season 20 or 30 bales of cotton were produced on lands in cultivation within the city limits of Clarksdale, Miss. Thus, despite the fact that cotton is actually produced within the city limits of Clarksdale, Greenville, and Greenwood, Miss., each of which is surrounded for hundreds of miles by cotton farms and plantations, each of those points is held to be outside the "area of production" of cotton by the Administrator's definition. The cotton ginners have the same problem with respect to the section 13 (a) (10) "area of production" exemption, as have the warehouses and compress warehouse plants. I am authorized by the executive vice president of the National Cotton Ginners' Association and the executive secretary of the Texas Cotton Ginners' Association to say that those organizations and their members concur in our position with respect to amendment of the act. The same is true of the National Cotton Council. The definition of "area of production" for cotton gins is the same as that for warehouses and compress-warehouse plants except that the distance limitation is 10 miles instead of 20 or 50 miles. The executive vice president of the National Cotton Ginners' Association, who lives in Oklahoma, stated that approximately 24 percent of all Oklahoma gins are located in towns of 2,500 or greater population, and, therefore, cannot meet the population requirement of the Administrator's definition. He is of the opin ion that most gins throughout the Cotton Belt receive more than 5 percent of their annual receipts from points more than 10 miles from the gin; and that they, therefore, could not comply with the distance qualification of the Administrator's definition. The executive secretary of the Texas Cotton Ginners' Association estimates (on the basis of his personal check of 85 Texas gins) that 65 or 70 percent of all Texas gins are held to be outside the "area of production" of cotton by the Administrator's definition. My own check of the 85 gins in Mississippi County, Ark. (which produces more cotton than any other county in the world) shows that 24 percent of all gins in that county are located in towns of more than 2,500 population, and are, therefore, outside the "area of production" of cotton as defined by the Administrator. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of these facts, surely the Congress cannot fail to amend the act in a manner calculated to insure a reasonable, fair, and realistic definition of the "area of production" of cotton and other agricultural and horticul tural commodities. If it is not considered feasible to write a definition of the "area of production" of cotton into the act, then we urge that the act be amended to transfer from the Administrator to the Secretary of Agriculture the duty and authority to define the "area of production" of agricultural and horticultural commodities. During the second session of the Seventy-ninth Congress, such an amendment was introduced by Senator Wiley, of Wisconsin, and adopted by the Senate in connection with Senate bill 1349. The amendment was supported by the Ameri can Farm Bureau Federation, the National Grange, the National Milk Producers' Federation, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Cotton Council, the National Cotton Ginners' Association, and the National Cotton Compress and Cotton Warehouse Association. Letters from four of those organizations urging adoption of the amendment were introduced in the Congres sional Record during debate on the Ellender-Ball amendment. While the amendment was passed by the Senate in Senate bill 1349, it died with the adjournment of Congress before coming to a vote in the House. We request that such an amendment be reported with approval by your committee. Re fair labor standards amendments Hon. JOHN LESINSKI, CALLAWAY & REED. Washington 5, D. C., February 16, 1949. Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. LESINSKI: When I appeared before your committee February 5, 1949 (on behalf of National Cotton Compress and Cotton Warehouse Association), you granted permission to submit, before closing of the official record, upto-date revisions of any data introduced in evidence. There is enclosed a revision of table 1 (cotton production statistics) attached to my supplementary statement entitled "Dangers of Partisan Administration, Etc.," presented before your committee on February 5, 1949. This revision adds data for the crop years 1947 and 1948, and substitutes final figures for cotton production in the crop year 1946. It should be noted that all data on the original table 1 represent cotton ginned within each State and county, as distinguished from cotton produced. Because of compensatory cross hauls of seed cotton (before ginning) across country and State lines, there is generally no significant difference between production and ginnings. On table 1 (revised to date) February 15, 1949, the figures under the heading "10-year average 1936-45" are bales of cotton ginned. Figures under the headings "Crop year 1946,” and “Crop year 1947” are bales of cotton produced. Figures under the heading "incomplete crop year 1948" are bales of cotton ginned prior to January 16, 1949. No "production" figures are available for crop year 1948. The 10-year average figures could not be converted from "ginnings" to "production" without substantially more time than was available. I am confident that such a conversion would produce no significant variations. Your placing revised table 1 in the record, either as a supplement to, or as a substitute for the original table 1 will be greatly appreciated. Yours very truly, Ginned prior to Jan. 16, 1949. Preliminary reports dated Jan. 31, 1949.. 16-year average, 1940-45. Other years not reported. Not reported. Authority: Annual reports of Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce entitled "Cotton Production in the United States." (Revised to Feb. 15, 1949.) |