GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 477 



Mr. Granger said a while ago, that every time the farmer does not 

 need it you give him a high floor. You assume that we are not going 

 to have that surplus. You assume that we will have a 90-percent floor 

 because you assume that we will not need any floor. 



Let us consider just what we are faced with. We are faced with 

 a production this year that will probably exceed anything we ever 

 grew with the possible exception of 1937. Recognizing that fact, 

 how are you going to get a 90-percent floor under that cotton under 

 the Aiken bill ? 



Mr. Kline. Mr. Congressman, I want sincerely to go back and finish 

 this other question and not avoid the present question. 



Mr. PoAGE. I do not want you to work on the assumption that you 

 have satisfied us that we have a 90-percent floor under cotton. 



Mr. Kline. 1 shall be very happy to come back to that question. I 

 was trying to make the case in the very briefest terms with regard to 

 cotton as the American Farm Bureau Federation has approached the 

 problem. I have made my first point. 



Secondly, if we are unable, under marketing quotas and acreage 

 allotments, to get production in line with consumption, most of our 

 cotton people, even those who are in favor of higher Supports to 

 start with, are agreed that we ought to do something about it, some- 

 thing with regard to the support level. 



The third is one of the most important factors in the application of 

 a marketing quota and acreage allotment proposition to cotton. With 

 either in effect, if production will keep supplies at normal the loan 

 rate under our recommendations would be 90 percent of parity. 



I do not ask you to make the assumption. I merely point out that 

 the opportunity is there. Naturally it would have to be impleinented 

 by reducing production. In the reduction of production, acres come 

 out. One of the most important things of all in ihe income of the 

 farmer is freedom to use those acres to match the mosL eflective demand 

 that he can figure out in the country. If you take the acres out and 

 you squeeze down his total over-all contribution to society, inevitably 

 you squeeze down his income. So he should be able to use those acres 

 taken out as freely as possible. It is not true that all the members 

 of our board have agreed on that point, but it is true that it is still 

 the position of the American Farm Bureau Federation and that we 

 are in favor at the moment of free use of all these acres taken out. It 

 is an important point. 



Further, we recommended last spring and we recommend again an 

 amendment which would permit cotton producers to vote on market- 

 ing quotas when supplies are normal or above and the price is 90 

 percent or below. We have made this suggestion — still with the free 

 use of acres taken out — because of the special conditions in cotton 

 itself. It does not have the variability of use that you have with a 

 feed grain, for instance. You just do not have that. The acres are 

 somewhat fewer than in some of these other commodities. The people 

 in the area have a situation which makes it more necessary that we 

 work out of what is probably, as you say, a bad situation with regard 

 to supply. I just wanted to make that case. 



Now, will you restate your second question, please ? 



Mr. Poage. I am asking you how you are ever going to get this crop 

 down to a normal supply next August. 



