Page images

Mr. GIFFIN. Mr. Gathings, up until now on our voluntary program it has been going about two-thirds to promotion and about one-third to research. I believe if this movement is successful, and we have the greater fund to work with, I believe that about that proportion will still continue. The great need before this industry now is to sell more cotton. There is no other answer to any of these things, except to sell more cotton, to sell more cotton we have to do two things. We have got to improve our product, work into it attractive features that appeal to the housewife and then we have to promote it and promote it on a parallel with what the synthetic people are doing.

Mr. GATHINGS. There has been some progress made, too, in recent years.

Mr. GIFFIN. Yes, I think exceptional good progress has been made when you consider

the meager funds that we have had to work with. Mr. GATHINGS. The members of this committee made a trip down to the Carolinas here about 2 years ago, and we saw a fine shirt that was washed out right before us, hung out to dry. That shirt looked good the next morning. It would be ready to wear, made of all cotton. Then, too, a pants program has been mentioned. You know about that?

Mr. GIFFIN. Yes, sir. Mr. GATHINGS. Tell us about that. Mr. GIFFIN. Well, I think it was 2 years ago the Levi Strauss people came out with a trouser that was 100 percent cotton that was a very attractive trouser, and it sold across the Nation like wildfire. I don't know how many they sold, but a great many hundreds of thousands of dollars. But after some months of wear and washing it became apparent that this trouser had a fundamental weakness in it, and it was the abrasion that came in the pants cuff of the trouser, and an abrasion generally that they didn't have in some of the others. Their suggestion was that by adding a given amount of manmade fibers they could correct this. I think at that time they thought that if they added 8 percent nylon, had 92 percent cotton, it would give them a satisfactory product. The cotton people didn't agree. We felt that we could get into 100 percent cotton trouser all that they had in the blend, and I think that is pretty well established now, and it has taken it 2 years of research.

Mr. GATHINGS. And the crease remained intact?
Mr. GIFFIN. The crease remained.
Mr. GATHINGS. On the cuff?
Mr. GIFFIN. Yes.
Mr. GATHINGS. As well as the upper portion of the trouser?
Mr. GIFFIN. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?
If not, we thank you very much, Mr. Giffin.
Mr. GIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We especially thank you and Mr. Salyer for coming such great distances and showing your interest.

to the effect that I am quite certain no member of this committee intends in any way to criticize the manufacturers of synthetic goods. They have been very ingenious and very successful and very competitive with cotton,


and I think the main purpose of this bill is to save as best we can the cotton industry of the Nation and particularly the cotton farmers of the Nation. I know that we have synthetic manufacturers in perhaps all the districts of the country, and they have operated very well and very successfully, and I commend and congratulate them upon their efforts.

But I think we have been a little slow in bringing cotton to its right place in the Nation. It is a bold fiber and the best, and the most important one in the whole Nation, and that is what we are trying to do.

Before calling the next witness, I would just like to say that we are pressed for time and we would like to make this as brief as possible.

The next two witnesses are both from here in Washington. We will first hear Mr. Reuben Johnson, and then close with Mr. Graham. Then I want to present Mr. John Heimburger, counsel for the committee, for a statement.

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, I have to be excused. I have read the statements of both Mr. Johnson and Mr. Graham.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. You may be excused, sir.

Before you start, Reuben, I would like to ask for another unanimous consent. I did ask for permission to file other statements for the record.

I particularly want any statement in the record showing how much money we have spent in foreign countries in promoting cotton and in research, and I will ask someone to try to prepare some information for us so we will have it in the record to show. In other words, we are doing things abroad that we are not permitted to do at home.

(The following information was supplied by J. Banks Young of the National Cotton Council:)

Critics of this legislation try to leave the impression that it is a new and novel approach to the promotion of cotton which is bad. This is not at all the case. For the past 10 years, funds generated under Public Law 480 have been used to promote the consumption of cotton in foreign countries. The money being spent abroad is not money collected from U.S. farmers, it is foreign currency appropriated by the Congress and allocated by the Bureau of the Budget from funds generated from the sale of agricultural commodities under Public Law 480.

