, generally referred to as Public Law 272 of the Eightieth Con- gress. In my judgment, it was a good law. In my judgment, if it had been administered according to the intentions of the committee, most of the difficulties which have been cited would never have occurred. Under that law there has not been a single complaint made to the com- mittee with regard to the allocation of acreage among the States. That is, as far as we were advised, every State was satisfied with its 1950 State acreage allot- 11281 ment; that is, its part of the national acreage, Outside of the great State of Texas, there were very few complaints, if any, with regard to the allotments made to the respective counties within the States. The complaints, almost en- tirely, have been the allocation of the county acreage among the individual farmers, For my part, I am not trying to blame anybody. I recognize it was a new law; there were few records avatle able; the law was passed late in the year; the regulations were late in being issued and distributed; but if the law had been administered according to the intention and philosophy of the committee, I do not think there would have been any serious difficulty. I should like to state what that philoso- phy is. I do not think anybody should attempt to legislate here until they do understand the policy or the philosophy of the committec in this legislation. We have 20 States growing cotton. There are local problems within every State, but in almost every State they are different. Texas, for example, has prob- lems that nobody else has. It has the great plains, It has ils enormous new areas. California has its problems. Mississippi has its problems, My State has its problems. It is utterly impossible to legislate on a national basis and solve these local problems with one law. You just cannot have a rule that would apply to them all, If you should try to enact a rule, you would necessarily have to make 20 exceptions before you could op- erate under it. Consequently, this is the philosophy of the committee. It was the philoso- phy of the bill last year, and it is the philosophy of the bill before you now. Please understand it. It is to give to every State its fair portion of the na- tional acreage allotment; and, as I said, every State has been satisfied with what it received in 1950. We then make it a State matter; we make it a home-rule affair; we give the great State of Mississippi, for example, so many acres for cotton and then we leave it to the State PMA committee in Mississippi and the county PMA com- mittees in the counties of Mississippi to administer the law. We give them the discretion, and we give them the author- ity to meet these local problems, to ad- just these inequities, and to do what is the overriding purpose of this legisla- tion, to assure the State, the county, and every cotton farmer a fair and equitable allotment of cotton acreage. It is a home-rule bill; we give to the State what it is entitled to, and then we direct the State authorities to adminis- ter the law within that State. This bill contributes further to that philosophy; it increases the discretion of the State committee and the county committees. We hope, to be sure, that we shall not have to come back here next year and enact another emergency bill like we did the early part of this year. The law, as we seek to amend it, would provide generally that whenever the supply of cotton exceeds a normal sup- ply, that is, whenever it exceeds the estl- mated domestic consumption of cotton, the estimated exports, plus 30 percent,
11282 the Secretary of Agriculture shall pro- claim quotas; then it becomes the right and responsibility of the cotton farmers to decide whether or not they want those quotas put into effect, and just one man more than one-third of the voting cotton producers can stop it. There must be at least two-thirds approving the proc- lamation of quotas, To give you an example that you may understand it, let us say that the esti- mated domestic consumption is 8,500,000 bales: that the estimated exports is 4,500,000 bales; those total 13,000,000. Thirty percent of that is 3,900,000. The 13,000,000 plus the 3,900,000 is 16,900,000 bales. Whenever the supply of cotton exceeds 16,900,000 bales the Secretary must under such conditions, proclaim quotas. It is now estimated that next week, the first day of August, the carry-over or surplus of cotton will be 17,000,000 bales; it is estimated that the acreage we have planted in cotton this year will produce between 10,000,000 und 10,500,- 000—some figure around 10,300,000 bales. There is a normal import of cotton into this country of 750,000 bales. The carry- over of 7,000,000 bales and the imports together total 7,250,000. Add to this the crop this year of around 10,300,000 bales and you have a total supply for the coming season of 17,550,000 bales of cot- ton. If you have this supply of 17,550,- 000, then, after deducting the estimated domestic consumption and exports, to- taling 13,000,000 bales, you will be left with a carry-over on Augusi 1, 1951, of 4,550,000 bales. If you should raise the estimate on domestic consumption and exports to 13,500,000 you would still be left with a surplus or carry-over of 4,050,- 000 bales, or 30 percent. This bill provides a definite plan for allotting acreage to counties and to farms next year, 1951; it also provides a special plan for 1952; then it is provided that thereafter the allotments shall be en- tircly on the basis of the acreage planted in cotton during the preceding 3 years. The committee is recommending the approval of section 1 of this bill which, for these 2 years, changes the conditions under which the Secretary shall order quotas by providing that if the supply exceeds the estimated domestic consump- tion and estimated exports, then he shall proclaim quotas. It is admitted that this makes quotas more certain in 1951 and 1952. I think it is of the greatest importance that this provision remain in the bill. You hear distinguished gentlemen come here and say they do not want quotas next year, that they want the chance to plant much more cotton and increase their base acreage. Let us see what would happen. Suppose we do not have quotas next year. Every Meniber of Congress from a cotton-producing district must go home and notify his cot- ton producers that the race is on, that the man who grows the most cotton is going to get the biggest allotment in the future. From my study and from my ex- perience we will have another 1937. What happened in 1937? In the fall of 1936 the Supreme Court of the United States declared the old AAA unconstitu- tional, There were no quotas on cotton CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE in 1937. The farmers planted 30,000,000 acres of cotton and produced 19,000,000 bales. It took us 7 years, with the aid of a war, to get rid of the surplus cotton pro- duced in 1937, Another likely effect is the same as we had with respect to the crop last year. They planted so much in 1949 that this committee recommended and the Con- gress passed a law outlawing the acreage planted in 1949 because it was recognized it would have been unfair to many areas. I want it clearly understood that not- withstanding the provisions of section 1 of this bill, if the Secretary proclaims quotas next year, he must proclaim a number of bales of cotton, and convert that to acres, to produce not less than the estimated consumption, the esti- mated exports plus 30 percent, which is a normal supply of cotton under the law. That requirement has not been changed. In addition, as the gentleman from North Carolina {Mr. Cootry!], has pointed out, there is retained section 471 of the old law. That section provides: First, if the Secretary of Agriculture, after proclaim- ing quotas—in October or even after they have been voted on by farmers on Decem- ber 15—determines that the allotted acreage is not likely to produce a normal supply of cotton, he may do either of two things. He may increase the national acreage, thereby increasing the allot- ment to