GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 755 



administered on cotton and I hope it wiU not be said any time later 

 inasmuch as cottoD quotas will be determined much later than wheat' 

 tJaat we are bound by the mterpretation on wheat ' 



.iJj f-'"''^ ''i^T^^ ^""i^^ ^°'''''^. ^y ^^^ °^^^^ interpretation than a 

 strict, fair, and full administration of that act in keeping with its 

 spirit Its terms and the regulations heretofore issued by the Secretary 

 ^ii^"" explanation preseiited to the Congress at the tune the act was 

 passed, and particularly the release issued by the Department of Agri- 

 culture following Its enactment which gave cotton farmers in this 

 nnZl""^ K f .^^^'.^1.^^' assurance, individually, not as a State or a 

 county, but mdividually, the assurance that as to them and their 

 individual farms they need not return to cotton but could go out of 

 cotton and plant war crops. & ^^ ^i 



in ^I' ^^^l''- i^ one representing the biggest cotton-growing section 

 in the country, I want to say that we join in Mr. Pace's statements. 

 Withm our power, we are not going to submit to any proposal that 

 denies us the promises made under that law. 



f^of K ^°''''" ^^'^- ^^^f^'^^^'^'y just one word to clarify the matter of 

 tnat beiore we conclude. 



.i.^^oL'"''^'""^^^'''^ '^' "^^^^ ^^^ ^^®n said here this morning as far as 

 the 1950 wheat crop is concerned is that the only matter which requires 

 any immediate legislation is this matter of clarifying the referendum 

 on marketing quotas. Otherwise you think you can operate under the 

 present law entnely satisfactorily? 



Mr. WooLLEY. That is true with one exception, Mr. Hope 



I here is a problem m cotton in Oklahoma which relates to wheat in 



that the 10-year base on cotton brings about one result for their 



cotton history. If you had them both on a 5-year base for purposes 



ot wheat and cotton, the problem would be solved in Oklahoma and 



you would not have to have any specific or special provision with 



unfahl treated '"^ ' ^"^ "^ ^^^^ ^""""^ ""^ ^^'"^ country from being 



thi^'^eSr'"' """^ ^^^"^^ ^^'^^ ^'""^ ^"^ ^''^''^ legislation to deal with that 



Mr. WooLLEY As I indicated to you when I was before you a few 



weeks earlier I think the legislative process is such that we probably 



will have to live with what we have. I merely point out that if we 



had cotton and wheat on a 5-year basis, a problem that is very aggra- 



problfm'' ^''^'''"'^ ^""^'^'^ ^^^ b^ aggravating. That would solve the 



nr?^A' ^.""l^- I ^^^^ ^^^ ""^^ question there would be whether we 

 could put It into effect m time to do anything with it this year. We 

 do have time to deal with the other matter j w e 



n.^""' ^^''''^■ ^^^ committee is greatly indebted to you gentlemen for 

 coming here and working with us 



^i5'"-^YT'^'''^^- ^''- Chairman, I would like to say that I was 

 pleased to hear you say that the procedure we had used with respect 



vesZecifZ^^^^'^u''^ '' T."^^^^ ^"^ ^' considered as a precedent ^ith 

 respect to cotton because the war crops with respect to wheat and 

 CO ton are so distinctly different and the problem of the crop rotation 

 practices between the two crops is so different that a grave iniustice 

 Tnl'^l''''^''-^^^^^ '"'^^^ '^ ^t^^^ ^^^ ^^y ^ff«rt made to say that the 



Mr^PACE. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

 (Whereupon, at 12:25 p. m., the committee was adjourned.) 



