say that I agree with him a hundred percent. I was going to offer the suggestion that when these shifts are taken into consideration all of the people involved in shifts should make an application by a certain date to the county committee or the State committee, as the case may be, and that the Congress in the legislation should set up some type of formula so all of those people who make these applications would be treated equally insofar as possible and no discrimination would be shown. Just to leave it blank seems to leave a lot of power in the hands of a few people.

Unfortunately, as you well know, I am sure, most of these committeemen who would have these things under control are pretty big farmers themselves and have relatives who are big farmers. That is the thought I had in mind and I am pretty sure Mr. Gilfoil had it in mind.

Mr. GILFOIL. Yes, sir.

Mr. PACE. Let me say that it is not my thought to just say here is 10 percent, period. I think the committee would want to let them have that 10 percent with rather specific instructions to prevent any arbitrary use of it. I think there would have to be certain standards set up, but there would not be a fixed formula. I do not think we would want to give anybody that much arbitrary power but we would give it to them under appropriate instructions, under the general supervision of the Secretary of Agriculture.

Are there any other questions of Mr. Gilfoil?

I should call your attention to one other comment you made. You state here that no grower should be given an allotment in excess of the 1948 planned acreage. That would go pretty tough with this man I am telling you about who planted only once in 3 years and in 1948 he planted nothing, would it not?

Mr. GILFOIL. Yes, sir. I might further state that because of that mistaken impression I had I thought his figure was to be kept constant even as under the provisions of Public Law 12, and that he would have some set acreage that would be applicable for that year whether or not he planted cotton that year.

Mr. PACE. Well, there is no such thing in the Department's recommendations.

Mr. GILFOIL. I can frankly state that I cannot agree with their recommendations on that point.

Mr. PACE. Thank you very much, Mr. Gilfoil.

Mr. GILFOIL. Mr. Chairman, if I may I would like to make one further statement. We also disagree with the idea of having a national reserve for this reason: It would also place in the hands of the Secretary of Agrciulture, I suppose, a very enormous power. If it were desired by the Secretary that any one State history be built up as compared with that of another State he would have in that case, it seems to me, a free hand to bring that about. Therefore, we think each State should look after its own problems in that matter.

Mr. PACE. We understand that the only reserve that the Secretary would have would be the new grower acreage of not more than 2 percent.

Mr. GILFOIL. Mr. Chairman, our position on that is this: If the Secretary, at his discretion, can allot 2 percent of this Nation's cotton acreage as he sees fit, it is quite possible that the Secretary would see fit to allot that 2 percent to one State and therefore build

up that State's production record to the detriment of all other States producing cotton. It might even be used in a political manner. We will say for instance that the administration in power at the time should want to carry the State of California in a national election, or for that matter the State of Texas or any other State. I am making no particular reference to any one State. Would it not be possible for the Secretary to throw that whole 2 percent to that State and thereby have a very large influence on the farming population of that State? Mr. PACE. I will tell you what we had in mind. We had in mind providing that the new grower allotment would have a size limit. placed on it. We would keep any new grower from getting as much or more acreage than an old grower gets.

Secondly, the new grower allotments shall be made to the States. on the basis of the bona fide applications filed by the new growers. after being investigated and approved by the community committeemen. John Smith, we will say, wants to grow cotton. He must, by the first of September or the first of October, file an application as a new grower in Louisiana. That application would be filed with the county committee. They would go out and investigate the applicant and his farm to see whether or not he is equipped to grow cotton, whether he has the acreage available for cotton, or the proper type of soil, and other circumstances. Then if they find it is a bona fide application and the man is entitled to the acreage, they approve that application.

That application, along with all the others in the State of Louisiana, would then move to the State office. The State office would assemble them and notify Washington that they have applications from 500 new growers which have been approved by the local committeemen and the county committee. Then Louisiana would be made that allotment in keeping with those applications and assuming that. there was no more than sufficient to take up the entire national allotment for new growers, you would be allotted that acreage.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I am Everett Johnson, representing the Farm Bureau.

Do you not think that if you required the grower to file an application that early in the fall you would run into deep water for the simple reason that a lot of those boys that are coming back will possibly want to go into cotton growing in January or February?