every cotton farm in the Nation or he can entirely eliminate or terminate marketing quotas. Secondly, under section 471, if due to a national emergency—and I think we all agree that we face a national-emer- gency situation today—or an unantici- pated ‘ncrease in the exports of cotton, likewise the Secretary can either in- crease the national quota, increase the acreage, or he can entirely terminate quotas and let you plant as much addi- tional cotton as you desire. I am saying these things to make it crystal clear that there is not anything in this bill or existing law that will in the slightest degree hamper the Secre- tary of Agriculture in seeing that every bale of cotton is produced that we need for war or for any other purpose. The bill provides that after a State has received its fair portion of the acre- age allotment that the State committee shall reserve an adequate portion of that State allotment, not to exceed 10 percent, as a reserve to be used, as I mentioned a while ago, in meeting problems within the State, in seeing that every producer gets a fair allotment; that every county gets a fair allotment, adequate to take care of the farmers in the county. I think it is important that you under- stand what the discretion of the State committee is in the use of this State re- serve. Here is what the bill provides, They can use the reserve to adjust allot- ments to counties for trends in acreage, to meet the situation described here by the gentleman from Texas {Mr. Poacr], where some area in his State had a rapid expansion in the production of cotton during the last few years. That ts a trend, that is recognized and provided for, and they can give such area addi- tional acreage to take care of that trend. For abnormal conditions adversely af- JULY 27 fecting planting; for incomplete or in- adequate basic county data. We have had some complaints as to BAE figures. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics figures were questioned in some counties. We provide in the bill that if the State committee finds that to be true, they can allot to that county some additional acreage to take care of the error. The State committee can use this reserve to take care of appeals made by counties on the basis of either that their allotment is unfair or they have given too much acreage to some other county in the State. In addition, this State reserve can be used in making allotments to counties for new farms, for small farms, for farms adversely affected by abnormal conditions affecting plantings, that is, for example, where they have had a flood and could not plant their cotton, and for adjustments in the county where the county reserve has not been sufficient to bring about fair and equitable allot~ ments. Now, how shall the allotment to States be made? Next year, under this bill, the allotment to every State will be the same as it was this year, subject to such adjustment as is necessary by a change in the national acreage allotment. For example, the allotment this year was on the basis of 21,000,000 acres. If the Sec- retary allots next year 21,000,000 acres, then the allotment to each and every State will be the same as in 1951, which seemed to satisfy all the States. In 1952 the allotments to States shall be on the basis of the 4 years’ history, 1946, 1947, 1948, and 1950; that is to say, in 1952 the acreage shall be distributed out among the States according to the amount of acreage they had in cotton during those 4 years. Then, and this is important, in 1953 and thereafter the whole cotton acreage system goes on what we call a historical basis. The al- lotment to the State, the allotment to the county, the allotment to the in- dividual farm depends on how much cotton has been produced in that State, in that county, and on that farm dur- ing the preceding 5 years, of course ex- cluding 1949. Now, how shall the allotments to coun- ties be made? For 1951 the counties shall receive the same allotments as they did in 1950, this year, with such adjustments as the State committee may make out of the State reserve. In 1952 there is no change in the law as it is today; that is to say, the county allot- ment shall be made on the basis of the cotton planted in that county in the years 1046, 1947, 1948, and 1950. Then in 1953 and thereafter, as I have explained, there is no change in the law, and the county allotments will be made entirely on the basis of the amount of cotton pro- duced in the county during the preced- ing 5 years, excluding 1949. Let us spend a minute on the allot- ments to farms, I think you need to fol- low this rather closely if you want to advise your constituents. The county committee is directed to reserve in its hands, in the county office, before it makes the general distribution, an adequate acreage to make certain ad- justments set out in the act, in no event
1950 to exceed 15 percent of the county al- lotment. Next year each farm will have a base upon which its allotment is determined. That base will be either the allotment it received this year or, if the owner or op- erator applies for it, 65 percent of his 3-year average acreage in cotton in 1946, 1947, and 1948, or 45 percent of the high- est he planted in any one of those 3 years. Let me explain that. To try to cor- rect inequities we passed earlier this year what is known as Public Law 471. We provided that any farmer who did not have that much acreage could apply to his county committee and receive an additional allotment up to the higher of 65 percent of the 3-year average he had planted to cotton or 45 percent of the highest acreage he had planted in any one of those 3 years. Many farmers made application. Thousands of farmers throughout the Nation applied. They are getting the benefit of 1t now because we are making that their base, what they had this year. The committee feels that there are thousands of farmers who never heard of the provision. It was passed late, there were many farmers who had al- ready planted cotton before the act was passed, and they could not apply. So we provide here that any producer who did not this year avail himself of the 65-45 provision may come in next year to make application and use that as his hase Having set that up as 0 base, aliot- ments are made to each farm in the county by distributing out, you might say, 85 percent of the country allotment or the county allotment less the reserve Everybody gets an allotment on the ba- sis of that base Then it becomes the duty of the county committee to take a look at the tentative allotments made on that basis. They have in their hands up t) 15 percent that they reserved. They then have the respons:bility of correct- ing any unfair or inequitable allotments which have been made by the usc of the acreage reserved, and also of making ad- justments in small farm allotments and allotments to new cotton farms. They can increase the allotments ini- tially made to bring about fair and equitable allotments in relation to land, labor, and equipment available for the production of cotton. That is, if a man has a large farm and has adequate labor and adequate machinery and adequate land for the production of cotton they can give him an increased cotton acre- age allotment in keeping with those fac- tors. The county committee can take into account crop-rotation practices, that is, whether a farmer has been following reasonable crop-rotation practices. If he has, and if his acreage is small by reason of having followed these helpful practices, they can use this county re- serve to allot him additional acreage. Thirdly, if the county finds that a farmer has a low history because the floods came and he could not plant or for any other reason he did not get an opportunity to plant his cotton the previous year, they can give him an CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE extra allotment to take care of that abnormal condition. Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been said and will be said on Monday about small farms. I want to repeat the same thing I said last year. In my judgment there never has been a quota law passed which took into account so sympathet- ically the welfare of the small-cotton farmer. This bill seeks to do that and to increase the authority and discretion of the county committee to aid the small farmer. I shall not now attempt to enumerate the provisions, as I am quite sure some amendments will be offered which wili give me an opportunity to enumerate the special benefits set up in the bill for the small farmer. I do want to mention that there is a provision that out of the county re- serve at least 20 percent must be used only to increase small cotton farm allotments up to 10 acres. The State committee can, from the 1eserve, make special allotments to counties to increase smnall-farm allotments. And any acie- age which is surrendered in a county— that is where an allotment is made to me and I do not want to plant cotton, I can surrender it back to the county— and a portion of that is available for making allctments to small farms, In addition, small farms of over 10 acres may have their allotments in- erca:ed by the county committee, first by taking into account land, labor, and equipment; secondly, by taking into ac- count crop-rotation practices, thirdly, by taking into consideration abnormal conditions affecting plantings; fourthly, from acreage allotted to the county by the State committee for that purpose; and fifth, from surrendered acreage Mr. WHITE of Califorma. My Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. PACE I yield. Mr. WHITE of California. I should like to clear up the matter of this so- called 15-acre build-up A little con- thoversy has arisen in our area with respect thereto. I wish the gentleman would tell me if this is stated correctly: Under existing law the recervation of acreage for the so-called 15-acre build- up is merely permissive. Under the pending bill the reservation is manda- tory, is that correct? Mr. PACE. Under the pending bill it is mandatory that the county committee use 20 percent of the acreage that the county committee reserves for small farms up to 10 acres Mr. WHITE of California. I am com- ing to that, But is it not a fact that the existing law says “may” and the pend- ing bill says ‘shall’? Mr. PACE. That is correct. Mr. WHITE of California. Therefore it is permissive under the existing law and mandatory in the pending bill which makes the pending bill that much better for the small farmer; and while it is not mandatory that he now be built up to 15 acres it does bring him up to 10 acres for certain if it does not exceed the 20- percent reserve. Is that not right? Mr. PACE. The gentleman is right, that under this law it requires the county committee to give more consid- eration to the small farm because it is 11283 directed and made mandatory, as the gentleman says, that they reserve ade- quate acreage, but not to exceed 15 per- cent of the county allotment, to do these things. Mr. WHITE of California. I do not want to come on the floor tomorrow and surprise the gentleman with an amend- ment after talking in this vein. I do feel that the 5-acre proposition is not quite as good in this bill as it is in the old bill. It is my intention to offer an amendment which will keep the 5-acre man from being reduced along with the others of bigger quotas. Mr PACE Due to the lateness of the hour, I shall not undertake to discuss that issue now, but when the gentleman offers his amendment I will try to defend the position of the committee. The CHAIRMAN, The time of the gentleman from Ceorgia has again ex- pired, Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman five additional minutes, Mr. PACE There are numerous pro- visions for new farms, and I think it is important, becaure the gentleman from Texas |Mr. Beckwortu! has very right- fully been interested in the welfare of those who want to go into cotton produc- tion. A new farm 1s one on which cotton has not been planted for the last 3 years. It became neccesary, of course, that some definition be made, and that is the defin- ition conta:ned in the act It should be understood that there are other special provisions in this act for new farms.- Both the State reserve and the county reserve can he used for allot- ments to new farms Any acreage that is allotted to a county from the State re- serve for new farms or other purposes must be used for that purpose and none other. It is very important that we e.- tablish the intent of the committee in the legislative history Last year in some States, when the State committee allotted acreage to the county from the State reserve for a certain purpose, for some reason the county committees in- terpreted the law to mean that out of such allotment they received from the State they could use only 15 percent of {t for the purposes for which it was given to the county. It is very definitely the intention of the committee and the intention of the law that if, for example, a State committee allots 100 acres or 500 acres to a county for new farms, for small farms or for any of the purposes authorized by the law, that the entire amount allotted to the county by the State can be used and must be used only for the specific purpose for which it is allotted, I want to say one more thing about new farms. I want to explain to the gentleman from Texas |Mr. Beck wortH ] one of the reasons why he had such difficulty in his district last year with new farms. The law provides that a man who wants to get a cotton allotment but who is not producing cotton, shall file an application with his county committee. If I should be such a man, I would go in and file application for an allotment as a new farm, It is contemplated under the law and under this bill that I and you and everybody else in that county who
11284 wants a new farm allotment shall make application to the county committee. It is contemplated then that the county committee shall consolidate those ap- plications and send them to the State committee; that thereafter, after every county has received applications for new farms and the county committee has submitted to the State committee a re- port of its applications for new farm allotments; that then, and not until then, will the State committee attempt to distribute out the acreage it has re- served for making allotments to new farms. Now, what happened last year? It happened in the great State of Texas and probably in other States. This is not trying to be critical, but it is simply giving an example. Before the farmers of the State of Texas had filed a single application for a new farm allotment, the State committee of the State of Texas distributed out the reserve for new farms. They had no idea how many applications would be made in the coun- ty. I heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. BeckwortH] say a day or two ago that in one of his counties there were 600 applications for new farms. The State committee, of course, should never have distributed out the reserve to new farmers until those 600 applications had been submitted to the State committee and considered along with the applica- tions filed with the other county com- mittees. I daresay in some counties of Texas there were not over five applica- tions filed for new farms; certainly the State committee should consider the needs in the respective counties for new farm allotments before distributing the reserve. Mr. COOLEY. Is it not also true that the State committee did not reserve as much acreage as the law permitted them to reserve? Mr. PACE. It certainly did not. I think in that State they reserved three and a fraction percent of the State allot- ment when it was authorized to reserve 10 percent. But let me make it plain as a part of the legislative history of this bill that the Secretary of Agriculture should fix a date, October, November, or December, as he chooses, within which time the farmers must file applications for new farm allotments. When those are closed they should be consolidated by the county committees; they should be referred to the State committee, and not until then should the State commit- tee make an allocation to the counties for new farm allotments. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has again ex- pired. Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Georgia five addi- tional minutes. Mr. PACE. Let me say also that, of course, the county committee should not distribute any cf its reserve to any new farms until all the applications have been filed, as I have stated. I think that is important because it did contribute to the situation which we faced. Let me say in conclusion that there are other provisions in the bill, some of which are minor. I shall not go into them, except to mention one. We have CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE here tried again to take care of the situa- tion in the far West. I think the com- mittee did the best it could to take care of the problems of the far West with respect to long-staple cotton. The bill contains one provision that I regard as a@ most liberal provision for the pro- ducers of long-staple cotton. First, we assure them a support price on long- staple cotton. Let me say this to you— Iam sorry if it takes time: The question arose as to whether or not under Public Law 272 support was provided for long- staple cotton. After long deliberation, the Solicitor of the Department of Agri- culture ruled that it did not authorize @ support for long-staple cotton. The long-staple producers of Arizona and other States now have pending in the Federal courts a suit to compel the Sec- retary of Agriculture to support the price of long-staple cotton for the year 1950. The committee is not here at- tempting in any way to settle that law- suit, and wants it understood that noth- ing that we do here has any intent or purpose of determining whether or not under the present law long-staple cotton was to be supported or was not to be supported; that question is an issue for the courts and should be determined by the courts. What we are doing here is at least to clarify the matter; we are at least making it certain that next year and the years to come the producers of long-staple cotton shall have the same support price on a comparable basis as the producers of short-staple cotton. We also make it certain that the cot- tonseed from long-staple cotton shall also enjoy a comparable support price with the cottonseed from short-staple cotton. We improve generally the machinery of the marketing quotas under Public Law 272 as to long-staple cotton, which was rather loose and indefinite. We assure the long-staple cotton producers a@ very generous minimum allotment for long-staple cotton. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Mr. will the gentleman yield? Mr. PACE. I yield. Mr. FERNANDEZ. Would the gen- tleman be in position to say what was intended in the other law? Mr. PACE. I am sure the gentleman observed that I said it was not the in- tent, purpose, or desire of the committee to settle that lawsuit. Mr. FERNANDEZ. I understand; but I was asking the gentleman's opinion as to what was intended in the old law. Mr, PACE. Mr. Chairman, let me say in conclusion—I shall not undertake to explain the details here—that the pro- visions of the bill as to long staple are most acceptable to the producers of tong- staple cotton. I think they agree that the committee has been most generous to them. It has given them a minimum allotment which is very, very generous, It must be understood that up until this year, and for the last few years, there have been only a few thousand acres put into long-staple cotton. This year they have, I belteve, about 110,000 acres in long-staple cotton. We have tried to make a very generous provision for the producers of long- staple cotton in the West and in return Chairman, JULY 27 it is the earnest hope of the committee that those who serve the long-staple areas will find it possible to support the bill in its entirety. Mr, COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the bill for amendment. ‘The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That section 342 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended by striking the period at the end of the first sentence and insert- ing in leu thereof a colon and adding the following: “Provided, That the Secretary shall proclaim a national marketing quota for the 1951 cotton crop if he determines that the total supply of cotton for the marketing year 1950--51 will exceed the estimated domes- tic consumption plus exports for such mar- keting year, and shall proclaim a national marketing quota for the 1952 cotton crop tf he determincs that the total supply of cotton for the marketing year 1951-52 will exceed the estimated domestic consumption plus ex;orts for such marketing year.” Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. Rooney, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H. R. 9109) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended; the Soil Conservation and Domestic Al- lotment Act; Public Law 174, Seventy- seventh Congress; the Agricultugal Act of 1949; and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon. ADJOURNMENT UNTIL MONDAY Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today it adjourn to meet on Monday next. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A further message from the Senate, by Mr. McDaniel, its enrolling clerk, an- nounced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 6073) entitled “An act to amend section 50 (b) (6) of the In- ternal Revenue Code.” The message also announced that the Senate had passed, without amendment, a bill and concurrent resolution of the House of the following titles: H.R. 8514. An act to amend the Tariff Act of 1980 to provide for exemption from duty of certain sound recordings imported by the Department of State, and for other purposes; and H. Con. Res. 288. Concurrent resolution increasing the compensation of employees of the Government Printing Office engaged in the preparation of the indexes of the Con- GkEsSIONAL RECORD. The message also announced that the Senate had passed bills of the following titles, in which the concurrence of the House {!s requested: 8. 289. An act for the relief of Tania Ipolo and Lans Boulanovsky;
1950 §.297. An act for the relief of Ruggiero DiCostanzo; 8.305. An Lafitte; 8.459. An act for the rolief of Cornelis Ruhtenberg, also known as Cornelis Ruhten- berg Helmsing; 8.619. An act for the rellef of Spicer Ice & Coal Co.; 8 815. An act to authorize the sale of in- herited interests in certain allotted land under the jurisdiction of the Crow Creck In- dian Agency; 8. Dak.; 8.816. An act to authorize the sale of inherited interests in certain allotted land under the jurisdiction of the Pine Ridge In- dian Reservation, S. Dak.; 8.827. An act tu amend the act of June 16, 1934, to provide for allowances to the heirs, representatives, and assigns of Frank J. Boudinot, deceased, in the event of favor- able determination by the Indian Claims Commission of certain claims of the Chcre okee Indians; S 868. An act for the rellef of Mrs. San- ford Pruitt; 8.918. An act for the relief of Clara Sogor; S.1064 An act to authorize the sale of land allotted to Mrs. Irls Huebner Marak of the Pine Ridge Reservation, 8. Dak.; 5.1171. An uct to prevent unautherized acceptance or wearing of foreign decorations by officers of the United States; S 1222. An act to authorize the sale of inherlted interests in certain allotted land under the jurisdiction of the Pine Ridge Indian Agency, S. Dak.; § 1260 An uct for the relief of Stefanos Stefanou; S 1277. An act for the relief of Athanasios Elias Cheliotis, S. 1281. An act to amend the Federal Air- port Act so as to make the United States share of costs for land acquisition the same as for other pioject costs; 8.1269. An act for the relief of Collins Sterling Smith; S.1292. An act to amend section 82 (a) (2) of the Trading With the Enemy Act; § 1344. An act for the relief of Gerda Mol- ler Uldall and her son, Mikkel Moller; §.1420 An act for the rellef of Antonio Garcia Jiminez; S. 1426. An act to authorize the sale of lands allotted to James Brown on the Ciow Reservation, Mont.; 8.1457. An act to authorize the sale of lands allotted to George C. Estes on the Lower Brule Indjan Reservation, 8. Dak.; S.1501. An act for the rellef of Mr. and Mrs. Ray S. Ber1um; 8.1568. An act for the rellef of Anna Raj- mann; 8.1860. An act for the relief of J. Don Alexander; S.1819. An act for the relief of Azy Ajde- rian; act for the relief of Jullo 8. 