Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

quantity of manufactured cotton products which may be imported into the United States shall not exceed by more than 50 percentum the average annual quantity imported during a representative period of 2 consecutive years, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture: Provided, That not to exceed 25 per centum of such quantity may be entered during any calendar quarter.

It is significant to note that our Government already has the authority to carry out both of these provisions. There is also ample precedent for administrative use of this authority in the export programs of 1939-40 and 1944-45. In addition, the Commodity Credit Corporation is now selling or has sold more than 20 other agricultural commodities in world trade at competitive prices. All of the surplus cottonseed oil stocks have been moved into use. All Government-owned protein meals have been sold. Surplus soybeans have been moved into world trade on a competitive basis. This has been accomplished with a minimum of disruption to normal trading and illustrates what can be done when the authority already provided by Congress is used judiciously and effectively. 2. In addition, we recommend that the national cotton allotment for 1957 be set at a level commensurate with an off-take of 14 million bales, 5 million bales of which should be an export goal. The cotton community cannot continue to absorb the loss in employment opportunities and income made mandatory by minimum allotments. Continued reductions in acreage serve only to cut farm income and as a signal for foreign producers to increase their plantings. Acreage controls are effective only when dealing with the domestic situation or when coupled with a sales program to deal with the surplus in an effective manner.

3. We recommend one change in the provisions of the law applicable to cotton acreage allotments. With acreage allotments at present low levels, State and county reserves are wholly inadequate to deal effectively with small-farm hardship cases. We urge that a national cotton acreage reserve, over and above the national allotment, be authorized that would be earmarked specifically for small farms. Such a reserve would prevent displacement of many farm families if used to adjust allotments on small farms to four acres or the highest planted in the past three years, whichever is smaller.

4. Cotton growers are striving to attain levels of income comparable to those in the rest of agriculture and in other industries in these United States. If cotton farmers are forced to take a reduction in price support levels, adjustments should be made in a manner to correct existing marketing inequities and thereby accomplish long-term benefits for the entire industry. This could be done by using the average grade and staple of the crop as the basis for the loan rather than middling seven-eighth inch. Such a shift would discourage the production of unwanted staple lengths and grades. We recommend continuation of price supports at 90 percent of parity with changes in basic calculations as outlined above. It should be pointed out that the shift from the old to the new parity formula will lower price support levels substantially. The current difference in parity for cotton between the old and new formula is approximately 100 points or $5 per bale. We consider the change in the parity formula to be a desirable one to eventually attain a more current relationship between selling prices and costs. This change in itself could, however, decrease the loan value of the 1956 crop by $60 million, if 12 million bales were to be produced.

5. There is too little authentic information regarding the effects of price upon the consumption of cotton, both in the domestic and foreign markets. We urge that the Department of Agriculture initiate studies to determine the competitive positions of United States cotton and synthetics, the interrelations of price in principal end uses, and the competitive position of United States cotton and foreign growths. We recommend that such information, together with cost reductions accompanying research findings and technological advancements in cotton production, be used in formulating long-term adjustments in price support levels. These should serve as first steps toward development of price support levels, volumes of production and cost relationships that will mean a healthy competitive position and comparable incomes for cotton growers in the future. 6. We also recommend that our technical assistance program should emphasize health, sanitation, and the raising of nutritional levels. We do not believe that it benefits any foreign country, and certainly it does no good to the United States, for us to encourage the production abroad of crops of which there is already a world surplus and of which production is curtailed in the United States. 7. Under the extension of credit for agricultural development in foreign countries, we recommend that all loan applications should be screened carefully for possible adverse effects on United States producers. We propose that all such

loans should be conditional upon a commitment by the borrower not to use the prceeds to promote increased production of crops which are in world surplus. This should also be done for Export-Import Bank loans and all other loans and credits.

The future of cotton growing and manufacturing in the United States is overshadowed by the critical nature and urgencies of the immediate situation. Efforts have been made by producers and mills to secure relief through administrative use of the tools already provided by Congress. This relief has not been given.

As cotton farmers, we believe that action to reestablish and retain for the United States a fair share of the world cotton market with adequate protection for domestic mills must be initiated before we can move forward on a sound basis toward developing a long-range cotton program. Under such a program, income parity for cotton should reflect a fair balance and equity between agriculture, industry, labor and other segments of society. With present conditions, the cotton farmer can expect to receive about loan level prices for his cotton. Without this protection and with existing supplies, he is faced with bankruptcy. Sliding scale adjustments, under present conditions, would do little toward reaching the heart of the problem and would only serve to further reduce farm income.

We respectfully urge that the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry initiate necessary action when Congress reconvenes in 1956.

TABLE I.-Cotton exports: World total, foreign countries and United States1 [Bales of 500 pounds gross]

[blocks in formation]

NOTE. The marked upward trend of exports from foreign countries since World War II reflects in part the increases in foreign cotton production as shown in table II. It contrasts sharply with the declining trend in American exports which dropped off abruptly after 1951-52.

