Mr. RICH. I have had complaints from Florida and from Louisiana, and I think that Members of the House have also asked that we increase the allotments that they can grow and to prohibit that much. more from being imported.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. If we increased it so that they would get a living wage, and be able to live under the American standard of living, we would have to pay twice the amount for sugar that we do now, because they could not raise it under the present prices and pay those decent wages.

Mr. RICH. Supposing that we did pay more for sugar. Suppose that we increased the price of labor on the sugar-beet industry, and the price of sugar went up, would that not be doing what the gentleman wants us to do-to give a living wage to the farm families of this country?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. If we are going to try to grow all of those things that we do not now produce in sufficient quantities in this country so as to close the door to the purchase of what the other markets produce, we will destroy everthing. Under the reciprocal trade agreement with Cuba, we maintain the quota for Cuban sugar, which is about 1,900,000 pounds.

Mr. RICH. What part of the sugar industry of this country, in cane and not of sugar, do we supply to our own people?

Mr. BURLEW. There is about a million and a half in tons of sugar beets. I think that the quota has been raised to 300,000 tons for Florida and Louisiana. The sugar-quota bill which is now under consideration calls for something more than 6 million tons by way of consumption, so that the difference between one million and a half and 300,000 tons is imported. Cuba has a quota of 1,900,000, Hawaii almost 1,000,000, and Puerto Rico about 800,000.

So, you see, a large part of the sugar is still imported.
Mr. RICH. What percentage would that be?

Mr. BURLEW. I do not know. The figures speak for themselves. Mr. FITZPATRICK. I do not think that Secretary Wallace looks very favorably on the raising of sugar beets.

Mr. RICH. The situation that we will have to face is just this-that anyone that goes out to buy a suit of clothes wants to buy the best suit that he can buy for the least money, and I will defy you or anybody else to buy a particular brand of clothes just because Tom Jones or Dick Smith makes it. The American people are shoppers, and the same thing is applicable to the people of the world. They are going to buy the best article that they can buy for the least money and they are not going to buy it from America if they can buy it from Germany or England or some place else for less money. The situation is one of the survival of the fittest; and if you can put out something at a lower price, you will get the trade, and you will not get it by making some kind of an agreement with a fellow and expecting him to come ahead and buy your commodities.

So far as sugar or any other commodity is concerned, if this Department of the Government wants to put the farmers on these irrigated lands, you have to have something for them to raise; and if we look after the American farmer and the American workman, we will do the best job for the American people; but if we are going to do that which is good for Cuba or that which is good for Japan, our people are going to suffer. I am not a sugar raiser, nor am I interested in it,

ut I have come to the conclusion from what I see here in Washington at we have to look after the American people first.

Mr. BURLEW. But you do not want our children under 14 years of ge working in the sugar-beet fields.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. And working for 9 cents a day-little infants— O to 11 hours a day.

Mr. PAGE. Mr. Chairman, I have finished my general statement.

FISCAL DATA ON RECLAMATION PROJECTS

Mr. RICH. I would like to ask if you can furnish us with some stateent that would show the amount of money that is being expended or these various irrigation projects, relative to the crops that you are rowing because of your irrigation, to see whether it is scientifically ound for us to spend that money on these various irrigation projects hat you have already started and which you are contemplating tarting under present-day conditions.

Mr. PAGE. There are relatively few projects on which the comarison of crop return to investment would be equitable, because only hose which are completed and producing crops should be considered. Of a large part of our program the land has not yet been put in culivation.

However, with the permission of the committee, we will give you tatements on these subjects. The crop value information has lready been submitted. There are projects on which large amounts of money have been spent. Under our plans they are being developed n units, and some units are still incomplete. The storage and perhaps the main canal have been built for 100,000 acres, but there are perhaps 25,000 or 40,000 acres under cultivation, so that the relation of the crop value for that 40,000 acres to an investment which conemplates development of 100,000 acres is not an equitable comparison. I submit here a statement of project costs, with estimates to complete and repayments. This can be compared with the crop table.

33, 415, 000 571, 265, 215 1,093, 979, 005

10, 303, 332

29, 110, 066 1,075, 172, 271

9, 980, 888 45, 782, 847

55, 763, 735

PROJECTS HAVING NEED OF AUXILIARY WATER SUPPLY

Mr. RICH. I asked the question awhile ago as to how many of these projects that were already irrigated you felt it would be necessary to put out of commission if you could not get an additional water supply. Mr. PAGE. You did not ask that question in just that way, because I would have answered that there are none which would go out of commission. There are some-a very few-which for maximum production need an auxiliary water supply if rainfall conditions persist as they are at present.

Mr. RICH. Are they so located that they can get the additional water supply, and will it be economically sound to make the investment?

Mr. PAGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICH. And your projects would have to be started?

Mr. PAGE. During the last few years a large part of the Bureau's program which has been devoted to the conservation of water, not only for land which has been put under cultivation by our canals, but also for private canals which found themselves in much worse conditions. The development of water for the Federal projects has permitted the development of an additional supply which could be used to advantage by adjacent areas, and by contractual relations we have furnished some water to those other lands, which are not on our projects.

Only the development of water on feasible projects is undertaken. If the cost of the water is going to be more than the water is worth to the land, manifestly there is no benefit in conserving or rendering useful that water. I again want to emphasize the fact that for every dollar spent by the Bureau of Reclamation on construction of a reclamation project, someone must agree to repay a dollar.

AUTHORITY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RECLAMATION PROJECTS

Mr. RICH. Who determines what project should be started on these reclamation projects? Who is the authority on that?

Mr. PAGE. The basic law sets up the machinery for the selection of the project in this way, that the Secretary of the Interior must find that the project is feasible from economic and engineering standpoints. He must have the approval of the President, and Congress must appropriate money for it.

Mr. RICH. How did you establish many of these projects for irrigation in the past 4 or 5 years, that Congress had nothing to do with, that were started under P. W. A.?

Mr. PAGE. By the same procedure. They were found feasible by the Secretary and approved by the President. Money was allotted from the emergency appropriations but no money was expended until feasibility was properly established. The Secretary and the President took the action required by law on all of the projects which have been started. That applies to those projects begun with emergency funds.

Mr. RICH. Then it was the President and the Secretary that authorized these new projects?

Mr. PAGE. Yes; the allotment of emergency funds was made by the President and the Federal Administrator of Public Works. The