1858. An act to permit the admission of . alien spouses and minor children of citizen members of the United States Armed Forces; 5.1866. An act for the relief of Mrs. Clayre Louige Forsyth; S. 2173. An act for the relief of Giuseppe Moschetti, and his wife, Dina Bartoli Mo- schett!; 8. 2204. An act for the relief of Rudolph Farcher; §. 2253, An act for the relief of Dr. In Sung Kwak; S. 2347. An act for the relief of Freidoun Jalayer; 8.2401. An act for the relief of Elizabeth Martha Haug; §. 2423. An act to amend section 7 of the act of February 27, 1925 (43 Stat. 1008), re- lating to the Osage Indians of Oklahoma; 8.2457. An act to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear, determine, and render judgment upon the claim of A. K. Chahroudl; CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE 8.2550. An act for the relief of Arthur Henrik Sorensen, Maren Anderson Sorensen, and minor child, Evelyn Sorensen; S. 2576. An act tor the relief of Jeno (Eu- gene) Kupferstein; S.2669. An act for the relief of Arturo Benetti; 8.2614. An act for the relicf of O. O, Haugen; S. 2617. An act for the rellef of Ermalinda Mary Pizzuto, 8.2618. An act for the relief of Fred P. Hines; 8.2625 An act for the relief of Ivo Marsak; S 2633. An act to give effect to the Con- vention for the Establishment of an Inter- national Commission for the Scientific In- vestigation of Tuna, signed at Mexico City January 25, 1949, by the United States of America and the United Mexican States, and the Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, signcd at Washington May 381, 1919, by the United States of Amcrica and the Republic of Costa Rica, and for other purposes; 5 £635. An act to amend the Soil Conserva- tion avd Domestic Allotment Act, as amended; S 2636. An act to amend the Soil Conserva- tion and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended; S.2780. An act for the rellef of Juime Riel; § 2791. An act for the relief of Jarmila Zituikova; S 2801. An act to give effect to the Inter- national Convention for the Northwest At- lantic Fisheries, elgned at Washington under date of February 8, 1249, and for other pur- poses; 5.2809. An act to provide for an agricul- tural program in the Virgin Islands; S 2844. An act for the relief of Biagio Poidimani; S 2863. An act to provide for the expan- sion and disposition of certain national cemeteries; . § 2897. An act for the relief of Hyman D. Langer and Alta Jourard Langer; S. 2929. An act to amend section 32 of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended, so as to permit the return under such section of property which an alien ac- quired, by gift, devise, bequest, or inheri- tance, from an American citizen; S.2930. An act to amend and clarify the District of Columbia Teachers Leave Act of 1949, and the District of Columbia Public School Teachers’ Retirement Act of 1920, and for other purposes, S 2054. An act for the rellef of Agnes Biro and Anna Biro, S 3000. An act to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended; 8.3005. An act for the reef of Haddad; S.3017. An act for the relief of Sergeant James C. Hollon and Bessie L. Hollon; 8.3059. An act for the relief of John J. Sebenick; 8.3097. An act conferring jurisdiction upon the United States District Court ior the Southern District of Mississippi to hear, de- termine, and render judgment upon the claim of O. S. Rees; 5.3098. An act to amend section 104 of title 28 of the United States Code so as to create a Greenville division in the northern district of Mississipp!, with terms of court to be held at Greenville; §, 3123. An act to amend section 5 of the act of February 26, 1944, entitled “An act to give effect to the Provisional Fur Seal Agreement of 1942 between the United States of America and Canada; to protect the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands; and for other purposes”; 8.3129. An act to authorize the sale of in- herited interests in certain allotted land under jurisdiction of the Rosebud Indian Agency, South Dakota; Olga 11285 § 3180. An act to amend the District of Columbia Teachers’ Salary Act of 1947; 8.3238. An act for the relief of Dr. Fred- erick Damiel McDade; S.3£89. An act for the relief of Hisako Okamoto; 8.3308. An act to provide for the payment and collection of wages in the District of Columbia; 8.3325. An act for the rellef of Isolde Bezner; , 5.3409. An act to establish a new Grand Teton National Park in the State of Wyo- ming, and for other purposes; 8.3446. An act to authorize the restora- tion of Edwin M. Rosenberg, lieutenant com- mander, retired, to the active list of the United blates Navy; S.3522, An act to amend section 824 of the Ccde of Laws for the District of Co- lumbia, 8.3555. An act defining and regulating the practico of the profession of engineering and creating 4 Bouid of Registration for Profes- sional Engineers in the District of Columbia; 8.35"9. An act for the rellef of Midship- man Willis Howard Dukelow, United States Navy: 8 3584 An act to amend the act of June 9, 1906 (34 Stat. 227), entitled “An act grant- ing land to the city of Albuquerque for pub- lic purposes”; 8.3585. An act for the relief of Dodge County, Wis; S 3610. An act for the relief of R. W. Har- ris, authorized certifying officer, Bureau of Federal Supply, Treasury Department; 8.3611. An act for the relief of Dorrance Ulvin, former certifying officer, and for the relief of Guy F, Allen, former chief disburs- ing officer; 8 3613. An act for the relief of certain Chinese stewards of the United States Navy; 8.3614 An act for the relief of John B, Underwood, Jr., TMC, United States Navy; §, 3644. An act to amend the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended; 8 3652. An act to facilitate the settlement of the accounts of certain deceased civilian officers and employees of the Government; 8.3653. An act to provide for financing the operations of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Treasury Department, and for other purposes; 8 3659. An act to amend title IV of the District of Columbla Revenue Act of 1937, as amended, so as to provide for the issuance o* dealers’ identification tags for use on trailers, to provide for the revocation and suspension of dealers’ registration and iden- tification tags, to change the fee for dealers’ identification tags, to provide for the issu- ance of special use identification tags, and for other purposes; S$ 3698. An act to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to furnish, upon a reimbursable basis, certain inspection services involving overtime work; 8.3709. An act for the rellef of certain dis- bursing officers and former disbursing off- cers of the naval service, and for other pur- poses; 8.3728. An act to relmplement Reorgani- gation Plan No. 20 of 1950 by amending title i of the United States Code, as regards pub- lication of the United States Statutes at Large, to provide for the publication of treaties and other international agreements between the United States of America and other countries in a separate compilation, to be known as United States Treaties and Other International Agreements, and for other purposes; 8.3796. An act to amend section 4474 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, relating to the use of petroleum as fuel aboard steam vessels; 8.3800. An act to amend title 18 of the United States Code, relating to the mailing of obecene matier,
