Mr. DEROUEN. The question arises as to the farming units in the State, where over 12,000 checks went to the producers. There were 9,540 farming units producing sugarcane in 1935. These units were growing 246,165 acres of cane. The quota on this acreage was 3,364,207 tons, and there was actually produced 4,098,999 tons, there being an overproduction of 738,572 tons.

The actual production in 1936 was 4,941,235 tons, which was 1,580,808 over the quota.

Now, then, there arises another question, perhaps, which will be better understood if I give you this picture. The actual production in 1936 was 4,941,235 tons, as I said, and an overproduction of 1,580,808. Now, while the acreage increase in 1935-36 was only about 10 percent, over 1934-35 there was an increase in production of over 20 percent; to be exact, 20.5 percent. Therefore, it is not the increase in the acreage, it is the increase in tonnage per acre because of the splendid cane that the United States Department of Agriculture has finally developed for us in Louisiana. The experts in the Department have done a very good job.

I have in my hand, Mr. Chairman, Louisiana Bulletin No. 280, a statistical report of the land in sugar, prepared by the Louisiana State University, Agricultural and Mechanical College, under the Agricultural Experiment Station, Professor Dowell, cooperating. It is rather large and voluminous, and I am not going to ask that it be printed in the record, but I will give you a résumé of it for the record.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Very well.

BULLETIN 280, MARCH 19, 1937, BY CONGRESSMAN DEROUEN

The Louisiana Bulletin No. 280, issued by the Louisiana State University, contains a factual and statistical discussion of "Some characteristics of cultivatable land in the sugarcane area of Louisiana.”

Being from an official and therefore disinterested source, it must command the attention and consideration of all persons interested in the Federal problems of sugar and its relation to Louisiana. The statistics were gathered by means of surveys made with growers, whose names had been secured from the list of production-adjustment contracts under the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and through assessment rolls and by the cooperation of county agents and officials of Emergency Relief Administration, Works Progress Administration, sugar section of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, and the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station. In addition the figures were checked against those of the United States Bureau of the Census.

The area surveyed was restricted to farm lands which are now or have been formerly planted in sugarcane for the production of sugar. It is interesting and important to note that a majority of the farms surveyed are of family size. The survey shows that prior to 1914 practically all of the Sugar Belt of Louisiana was under sugarcane cultivation. Since 1914 lands have been taken out of sugarcane gradually and for different reasons. From 1925 to 1929 was the period when the greatest percentage (40.1 percent) was taken out of sugarcane, which period marked the peak of the mosaic disease and sugarcane borer infestation. Also in 1927 the Mississippi floods removed considerable acreage from cultivation. It should be stated that the scientists of the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station and of the United States Department of Agriculture have practically eliminated the ill effects of mosaic disease and cane borer, and new Federal laws provide measures of flood control for the future. The 1930 to 1934 period, during which 19.3 percent was lost in sugar-cane acreage, was the time of extremely low prices and lack of operating credit. Of chief immediate interest are the expressions of the farmers of their intention to bring the land back into sugarcane. They are encouraged toward this by the availability each year of newer and better varieties of sugarcane that

are being produced and distributed by the United States Station at Canal Point and by the splendid credit service that is being rendered by the branches of the Federal Intermediate Credit Bank and by the aid that is being rendered by the Rural Resettlement and the Bank of Cooperatives. Farmers also find themselves restricted in the production of cotton and rice and other crops that are under Federal control and naturally turn to the production of sugarcane which is not an exportable surplus crop and which was their first love. On the other hand, there are the impediments of a definite absence of additional milling facilities, lack of labor because of migration and relief rolls, added expense of new work stock and replacements, and the restrictions of the good farming practice ratio as outlined in the Soil Conservation Program.

It is shown that increased production is not so much the result of increased acreage but comes to a large extent from the better yields of new seed. However, there are many farmers who are satisfied not to increase their sugarcane acreage, because they have individually worked out a satisfactory crop rotation and diversification plan.