Mr. PACE. What boys?

Do

Mr. JOHNSON. The GI's and the shift of labor that we have. you not think that should be broken down to the States and let the States have that to be handled as new crops in that State instead of being left in the national pool?

Mr. PACE. I do not want to take sides on this question because we must later pass on it but the argument is advanced that a man who is going to grow cotton in 1950 and who has never grown any cotton in his life must necessarily be getting busy by the first of September or the first of October, getting ready to grow some cotton. He has to be in the market for his seed. He has to get his cotton planter and his cotton hoes and other implements.

In other words, a fellow just does not get into the cotton business from January to the first of March in my country. I doubt if he can in your country. Then the time was advanced, of course, in order to

89529-49-- -28

give the county and the community committeemen an ample opportunity to investigate each application and get it into the State office and get it up here in time to make these allocations.

I would like to see the cotton allotments made in December. I do not want these cotton allotments made late in the season. We had them made down in my country once after they had planted cotton. They changed the rules in the meantime and called us noncooperators because they gave us our allotment after the cotton had been planted. Mr. JOHNSON. I would like to see that too, but we are still in that category that we are the only businessmen in the world who can go broke every fall and go back into business in the spring. Therefore, we usually make our arrangements for the spring while we are broke in the fall.

Mr. PACE. Well, I think that is exceptional. I think if you are getting your money from the Government you will file your application pretty early in the fall. I know you do not have to borrow money in Louisiana, but some other people do.

Mr. JOHNSON. We thank you for the compliment.

Mr. PACE. Let me make one more comment. Whether it is good or bad I would not want to say, but the Department recommended that the making of new grower acreage allotments to States has resulted in enormous quantities of that acreage being allotted to a State and never used. They thought that was terrible. I can see where the old growers would say that is a good thing. We are not throwing away 2 percent of our acreage every year. Of course, as you say, you can take 2 percent a year and in 50 years you can take the cotton belt and move it somewhere else. That was their reason for presenting that recommendation. You think they ought to keep it and allot it to the States as they have been doing in the past?

Mr. GILFOIL. No, sir; Mr. Chairman, I believe each State should handle its own problem. I do not believe the Department should allot any specific amount to a State for a new grower allotment. Mr. PACE. That is the way they have been doing.

Mr. GILFOIL. I believe that should come out of this reserve which we were just talking about.

Mr. PACE. You mean you would not have any new grower allotment at all?

Mr. GILFOIL. Yes, sir; but not on the part of the National Government in its break-down to the States. I believe that should come out of the State reserve as set up by the State.

Mr. PACE. Should come out of this 10 percent?

Mr. GILFOIL. Yes, sir. Furthermore, if it should be held that the national reserve for that purpose should be in the hands of the Department of Agriculture, I think the Department should be limited in the amount that it could allocate to any one State. We might use a figure of 10 percent of that 2 percent reserve. That would prevent giving it all to one State at one time. Of course, it could still have the same cumulative effect.

Mr. PACE. Let me ask you to look at that 10 percent a minute. Perhaps it is a good figure. We will take the State of Texas for instance. Out of a 20 million national acreage allotment, Texas would get 71⁄2 million. Under any system Texas would get more than a third of the national allotment. Receiving more than a third of the national allotment, do you think their new grower allotments should be limited to 10 percent of the over-all acreage available for new growers?

bad pro

Mr. GILFOIL. Yes, sir, I still do. I think that is a very vision as is and I think if we have to have that provision it certainly should receive that limitation.

Mr. PACE. Notwithstanding the fact that probably Texas, more than any other area, is presented with the new grower problem more than anybody else on account of this irrigated area on the one hand and the high plains area on the other hand and the brushland area in addition, they have three areas in Texas that are expanding in

cotton.

Mr. GILFOIL. That might be an argument in favor of giving them the whole 2 percent and that is what I am trying to get away from. Mr. PACE. I do not know how my friend from California would react to this, but would it not be fairer if you put it on the basis that a new grower allotment shall not be a higher percentage of the new grower acreage than the State allotment is of the national acreage? Then if a State receives 5 percent of the national acreage allotment it should not receive more than 5 percent of the new grower allotment. Mr. GILFOIL. That sounds very reasonable, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHITE. May I be recognized, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. PACE. I thought I would get a reaction from the gentleman from California.