Last year under this plan the use of cotton was being promoted in 16 foreign countries. In addition to cotton, a number of other commodities were taking advantage of this plan. Forty-five trade associations were cooperating with the Department of Agriculture to promote the expanded use of U.S. agricultural commodities in 71 countries.

There is no record of one objection being made to this program. It is extremely difficult, therefore, to understand why all the objections are being raised to this bill. In the bill, cotton farmers will put up the money-not the Federal Government.

The extent to which funds are being spent abroad for research and promotion is indicated as follows: The Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in fiscal 1965 expended about $9.3 million of Public Law 480 funds to develop new and expanded markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. Of this total, about $6 million was programed through industry groups of which about $1.1 million was for cotton through the Cotton Council International. The cotton industry as well as many other industries have been providing a similar amount from their own resources at home and abroad for the international promotion programs.

In addition, the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is expending Public Law 480 funds for technical research abroad that

can contribute to expanded markets for U.S. farm crops. In 1964, ARS made 38 new research grants in the amount of about $2.6 million. These included about $700,000 for cotton.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead, Mr. Johnson.



Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to say that we are not here to get involved in some of the organizational problems that I have heard discussed this morning. We are here to discuss some of the broader implications of this legislation, and if at all possible to make suggestions as to some of the procedures we think might improve it.

The time that has elapsed between the introduction of H.R. 12322 on January 26 and these hearings has not been sufficient for us to complete the research and study that we believe to be required of this type of legislation.

Our organization, however, has in the past opposed promotion schemes, the purpose of which is to load on the already sore backs of farmers the costs of advertising programs. We question, for example, the effectiveness of an advertising program where only the raw product is involved. Far and away the most effective advertising, in our view, is that associated with a private brand or trade name. Under section 12 of H.R. 12322 such advertising is prohibited.

We are concerned that the bill before the committee does not provide for any contribution by buyers and handlers, crushers, ginners, cotton mills, and manufacturers of finished cotton goods and garments. All of these nonfarm sectors of the cotton industry would benefit if the claims of the proponents of the bill are accurate. We note the absence of witnesses representing these groups. But since we understand that these nonfarm sectors of the cotton industry support the bill, it appears that they would be very content to have the producer pick up the check for programs from which they will likely benefit to a greater extent than producers of raw cotton—again, if the claims of proponents are true.

Our domestic mills now can buy cotton on a competitive level with foreign mills. We have removed, in the enactment of a 4-year cotton program the inelasticity of demand for cotton and therefore the present situation is most favorable for expanding cotton consumption. But, if the Congress in its wisdom sees a need to promote the sale of cotton, we strongly urge that provision be made for all sectors of the cotton industry to be counted in as contributors. In this connection, we are not impressed with the argument that producers would control the program if Congress should enact this bill as written.

We further see no need for a research program to augment or supplement the present extensive research programs of the Federal Government. Let me hasten to point out to the committee that Farmers Union has championed all of the Government programs of research to find new uses for cotton, as well as other crops.

We are proponents, too, of efficient production techniques.


In recognition of the fact that the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture has conducted such research on an extensive scale and has succeeded in finding new uses for cotton, we have compiled a table to show the estimated funds available for cotton research for the fiscal years 1966 and 1967.

I request your permission to insert this table at this point in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir, you may do so. (The table referred to follows:)

Estimated funds aavilable for research on cotton, fiscal years 1966 and 1967 1

[blocks in formation]

Farm research:
Agricultural Research Service:

Crops: Production, breeding, genetics, quality, physiology, and

disease investigations; weeds; and other crops research on cotton.
Entomology: Research on the biological and chemical control of in-

sects in cotton; and pesticide residues studies.
Agricultural engineering: Mechanical harvesting of cotton; cotton

ginning research; and other engineering studies on cotton
Nonrecurring funds for plans and construction of the following research
Western cotton insects and physiology research facilities, Tempe,

Cotton physiology research facilities, Stoneville, Miss
Cotton disease research facilities, College Station, Tex.
Pilot cotton ginning research facilities, Stoneville, Miss., and Mesilla

Park, N. Mex.
Cotton ginning and storage research facilities, Lubbock, Tex

Total, farm research.
Utilization research and development:
Agricultural Research Service:

New and expanded uses for cotton, development of new processing

machinery Nutrition and consumer use research:

Agricultural Research Service: Consumer use studies on cotton textiles.-Marketing research:

Agricultural Research Service: Studies on post-harvest handling, conditioning, and other factors affecting market quality and research on equipment, and facilities for transporting and storing cotton.

Total, cotton research.

[blocks in formation]

1 Includes additional estimated amounts to pay costs authorized by the Federal Employees Salary Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-301).

Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, the table shows, and I won't go into any detail, that for the fiscal year 1966 total cotton research will be almost $15 million, $14,838,000. For fiscal 1967 the projected amount of funds to be available is $12,469,300.

The CHAIRMAN. Is $15 million being spent for research in cotton alone?

Mr. JOHNSON. That is what they estimate for the fiscal year 1966. I have the breakdown here of the area in which this research is taking place.

The CHAIRMAN. You are going to put that in the record ?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, I would like to put it in the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Reporter, back on the record.

Mr. Poage. I am sure that these figures include not simply the money that is spent directly on promoting or researching cotton, but

upon all types of insect control that relates to cotton, all types of fertilization that relates to cotton, all types of cultivation, such as flame cultivation and so on, and all types of research on ginning and on spinning. I am sure that they are all included in these figures, isn't that right, Mr. Johnson ?

Mr. Johnson. That is true, Mr. Chairman. I am told there are over 100 different projects that are covered in this expenditure.

The CHAIRMAN. But none of this is spent on promotion, is that right?

Mr. JOHNSON. None of this is spent on promotion.

My question whether any change of the method of financing, in personnel, or in techniques can improve very much upon the research projects planned by the Agricultural Research Service.

We further question the use of funds which would be collected under the provisions of H.R. 12322 to discover more efficient cotton production methods.

Cotton yield per acre continues to go up. For example, in the Southwest, yield per acre in 1950 was 204 pounds; in 1965 it was 400 pounds. In the delta area, cotton yield per acre in 1950 was 307 pounds; in 1965 it was 517 pounds. In the Southeast, cotton yield per acre in 1950 was 209 pounds; in 1965 it was 453 pounds. For the United States as a whole, cotton yield per acre was 269 pounds in 1950; by 1965 it has risen to 531 pounds.

These figures illustrate that in this 15-year period, cotton yield per acre has approximately doubled, and the trend points to even greater yields per acre in the years ahead. The ability of cotton farmers to produce has made it necessary to enact a cotton program designed to more nearly balance supply with demand.

H.R. 12322 repeatedly refers to "research.”. We seriously question whether a major research effort, whether public or private, should be conducted at this time with its major thrust that of increasing production technology. Let me hasten to add that we are fully cognizant of the need for research in the marketing and use of cotton, with the aim of increasing returns to the producer.

We especially question the language of section 2 of the bill, which states:

It is necessary that the existing regulation of marketing be supplemented by providing as part of the overall governmental program for effectuating this objective, means of increasing the demand for cotton with the view of eventually reducing or eliminating the need for limiting marketings and supporting the price of cotton.

We do not foresee the time when any program, however effective it may be in promoting the sale of cotton and in reducing stocks, will substitute for a Federal program, the purpose of which is to help balance supply with demand, and increase returns to the producer.

The assessment provided in section 7(4) (c) of $1 per bale is greatly in excess of the amount we believe that could be justified in financing a cotton-promotion program. Under existing voluntary programs, approximately $7 million is being spent for research and promotion. Most of this money is provided by producers under programs con

« PreviousContinue »