The survey shows that sugarcane acreage in Louisiana has fluctuated as follows:

With regard to the social influences, the survey shows that the sugar industry has furnished a place to live and security from economic adversity to as much as 95,595 regular workers and 41,382 extra workers in 1934. The increased desired acreage would furnish increased opportunities for labor amounting to an additional 50 percent, including a return to rural areas of families that have migrated to urban centers in search of work and security. The survey does not carry out its figures to all ultimate conclusions because of uncertain factors involved, nor does it seek to determine the exact amount of the large number of people in the area who would be directly benefited, but it is logical to deduce from the facts developed that the prospective increase of sugarcane production in Louisiana would definitely mean the solution of relief, rehabilitation, reemployment, and resettlement problems in the Sugar Belt. Additionally, many persons on relief in nearby areas and persons who are now working irregularly in nearby areas could be expected to move into the Sugar Belt with benefit to both urban and rural areas in Louisiana and the southern part of Mississippi. In this connection it is stated that a very considerable percentage of the labor supply in other areas in Louisiana and Mississippi depend upon the extra work in sugar as a seasonal source of revenue. The survey suggests that the restoration of the sugar industry in Louisiana would aid in correcting the maladjustment experience in cotton-producing areas. The data certainly demonstrates the interdependence of labor supply and sugarcane growers.

The survey indicated the far-reaching effects that the rehabilitation of the industry would have upon the work stock people of Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky who would be called upon to furnish replacements and additional stock for expansion. It also shows the new construction required, estimated at 252 additional homes without definitely estimating the farm buildings to be restored to complete repair or the new construction.

Even on a broader basis it is immediately apparent how important to the farm implement manufacturers and distributors this development would be because of the new equipment needed to conform to modern practices on increased acreage.

Without going into details the factor is mentioned of the additional purchases of fertilizer, fuel, bags, reagents, milling equipment, and transportation equipment and services.

During the 1936 season the milling facilities of Louisiana were forced to extreme capacity and extended harvesting operation. The survey estimates that the capacity of operating mills in Louisiana for a normal 60-day season is 3,817,300 tons, although it is expected that 4,394,000 tons will have been ground in the 1936 crop season. The survey states that there are only 14 additional mills in the State which are capable of rehabilitation and any additional capacity would have to be furnished by newly constructed mills

located with respect to the volume of cane in the different localities. The survey shows that with continued improvement in new varieties of sugarcane seed and in view of the expressions of desired sugarcane acreage by farmers, there would be available 6,221,000 tons of sugarcane, which is considerably in excess of present mill capacity during a normal period of grinding.

In close connection to the milling problems is also the transportation costs which would directly affect the ability of certain areas to increase their production in sugarcane. This problem involves teams, trucks, barges, and railroad equipment or facilities. Because of the extreme weight of sugarcane, the crop must be accessible to the mill both as to distance and reasonable cost. For all of the above reasons, it is apparent that the extensive development of sugar production in Louisiana must necessarily depend upon broad planning well beyond, although dependent upon, the individual desires or intentions of farmers.

The bulletin contains elaborate details for full study and furnished many tables which show the completeness of the investigation and the thoroughness of the surveys forming the factual and statistical basis of the report. It must be read through to obtain the fullness of its meaning which is left to the reader to interpret. No recommendations of policy or program are offered in the bulletin, for the authors evidently consider that the determinations and decisions must be left to the industry itself, to the communities and commercial interests affected, and to the responsible officials of the United States Government.

When it is considered that the total consumption requirements of the United States in 1936 was 6,600,000 tons of sugar and when the full measure of benefits that will flow from the rehabilitation of this relatively small but century-old industry to its former status of importance and prosperity in Louisiana, the merit of encouragement from the Federal Government is inescapable, especially upon giving full consideration to all the related social and economic problems being handled by different Federal agencies which taken as a whole represent responsibilities and obligations of the national administration.

Sugar production by States in continental United States, 1935

1 Beet growers, but no sugar factories in Illinois, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oregon.

Total beet-sugar production by States of all United States beet-sugar processors for the 1935-36 campaign and comparison with previous years (in bags of 100 pounds each)

From U. S. Beet Sugar Association, Washington, D. C., Feb. 17, 1936.