It will be noted that in the second half of the 1920's-widely regarded by economists as the most nearly normal period between the wars-United States shipped abroad annually more than 814 million bales and held almost 60 percent of the total cotton export trade in the world. In the second half of the 1930's, a period in which price supports were in effect in this country, shipments still exceeded 51⁄2 million bales and were over 42 percent of the world total. Passing over the war years and the depressed early postwar years to the years of recovery, we see a 4-year revival from 1948-49 through 1951-52. In this period (which included 1950-51, the year of export restrictions) our exports averaged 5,171,000 bales which amounted to more than 43 percent of the world total. In the last 3 seasons, however, notwithstanding substantial increases in total export trade, United States exports have fallen away abruptly.

[graphic][merged small]

TABLE II.-Cotton production: World total, United States, and other countries, 1949-50/1954-55

Free world total.

United States..

12 other major producers.

All minor producers.

Communist areas..

Detail of 12 other major producers above:

NOTE.-Important points to note are: (1) That although producers in the United States decreased their production in this period by 15 percent, the world crop including the United States increased by more than 5 million bales. That is to say, production outside the United States increased by more than 71⁄2 million bales. (2) Except for Egypt, which curtailed its cotton production after 1952-53, every other country in the world increased. Major foreign producing countries offset the Egyptian production

and went on to register an aggregate increase of over 40 percent. Lesser producers increased not quite 50 percent.

Source: International Cotton Advisory Committee, Statistical Bulletin, vol. 8, No. 2, for data in bales through 1954-55. Substantial increases of production in all countries but Egypt contrast sharply with United States reductions.

Farm operators' realized net income and its purchasing power, United States,

1929-54

[blocks in formation]

1 Tentative estimates as of September 1954.

Data published periodically in Farm Income Situation (AMS).

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness on the list is Mr. J. H. Gilfoil. May I state, Mr. Gilfoil, that in the past in these hearings we have tried to prevent as much repetition as possible, and I notice you have a written statement and if you can pick from that statement any new matter that has not been developed or if you want to expand on matters already proposed so as to save time and give everybody a chance, the committee will appreciate it, with the understanding, of course, that your statement as prepared will be placed in the record as though you had stated it.

Mr. GILFOIL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you do that?
Mr. GILFOIL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF JAMES H. GILFOIL, LOUISIANA DELTA COUNCIL, LAKE PROVIDENCE, LA.

Mr. GILFOIL. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I had intended to ask that the preliminary part of my statement be filed for the record and in the interest of brevity I will read the recommendations and answer such questions as you might feel like asking.

The CHAIRMAN. For the record give us your occupation.

Mr. GILFOIL. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman and members of the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry: My name is James H. Gilfoil. I am a farmer from Lake Providence, East Carroll Parish, La., primarily interested in the growing of cotton. I am appearing before you representing the Louisiana Delta Council.

The CHAIRMAN. What connection has the Louisiana Delta Council with what Mr. Cortright represents?

Mr. GILFOIL. Our organization is a member of the American Cotton Producers Associates.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what Mr. Cortright represents?

Mr. GILFOIL. Yes, sir. If you would like I would be glad to give you a little background on it.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't think that is necessary unless other Senators desire to hear it. If the Louisiana council is a part of this other organization I presume that the sentiments expressed by Mr. Cortright are in line with the thinking of the Louisiana council? Mr. GILFOIL. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. How old is your organization?

Mr. GILFOIL. Are you speaking of the American Cotton Producers Associates or Louisiana Delta Council?

The CHAIRMAN. The association you are speaking for.

Mr. GILFOIL. I believe it was formed in about 1949, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. GILFOIL. And I would like to point out a little more about the American Cotton Producers Associates, if I may. I notice you evinced some interest in that organization and I would like to tell you about how it came about.

As you all will remember in 1949 we had somewhat of a problem in trying to arrive at what the national acreage allotment should be and what would be equitable and in the best interests of the industry and the various segments. At that time various organizations got together and worked toward a program that would suit everybody as nearly as possible. We were very successful in doing that and secured practically unanimous agreement on what our 1950 acreage allotment should be. At that time I believe the thinking started to develop that an American cotton-producers organization was very much needed.

Over the period of years this mid-south group of organizations made up of the Louisiana Delta Council, Mississippi Delta Council, et cetera, worked together on most all these problems because we had common interests. This year it was determined by these groups that they would begin the formation of an American Cotton Producers Association and I am sure that I express the hope of all of them that eventually they will be able to speak substantially for the American cotton producer from the east coast to the west coast.

With your permission I will proceed with our recommendations on page 9. The CHAIRMAN. Do your recommendations follow the pattern just outlined by Mr. Cortright?

Mr. GILFOIL. Generally they do, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gilfoil, I would suggest you limit your testimony to new matter, if you will, or an expansion of what Mr. Cortright said.

Mr. GILFOIL. It is rather difficult for me to pick out any certain thing. I don't recall the exact language of Mr. Cortright. They follow pretty much along the same lines.

The CHAIRMAN. Let's listen to what you have to say, then, and we will find out for ourselves.

Mr. GILFOIL. In summary, our Louisiana Delta Council offers the following recommendations:

1. That the Congress pass Senate bill 2702, which directs that the Commodity Credit Corporation use its existing powers to encourage sales for export of such quantities of cotton as will reestablish and

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »