who vote say they want a wheat quota, I mean a cotton quota, they get it. If they vote less than two-thirds, it does not go into effect.

Mr. CLARK. On a set basis. In other words, when the farmers get to vote they have to either vote for 50 percent of parity or 90 percent of parity or 822, as it is now, they have that choice only.

The CHAIRMAN. I get you. You mean to say now that alternative plans should be provided, and let the farmer select the plan that he wants. If they get the majority vote for one plan, then that will be the plan; is that your idea?

Mr. CLARK. I do not understand.

Senator ANDERSON. Could I ask Mr. Clark this question: I do want you to clear that up but, as I understood your comment a moment ago, are you advocating something similar to nationwide marketing agreements for all crops as we have it now for oranges and prunes, and occasionally for milk in certain milksheds. There the farmers do have some control.

Are you suggesting that they might get this bargaining power by a series of nationwide marketing agreements? It might cover wheat, it might cover corn, it might cover cotton?

Mr. CLARK. I think possibly-I am talking along the line of national marketing agreements. But under our form of government, we must stay in line, that we have the privilege of voting whether we want

to or not.

Now, if such legislation was put into effect, and you would get to the point whereby you are going to put this out to referendum, if the farmers voted it down, then everybody would know where he stands. He does not know today where he stands.

The farmers do not know where they stand. That is the reason I said some of the laws passed and some up for consideration have a tendency to divide and conquer agriculture.

Now, if I knew myself what the rest of the farmers in the United States knew, would want to do, then I would know what to do with my operations. I would know whether I was going to go broke tomorrow or I was going to get out and compete as an individual against individual farmers or whether they were going to go with me in some type of a program or not.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything further?

Mr. CLARK. I believe not.

As I said, though, we have witnesses from some of these other areas on these problems.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Our next witness is Mr. Cole.

Give us your full name, please, and your occupation.

Senator ANDERSON. Your statement does not show that you have any connection with any farm organization. Would you mind telling us that also?

STATEMENT OF JAMES F. COLE, BERINO, N. MEX.

Mr. COLE. My name is James F. Cole, I am a farmer, and a member of the livestock bureau of our county.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not wish to be misunderstood when I stated a while ago that we did not want to have a contest between farm organizations, and that we did not want to hear from them. I did

not mean it that way. I presume that almost every witness belongs to a farm bureau, a Grange, the Farmers Union, or to an association, and must be in the business of farming or a related business in order to be a member.

What I really had in mind was not to have a contest between the organizations. What we want was the candid opinion of the individuals, if we could get it, rather than that of the organization. We get that on the Washington level every time Congress convenes and when hearings are held in Washington. They are up there, you see, with their main organizations, giving us that information. That is why we have come out here, to hear the membership as individuals primarily.

Proceed.

Mr. COLE. My statement, sir, is not delivered as a farm bureau president; it is delivered as a cotton farmer, which is only one of the crops which we produce.

I just wonder if I might echo Mr. Brock's sentiments about Senator Anderson, if I might not be out of order.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course not.

Mr. COLE. I am not going to repeat his remarks. I only want to say that we concur most heartily in his opinion about Senator Anderson.

And we have read your comments on the subject of cotton in the Cotton Trade Journal, Senator Ellender, and they have been certainly very interesting on the particular product.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. COLE. May I begin by expressing to you my appreciation and the appreciation of the cotton farmers of this State who have designated me to appear here, for this opportunity of presenting our problems and what few suggestions we have for their solution. It is perhaps presumptuous for us to make suggestions to a committee such as yours, with your many years of experience in farm legislation; yet perhaps this brief summary may serve to emphasize the urgency of our problem.

I am what would be called a small farmer. Most of the cotton farms in New Mexico are small

The CHAIRMAN. What is the average size?

Mr. COLE. The average size farms in my county

The CHAIRMAN. I mean of the cotton farms.

Mr. COLE. The cotton farms in my county consist of about 75 acres. The CHAIRMAN. Is that irrigated?

Mr. COLE. That is irrigated land.

The CHAIRMAN. What would it be statewide, for cotton farms?
Mr. COLE. I do not have that information-

The CHAIRMAN. Yours is 75 acres.

Mr. COLE (continuing). In our county, which is the largest cotton-producing county.

The CHAIRMAN. When you say 75 acres, that is all cropland?
Mr. COLE. That is all cropland.

The CHAIRMAN. Including cotton and whatever else you might have?

Mr. COLE. And other crops, including all of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. COLE. My farm, like those of my neighbors, was reduced to less than half its size by allotments. Our part of the world's cotton market has been taken by Mexico, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Peru, and others. Meanwhile, wage increases and their effects on the machinery, and supplies we use in our business, coupled with unrelenting efforts of labor union representatives-clothed in the respectable garb of State and Federal bureaucrats to force us to pay wages beyond our ability and to try to render our Mexican labor agreements unworkable, continue to exert pressure to force me and many of my neighbors out of the farming business.

I had to buy my farm-it wasn't given to me. It isn't paid for, and if present conditions continue, it won't be. Many of us missed the best years of opportunity for farmers while in the service of our country. Now it appears to us that the American farmer has become a pawn in the game of international relations and so-called dynamic foreign policy. Press releases concerning the high individual incomes of farmers won't feed my family nor pay for my farm. The CHAIRMAN. When did you acquire your farm?

Mr. COLE. I acquired my farm in 1946.

