Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The increase in production expected this season is based on the following considerations:

(1) An increase in production in Mexico by some 300,000 bales.

(2) An overall increase in acreage in the Middle East and Pakistan.

(3) The fact that yields last season were less than normal in Brazil, Argentina, and Uganda.

(4) The continuing expansion of irrigation in Mexico, Pakistan, Turkey, and Syria and in some of the smaller countries.

(5) Indications that interest in cotton production will remain high in South America.

The other course, which I please to call the positive course, will require positive action on the part of our Government to reestablish our export trade by selling competitively in the world market. Every effort has been made by producers and mills to secure administrative use of the tools already provided by Congress to reestablish and maintain a fair share of the world cotton market for this country, and at the same time provide adequate protection for United States mills.

So far, this action has not been taken for fear of upsetting the economy of other free world countries. We wish to point out that foreign cotton producers have been requested repeatedly by officials of the United States Department of Agriculture to control their production. They were told that the United States could not stand by if they continued to expand cotton acreage while we reduced ours through controls. This advice went unheeded and cotton growing has now become entrenched as a major industry in countries where cotton was relatively unimportant a few years ago.

Senator EASTLAND. American capital created them, did it not? Mr. PARKER. I would think so; yes, sir.

Senator EASTLAND. Certainly.

Mr. PARKER. American capital is needed to do anything, it seems, in foreign countries.

it.

Senator EASTLAND. I see. But it has created those industries?
Mr. PARKER. That is true.

Senator EASTLAND. These international shipping houses have done

Mr. PARKER. Shall I proceed, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. PARKER. Proposed action by the Department of Agriculture has been blocked, and efforts of United States producers to reduce supplies by drastic controls have proven to be futile in the face of continued foreign increases. Producers are now faced squarely with the conclusion that our planners and foreign policy makers consider that the cotton industry of the United States is expendable.

I would like to say something right here, gentlemen. We protest that feeling. It may or may not be true, but we consider ourselves good American citizens, and as such we put up our part of the $52 billion which has been spent in foreign countries in the last 10 years. We feel that we are due an adequate amount of protection.

On December 5, 1955, a meeting was held in Memphis, Tenn., under the auspices of the National Cotton Ginners Association. This meeting was attended by delegates selected to represent each of the six segments of the cotton industry. Producers were represented by the American Cotton Producer Associates. Other organizations having voting delegates to the conference were: American Cotton Manufacturers Institute, National Cottonseed Products Association, American

Cotton Shippers Association, National Cotton Compress and Cotton Warehouse Association, and the National Cotton Ginners Association. At the close of the conference, 5 of the 6 industry groups voted approval of a recommended program. The shippers association cast the lone dissenting vote.

I wish to present their recommendations as representing the combined thinking of delegates representing 5 of the 6 segments of the entire cotton industry.

Until stocks held by the CCC are reduced to a level consistent with normal demand-and including a sensible reserve for national security-it is doubtful that any plan or combination of plans will stand a chance of success. We harbor no illusions as to the outcome of following our present course. It involves, briefly, reduction of production, reduction of price, loss of markets, increased foreign production of cotton, and increased production of synthetics here and abroad.

The following action is needed to reverse the dangerous trends inherent in the present program:

(1) Action to insure a world market of not less than 5 million bales of American cotton each year; and adoption of such competitive pricing devices as may be necessary to insure this export volume.

(2) Impose reasonable and equitable restrictions against cheap foreign textiles.

(3) Revise the loan program to eliminate, eventually, undesirable cotton. It is suggested that this adjustment be made through a premium and discount system aimed at discouraging the production of low-grade cotton.

(4) Change the loan base from Middling 8 inch to Middling 1 inch. In justification of this proposal, it may be said that the loan is supposed to be based on the average grade and staple, that the present average will support the view that Middling 1 inch is the proper and legal loan basis. By no means should this proposal be justified as a means of discouraging production of low-grade cotton, since the CCC Board approves the schedule of premiums and discounts individually, for each loan program. Unless the differentials are broadened, a change in the loan base could result simply in a price cut of the same degree on any and all grade and staple combinations.

