Mr. PACE. Mr. Hand, I noticed that the Delta recommends that the marketing quota for a farm be the actual production on the allotted acreage rather than the present law providing for the actual production on the allotted acreage or the normal yield, whichever is the greater. Why did you propose that we change that?

Mr. SAYRE. Mr. Congressman, it was our feeling that it would simplify the operation of the act and would cause it to operate in such a way that there would be no difficulty of any cotton shifting from one farm to another.

Mr. PACE. What would be the simplification? You said you would not have the normal yield. The normal yield would be more simple to use than the actual production.

Mr. SAYRE. Our feeling was that the normal-yield figures sometimes do not actually reflect your productivity in the sense of giving you wide fluctuation.

Mr. PACE. The normal-yield estimate is usually down, rather than being up.

Mr. SAYRE. It varies.

Mr. PACE. Well, judging from the experience of the Federal Crop Insurance organization, that would be true?

Mr. SAYRE. We felt that going to an actual yield for that particular year would get away from all comparisons.

Mr. PACE. Shall this committee, in its consideration of this legislation, consider only the ease of administration or shall we take into account the economic welfare of the cotton grower? That is the whole purpose of quotas-try to improve the economic situation of the cotton grower. The philosophy of the act of 1938 which says the greater of the actual or the normal was that a man may have only 5 or 10 acres of cotton. He may make four bales of cotton. If he has a bad season and makes only two bales of cotton, if he happened to have overplanted in that year for his own sake and that of his wife and children we should let him go ahead without penalizing him on that acreage to the extent of the four bales he normally makes on that 10 acres. Do you see what I am talking about?

I think while we are trying to be easy on ourselves, we cannot be too hard on the man working in the sun producing the cotton.

Mr. SAYRE. We would certainly agree with that, Congressman Pace. We would not want it to encourage a little bit of overplanting as a bit of insurance just to be sure that the farmer did get up to a normal production.

Mr. PACE. It has not had that effect in the past, so far as the committee has been informed. You even go so far here as to recommend a 5 percent overplanting. You have a recommendation that will certainly increase overplanting a lot more than this proposal would because you just actually invite it.

Mr. SAYRE. We do suggest that they be permitted to pay the penalty on the 5 percent overplanted.

Mr. PACE. But it does not affect these other rights.

Mr. SAYRE. After the penalty paid; that is right.

Mr. PACE. Have you studied that thing out so you know you do not want to include the normal yield?

Mr. SAYRE. Yes. That was the considered opinion of the group, which gave a great deal of time and attention to it.

Mr. PACE. This may not be a fair question but I hope you will understand. How many in that group were people who did not have more than 5 or 6 or 7 acres of cotton?

Mr. SAYRE. That group was made up primarily of county committeemen and members of our own agricultural committee.

Mr. PACE. How many on that committee have only 5 or 6 or 7 acres of cotton?

Mr. SAYRE. I could not say, sir. I doubt if there were any.

Mr. HAND. Might I add that this is one of those points on which we are in complete agreement with our State PMA committee, where the representation is 4 to 1 from the other areas of the State.

Mr. PACE. I hope this will be understood, but the recommendations we have received so far indicate that the State committeemen and the Department of Agriculture were very much influenced in their recommendations to this committee by the ease of administration. I think if we are putting the American taxpayers to the trouble of paying 4 or 5 billion dollars a year to feed somebody over in a foreign country we can spend a little money and little trouble to look after our own little cotton growers.

go to

I have a feeling-it may be a wrong feeling that my duty is as much or perhaps a little bit more to the little fellow than it is to the big fellow. I am going to see also that the big fellow is treated fairly. Do you understand?

Mr. HAND. Yes, sir. I certainly agree with you on that point. Mr. PACE. Now, in the same connection, speaking of 5 percent overplanting. What was your idea of putting that in?"

Mr. HAND. To give a little tolerance. That perhaps makes some concession to the administration of the program as well. It is very difficult for a man with supposedly measured acres when his crop is checked by the performance supervisors to find that he has a precise amount of acreage planted slightly over what he is allowed. Previously if he underplanted he lost that history and if he overplanted he did have the privilege of plowing up the excess, but it had to be precise, even down to a tenth of 1 percent, I think. If he did not get it accurate, he was penalized.