11286 & 3832. An act to approve a contract ne- gotiated with the Ogden River Water Users’ Association, to authorize its execution, and for other purposes; 8 3838. An act to approve a contract ne- gotiated with the South Cache Water Users’ Association, to authorize its execution, and for other purposes, 8 3875 An act to amend section 9 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949; 8 3898 An act to authorize a preliminary examination and survey for flood control and allied purposes of Las Vegos Wash end its tributaries, Las Vegas, Nev., and vicinity; S 3901 An act amending section 384 of the Trading With the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 411), as amended; S 3906 An act to amend the War Contrac- tors Relicf Act with respect to the definition of a request for relief, to authorize consid- cration snd settlement of certain claims of subcontractors, to provide reasonable com- pensation for the services of partners and proprietors, and for other purposes; 8 3921, An act to provide for the tem- porary appointment of referees in bank- ruptcy, and for other purposes; S 3934 An act to amend the act of May 13, 1924 (43 Stat. 118), as amended, relating to the United States-Mexican boundary; 8 3959. An act to amend the Federal Prop- erty and Administrative Services Act of 1049, and for other purposes; S.J Res. 20, Joint resolution authorizing the President to issue a proclamation desig- nating October 31 of each year as Youth Ronor Day, 8 J.Res 147 Joint resolution giving the consent of Congress to an agreement be- tween the State of Missour! and the State of Kansas establishing a boundary between said States, 8 J Res 150. Jotnt resolution designating the third day in September of each year 85 Children’s Day; 6 J Res 174, Joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to the entry, by the Biate of Missour! and the State of Illinois, into a compact or agreement between the State of Missouri and the State of Illinois creating the Bi-State Development Agency and the Bi-State Metropolitan District; 8 J Res 193. Joint resolution to amend section 14 of the Merchant Ship Sales Act of 1946, as amended, for the purpose of cor- recting an error in Public Law 591, Eighty- first Congress, and 8 Con Res $7. Concurrent resolution fa- voring the suspension of deportation of cer- tain aliens. The message also announced that the Senate had adopted the following reso- lution: Senate Resolution 317 Resolved, That the bill (H R 1603) en- titled ‘For the relief of Walter P. Gardner, sole surviving trustee of the property of the Central Railroad Co, of New Jersey” now pending in the Senate, together with ell the accompanying papers, is hereby referred to the Court of Claims; and the court shall proceed with the same in accordance with the provisions of sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28 of the United States Code and re- port to the Senate, at the earliest practicable date, giving such findings of fact and conclu- sions thereon as shall be sufficient to inform the Congress of the nature and character of the demand as a claim, legal or equitable, aguinst the United States and the amount, if any, legally or equitably due from the United States to the claimant, SPEAKER AUTHORIZED TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS Mr. McCORMACK Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwith- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE standing the adjournment of the House until Monday next the Clerk is author- ized to receive messages from the Senate and that the Speaker be authorized to sign any enrolled bills and joint resolu- tions duly passed by the two Houses and found duly enrolled. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE JAPANESE DIET Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order on Monday next for the Speaker to declare a recess at any time, subject to the call of the Chair, to receive dis- tinguished members of the Japanese Diet on the floor and greet other dis- tinguished visitors from Japan in the gallery. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday next it may be in order for the Speaker to declare a recess at any time, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of meeting and receiving the Prime Min- Aster of Australia, The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. AMENDMENT TO THE HATCH ACT Mr. McCORMACK. Mr Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the imme- diate consideration of the bill (H. R. 9023) to amend the Hatch Act. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, will the gentleman from Massachusetts explain this bill? Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, this bill is substantially the same as a bill that passed the House a year ago last Febru- ary and gives the Civil Service Commis- sion discretion in connection with pun- ishment that might be meted out in cer- tain cases where there is only a technical violation of the law. Instead of a com- plete separation from service any agency will have the discretion in connection with the punishment it might give. This bill passed the House in practically the same form last year, although the pres- ent bill contains a few amendments which make it better than the bill was last year when it passed the House by unanimous consent, Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. That is all it does? Mr. McCORMACK. Exactly. Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts. The gentleman does not know whether the Senate will tack on a new and much larger bill? Mr. McCORMACK. That is unpre- dictable, JULY 27 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc, That section 9 (b) of the act entitled “‘An act to prevent pernicious political activities,” approved August 2, 1939, is amended to read as follows: “(b) If in the case of any person violating the provisions of this section !t is found by the United States Civil Service Commission that such violation warrants removal he shall be immediately removed from the posi- tion or office held by him, and thereafter no part of the funds appropriated by any act of Congress for such position or office shall be used to pay the compensation of such person, If the Commission finds that the violation does not warrant removal, a leaser penalty shall be imposed by direction of the Commission. The Commission ts authorized and directed to reopen and recon- sider all cases heretofore determined under this act in which a penalty of removal from office or position has been imposed and in Meu of such penalty of removal to impose @® penalty within the limits hereinbefore authorized in this section if in the Judgment of the Commission the violation would not have warranted removal if this amendment had been In force and effect at the time of such Violation.” This act shall become effective upon pas- sage. With the following committee amend- ments: Page 2, line 4, strike out the words “and directed” and insert “in all cases, and directed in such cases as may be accompanied by writ- ten application” in Meu thereof, Page 2, strike out line 14 and ddd a new section to read as follows: “Ssc. 2. Section 9 of such act, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: ““(o) At the end of each fiscal year the Commission shall report to the President for transmittal to the Congress the names, ad- dresses, and nature of employment of all persons with respect to whom action has been taken by the Commission under the terms of this section, with a statement of the facts upon which action was taken, and the penalty imposed.’ ” The committee amendments were agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon- sider was laid on the table. CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the busi- ness in order on Calendar Wednesday of next week be dispensed with. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. GREENVILLE DIVISION IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Mr. WHITTINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the umme- diate consideration of the bill (S. 3098) to amend section 104 of title 28 of the United States Code so as to create a Greenville division in the northern dis- trict of Mississippi, with terms of court to be held at Greenville. The Clerk read the title of the bill.