(5) One change in the law applicable to cotton acreage allotments is desirable and practical at this time. It is suggested that a national reserve shall be established and allotted to States on a basis of need for small farm adjustments. Such reserve might provide minimum allotments of 4 acres, or the highest planting in the 3-year period preceding the allotment year.

(6) A Government study regarding the effect of price upon cotton consumption in both domestic and foreign markets is absolutely essential.

(7) Drastic revision or outright suspension of all foreign aid programs tending to stimulate production abroad of commodities already in surplus supply in the world market, or on which production is curtailed within the United States, is also essential.

(8) Ninety percent parity price supports should be established for the 1956 crop, and should be maintained until such time as present conditions have been corrected by a long-range program.

Gentlemen, we are opposed to compulsory features of any soil bank plan. At best, the soil bank should be as its name implies, a program to increase soil fertility and conserve our most important natural resources. As such, it can be of benefit to the Nation. It should not be used to further reduce cotton acreage. Our allotments have already been reduced to dangerously low levels. The average cotton allotment in Tennessee for 1956 is a little less than 9 acres and thousands of families have been displaced from farms to seek other employment. Many of these people know no other method of making a livelihood and are swelling unemployment rolls.

Senator AIKEN. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt there? I have got to leave for a few minutes pretty soon.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Aiken.

Senator AIKEN. The day before yesterday I was somewhat mystified by getting 15 to 18 telegrams from the delta area, mostly in Missouri, advising me that the Department's soil-bank plan would ruin the cotton industry, in wording that opposed it in every way possible.

These telegrams were all practically identical. None of them told why the Secretary's proposed plan would ruin the cotton industry. But the mystery has been somewhat cleared up today when I received a copy of the Commercial Appeal, and under date of January 18, I find this story:

SOIL BANK WARNING GIVEN BUSINESSMEN ; LAW TO REDUCE INCOME, SAYS COTTON CHIEF; 20 PERCENT CUT SEEN

PORTAGEVILLE, Mo.-The businessmen in agricultural areas can expect a 20 percent cut in their income if the soil bank agricultural program becomes a law. That was the warning given Tuesday night to political, business, and agricul tural leaders by Hilton L. Bracy, executive secretary of the Missouri Cotton Producers Association.

Now, I call attention to this because I do not know how many people throughout the South have read it. I expect a good many have. As a matter of fact, the first statement that businessmen could expect a 20 percent cut in their income is completely wrong.

It then states that the administration forces are trying to get quick passage of the bill before people get wise to what is going on. That is completely wrong, also.

Then farther down Mr. Bracy states:

If you don't cooperate, the remaining 80 percent of your cotton crop will not be eligible for a loan.

That is completely wrong. You take out whatever acres you want and put them in the acreage reserve, and whatever you take out to keep out of production does not affect the balance of your planning

at all.

He then says:

The most dangerous part of the new farm bill was the attitude of the administration that it was going to give up the world market to foreign producers, leaving the American cotton farmer only his domestic market.

That is also wrong. It is not in the bill or anywhere near it, so far as I know.

He then says-and they evidently urged them to send telegrams to us saying that Friday was the deadline-that is today

with the bill due to be submitted on that date.

That may

be news to you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes. I wish it were before the Senate now. Senator AIKEN. Then it goes on and winds up by saying:

This means that if passed in its present form, the cotton farmer would now face a 20-percent reduction in this year's cotton crops after the allotments have already been made and plans for the coming year set.

The whole story is wrong. I hope not many folks believed it, and I am not sure that these 15 or 20 telegrams that I got came from 15 or 20 different people, either.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, sir.

Senator AIKEN. They all read alike.

