the rice-producing States results in the following 1950 State rice-acreage allotments:

These allotments call for State acreage reductions ranging from 7.8 to 64.8 percent as compared with a national reduction of 13.7 percent. The extremely wide range of State acreage reductions is in itself objectionable and suggests the need for appropriate adjustments and for a reappraisal of the method of determining State rice-acreage allotments as provided for in existing legislation.

It is apparent that the disparity between State acreage reductions is the result of the application of the 1945-49 acreage base in determining the allotment for the State of Mississippi. This allotment represents a reduction of nearly 65 percent from the acreage planted in 1949.

According to official rice-acreage statistics, no rice was produced in Mississippi in the first 3 years of this period. In 1948 an acreage planted to rice of 550 acres was reported, and in 1949 the rice acreage had increased to 5,000 acres. We have been informed that an additional 1,000 acres of land was prepared in 1949 for the planting of rice this year, which would indicate a total acreage of 6,000 acres that will be planted to rice in Mississippi in 1950.

The resolution provides for (1) a rice-acreage allotment of not less than 6,000 acres for rice-producing States in which more than 250,000 bushels of rice were produced in 1949-the acreage required to increase the State allotment, otherwise established, to be added to the national allotment-and (2) a reserve of not more than 20 percent of a State allotment increased under this provision to be set aside for apportionment among farms on which rice will be planted in 1950, but on which it was not planted in any of the years 1945 to 1949. Existing legislation requires that 3 percent of the State rice allotment be reserved for so-called new farms. While on the basis of this provision the major rice-producing States are able to make necessary adjustments, this provision is inadequate in the case of Mississippi because of the small State allotment in relation to the acreage on which rice will be planted for the first time in 1950.

Since the provisions of this proposed legislation are not to apply to rice produced on farms on which the acreage planted to rice does not exceed 3 acres, or to rice produced outside the continental United States, adequate safeguards are provided against encouraging undue expansion of acreage planted to rice on farms where rice is grown primarily for home consumption.

The Department recognizes the need for adjusting the existing inequities in the apportionment of the 1950 national rice-acreage allotment to the States, and upon careful review of the available information and the economic and administrative considerations involved, would view with favor the enactment of H. J. Res. 399 if the bill were amended to provide (1) a rice-acreage allotment of not less than 5.000 acres for rice-producing States in which more than 250,000 bushels of rice were produced in 1949, and (2) a reserve of not more than 15 percent of a State allotment to be set aside for apportionment among farms on which rice will be planted in 1950, but on which none was planted in the years 1945 to 1949. The resulting increase would be slightly over 3,200 acres, or approximately one-fifth of 1 percent of the national allotment. However, since old rice-producing areas must retire an average of 13.7 percent of their acreage, it would appear fair to ask that old growers in a State affected by this legislation withhold from the production of rice approximately the same percent of the land that will be retired from rice production in the other States. Also, it would appear fair to require a reduction in the intended plantings on new lands which will be comparable with the reductions imposed in other States.

The additional acreage allotment which the proposed legislation would provide would increase the volume of rice in 1950 which will be eligible for price support and may increase the obligations of the Commodity Credit Corporation. However, no additional administrative costs are anticipated.

In view of the time limitation, we have not obtained advice from the Bureau of the Budget as to the relationship of this proposed legislation to the program of the President.

Sincerely yours,

K. T. HUTCHINSON,
Assistant Secretary.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That report states that the national allotment is 1,593,132 acres. It shows that the percentage of allotment, of the 1949 acreage, ranges from 92.2 percent for Louisiana to 83 percent for Arkansas, and 90 percent for Missouri. The other percentages are given, also.

Mr. POAGE. Judge Whittington, what does that mean, 92 percent of what?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I assume it just means what it says. Percentage allotment as of the 1949 acreage. If you have a copy of the report before you, you will find that in the report.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, Louisiana got 92.2 percent of its 1949 allotted acres?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That would be my understanding, to answer your question.

I invite attention to this provision of the report:

The extremely wide range of the State acreage reductions is in itself objectionable and suggests the need for appropriate adjustments and for a reappraisal of the method of determining State rice-acreage allotments as provided for in existing legislation.

Again I read from this report:

The Department recognizes the need for adjusting the existing inequities in the apportionment of the 1950 national rice-acreage allotment to the States, and upon careful review of the available information and the economic and administrative considerations involved, would view with favor the enactment of House Joint Resolution 399 if the bill were amended to provide (1) a riceacreage allotment of not less than 5,000 acres―

I am agreeable to that amendment, as the resolution provides for 6,000 acres―

for rice-producing States in which more than 250,000 bushels of rice were produced in 1949, and (2) a reserve of not more than 15 percent of a State allotment

the resolution, as I introduced it, provided for 20 percent

to be set aside for apportionment among farms on which rice will be planted in 1950 but on which none was planted in the years 1945 to 1949. The resulting increase would be slightly over 3,200 acres, or approximately one-fifth of 1 percent of the national allotment. However, since old rice-producing areas must retire an average of 13.7 percent

as has previously been set out in this report

of their acreage, it would appear fair to ask that old growers in a State affected by this legislation withhold from the production of rice approximately the same percent of the land that will be retired from rice production in the other States. Also, it would appear fair to require a reduction in the intended plantings on new lands which will be comparable with the reductions imposed in other States.

Mr. Chairman, in Mississippi, as further disclosed by this report, in an effort to diversify there were about 550 acres of rice grown

in 1948 and about 5,000 acres in 1949. The growers went to a large expense to provide for water. They went to a still larger expense, and those growers on that 5,000 acres of land, as I am advised, spent about $125,000 to $150,000 to build a rice mill.

Before this bill was introduced some of the growers came up to the Department and conferred with the organizations in the adjoining State of Arkansas and indirectly, as I understood, with the producing organizations of rice in the other States. I was advised that the other rice-producing States would have no objection to the allowance of a total of 5,000 acres for Mississippi, which would be an increase from 1,700 acres to 5,000 acres, or an increase of about 3,200.

The bill was introduced by Senator Eastland in the Senate and by me in the House.

While the Department, in conference with us, indicated that they would be agreeable to 5,000 acres and to 15 percent, we introduced a bill for 6,000 and 20 percent. The report is before you. It speaks for itself. As I say, it does not reduce the allotments in other States. It does not do anything except undertake to provide for these 5,000 acres in Mississippi that went to this large expense. I understand that the growers in other States that went into production in 1948 and 1949 had mills available. It was not brought to my attention, nor has it been brought to my attention since, that any other growers are in a comparable position to these growers where they have gone to this large expense.

With this favorable report from the Department of Agriculture, with no injustice done to any other rice-producing State, with a minimum additional allotment of 3,200 acres in an area where they are undertaking to diversify, it strikes me that the equities and the hardship would justify a favorable report on this bill, as amended.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, after you have asked me any questions that occur to you, for Mr. Satterfield, of the Department of Agriculture, who really assisted and advised us in this matter, to be asked to testify on this bill. He will give you any further facts with respect to the effect of this bill on other States.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Whittington. I would like to suggest to you that this committee, in an effort to correct an inequity in the peanut-acreage allotments of the States of Alabama and Texas inserted a provision in the cotton resolution and we understand that the Senate committee has taken action on our resolution and has eliminated the peanut section entirely. They have substituted a bill by your Senator in lieu of the provisions in the House bill.

I am just wondering what situation Senator Eastland would be in in the event we were to adopt your suggestion here and pass your resolution. If the adjustment of the peanut-acreage allotments in those two States did not appear to him as desirable, I am just wondering whether or not he would look with favor upon your proposal.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. He introduced the same rice bill in the Senate. The CHAIRMAN. But he is evidently somewhat responsible for the elimination of the peanut provision in the cotton resolution.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I know nothing about that. He has not indicated to me that he has had a thing on earth to do with the peanut provision in any of my conferences with him. On the contrary, I

want to be perfectly frank. Senator Eastland's view was largely the view of at least some members of this committee with respect to the cotton allotment and his views were largely the views that I had with respect to it. I had nothing to say and I do not understand that he has had anything to say with respect to peanuts.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know that he has. This situation is likely to arise in connection with any other particular program. I know in the State of Nevada there is some effort being made to have additional acreage of cotton made available because they have had such a small acreage heretofore. They want to go into the cotton-acreage business and build a gin, as Mr. Poage points out.