1950 The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mis- sissipp1? There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc, That section 104 of title 28 of the United States Code is hereby amended to read as fotlows: “§ 104 Mississippi “Mississippi is divided Into two judicial districts to be known as the northern and southern districts of Mississippi, “NORTHERN DISTRICT “(a) The northern district comprises four divisions. “(1) Eastern division comprises the coun tiles of Alcorn, Attala, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Clay, Itawamba, Lee, Lowndes, Mon.oce, Oktibbeha, Prentiss, Tishomingo, and Winston “Court for the eastern division shall be held at Aberdeen “(2) The western division comprises the counties of Benton, Calhoun, Grenada, La- fayette, Marshall, Montgomery, Pontotoc, Tippah, Union, Webster, and Yalobusha “Court for the western division shal] be held at Oxford. “(3) The Delta division comprises the counties of Bolivar, Coahoma, De Soto, Pa- nola, Quitman, Tallahatchie, Tate, and Tunica, “Court for the Delta division shall be held at Clarksdale “(4) The Greenville division comprises the counties of Carroll, Humphreys, Leflore, Sunflower, and Washington “Court for the Greenville division shall be held at Greenville, “SOUTIIERN DISTRICT “(b) The southern distiict comprises five Aivisions “(1) The Jackson division comprises the counties of Amite, Copiah, Franklin, Hinds, Holmes, Leake, Lincoln, Madison, Pike, Rankin, Scott, Simpson, and Smith. “Court for the Jackson division shall be held at Jackson. “(2) The eastern division comprises the counties of Clarke, Jasper, Kemper, Lau- derdale, Neshoba, Newton, Noxubee, and Wayne. “Court for the eastern division shall be held at Meridian. “(3) The western division comprises the counties of Adams, Clutborne, Issaquena, Jef- ferson, Sharkey, Warren, Wilkinson, and Yazoo. “Court for the western division shall be held at Vicksburg. “(4) The southern division comprises the counties of George, Hancock, Harrison, Jack~ son, Pearl River, and Stone, “Court for the southern division shall be held at Biloxi. “(5) The Hattiesburg division comprises the ccunties of Covington, Forrest, Greene, Jefferson Davis, Jones, Lamar, Lawrence, Marion, Perry, and Walthall. “Court for the Hatttesburg division shall be held at Hattiesburg.” The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The proceedings whereby a similar House bill (H. R. 7399) was passed were vacated, and the bill was laid upon the table, REFEREES IN BANKRUPTCY Mr. HOBBS, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 3921) to pro- vide for the temporary appointment of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE referees in bankruptcy, and for other purposes The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama? There keing no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc, That section 43 of the act entitled “An act to establish a uniform system of bankruptcy throughout the United States,” approved July 1, 1898, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: “d Whenever the office of a refeiee ts vacant the judge or the chief judge of the Qistrict may, with the approval of the Direc- tor as to the necessity therefor, appoint tem- porarily a referee who shall serve at such salut y as may be fixed by the Director to serve until the conference shall have acted with reference to the vacancy as provided by sec- tion 43b. Whenever a referee is temporarily absent or unable because of illness or for other reasons to act, the Judge or the chicf judge of the district muy, with the approval of the Director as to the necessity therefor, appoint temporarily a referee who shall serve at such salary and for such period of time as may be fixed by the Director. Any salary fixed pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to the limitations prescribed by sec- tion 40 of this act” Mr. HOBBS. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. Hoss: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the provisions of H. R. 9171 as passed, as tollows: “That subdivision c of section 43 of an act entitled ‘An act to establish a unitorm sys- tem of bankruptcy throughout the United States,’ approved July 1, 1898, as amended, is amended to read as tollows. “‘c, Whenever the office of a referee is va- cant or its occupant is temporarily absent or disqualified to act, or whenever the expedi- tious transaction of the business of the ccurt or courts of bankruptcy may require, the judge, or any one of the Judges, may act or the Judge or the chief judge of the disiiict may designate and assign temporarily any referee of the district to act, or the chief judge of the circuit may designate and agsign temporarily one o1 more referees within the circuit to act upon presentation of a certif- icate of necessity by the judge or chief judge of the district wherein the need arises, or the chief judge of the circuit may order that pending cases be rereferred and future cases 1efcrred to one or more referees within the circuit; or the Chief Justice of the United States may designate and assign temporarily a@ referee from another circuit to act upon presentation of a certificate of necessity by the chief judge of the circult wherein the need artses. No designation and assignment shall be made without the consent of the chief Judge or judicial council of the circult from which a referce is to be designated and assigned, All designations and assignments of referees shall be filed with the clerks and entered on the minutes of the courts from and to which made. The Chicf Justice of the United States or a chief judge of a circuit or a Judge or chief Judge of a district may make new designations and assignments in accord- ance with the provisions of this subsection, and may revoke those previously made by him.’ ” The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table, 11287 The title was amended so as to read: “A bill to provide for the temporary as~ signment of referees in bankruptcy, and for other purposes,” The proceedings whereby a similar House bill (H. R. 9171) was passed were vacated, and the bill was laid on the table. ESTABLISHING BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE STATE OF MISSOURI AND THE STATE OF KANSAS Mr. HOSBBS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the joint resolution (S 147) giving the consent of Congress to an agreement between the State of Missouri and the State of Kansas estab- lishing a boundary between such States. The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ala- bama? There being no objection, the Clerk read the joint resolution, as follows: Whcreas the Gencral Assembly of the State of Missouri passed an act known and desig- nated as senate bill No 141, bearing the signature of James T Blair, Jr, president of the senate, Ray Hamlin, speaker of the house of representatives, and the signature and approval of Forrest Smith, Governor of Mis- sounl, under date of Decen ber 19, 1949; and Whereas the Legislature of the State of Kansas passed a similar act known and designated as house bill No. 25, bearing the signatures of Dale M Bryant, speaker of the liouse of representatives; Frank L Hagaman, president of the senate, and the signature and approval of Fiank Cailson, Governor of Kansas, under date of February 22, 1949; and Wheicas the said acts provided in sub- stance that upon the ratification of said acts by the Congress of the United States, the center of the channel of the Missouri River, as its flow extends from its intersection with vhe fortieth parallel, north latitude, south- ward to the middle of the mouth of the Kansas 01 Kaw River, shall be that portion of the true und permanent boundary line be- tween the States of Missouri and Kansas, subject only to chunges which may occur by the natural processes of accretion and reliction, but not by avulsion; and Whereas the said acts of the States of Missour! and Kansas constitute an agree- ment between said States establishing a boundary line between said States: Therefore be it Resolved, ete., That the consent of the Congress is hereby given to cuch agreement and to the establishment of such boundary, and said acts of the States of Missourl and Kansas are hereby approved. The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon- sider was laid on the table. The proceedings whereby a similar House joint resolution (H. J. Res. 402) was passed were vacated and the joint resolution was laid on the table. SOUTH CACHE WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (8. 3833) to approve a contract negotiated with the South Cache Water Users’ Association, to authorize its execution, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill.
11288 The . Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the contract dated May 24, 1950, negotiated by the Secretary of the Interior with the South Cache Water Users' Association pursuant to subsection (a) of section 7 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (58 Stat. 1187), is approved, and the Secretary is hereby authorized to execute it on behalf of the United States. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was Jaid on the table. The proceedings whereby a similar House bill (H. R. 8961) was passed were vacated, and the bill was laid on the table. OGDEN RIVER WATER USERS’ ASSOCIATION Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 3832) to approve a contract negotiated with the Ogden River Water Users’ Association, to authorize its execution, and for other purposes. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? ° There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc , That the contract dated May 23, 1950, negotiated by the Secretary of the Interior with the Ogden River Water Users’ Association pursuant to subsection (a) of section 7 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (58 Stat 1187), ts approved, and the Secretary is hereby authorized to execute it on behalf of the United States. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The proceedings whereby a similar House bill (H. R. 8962) was passed were vacated, and the bill was laid on the table. NATIONAL CEMETERIES Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 2863) to provide for the expansion and disposi- tion of certain national cemeteries. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida? There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, ete., That the Secretary of the Army is authorized and directed— (#) to expand existing facilities at the Rock Island National Cemetery, Rock Island, Til., by utilizing not to exceed 30 acres of federally owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army adjoining the present national cemetery facility, which are surplus to military needs, and to pro- vide for the care and maintenance thereof under the same regulations as prescribed for other national cemeteries under the jurisdic- tion of the Department of the Army; and (b) to expand existing factlities at the Fort Leavenworth National Cemetery, Fort Leavenworth, Eans., by utilizing not to ex- ceed 8 acres of federally owned land under CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army, adjoluing the present national ceme- tery facility, which are surplus to military needs, and to provide for the care and maine tenance thereof under the same regulations as prescribed for other national cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Navy is at- thorized to transfer, without compensation therefor, to the Secretary of the Army for cemeterial purposes such Government-owned land under the jurisdiction of the Depart- ment of the Navy, located adjacent to the Barrancas National Cemetery near the city of Pensacola, Fla., as may be determined by the Secretary of the Navy to be available for the expansion of said cemetery. The lands transferred pursuant to the provisions of this act shall be constituted a part of the Ferrancas National Cemetery. Src. 3. That the conditions and the pro- viso contained in section 1 of the act of March 3, 1911, entitled “An act providing for the taking over by the United States Government of the Confederate Cemetery at Springfleld, Mo.,”” which affect the use to which the land comprising the Confederate Cemetery at Springfield, Mo., can be placed, be, and the same hereby are, made inap- plicable to that portion of said Confederate Cemetery located outside of the walled en- closure which presently contains the graves of men who were in the military and naval seivice of the Confederate States of America: Provided, That said land located outside of the walled enclosure shall be utilized as a part of the Springfield National Cemetery. Sc. 4 The Secretary of the Army !s au- thorized to transfer to the State of Ken- tucky, or to a county or municipality there- of, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the tract of land acquired for the establishment of the Perryville Na- tional Cemetery, under authority of the act of Congress entitled “An act to erect a tablet or merker In the memory of the Federal soldiers who were killed at the Battle of Perryville, and for other purposes,” approved March 3, 1928, without cost to said State, county, or municipality: Provided, That should the State of Kentucky or any potitical subdivision thereof fail to indicate its destre to acquire the property within 90 days after the enactment of this measure, then the property shall be disposed of in accordance with existing law after removal of the monu- ment therefrom. The Secretary of the Army is further authorized and directed to re- move the monument which was constructed in the Perryville National Cemetery under authority of the act of Congress approved March 8, 1928, from its present location and to reerect it in the Camp Nelson National Cemetery, Nicholasville, Ky. Sec, 5. There are hereby authorized to be aprpopriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this act. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the provisions of H. R. 6807 as Passed, as follows: “That the Secretary of the Army is au- thorized and directed— “a, to expand existing facilities at the Rock Island National Cemetery, Rock Island, TIL, by utilizing not to exceed 30 acres of federally owned lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army adjoining the present national cemetery facility, which are surplus to military needs, and to provide for the care and matntenance thereof under the same regulations as preacribed for other na- tional cemetertes under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army; and “b. to expand existing facilities at the Fort Leavenworth National Cemetery, Port Leavenworth, Kans., by utilizing not to exe Jury 27 ceed 8 acres of federally owned land un- der the jurisdiction of the Department of th> Army, adjoining the present national cemetery facility, which are surplus to mill- tary needs, and to provide for the care and maintenance thereof under the same regula- tions as prescribed for other national ceme- teries under the jurisdiction of the Depart- ment of the Army. “Src. 2. The Secretary of the Navy is au- thorized to transfer, without compensation therefor, to the Secretary of the Army for cemeterial purposes such Government-owned land under the furisdiction of the Depart- ment of the Navy, located adjacent to the Barrances National Cemetery near the city of Pensacola, Fla., as may be determined by the Secretary of the Navy to be available for the expansion of said cemetery. The lands transferred pursuant to the provisions of this act shall be constituted a part of the Barrancas National Cemetery.” The amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The proceedings whereby a similar House bill (H R. 6807) was passed were vacated, and the bill was laid on the table. BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING, TREASURY DEPARTMENT Mr. KARSTEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill (S. 3653) to pro- vide for financing the operations of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Treasury Department, and for other pur- poses. I may say that this is identical to a House bill that was passed earlier today, H. R. 8662. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mis- souri? There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, ete, That whenever any work or services are requisitioned from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Treasury Department (hereinafter referred to as the “Bureau”), the requisitioning agency shall make payment therefor from funds available to it for such purposes at prices deemed by the Secretary of the Treasury (herein- after referred to as the ‘“Secretary”) to be adequate to recover the amount of direct and indirect costs of the Bureau, including its administrative expenses, incidental to per- forming the work or services requisitioned. Requisitioning agencies shall make payment to the Bureau promptly on the basis of bills tendered by the Bureau. Sxc. 2. (a) There ts hereby established, as of July 1, 1951, a Bureau of Engraving end Printing Fund (hereinafter referred to as the fund”). The fund shall be capitalized on the basis of— (1) an initial appropriation by the Con- gresa to the fund of not to exceed $5,000,000 and euch additional amounts as from time to time may be appropriated for the pur- poses of the fund, which sums are hereby authorized to be appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated; (2) all of the receivables and the tmnven- tories and other physical assets of the Bureau as of the close of business June 30, 1951, exclusive of buildings occupted, land, and the unexpended balances of appropriations made to the Bureau, such inventaries and other physical assets to be capitalized at fatr and reasonable values to be determined by the Secretary; and