Mr. PARKER. We are also opposed to limitations on price supports and graduated price-support scales. These devices set class against class and do nothing toward correcting our farm problem.

We urged that the Senate Agriculture Committee use every means at its disposal to help regain a fair share of the world cotton trade for the United States. We specifically endorse the principle embodied in Senate bill 2702, which directs that present authority be used to reestablish and maintain a fair share of the world's raw cotton market for the United States. and, at the same time, provide protection for United States mills under section 22. It has already been brought out that this same authority has been effectively used before and is now being used for some 20 or more other commodities. We wonder why it cannot be used for cotton.

The cotton textile industry in this country is also threatened by a great increase in cotton textile imports entering the United States as a result of agreements made by our State Department at Genera in June 1955. Japanese goods are now being sold across the counter in United States stores at prices considerably below the level that our industry can meet. This is due to cheap labor rates, modern equipment bought with United States money under our foreign-aid program and free access to lower priced raw materials.

According to the International Cotton Advisory Committee and United States Bureau of Census, 80 percent of the cotton goods imports since 1953 have been manufactured with foreign-grown cotton80 percent. In 1953 Japan obtained only 30 percent of her cotton from the United States. In 1954 and 1955, the amounts obtained from the United States were 39 and 38 percent, respectively. Thus, the bulk of the cotton entering this country in the form of manufactured goods is foreign-grown cotton.

This, of course, displaces domestic growths, as well as adversely affecting the position of United States mills. S. 2702 provides for an increase in these imports, but would limit the amount to 150 percent of the volume entering this country during a representative 2-year period. We consider this to be a liberal increase. As cotton producers, we consider the welfare of our domestic mills to be essential. We view the need for raw cotton exports and protection for our mills as one problem.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the fact that American agriculture has a tremendous responsibility. It must provide adequate food and fiber for the entire population, and, at the same time, be able to expand production on a short notice to fill emergency requirements. Farmers throughout the United States have demon

strated their ability and willingness to comply with production goals both in times of peace and war.

The problems of farming are somewhat different, however, from those of industry, and farmers are not able to exercise the same precise degree of controls over production. A long-range farm program for the United States must take certain factors into consideration. It must assure an adequate supply of agricultural commodities for domestic consumption and export. It must be designed to provide for adjustments in farm production, and it should provide for economic stability and equality of farm income. The farm program is not solely for the benefit of agriculture, but it is for the protection of the Nation as a whole.

We endorse the recommendations, incidentally, presented by the American Cotton Producer Associates.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

[blocks in formation]

Will you give us your name in full for the record, and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE C. CORTRIGHT, JR., CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEE, DELTA COUNCIL, ROLLING FORK, MISS.

Mr. CORTRIGHT. I am George C. Cortright, Jr., a cotton farmer, Rolling Fork, Miss.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to file this statement for the record and say that substantially we endorse the previous testimony that has been presented here, and confine my remarks to trying to fit the ideas of Mississippi cotton producers into the bill as introduced by Senator Aiken and other members of your committee the other day.

First I want to say that we would like to reemphasize the absolute guilt of international cotton concerns in financing, in building up, and in supplying the bulk of the export market in the last 5 years. Senator EASTLAND. Do you think they have blocked an export program?

Mr. CORTRIGHT. I think they have used every tool at their command to block that.

Senator EASTLAND. Yes, sir. And they control the State Department, do they not?

Mr. CORTRIGHT. I assume the Secretary of State controls it, but certainly they have got inroads into it where they can reach his ear. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Eastland, you have held hearings on the questions. Was that proven before your committee?

Senator EASTLAND. Without a doubt.

The CHAIRMAN. How is that?

Senator EASTLAND. I think, without a doubt, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CORTRIGHT. But I want to emphasize our belief in their absolute guilt. Congressman Whitten, of Mississippi, on Agriculture Appropriations, has documented their guilt, and it is a part of his report and it is available to whoever would like to see it, and it is a fact.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »