718 GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 



after the war? In other words, come up to 1925 or 1929 — that is a 

 good year — or something like that, where no war was involved and 

 prosperity was here. 



Mr. Brown. To illustrate my point, the question Mr. Pace asked 

 me was if there was not too much land being broken out and put to 

 wheat, and the point I want to illustrate is that the answer is no; 

 that there no more land put to wheat today than there was 30 years 

 ago. And I can support that with the facts and figures. 



Mr. Hope. Wliat you point out is that there has been a shift in 

 the areas producing wheat. 

 Mr. Brown. That is right. 



Air. Hope. And those areas producing wheat back in 1919 and up 

 until the middle 1920's have very largely gone out of the production 

 of wheat. 



Mr. Brown. That is right. 



Mr. Hope. Mr. Parkinson spoke about Minnesota being a great 

 wheat-producing State before 1920 and that Minnesota does not pro- 

 duce any wheat now. We have single counties in Kansas, that pro- 

 duce practically as much wheat as the whole State of Minnesota. 

 And there has been a shift in the area which went on not only during 

 the war period but in the period previous to the war where that shift 

 was taking place. 



Mr. Pace. Nobody suggested that you go back to 1915. 

 Mr. Brown. No. 



Mr. Pace. What I had in mind was going back to 1939, 1940, and 

 1941. Take those 3 years and then take 1947, 1948, and 1949. 

 Mr. Brown. Let us take 1937. 



Mr. Pace. No; not 1937—1947. I said you take 1939, 1940, and 

 1941, the normal production before the war, and then take 1947, 

 1948, and 1949 as it is today and give each one whatever should be 

 the proper weight. Would that not treat everybody fairly? 



Mr. Brown. I think it is the most happy medium. I do not think 

 we can treat everybody fair in breaking it down. 

 Mr. Pace. I do not, either. 



Mr. Brown. But we can take the 10-year average, or maybe it 

 would be like the boys from Texas suggested; take one 5 and divide 

 by 5, and take the other 5 and divide by 5, add the two together, 

 and arrive at it. But we can take the State of North Dakota — and 

 I want you to get this point — we can go back to the way the acreage 

 allotment in North Dakota is today on the books, and you cannot 

 affect the State of North Dakota. We can have an acreage cut, and 

 North Dakota can take the same acreage basis and not be cut any 

 and can continue in the program and have the support price. 



Now, that is an example. The only reason I point North Dakota 

 out is because of the fact that it is a large wheat State, the second 

 largest, ranks next to Kansas, and a 20-percent cut, or whatever 

 we give North Dakota, won't have to be given to North Dakota under 

 the present law. 



Mr. Pace. You mean under the 10-year average? 

 Mr. Brown. Yes. Now, if we cut North Dakota 20 percent, we 

 would have about 2,000,000 acres to give to a State like eastern Colo- 

 rado that is going to suffer economically, because they have hit a 

 level there that you cannot back off from. 