Mr. DEROUEN. I might say, in making comparisons with respect to culture of sugarcane: The sugar industry of the State of Louisiana employs over 140,000 people. I am speaking only of farmers; I am not speaking of refiners because that is another group that is vitally affected.

I admit that there has been partial improvements offered to the Louisiana sugarcane growers which would be made fairly complete by changing the figures of the basic quota to represent actual production and an already planted crop, with reasonable development permitted to take care of the new and small grower. One provision will permit the deficit of one continental area to be filled by the other continental area to the extent of its ability to supply the sugar. On its face this is a concession. But it is an offer that has two strings tied to it which would probably prevent our enjoying fully that which is offered. The benefit payments proposed in the bill would require each farmer to produce only his proportionate share of the quota of the area. If the basic quota of the area is taken as the yardstick to measure the proportionate share of each grower, then the area will not produce more than its basic quota, with the result that although we are offered the opportunity of filling the deficit of another area, we could not produce the additional sugar with which such deficit might be filled. In addition to this, the benefit payments as provided in the act would apply only to the production within the basic quota, so that any sugar produced above such basic quota would not be eligible for payment as we construe the bill. This would mean that if Louisiana in 1937 or 1938 and in the future years has such a crop as was harvested last year, with high yields per acre exceeding the normal yields of past years, we would be permitted to market the sugar, because of the deficit in the beet-sugar area, and we would have to pay the excise tax on all sugar so marketed, but we would not receive benefit payments on the cane which produced the sugar so marketed within the final quota and upon which the excise tax had been paid.

It is entirely possible that it was not the intention of the proponents of the administration bill to deprive the growers of these benefits, because part of the philosophy of the bill is that the taxes collected on sugar produced in the United States would be to all practical purposes returned to the grower in the form of benefit payments. Of course, not all of this, but a portion of it. And let me say at this moment: The benefit payments to the sugarcane grower is not such a great benefit as might be construed by some people, because Louisiana and Florida's quota is too small. However, it is no greater benefit than is necessary to control production and to some extent is imposed for that purpose.

This was not probably the intention of the proponents of the bill, but nevertheless here we are faced with the bill and we are attempting to work it out with a certain degree of justice to ourselves. It is entirely reasonable to expect that a correcting amendment will be accepted to provide for payments on all sugarcane used to produce sugar marketed within the final quota.

In other words, perhaps I could make it clearer: If and when we should produce an overproduction, the controlling factor and those having charge of the administration of this sugar bill would be as generous as they were last year and the beet people also would be as generous, permit us to sell the sugar and collect the benefit payments-and we should-because the beet people are not hurt. No one is harmed. Why leave that money in the United States Treasury and not pay it to the farmers who have produced it?

The preferential right of continental areas to increase in consumption is fixed at 30 percent of any increase above 6,552,000 tons. Under the Jones-Costigan Act, this right was fixed at 30 percent of any increase above 6,452,000 tons. This change of base would amount to depriving continental United States of 30,000 tons of sugar and will probably be corrected.

I think I have attempted to show you the other day, and I admit that this question is very complex, the administration of any control program, and especially the one as is contemplated under this bill we are trying to work out. So long as we did not make it permanent, the American people might to some degree accede without much protest to the experiment. But when you are going to make it permanent, we ask the committee to go into every phase of it to see that there is no injustice done to our State or any other producing area in the United States.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Will you pardon me for a question?

Mr. DEROUEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You are a Member of Congress?

Mr. DEROUEN. I am a Member of Congress.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you think that we can say that anything is permanent when the succeeding Congress can change it?

Mr. DEROUEN. My experience in about 14 years' service teaches me that after you once establish a precedent and pass a law and have a set-up to administer it, my dear friend, it is always difficult to change it unless you have a Supreme Court decision declaring it unconstitutional.

Mr. HOPE. Right there, Mr. DeRouen, you do not mean you are opposed to the quota?