Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

prise, I noted when recent State cotton allotments were announced, that all States which recently entered cotton production received increases in their allotments while the old cotton States sustained decreases. By way of emphasis, I now farm 600 acres of cropland which until War II was operated as 4 farms, on which more than 400 acres of cotton were grown by 20 families. Today the cotton allotment on this land is less than 140 acres and I have 5 families left. It would be of great help if those who are so interested in disturbing the peaceful relations of our people would demonstrate a little more understanding of our economic problem.

7. I recommend that you continue to provide for increased research, extension service, soil conservation, and other worthwhile activities of the Department. And now as I close, may I thank you for your kind attention, and assure you that we farmers of South Carolina would be happy to settle for Democratic 90 percent of parity while we are waiting for our Republican 100 percent at the market place.

I would be happy to try to answer any questions you may have to ask.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cottingham, please.

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. COTTINGHAM, PRESIDENT, DILLON
COUNTY FARM BUREAU, DILLON, S. C.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. I am James M. Cottingham, president of the Dillon County Farm Bureau. I would like to take a different viewpoint. The CHAIRMAN. That is what we want.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. I look at it as a World War II veteran from the standpoint of national defense. I think our national defense should be our primary concern even though we are concerned with our surpluses. Carryover of cotton at the present time is approximately the same as it was in 1939. If you remember we reduced our surplus from that time until 1946 when actually we had a very small carryover of cotton. It was reduced at a profit to the Federal Government. The CHAIRMAN. That is because of the war, or course. We don't want another war.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. I don't want another war, but world war III could be forced upon us just as the Korean war was by the Commies who are still pushing us. Should we have to take over China, Russia, and Eastern Europe to win a war forced upon us we would have a population of a billion people there which would have to be fed and clothed if we treat them as we did the Germans and Japanese after World War II. It seems that our surpluses we have at the present time would be needed in that case.

The CHAIRMAN. When that comes you are going to lose your liberty because we couldn't undertake that.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. If we are forced into the third world war we have to win if we expect to keep our liberty.

The CHAIRMAN. Another World War and you will lose your liberty. I think I know what I am talking about. You will bring on this Government such controls that we may have to take out the Statue of Liberty in the New York Harbor.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. We can put them on and take them off as we did in World War II.

The CHAIRMAN. What I have in mind is this. Another World War and we do what you suggest there to feed all the Chinese, we couldn't produce enough food. You would have to give it to them. What would that mean to our Government?

Mr. COTTINGHAM. We fed the Germans and Japanese after World War II and gave them what we had.

The CHAIRMAN. Look at our present situation here with the debt. When we started doing that, our debt was big, but it is now almost $278 billion.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. That is true, but we are enjoying the greatest prosperity this country ever had except for the farm population.

The CHAIRMAN. Don't say prosperity. That is a false prosperity in my judgment. Until you get the farmer on his feet and enjoying this the same as other segments of society, I don't say we are very prosperous. That is what we are trying to do now, to get the farmer in the economic picture where he can benefit the same as the laboring man and industry.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. Yes, sir. Apparently the Agriculture Department was surprised by the outbreak of the Korean war. In 1949 they said we had plenty of cotton, were going to clamp on controls. In June 1950 when the Korean war broke out we had a shortage of cotton instead of a surplus. From the viewpoint of war preparation I would like to bring out the fact that although our present surplus looks large, if we had a national emergency at the present time it would change over in a hurry.

The CHAIRMAN. Don't forget that during the Korean war, the first year of the Korean war, 1950 and 1951, we had a marketing quota on cotton. The war wasn't on. Nobody knew what to expect of these dirty, nasty, yellow Communists. I would like to say all I could about the Chinese, they are in there, they attacked us, but nobody anticipated that when controls were voted for the 1950-51 crop.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. World war III is no more remote than the Korean war was in 1949. The Agriculture Department should be prepared for such emergency.