Mr. WHITE. We produce so much more than the national average per acre that figuring that aspect of that strictly on an acreage basis would certainly be doubly unfair to us.

Mr. ABERNETHY. It would be just the reverse.

Mr. WHITE. No, you see our acreage is 810,000 and that is only a very small percentage of the national acreage whereas our production is about twice that much.

Mr. PACE. I know that but if you can raise three times as much cotton as I can, then every time I give you an acre in baleage it is giving you three bales to every one I get and a bale of cotton is what you are getting money out of.

Mr. WHITE. I see your point.

Mr. PACE. In other words, if you are going to put it on a yield basis, then you should get one-third as much.

Mr. WHITE. Should it not be this way, Mr. Chairman: Should you not pool all of the applications for new acreage and then divide them on the basis of giving each State a percentage of the total new acreage to equal its percentage of total acreage in all States making applications for new grower allotments.

Mr. PACE. As I told them, that is what the Department recommended.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Would this not happen if you did that: Over a period of years you could eventually shift, with that 2 percent, the old areas completely out of cotton, because they have no new lands? We do not have any new land in Mississippi. Sooner or later you would eventually put us out of business.

Mr. GILFOIL. That is exactly my point, Mr. Congressman. Mr. PACE. Are there any other questions of Mr. Gilfoil? Gentlemen, we are greatly indebted to you for coming here. It is something the committee needs. The Farm Bureau came in with its recommendations and in effect advised this committee that there is not accord in the recommendations of the Farm Bureau. It is through this conflict, these differences of opinion, that the committee hopes in

its limited capacity that we might be able to reach some sound. sensible conclusions for the cotton farmers of the Nation.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would like, representing the Farm Bureau again, to say that concerning the conservation payments which we set forth of $2,500 per person, as our neighbor over there has recommended, I would like to go with him if he could get appropriations high enough to take care of all of our farms but in 1944 you will ecall we practically spent twice as much as our appropriation. We had gone ahead and the farmer had bought all these goods and we had told him that we were going to pay our proportionate part of it. We were in pretty bad shape. We could not do it. So we had to come back to you again. You did agree to go ahead and make new appropriations to take care of that, but you did tell us not to do that any more because if we did you were not going to take care of us. If you put that too high I am of the opinion-I know it is true in our district-that some counties down there would have an allotment of only about $60,000. In that way six men in that county could get the entire allotment by filing their applications. When they decrease that too severely there has been quite a bit of that money that has been returned.

But, if you put it on $2,500 to each person, we will be able to handle it more economically and it will be more equally distributed among all the farmers in the State.

Mr. PACE. Thank you very much. It so happens, however, that while this committee has legislated on that question, the Appropriations Committee, through the limitation of the expenditure of the funds it authorizes, has taken it entirely without the jurisdiction of this committee and it is now handled by a limitation on the appropriation bill.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

We will hear at this time Mr. William Planz who is chairman of the Textile Industry Committee on Foreign Trade. Mr. Planz has to leave here at 4 o'clock. We will be very glad to hear from you at this time.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. PLANZ, CHAIRMAN, TEXTILE

INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN TRADE

Mr. PLANZ. Thank you sir. My name is William C. Planz. I am vice president of Neuss, Hesslein Co., a leading textile export. house, and have spent nearly all my business career in the textile export business. I am also vice president of the Textile Export Association of the United States and chairman of a newly created committee known as the Textile Industry Committee on Foreign Trade. This committee is comprised of representatives of the four major associations of the American cotton textile industry, namely: American Cotton Manufacturers Association, Association of Cotton Textile Merchants, Cotton-Textile Institute, and Textile Export Association. Its purpose in brief is to maintain and develop the industry's export and import trade and to combat unfair restrictions imposed on American textiles by nations abroad.

On behalf of the Textile Industry Committee on Foreign Trade, I have requested this opportunity to appear before your committee to advise you of our existence and to give you the current status and