If I understand this bill before us, the fact that Mississippi only got 35.2 percent of the 1949 acreage is due to the fact that Mississippi had not theretofore grown much rice and did not grow any, apparently, in 3 years of the period. It just went into the rice business.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is right, 3 years.

The CHAIRMAN. They just went into the rice-producing business in 1948 and only planted 550 acres in 1949.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Five hundred and fifty in 1948 and five thousand in 1949.

The CHAIRMAN. In 1948 there were 550 acres. Then in 1949 they planted 5,000 acres.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is right. I would like to say also in this connection, for whatever it would be worth, that following World War I and during World War I there was a considerable rice acreage in the alluvial section of Mississippi in the district that I represent. They raised some rice for several years and then went out of the rice business. I do not know that that has any bearing on this bill.

You have stated just what I have stated about the acres in 1948 and 1949.

The CHAIRMAN. There was an effort made before this committee to alleviate a distressing situation in certain parts of Texas where farmers had gone out and prepared their land and had invested in providing themselves with wells in the irrigated section to go into the cotton business.

Mr. Regan, from Texas, made a very strong appeal to the committee to insert a provision which would treat with that situation. It would have increased the acreage. We would have given a cotton acreage to people who had not heretofore grown cotton. The committee did not look with favor upon that suggestion.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. With respect to peanuts, I have already answered your point. I trust there is no occasion for the peanut issue to be brought up here because I have never at any time advocated any change in the House bill with respect to peanuts.

The CHAIRMAN. I will admit you have not because of the similarity of size which exists. Alabama was mistreated in the peanut-acreage allotments and this committee was convinced something should be done about it.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. And I went right along with the committee. I went along with the committee with respect to cotton. Personally, it is my view that the original bill passed by this committee after you had hearings for almost a year last session would have enabled the State of Texas to have provided for those new growers in the vicinity

68761-50-ser. pp

of El Paso where they can grow cotton equally well and, whether they know it or not, may be better off if they grow alfalfa.

Be that as it may, I think provision might have been made under the original bill for those people. No such provision could be made in the Rice Act and I do not think it is similar.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to have read at this time these telegrams which Mr. Gathings has received.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I understand there are some other telegrams, too. The CHAIRMAN. So as to have the benefit of your comments and observations. Mr. Parker, will you read these telegrams?

Mr. HOPE. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question right there? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Hope.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. You will insert the report?

The CHAIRMAN. We will have the report inserted right at the beginning of your testimony.

Mr. HOPE. Your bill, Mr. Whittington, as I understand it, is permanent legislation?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. No; it provides only for 1950.

Mr. HOPE. Then I misread it.

Mr. GATHINGS. But it would give the rice growers of Mississippi a base from which to work in future years.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. The base of 5,000 acres compared with Arkansas' base of 340,000. That would give us a base of 5,000 acres as compared with a base of 340,000 acres for Arkansas.

Mr. HOPE. All you are asking for, then, is just for 1 year?

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Without interfering with anybody else in the world.

The CHAIRMAN. I will have the effect suggested by Mr. Gathings. Once you are granted this additional acreage for 1950 it will go into Mississippi's base in future years.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is my understanding. Is that correct, Mr. Satterfield?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the effect of it would be to permanently give Mississippi a base substantially over and above what it now has.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Three thousand two hundred acres.

Mr. PACE. I have one question at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Pace.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how well Senator Eastland is acquainted with the peanut problem. Naturally the Senate committee must strike all of the House bill and substitute the Senate bill. Maybe it should be observed that both Senator Hill and Senator Sparkman, of Alabama, joined with Senator Eastland in that bill. I am quite sure that none of them were influenced by the question of the peanut-acreage allotment for Alabama in the cotton bill.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That confirms a statement I made that they never talked peanuts to me.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not mean to say that they had. I was just talking about the action taken by the Senate committee in throwing out our provision.

Mr. PACE. I agree with the chairman on the action of the committee, but I was not sure that Senator Eastland had that in mind at the time he introduced the bill.