Mr. PACE. What you are recommending is merely that he will not suffer a reduction in acreage in the next year by reason of overplanting not in excess of 5 percent. The Department has come in here and recommended that if he overplants next year he will be given additional acreage to the extent of 60 percent of his overplanting. Would you want to join in that recommendation?

Mr. HAND. Up to this point we have not been willing to agree with that theory.

Mr. PACE. Do you think that a noncooperator should be rewarded? Mr. HAND. No, sir.

Mr. PACE. Do you think he ought to get any additional acreage by reason of his excess production?

Mr. HAND. No, sir.

Mr. PACE. At any time?

Mr. HAND. Not during the time when the quotas are in effect.

Mr. PACE. And your recommendation is that if he deliberately overplants in excess of 5 percent to take care of unintentional underplanting, he should not get the benefit of the support program? Mr. HAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. PACE. Do I understand that you recommend that we first recognize the formula set up in the Aiken bill for putting quotas into effect; that is, the estimated domestic consumption and exports plus 30 percent plus 8 percent, and then say that you think the growers should have an opportunity to consider quotas at 100 percent of normal?

Mr. HAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. PACE. Where do you stand on that? Do you stand on the Aiken bill or the other?

Mr. SAYRE. Mr. Congressman, without the provisions of the Aiken bill in effect, the sliding parity support relationship, we would feel that the present basis on which the referendum would be called is satisfactory, but we are very much concerned that title 2 of the act of 1948 states in the legislation that we have an opportunity to vote for quotas when we have 100 percent of normal supply, again to avoid piling up a large surplus.

Mr. PACE. Which would be estimated consumption and exports plus 30 percent.

Mr. SAYRE. Yes, sir; that is right. We think the 30 percent would give us adequate carry-over to avoid trouble.

Mr. PACE. I think this committee is going to have to deal with that question. I think the amount of cotton on hand is too high under the Aiken bill. You have to have a surplus of over 4,000,000 bales before the farmers can have the right to vote on quotas. I think a constant surplus in excess of 4,000,000 bales is going to constantly depress the price and keep it down to the support level. What do you think about voting on quotas whenever the estimated domestic consumption and exports are 30 percent below the supply? Mr. SAYRE. We suggested leaving it out if the Aiken bill stays in effect. We have felt, however, with the world supply of cotton being somewhat more favorable now than in recent years, that if we can move ahead with aggressive measures toward the finding of outlets for our cotton both at home and abroad-and I use the word "aggressive" there not in any sense other than that we try hard to sell our cotton abroad-we may find the opportunity of moving substantial amounts that would keep us at a fairly high production level. That in turn also relates to one of the reasons why we left the national minimum at 10,000,000 bales in our suggestion. We felt that we would like every effort to be made on the part of private and governmental interests to market American cotton in every way possible.

Mr. PACE. Will they ever have as favorable a condition as today when we give it to them? You do not hope to sell more cotton than we are now able to give away; do you?

Mr. SAYRE. No, Mr. Congressman; it has been the agricultural history of cotton, I believe, that as we have had surpluses on hand we have made more effort to dispose of those surpluses than in periods when we are in short supply.

Mr. PACE. Of course, necessity is the mother of invention and we have brought in the subsidy and section 32 and other methods. Mr. White has a question.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Hand, have you any information on the average size of the farm in the Mississippi Delta?

Mr. HAND. No, I have not. We have a figure that shows that 30 percent of them are in excess of a hundred acres.

Mr. WHITE. In other words, it is generally understood that they are rather large in size compared to the rest of the country; is that not correct?

Mr. HAND. As far as management is concerned, but, as far as the productive units on those holdings are concerned, they are still by small individual farmers. The tenant system gives us a very much higher proportion of small farmers than is indicated by the taxable units of property.

Mr. WHITE. I was interested in your discussion there with our distinguished chairman about the violent effect of a reduction down to 8,000,000 bales in the national allotment. I noted with interest that you did not show any particular displeasure at an allotment which would produce 10,000,000 bales or 20,000,000 acres as the minimum but that when 8,000,000 bales was mentioned you did not seem to like that much.