The CHAIRMAN. You are a war veteran?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you buy at high prices?

Mr. COLE. No, sir. The prices were not as high as they are now. The price has gone up considerably since that time.

The CHAIRMAN. How about farm machinery and things like that? Mr. COLE. Farm machinery has more than doubled since I went into farming, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. COLE. We need immediate, positive, and bipartisan efforts to develop both an emergency plan for dealing with the present farm crisis and a sensible long-range plan to prevent the present chaotic condition in agriculture from recurring. The prescription that some have suggested-more of the present program-may cure the fever but will likely kill the patent.

Economic studies too numerous to mention emphasize the danger to the rest of our economy of allowing any large segment, and particularly the basic industry of agriculture, to suffer a depression while the rest of the economy enjoys booming prosperity. The present situation strikes hardest at some of our brightest younger farmers, men that an increasingly scientific agriculture can ill afford to lose. To conserve your time, my remaining remarks are abbreviated in outline form:

1. We believe that the principle of price flexibility is sound. 2. We do not believe that any agricultural program can suceed under present surplus conditions.

3. We recognize that any support program will encounter the same obstacles in recovering our world market that confront the present program, primarily on account of the incredibly low cost of labor which our foreign competitors enjoy. We believe that prompt and vigorous action should be taken under present law and under such programs as may be necessary, to not only recover those markets lost to American cotton producers, but to provide market outlets for an expanding production of American farm products.

4. We agree that any congressional action should take due cognizance of the welfare of the American cotton spinner, our best customer. Any damage to this industry would be shortsighted indeed.

5. The soil-bank plan and other related ideas have many features to commend them; however, to avoid undue hardship in some areas, we recommend that, if such a plan is contemplated, it be of a voluntary nature, on an incentive basis, and that due regard be given to water problems and cost-of-production differences existing between the various agricultural areas.

6. We recommend that the import quota on extra long staple cotton-that is American Egyptian cotton-be reduced to allow an opportunity for this valiantly struggling industry to survive.

I assume that you are familiar with the promotion program of that industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. COLE. We ask that restrictions on the shipment of agricultural products under the Cargo Preference Act be eliminated.

The following plan has been discussed with our State cotton and labor committee, and while they have not adopted it, they offer no objection to its presentation.

1. Insulate the present cotton surplus from the market to be disposed of over a period of several years or retained as a reserve for an emergency.

2. Establish a flexible price-support system based on demand for the various grades and staples. If middling 1-inch cotton was less than, say, 120 percent of supply, the support would be 90 percent of parity. If low middling 3 inch was, say, 130 percent of supply it might be reduced to 85 percent. If 140 percent, say 80 percent, and on down to 75 percent.

Depending on the demand for the particular grade and staple of cotton, this would tend to stimulate farmers to produce for the market.

The CHAIRMAN. In that connection, would it not be better to encourage the production of a salable staple rather than one that we have trouble disposing of?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it not be better, for instance, if the 8inch cotton has no ready market in the United States, that it be produced at a very much lower support price than that for cotton that the market desires?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a bill in the Congress providing for that, and I hope to work it out.

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I am aware of that. That is where I got the suggestion for this second point; it was from your bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator ANDERSON. You believe, do you not, that the accumulation of cotton in the loan is largely of the grades that we are talking about, that just will not move?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir, I do.

I do believe this, Senator Anderson: That some of our cotton quality is good quality cotton, has been priced out of the market; that it would be in demand if it were at a slightly lower price and competing along with other staples, but because of the rigid marketing system,

the rigid support system we have used, some of that cotton has not moved in the trade.

I think the loan is made up not only of some cotton that cannot be sold or will not be used under any conditions, but also some very fine quality cotton.

The CHAIRMAN. As I see the record of the carryover, on August 31 of this year either 41 or 42 percent of the cotton that we carried over was seven-eighths, and under.

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We cannot readily sell that. It has the tendency, because it is cotton, of depressing the price on other qualities. Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. COLE. We cannot sell it in the United States; is that not correct? The CHAIRMAN. I understand that is correct. You might sell some, but not too much of it.

3. Allot the expected domestic consumption-9 million bales-to farmers on a bale basis with domestic allotment certificates for a certain number of bales at above parity levels.

The CHAIRMAN. Would that mean that you would let the farmers plant as many acres as they wanted?

Mr. COLE. No, sir.

As I develop this plan, it will become a little clearer.
The CHAIRMAN. All right; proceed.

Mr. COLE. 4. Establish a foreign export goal of, say, 6 million bales. Set aside 1 million of this for disposal of the present surplus over a period of years, then allot the remainder to farmers with foreign allotment certificates to be sold on the world market at world market prices.

5. Protect domestic spinning industry by an export subsidy derived from import duties on foreign cotton goods or products coming into the United States and on raw fiber being imported.

6. Advantages to this type of program.

(a) Farmer has a dependable source of income in his domestic allotment and can thus afford to gamble for his part of the foreign market.

(b) Farmer encouraged to produce grades and staples demanded by the trade.

(c) Domestic spinners, now in a precarious position, would be encouraged to produce more for export and competition from cheap labor areas should be more easily met.

(d) Surplus gradually reduced without danger to domestic cotton industry.

(e) Farmer allowed greater volume and encouraged to greater efficiency.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir; I want to thank you.

Mr. COLE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Harrison.

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Humphreys.