observed is most alert in the interest of the welfare of the cotton growers of California. Mr. WHITE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PACE. They are both contributing immeasurably to the work of this committee. We are delighted to have had you here today. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pace. We feel we are well represented here. Mr. PACE. I am sure you are. Thank you so much. The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock in the morning when we will hear from the Farmers' Union. (Whereupon, at 11:50 a. m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a. m., the following day, Wednesday, February 2, 1949.) COTTON ACREAGE ALLOTMENT AND MARKETING QUOTA PROGRAM WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1949 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. PACE. The subcommittee will please come to order. It is the pleasure of the committee this morning to have with us representatives of one of our great farm organizations, the National Farmers' Union. There is present the president and the legislative counsel. Mr. Patton, we will be very glad to hear from you at this time. Mr. James G. Patton, president of the National Farmers' Union. STATEMENT OF JAMES G. PATTON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION Mr. PATTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the record my name is James G. Patton, president of the National Farmers' Union. Our home office is 1555 Sherman Street, Denver, Colo. Mr. Chairman, in December of 1944, I submitted a statement to a subcommittee on cotton of this committee as constituted in the Seventy-eighth Congress. It was not possible for me to be present in person, but the statement was read for me, as you, Mr. Chairman, may recall, since you were also chairman of that subcommittee on cotton. That statement concluded as follows: We believe that we must seek an agricultural program that is based on stability, a pattern of agricultural production that will permanently fit the dietary needs of the Nation, one that will not call for sweeping year-to-year adjustments. And we believe that it is absolutely essential that such program deal with each farm as an individual unit and be fitted to meet the needs of that farm, its operator, and his family. After all, what the committee is dealing with is not a commodity. Cotton is only incidental. What is important is people. If you solve the problems of southern farm people, so will you solve the problems of cotton. That statement can well stand today as the expression of the Farmers' Union on the general problem with which the committee is faced. It is just as accurate a reflection of the thinking of our people now as it was then. It does not seem to us, as the quotation indicates, that it is possible to develop a long-range program for cotton apart from the development of a general agricultural program. The very fact that mechanization is forcing people off cotton farms and that the increasingly smaller acreage devoted every year to cotton must call for the growing of other crops indicates that this is a matter that concerns the farmers of the whole country. It is difficult for me to see how a long-range cotton program can be separated from these and other causes that affect agriculture as a whole. For this reason I hope the committee will bear with me today as I discuss a cotton program in general terms. There is, of course, a need for a general agricultural program that will recognize the conditions and difficulties of southern cotton farmers, but I am convinced that a general program that is properly devised, one that is dedicated to the encouragement and promotion of the family-type farm, will meet the conditions of the cotton South without a special program. After all, the problems of cotton are the problems of people being forced off the land, of diminishing markets, of mechanization, and of competition of too many people for too few acres of good soil. These problems are apparent more in the South simply because the pressure of population is greater. But the problems themselves exist in some degree in every section of the Nation. I know that this committee must deal with certain concrete problems. I know for example that it is called upon to decide if the current year is to be used in the calculation of acreage allotments, and I believe that it would be unwise to include this year because of the temptation such inclusion would provide to indulge in a race for the establishment of an acreage base. I know also that you are confronted with decisions as to the proper method figuring average yields and production in relation to allotments. But from our point of view, I see no necessity for attempting to go into such technical discussions, since our organization strongly inclines to the view that the whole acreage-allotment system could well be abandoned. We believe that a simpler adjustment mechanism can be devised, one that will take more cognizance of the needs of family farmers. If acreage allotments are to be continued, however, we recommend that minimum allotment of 25 acres be given to every farmer. This at least would give a firm base to the small farmers who are increasingly having difficulty in maintaining their position in the light of the comparatively greater advantages derived by large operators from the operation of the acreage-allotment system and the price-support systems of the past. A percentage system in the allotment of acreages works greatly to the disadvantage of such farmers. After all, if cotton is 30 cents a pound, for example, and a farmer averages 250 pounds to the acre, his yield per acre of $75 will give him an income of but $1,875 for a year's work. I submit that in the American society and economy that does not constitute an exorbitant standard of living. I have already said that we hope that the entire acreage-allotment system can be done away with. Its difficulties and evils have become apparent to all of us and I think most members of this committee at times have hoped that some other method for agricultural adjustment could be devised. The system has led to the construction of a vested interest in the allotments themselves. It has tended to freeze the industry so that no new operators could enter it. It has taken little account of changing conditions, so far as human welfare is concerned. In lieu of acreage allotments, we suggest that a well devised general agricultural program may enable us to do away with it. So far as cotton is concerned, the report prepared in the spring of 1945 by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics still remains a valid and well thought out fundamental basis for a farm program that would be of special application to the South. In its summary of this program, at that time, the BAE said: Another course is open-an agricultural conversion program to take full advantage of the tides that are running and to harness their power constructively. Such a conversion program would call for a competitive price for all cotton so as to increase consumption and encourage production of the South's leading crop by farmers who could grow it efficiently. A conversion program also would assist farmers who cannot grow cotton profitably to shift to other farm enterprises and would assist underemployed members of the region's dense farm population to leave agriculture altogether for productive work in industry or trade. Conversion would mean fewer and larger farms, better farm incomes, and a higher agricultural income for the whole region. Hand in hand with the agricultural conversion program would go a broad program to encourage greater industrialization in the South. Obviously, people should not be encouraged to leave farms unless they have good jobs to go to in other lines. Also, more industry and trade in the South will mean better markets for the farm people who remain on the land. Mr. PACE. Mr. Patton, do you care to be interrupted now or would you rather complete your statement? Mr. PATTON. If I may, I would rather complete my statement because it ties in better. Mr. ANDRESEN. Just one question. On the statement you read about the diversion program; it seems to me that runs counter to the philosophy of the family-sized farm. It is stated in there "conversion would mean fewer and larger farms." Mr. PATTON. I think, Congressman Andresen, that read just in that context as those few words that that might be true, but the whole program goes on, as we have proposed a number of times, to take other steps than just price; to create a condition where a farm family would have an economic-sized unit, where you would have sufficient ground to fully employ family labor and at the same time yield them a reasonable standard of living. But, of course, read in just the context that you raise there that implication might be read into it. The total report, as I recall it, and I do not have it before me, and certainly our point of view is that there are many units that are too small and that steps should be taken through credit and other measures which can be taken to increase those units to a size where they are economically efficient. Mr. ANDRESEN. Do you have in mind then that there would be a reallocation of the operation of the farms? You would take the larger units in the farming areas and divide that up and let smaller operators with small acreage use some of that land. Mr. PATTON. I touch on it later. At this point I am not thinking so much of allocations as such but of the total program in agriculture which would come more nearly, or as near as possible, to building economic units. I think I cover that in part in the rest of my statement, Mr. Andresen. Mr. POAGE. I think if you will proceed we will probably get along a little faster. Mr. PATTON. All right, sir. A major element of course in the BAE's projections then was the industrialization of the South. We agreed than and have since worked hard to help bring this about. At about the time I made the statement to which I previously referred, the National Farmers' |