Off-hand, we can readily see that that constitutes a reduction of 20 percent, from 10,000,000 down to 8,000,000 bales. I believe the evidence all shows that everyone who has testified on the matter and who pretends to know very much about it has agreed that 20,000,000 acres would be all right and that that reflects a 14-percent reduction on the average for all the States from their 1948 acreage. Do you follow me on that?

Mr. HAND. I do not have the acreage figures. You are talking about planted acres for 1948 rather than allotted acres?

Mr. WHITE. That is right; planted acres for 1948. In other words, our current economy in the Nation. In a recommended reduction to 20,000,000 acres that presents a 14-percent reduction average for the various States. In adding to that a 20 percent greater reduction to get it down to 8,000,000 bales, that throws you down to a 34percent reduction from your current economy for the Nation and, of course, you object to it and I agree with you. It is too violent. But I call your attention to the fact that in California under your own proposal we are reduced about 471⁄2 percent. I might say to you that we are figuring in California in submitting what we call a little gadget which I assure you will in no way cause an increase in the minimum national allotment but it deals only with the distribution as between States on whatever the allotment may be. Would you not say that the committee would be justified in adopting a philosophy which would produce a bill out of this committee that would recognize the fact that the far Western States, California, Arizona, and New Mexico, should not be reduced more than 5 percent more than the rest of the Nation?

Mr. HAND. Mr. Congressman, I had not given special consideration to that. However, we have had to deal with the same problem within our own State. We have many growers in our State who will have to make the same proportionate reduction in plantings that you are talking about for your State.

After reviewing it-I want to say again that on our four PMA representatives from other areas of the State to one from the Delta area-it was their judgment that the recommendations here would come most nearly to accomplishing justice for people who have a longer history as compared to the people who have the shorter history. There has to be some compromise somewhere. Where it will more

nearly accomplish justice I cannot say other than that in considering the case within our own State this is the answer we have reached.

Mr. WHITE. I am sure you have recognized the fact that these allotments proposed by the Department of Agriculture do justice to farms and to States more than they do to people. After all, the thing we are interested in is justice to people. Also I call your attention to the fact that in figuring a 5-year period you use 2 years, 1945 and 1946, that are definitely war years so far as the young men are concerned.

There are many young men, as you know, who reached their majority after 1942 and who could not possibly have had an allotment at that time or who might have been forced to sell their farms when they went into the service and then they came back and wanted to start all over. We must remember that the allotment is attached to the farm and not to the man. Those things I ask you to take into account and I ask the committee to take them into account. I am very hopeful that we will have some sort of adjustment to take care of that.

Mr. PACE. Are there any further questions of Mr. Hand?

Mr. Hand, the committee is certainly indebted to you and your associates for coming here and giving us the benefit of your views on these problems. So far as I know, you may be excused and not stay over until tomorrow.

Mr. HAND. Thank you.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

You may have covered it in your original statement, Mr. Hand. I am wondering if there have been some shifts in agricultural production in the Delta area. It seems to me I read in the papers that you were producing 200 bushels of corn to the acre down there.

Mr. HAND. They have got it by a stunt performance, but it is not a habit, I assure you. We have hopes of increasing the productivity of our acreage planted in corn through improved practices and it does offer some hope. Our average for the State may be 20 bushels this year.

Mr. ABERNETHY. Twenty-four.

Mr. ANDRESEN. What is the average yield in the Delta?

Mr. HAND. Not over the State average. We do a rather shabby job in corn production.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Have you had any expansion in livestock production?

Mr. HAND. Yes; we have over a long period of time but for the State as a whole I do not think our increase in livestock is too much. Mr. ABERNETHY. There are some increases in livestock production. I do not know the figure but there is a considerable increase.

Mr. ANDRESEN. Mississippi has always been a great dairy State according to the advertisements that I have received from the State authorities. I was just wondering what you were doing in the Delta area to expand dairy production. You say nothing in particular is being done?

Mr. HAND. It is not appreciable.

Mr. ANDRESEN. I assume that you people who raise cotton historically recognize the fact that the sale of cotton produced in this country is on the decline unless we give it away?

Mr. HAND. Yes.