The CHAIRMAN. I hope to God we never have it.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. I would like to bring out the fact that billions of dollars have been given to corporations through fast tax writeoffs and war preparation and national defense and I would like to say that a few million dollars paid on storage for vital commodities that would come in handy in case of war shouldn't be looked upon as a great waste, as some people seem to think.

The CHAIRMAN. I stated that a while ago. Have you anything positive to offer us as to how to solve the problem?

Mr. COTTINGHAM. I Would like to maintain that storable commodities like cotton can keep 50 years without deteriorating, can be valuable as a strategic stockpile, as vital as the vital minerals we import. The CHAIRMAN. You can't store wheat as long as you can cotton. Cotton is about the only one you can do that with.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. You could probably rotate stocks in storage and rotate them out before they begin to deteriorate and then buy on the open market enough to replace that.

The CHAIRMAN. That is if you could keep supply and demand in balance; we are not doing it.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. We are advocating controls to keep balance of supply and demand.

The CHAIRMAN. You think that even the wheat program could be worked where you would get it in balance?

Mr. COTTINGHAM. I don't see why it could not be.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I guess you would emphasize quality instead of this chicken feed they are growing to make flour with.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I am in agreement with you. That is what I think we might, in fact I believe that the evidence shows that a good deal of wheat that is now on hand is good for feed only and not millable.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. I agree.

The CHAIRMAN. That is one problem that I think we can attack from that standpoint.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. The same with seven-eighth-inch cotton.

The CHAIRMAN. You have it also with tobacco, a lot of that you can't sell. We might have to touch on that subject.

Mr. COTTINGHAM. I am in favor of quality control.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Thank you, sir.

We have next Mr. E. D. Funderburk who couldn't be here and Mr. Huffman represents him. Is he here?

Proceed and give your name in full.

STATEMENT OF W. C. HUFFMAN, NEWBERRY, S. C.

Mr. HUFFMAN. I am W. C. Huffman from Newberry, S. C. I am a turkey grower. We don't have too many gripes. The turkey people as a whole, that is.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad to hear that.

Mr. HUFFMAN. I thought you would be, sir. As you know, we have gone along pretty well on our own without asking too many favors from the Agriculture Department. However, last year we did get into a jam and asked for a little help in being bailed out but we failed to get that.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean the purchase program?

Mr. HUFFMAN. Yes, sir; there was an overproduction. What we asked at that time was that turkeys be included in the school-lunch program.

The CHAIRMAN. It can be used. We have used a lot to my knowledge of turkeys and you want to use more.

Mr. HUFFMAN. I know that, but in a situation of that kind just a few more meals served through the school lunch or the Armed Forces adding on a few more meals during the year would have meant a great deal to the turkey industry.

The CHAIRMAN. We get the same thing from the beef and chicken grower and the pork producer.

Mr. HUFFMAN. I realize that. I would like to compliment the Department on the reports that you get out. We know pretty well at all times what is going on. We even have a report which we call an intentions report. I suppose you are familiar with that.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Let me ask you this: What effect do these reports have in suggesting to you either upping your production or lowering it?

Mr. HUFFMAN. On the small grower, Senator, I doubt that it has too much effect, but on the large grower, and, of course, they control a lot of the small growers, it does have some effect.

The CHAIRMAN. I tell you why I asked that. We got the information or testimony from quite a few witnesses who said that if it were possible to get more accurate predictions of the needs of wheat, cotton

and how to dispose of it, that such information might be used as a basis of the producer to keep in line with consumption so as to not overproduce. Do you think that same principle could be applied to other commodities?

Mr. HUFFMAN. Theoretically, I doubt that it would work that way. The CHAIRMAN. The reason for this is, of course, I presume that the turkey grower can change overnight, but you could not do that with cattle.

Mr. HUFFMAN. No, sir; you can't do that with cattle. It takes a full year to grow your turkeys. There is one improvement that comes to mind that I think would be of some value and it has only been brought about in recent years. There has been a broad-breasted large white turkey developed which is rapidly taking the place of the small white turkey because it can be killed at any age and either used as a broiler turkey or grown to maturity. When the reports come out and say that there are so many thousands of large turkeys being produced and so many small, we don't know whether these large turkeys are all bronze or what percentage are whites. That would be valuable information to have.

