Page:GPO-CRECB-1937-pt2-v82.pdf/32

1086 small farmers in the hill sections of the Cotton Belt who have been denied the right to plant as much as 5 or 7½ acres under the previous control programs. I know from personal knowledge that when the Government enforced the average base acreage provision of the law, resorting to the history of the cultivation of cotton in my own State, there were a great many farmers who were planting 4 or 5 acres from year to year, depending somewhat on other crops on their farms for cash. Yet, when the strict rules of the control program of the past were applied, these farmers who were planting 4 or 5 or 6 acres were cut down to 1, 2, 3, and 4 acres, and they have been living up to the Government's regulations. So, if this provision remains in the bill, these farmers, who have been cut to the quick as a result of the rigid rules of control programs in the past, will still be denied the opportunity to plant 7½ acres allotted as an exemption to all the cotton farmers of the Cotton Belt.

Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BILBO. I yield.

Mr. OVERTON. As I interpret the proviso, the historical background refers to only the two preceding seasons.

Mr. BILBO. Yes.

Mr. OVERTON. Was there any control program during the two preceding seasons referred to in the proviso?

Mr. BILBO. Yes. Under the soil-conservation program the farmers were held to the old base acreage, which had been established under the Bankhead Act, and in their attempt to keep faith with the Government and keep up with the program, a great many of the farmers stood by the old acreage basis which had been established for them under the old cotton-control program, and they are in just as bad shape now, notwithstanding the fact that they had a right to override the soil-conservation program and become outlaws, so far as the Government program was concerned. They preferred to stay with the Government in the attempt to control the production, but are still denied that acreage which they had been planting previous to the original control program.

If this provision remains in the bill, these farmers who have been discriminated against under the old program will still be discriminated against and denied their seven and a half acres. I take it that the statement of the Senator from Alabama is true that there are, we will say, thousands of farmers who do not care to plant seven and a half acres, and who have been planting only 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 acres to make one bale for a little cash money, depending upon dairying or other cask crops. There is nothing in the provision to induce them to plant the full seven and a half acres which is allowed for each family. Therefore I do not think there will be any increase in production if this provision is taken out, because the people who did not want to plant more than 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 acres will still be free to plant the full number of acres.

Mr. BANKHEAD. Mr. President, I think the Senator in that statement entirely overlooks the fact that if the cotton is allotted, that amount is taken out of the quotas of other farmers. Let me read the figures as to the cotton farmers. The number of farmers who produced up to one-half a bale was 37,235. Those producing from one-half to one bale amounted to 143,738. Those producing from one bale to one and a half bales numbered 268,587. This is cumulative, the last figures including the ones ahead of them. Those producing from one and a half to two bales numbered 403,257. Those producing from two and a half to three bales numbered 676,028. Those producing from three to three and a half bales, which reaches up into the 7-acre bracket, numbered 809,862. So, the Senator may readily see that where farmers in this large number voluntarily, of their own accord, have been producing much less cotton, it is an invitation to the other growers to take this quantity.

Mr. BILBO. Mr. President, I appreciate the statement the Senator from Alabama makes—that we will make an allocation of acreage or bales to these small producers, that they will not avail themselves of the opportunity to produce the cotton and that we will freeze a certain number of bales under the national allotment to these farmers, and that others will not be permitted to grow cotton.

I assure the Senator that when we provide for a cut in the production of cotton for next year the allotment will be taken care of all right, because that means that the farmers whose acreage has been reduced will improve their cultivation and increase the amount of their fertilizer, and they will get more than the national allotment in the final outcome.

Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, the Senator said there would be no inducement for these farmers to plant the entire 7½ acres. If this bill works, there will be because the theory is that the price will be raised, and whenever the price is raised every inducement is present to make a man plant all he can.

Mr. BILBO. There is nothing in that contention because the ones the Senator from Alabama is trying to take care of——

Mr. BANKHEAD. I am not trying to take care of anybody. I am trying to prevent an injustice to the old-line cotton grower.

Mr. BILBO. The ones the Senator is attempting to eliminate have never attempted to plant more than 2 or 3 or 4 acres, no matter what the price of cotton was.

I want to know whether the Senator has any suggestion to make about taking care of this great army of planters who have been discriminated against, and who have not heretofore been permitted to plant the acreage they formerly planted.

Mr. BANKHEAD. There was but one year when the acreage was restricted. The act of 1934 was not passed until the crop had been planted. In 1936 and 1937, as suggested by the Senator from Louisiana, there was absolutely no restriction of any sort on any cotton grower as to how many acres he could plant or how many bales he could grow. It was all voluntary.

Mr. BILBO. I make the prophecy that if this provision remains in the bill there will be tens of thousands of small farmers who will be discriminated against and denied the 7½ acres we are attempting to give to every one-horse farmer of the Nation.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I think we must all admit that the so-called little farmer has been discriminated against in the cotton program, and I believe that in the pending measure we have our only chance to correct a grievous wrong which has heretofore been committed against him. I do not wish to wreck the cotton program, but there is a human element in this agricultural question which cannot be overlooked.

Whether we admit it or not, for many years there were going over this country extension agents and others preaching diversification. Diversification has been engaged in by a certain class of farmers, but not by the cotton farmers, not the mechanized farmers, not the men who plant their fence corners in cotton every year; and they are the men who are creating the surplus of cotton in this country today.

The hill man, of whom the Senator from Mississippi speaks, like the other little farmer, has engaged in diversification over a period of many years. He does not have sufficient base acreage. The diversification program was adopted by him, not because he wanted to adopt it, but because of necessity. It was necessary for him to raise on his farm the food products necessary to support his family, and naturally his cotton production was reduced to the minimum. The cotton he produced was merely a small amount to be used in paying taxes and other necessary expenses he had to meet in the fall of the year.

When the restriction program was inaugurated, he was the man who was injured, and that man on the small hill farm, with his family, took his percentage of cut just the same as anyone else did, just the same as the large farmer did. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Mississippi will in large measure render justice to that man, and it will not increase the production of cotton one pound, if the bill means anything.

Turning to page 36, subsection 2, we find that after the 7½ acres are allotted 95 percent of the remaining acreage