The acres (71⁄2 percent of the total U.S. allotment) in the rolling plains area. average production for the past years in the section is approximately 500,000 bales. The 1965 production was 623,168 bales with the value of $97,837,376 to the rolling plains area. Cotton is vital not only to the farmers of the area but also to the economy of the other 540,000 people in rural areas. The board of directors of our organization (composed of two producers from each county) discussed at length merits of the Research and Promotion Act at our last board meeting and overwhelmingly endorsed the passing of the act by Congress in order to permit cotton producers to decide in referendum if they wish to assess themselves for research and promotion as a means of building larger markets for cotton. We feel very strongly that cotton farmers, and only cotton farmers, should be given the opportunity of supporting or rejecting this bill. We ask that the bill be enacted into law as passed by the House with no additional amendments. Respectfully, CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Executive Vice President, Rolling Plains Cotton Growers. Senator SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, VICTORIA, TEX., April 20, 1966. Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HOLLAND: The South Texas Cotton Improvement Association, covering 20 South Texas counties with 500,000 bale production and representing over 5,000 cotton producers, wishes to register strong support for the Cotton Research and Promotion Act now under consideration by your subcommittee. We request that this letter be made part of the official records of the hearings you will hold on this bill. H.R. 12322 is a good bill as passed by the House and we sincerely recommend the committe report this bill as was passed by the House without any amendments. As we have stated many times, this is a self-help program so vitally needed for our cotton industry. All haste should be exercised to insure its passage at an early date if we are to effectiuate this program in south Texas this year. If there is any assistance we might render you or your committee in moving this piece of legislation along, please do not fail to call on us. Very truly yours, ROBERT W. HEARD, Executive Director, South Texas Cotton Improvement Association. Hon. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, EL PASO, TEX., April 5, 1966. DEAR SENATOR HOLLAND: We are pleased to see that the Cotton Research and Promotion Act, H.R. 12322, has been assigned to your subcommittee, especially in view of your experience and interest in handling similar legislation. Your assistance in scheduling committee hearings on the bill and then sending it to the floor of the Senate for vote as soon as possible will certainly be appreciated. The cotton industry needs this bill in effect for the 1966-67 cotton crop and time is running short for holding the necessary referendum after the bill is approved by Congress. Our association represents about 1,500 cotton producers in west Texas, New Mexico, and eastern half of Arizona. Our board of directors is on record with a unanimous resolution favoring this legislation. Altough I live in Texas, I do have a visual acquaintance with you. I attended the National Cotton Council meeting in Jacksonville last February and enjoyed very much the address you gave to the convention at that time. We respectfully request your help in securing Senate approval of this legislation. Yours very truly, EDWARD BREIHAN, General Manager, Southwestern Irrigated Cotton Growers Association. DALLAS, TEX., April 15, 1966. Hon. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Marketing and Stabilization of Prices, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HOLLAND: It is our understanding that H.R. 12322, the Cotton Research and Promotion Act, will be considered by your committee through open hearings on April 25 and 26, 1966. The Texas Cotton Ginners' Association, representing 77 percent of the entitre ginning industry in this State, solidly supports this legislation. In our opinion, there is or should be no doubt in anyone's mind as to the need for this legislation. It follows a pattern of self-help authorized for many other agricultural commodities and it provides for growers to determine for themselves whether or not they would like to contribute $1 per bale to be used solely for cotton research and promotion. The act would, in our opinion, provide the necessary mechanism for farmers to accomplish this end. We are told that representatives of the National Cotton Council of America and the Cotton Producers Institute will testify in person before the committee on the above dates. We are further informed that it is now contemplated that Mr. Roy Forkner, of Lubbock, Tex., will be one of those to testify and as a CPI founder and director. We wish to endorse Mr. Forkner's views and to further point up that Mr. Forkner is a ginner leader of many years and a past president of this association, and as such he will be speaking for us also. We urge your committee's approval of this legislation without amendment. We respectfully request that this letter be made a matter of record and become a part of the testimony of the hearings. Sincerely yours, EDWARD H. BUSH, Executive Vice-President, Texas Cotton Ginners' Association. Hon. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, LUBBOCK, TEX., April 1, 1966. Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HOLLAND: I wish to inform you of the following resolution recently passed by our board of directors: "The Texas Independent Ginners Association recognizes that cotton must have a much stronger program of research and promotion if it is to successfully compete with other fibers, and therefore we endorse the Cotton Research and Promotion Act now before the Congress as a practical means of enabling growers to make for themselves the decision on research and promotion assessments, and for the establishment of a uniform collection procedure." Our association believes the passage of this legislation in this session of Congress is of paramount importance in order that the cotton producer may be given the opportunity to decide for himself the course of action he wishes cotton research and promotion to follow. Please consider this letter to be our formal statement to your Senate Agriculture Subcommittee. Sincerely yours, DONALD G. SMITH, Executive Vice President, Texas Independent Ginners Association. STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. SAYRE, COTTON PRODUCERS INSTITUTE OF MISSISSIPPI, GREENWOOD, MISS. Senator HOLLAND. The next witness is Mr. Charles R. Sayre. Mr. SAYRE. Mr. Chairman, I am C. R. Sayre, president of Staple Cotton Cooperative Association, a cotton marketing organization with 4,500 producer members, headquartered at Greenwood, Miss. We handle some 800,000 to 900,000 bales of cotton annually for our membership in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. In behalf of the Staple Association, I would like to submit for the record a written statement on the action taken by our directors in support of H.R. 12322. Senator HOLLAND. Without objection, the written statement will be incorporated in the record. (The statement referred to follows:) STAPLE COTTON COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, GREENWOOD, MISS., April 22, 1966. Senator SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Chairman, Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HOLLAND: This opportunity to express the views of Staple Cotton Cooperative Association is greatly appreciated. The following resolution was unanimously passed by the board of directors of this association at their regular meeting, April 13, 1966: "Resolved, That the cotton research and promotion bill, passed by the House of Representatives, should be approved by the U.S. Senate and promulgated as law. We believe the future of markets for cottons from this area depend upon passage of this act and its careful administration by cotton growers, with the Government helping from the standpoint of uniform pay-ins per bale." This association was formed in 1922 for the primary purpose of providing an effective marketing medium for the cotton produced by the farmers of our area. Currently, the Staple Cotton Cooperative Association handles more than twothirds of the Mississippi Delta cotton crop and also serves farmers in Arkansas and Louisiana. Reductions of cotton acreage in the United States to a 5 or 6 million level per year would mean some 9 to 10 million acres of highly productive land released for the production of a wide range of crops with serious disruptive influences upon the market structure for several of these production alternatives. The cotton farmers of the Mississippi Delta have strongly supported the Cotton Producers Institute program and this program has demonstrated what can be done to improve cotton's competitive position through promotion and research. It has become clearly evident, however, that funds for an effective program of the needed scope and magnitude cannot be provided without a uniform collection plan as made possible by H.R. 12322. As a cotton marketing organization representing cotton farmers and concerned with selling cotton to textile manufacturers, we are in a position to appraise cotton's competition and we are alarmed by the fact that cotton is being displaced in many end uses by manmade fibers. Cotton's share of the fiber market is moving downward even though consumption increased 1 pound per capita-1965 versus 1964-to a 23-pound level. During the same period synthetic fibers increased 2.2 pounds per capita. Cotton is a better and more versatile all-round fiber than anything that man has been able to produce through chemistry; however, we are being outresearched, outpromoted and outsold through the techniques of modern advertising. Our markets are being bought from under us by massive promotion and research efforts. We are asking Congress to provide a framework through which cotton farmers can finance for themselves and operate an effective cotton research and promotion program. Our markets and our future are at stake. At the request of the board of directors, Staple Cotton Cooperative Association, the above is hereby submitted for the record of the hearings on the proposed cotton research and promotion legislation. Respectfully yours, J. R. FLAUTT, Vice President, Staple Cotton Cooperative Association. Mr. SAYRE. I also am here as a trustee of the Cotton Producers Institute and a member of its executive committee. It is for the trustees that I now testify. 62-444-66 In Mississippi and in other parts of the Cotton Belt, word is being deliberately spread that H.R. 12322 is a politically motivated piece of legislation, originated by Government officials for the purpose of dominating the American cotton industry. My purpose in being here is to establish the fact that this whole proposal was originated by and for cotton producers, and by no one else. There is not, and has never been, any political motivation involved. This matter was not even presented to the Secretary of Agriculture by the cotton producers until last November 15. The idea of a producer-financed and producer-controlled program of research and promotion is by no means new. It began to take form in the early part of 1960, when the producer delegates of the National Cotton Council held a special meeting in Dallas. This was a meeting of producers only. No other group in the council was present. At this meeting, producers recognized that the council's efforts in research and promotion-good as they were had to be greatly reinforced to meet the challenge from manmade fibers. They also agreed that the producers could rely on no one except themselves to get this job done. A special beltwide producer committee-on which I served-was appointed to develop a mechanism through which we could build a grower-financed program of research and promotion. The mechanism we put together was the Cotton Producers Institute. Our finance goal was $12 to $15 million a year. The program was geared to to the following principles: (1) Producer financing, at the rate of a dollar a bale, would be on a voluntary basis. (2) Because of the vast number of producers, the only practical way to collect the money was to utilize processor-handler firms where cotton became concentrated. (3) The money should strictly be used for research and promotion, and not for legislative or political activities. (4) Control of the program should be in the hands of producers. (5) The State or area producer organizations should select the governing body of the Cotton Producers Institute. (6) Each producing State should have representation on the governing body in ratio to the funds it contributes. Gentlemen, the bill before you-which is purely and simply aimed at providing a great expansion of the work done by CPI-embraces every one of these principles which were established back in 1960. Senator HOLLAND. Just a moment. I understand item 6 to mean that the voting power of the members of the governing board would be in proportion to the contribution from the State represented by the members, is that part of the bill before us? Mr. SAYRE. Yes, sir. Under the bill representation on the Cotton Board, and also on the cotton producer organization with which the Board contracts, must reflect, to the extent possible, the proportion which each State's marketings of cotton bears to the total marketing of cotton in the United States. In the case of the cotton producer organization, but not in the case of the Cotton Board, representation is subject to adjustments to reflect lack of participation in the program by reason of refunds to producers. Representation on the Cotton Board would therefore be generally related to State contributions, while representation on the cotton producer organization would be still more closely related to State contributions. In the case of the Cotton Board, but not in the case of the cotton producer organization, each cotton-producing State as defined in the bill would be guaranteed at least one representative. What we are asking you to do, in essence, is to give us a mechanism which will allow us to reach the objective that we set for ourselves 6 years ago. We have now had several years of experience with CPI, and we know two things for sure. First, we know that we are getting wonderful results from the $3 million a year program we have already built. Second, we know that we cannot even maintain the program, much less expand it to the necessary level, with our present finance approach. As things now stand, we have to rely on the cooperation of handlers to collect the money. Most handlers want to cooperate. But there are always a few who will refuse to collect the dollar a bale to gain an advantage over their competitors. For example, it takes just one ginner, offering to handle cotton a dollar a bale cheaper-without ever mentioning CPI-to break down the program in a whole area. This competitive factor among handlers is what has stymied our present finance approach. It is the one and only problem we have not been able to overcome. We have met repeatedly with key handler groups to try to work out some basis for resolving it. But try as we might, we have not been able to establish a uniform collection that would eliminate the competitive factor among handlers. That is why we have had to come to the Congress-to help us cope with a problem that is beyond our reach. We do not come as a matter of choice, but as a matter of necessity. H.R. 12322 is a cotton producer bill. The trustees of Cotton Producers Institute voted unanimously to sponsor it last year. This action was supported by virtually all of the 2,000 key producer leaders attending CPI committee meetings across the Cotton Belt in 1965. Many organizations, including the National Cotton Council, have thrown their support behind our proposal. Producer delegates to the council, voting separately from other interests, voted in favor of it by an overwhelming majority of 43 to 7. My purpose in going into this detail is to make it abundantly clear that H.R. 12322 comes to you from producers, with a tremendous base of producer leadership behind it. If we could achieve our goal in research and promotion without coming to the Government, that is what we would prefer to do. Obviously, the administration of the program would be simpler if the Government were not involved. But we do not anticipate-we do not fear-any undue complications because of the Government's involvement. We think the Government will do just what it has done under other marketing order programs over the last 29 years; and that is to allow producers to run their own program, so long as they spend the money for the purposes intended. Those of us in the cotton industry have had some experience in operating a promotion program paid for entirely by the Government. |