The CHAIRMAN. That is just an administrative matter and that could easily be taken care of if the turkey people get together.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Another improvement that I think could be made in the storage holdings reports, we would like to know how many toms of 20 pounds and up are being held and how many hens and how many small toms. That would be valuable.

Senator JOHNSTON. Do you know whether or not your organization has taken that up with the department?

Mr. HUFFMAN. The report?

Senator JOHNSTON. Requesting this to be reported.

Mr. HUFFMAN. I do not know.

Senator JOHNSTON. I believe it would be well for you to do that. If you do that I believe they would be glad to follow the request.

Mr. HUFFMAN. We most likely will. We have a convention in January.

The CHAIRMAN. Anything further?

Mr. HUFFMAN. That is all that I have. We appreciate your cooperation with us.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We will do our best.

Mr. Hardy, please. Give your name in full and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD H. HARDY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, CAROLINAS GINNERS ASSOCIATION, BENNETTSVILLE, S. C.

Mr. HARDY. I am Clifford H. Hardy. I live on our family farm in Dillon County, S. C., but am also employed as executive secretary of the Carolinas Ginners Association and the National Cotton Ginners Association.

My interest in the cotton program is twofold, but at this time I feel that I should speak to you as an individual cotton producer in the southeast, as views on the proposals for changes in the cotton program vary geographically across the Cotton Belt.

Your presence here in South Carolina is proof that you realize the need for changes and additional relief for the cotton producers of the

Nation. It is certainly true in South Carolina and particularly on my home farm.

Prior to World War II we normally planted up to 600 acres of cotton on our farm of slightly more than 1,200 cleared acres. The planting was dependent upon the size of the tenants' families. Since the war we could handle this acreage more profitably with fewer families due to advanced mechanization. However, acreage controls have reduced our planting of cotton to less than 18 percent of our cleared acreage. We do have tobacco as a second money crop, but it requires approximately 400 man-hours of labor per acre and is not the moneymaking bonanza that it is credited with being.

Our tenant families are still dependent upon cotton as a source of income.

I am sure that you are familiar with similar reductions, but I wished to point out our particular farm situation in this area Cotton is and should remain an important part of the life of the southeastern farmer. Many of our farmers know no other crop even with the tremendous trend toward diversification.

All cotton farmers are realizing the tremendous inroads being made into their domestic market by the increasing imports of foreign produced textiles. We know that our American mills cannot compete with these foreign manufacturers and continue paying our present price for cotton when the foreign mills are paying their labor only onetenth the amount that our mills are required to pay.

These foreign mills are buying the bulk of their raw cotton from competing producers in other parts of the world at lower prices. We feel that our principal customers, the American textile industry, should be given protection from foreign competition by means of an import quota. I believe that you will find many cotton farmers who will favor passage of S. 2702.

The only complaint that I can see which would be voiced concerning this bill is that the limitations on imports are not stringent enough. We would like to add that the year 1955 should not be used as a base year in determining the average annual quantity allowed to be imported. Importation of Japanese textile goods during 3 months this year far exceeded the annual imports of the 2 preceding years. We must protect our domestic textile industry if we are to retain the chief consumer of our cotton production.

It is my firm belief, and I am not alone in this belief, that the Secretary of Agriculture already has sufficient power and direction from the Congress through existing laws to have disposed of the bulk of the present so-called surplus. We hear much talk of the cost of the support program and particularly where cotton is concerned. Can we honestly talk of the cost of the program while the cotton is still on hand? It is my understanding that the disposal of previous cotton surpluses under the loan program proved profitable. That tremendous stockpile of cotton is just one more pillar of security in the event of aggression on the part of the Communist countries.

Mr. Benson and many State Department officials have expressed concern that we would be accused of dumping if we were to sell our Government held cotton on the world market at world prices. We haven't been so accused in disposing of our food surpluses and thereby releasing foreign acreage for cotton production. American technicians, American capital, American machinery, have been freely given

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »