Page images
PDF
EPUB

magazine we see how great the promotional weapon of the synthetic fiber products really is.

To further document the nature of our challenge, and what cotton must do about it, I have attached to my testimony some excerpts from remarks made just last week by Mr. Robert E. Brooker, president of Montgomery Ward, which is the third largest merchandiser of textiles in this country. Mr. Brooker made these remarks during an address to the National Cotton Council. I will not read these remarks, but I would ask that they be incorporated in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. They will be made a part of the record at the conclusion of your statement.

Mr. CORTRIGHT. Mr. Brooker made it crystal clear what cotton must do. He also made it clear that cotton does indeed have the potential for becoming a strong competitor and seeing its markets turn upward.

Without a doubt, our industry has all the know-how and the ability it needs in research and promotion. What we are lacking—the one and only thing we are lacking—is the big money it takes to make these programs go in the modern world of fiber competition.

There is no question as to who must put up the money. The producer must do it; and I can assure you that producer leaders and organizations across the belt are confident that cotton farmers are not only willing, but determined, to raise this money.

Through the Cotton Producers Institute, we have developed the broadest possible base of understanding and support for what must be done.

In my judgment, CPI has had behind it the greatest organizational effort ever put together in behalf of an agricultural commodity. The initial belt wide organization was brought on down to the State and area and county levels. Thirty-eight cotton producer groups across the belt threw their full support behind it. Included here were all of the State farm bureaus in the 14 major cotton-producing States; the State Granges; the cotton cooperatives; and other area or State cotton producer groups.

Some 8,600 of the country's top cotton farmers were brought together into various CPI committees. All told, 2,135 meetings have been held for CPI, with a combined attendance of 111,250.

After all this, we know how our producer leadership feels about putting up the money. They are ready to do it.

So why has the present CPI finance plan failed to measure up to the hopes we had for it? Why is CPI on the verge of heading downhill?

The answer has to do with the fact that there are around a halfmillion cotton farmers spread across the southern one-third of the country.

Du Pont and Celanese and other huge synthetic producers have to look no further than a small board of directors to get the money that they want to spend on research and promotion.

But how in the world do you go about the job of getting and accounting for money from a half-million cotton farmers? It would be self-defeating, and prohibitive in cost, for a central organization to try to deal with each farmer individually. The only possible approach is to collect the money where cotton becomes concentrated, and this calls for a high degree of cooperation from the processor and handler branches of the industry.

The basic defect in the CPI finance plan—the basic reason we have proposed the approach embodied in H.R. 12322—is that we have not been able to attain enough cooperation to establish a uniform collection.

Take the gins, for example, where most of the CPI money has been collected up to now. Normally, there are several gins serving a given area, and they compete very strongly with each other to get volumewhich, in ginning, is synonymous with efficiency and profits.

If all gins in an area are collecting the dollar a bale, it doesn't be come a competitive factor.

But if just one gin fails to make the collection-so that it seems he has reduced the price of ginning by a dollar a bale—the other gins are placed in an untenable position. They start pulling out too, and the whole program comes apart in that area.

This is the one great defect in the present CPI approach. We must correct it. We must effect a uniform collection to eliminate the competitive factor among processors and handlers. We must have help from the Congress in establishing a suitable mechanism for bringing this about. We have searched for some other way. We have found none.

The proposal before this committee is the only answer we have found. It has a tremendous base of support from the CPI leadership, from producer organizations and from the rest of the cotton industry. Last week, at the Council's annual meeting, producer delegates voted 43 to 7 to endorse this approach. Support from delegates of other branches of the industry was unanimous.

There is no point in my discussing the various details of the cotton research and promotion bill that is before you, but I would like to make a few brief comments on it.

First, I think this bill just as nonpolitical as any legislation could be. It specifically bans the use of any funds for the purpose of influencing Government policy or action. It should have bipartisan support. It should not become embroiled in controversy.

Second, I want to emphasize that participation in the program would be voluntary on the part of the individual growers. While the bill effectively provides for a uniform collection—as it must to eliminate the competitive factor among processors and handlers-any farmer can request and receive a complete refund of his money.

Third, the program cannot go into effect unless cotton farmers themselves vote affirmatively for it in a referendum. It will take twothirds of the farmers voting, or two-thirds of the volume represented by the vote for approval.

Fourth, the bill provides for participation of cotton producer organizations in the program. We feel that this participation is not only highly desirable, but completely necessary, if the program is to be successful.

Fifth, the bill provides for administration of the research and promotion fund by a beltwide producer organization, set up on a basis comparable to that now followed by the Cotton Producers Institute. We recognize the Government's responsibility to see that the money is spent for the purposes intended. We think the bill contains fully adequate safeguards in that respect. At the same time, we do think that producers can and must have the right to decide how their own money will be spent.

Our understanding of how the program would work is this: The beltwide producer organization would have the authority for initiating and developing and supervising the program; in so doing, it would have the authority to consult with and utilize the resources of the National Cotton Council, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the land-grant colleges, private research and promotion agencies, and any other groups or organizations which can contribute toward the program's objectives. The program would be subject to review and approval by the Cotton Board and by the Secretary of Agriculture, After approval, the Board would contract with the producer organization and proxide funds for the programs. But the intent is for producers themselves to make the decisions on how their money is to be spent, in essentially the same manner as they now make the decisions for CPI.

In conclusion, I want to stress the urgent need for speedy passage of the bill. We feel it is imperative for the program to go into effect on the 1966 crop. The present CPI program is being held together at its present level only in the belief that a uniform collection can be achieved for the coming season.

If action should be long delayed—and especially if there should be serious doubt about final approval of the bill—the present CPI program would almost certainly receive a jarring setback. It would be tragic if we lost the momentum that CPI has generated in research and promotion. We can't afford a cutback, at the very time we need a great expansion.

The legislation before you represents a make-or-break proposition for cotton producers, as well as the rest of the industry.

All we are asking is a fair, fighting chance to use our own money to build a program that will truly be capable of expanding our markets and preserving an industry that means so much to so many millions of Americans. We feel that we deserve this opportunity. We trust and hope that you will permit us to have it.

Since H.R. 12322 was introduced on January 26, 1966, cotton producer leaders from across the belt have been intensively studying and discussing the various provisions of the bill. It has received widespread support. However there are a few relatively minor changes which producer leaders have agreed upon and with which we agree. Most of these are in the nature of clarifying amendments. I would like to give you the substance of the suggested amendments and submit language to the committee counsel which would effect these changes. The proposed amendments are as follows:

1. The bill should be made clear that the order which the Secretary issues specifies that the Cotton Board would make the determination as to the handler responsible for collecting the producer assessment.

2. The bill specifies that the refund must be claimed by the producer within 30 days after he paid it to the handler and prescribes certain other procedures which must be followed for the producer to obtain a refund. These determinations both as to the time period and other steps to be taken by producers in obtaining a refund are matters that could best be worked out by the Cotton Board rather than to be specified in the law.

3. The bill provides that no producer requesting a refund would be eligible to vote in any subsequent referendum until all amounts refunded to him had been repaid to the Cotton Board. Some objection has been voiced to this provision. It is not considered an essential part of the bill and the suggestion is that it be eliminated.

4. In introducing H.R. 12322 the chairman made it clear in his press release that the referendum requires approval by two-thirds of cotton producers voting or two-thirds of the volume of cotton produced by such producers. The language of this bill is not completely clear on this point, and should be clarified accordingly.

5. The bill provides that each cotton-producing State would have at least one member on the Cotton Board. While there are 19 States in which some cotton is produced, it is of major importance in only 14 of these. The largest of the minor States produces a little over 15,000 bales whereas the smallest of the major States produces more than a quarter of a million bales. Accordingly it is proposed that only the 14 major States be guaranteed 1 member on the Cotton Board with the minor States joining their nearest neighbor in nominations to the Board for members who would represent their interests.

6. In a number of places in the bill, the term “cotton marketed” is used. A question has been raised as to whether cotton placed in the loan would be considered to have been marketed. Obviously, for the purposes of this bill, such cotton should be considered to have been marketed.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would say that we are of open mind and are willing to consider any further amendments to the bill and work with you in perfecting them. The main thing that we want is an effective answer, a workable plan for the cotton producers to operate their own research and promotion programs.

I thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. GATHINGS. I agree with Mr. Cortright. Mr. Abernethy put his finger right on the point with regard to this legislation, that part which he discussed earlier in his questions, which had to do with the blacklisting of a cottongrower. I believe that you recognize that fact and would recommend that that language be deleted. It would not stay in there anyhow. This committee would knock it out because it is

I want to commend Dr. Horne for his reply to a question raised, I believe, by Mr. Callan with regard to the small amount of money expended by the cotton porducers as compared to that which is available to the synthetic fiber producers. Dr. Horne did not go far enough. I am sure that Mr. Cortright can tell the whole story.

For example, the National Cotton Council supported legislation that was introduced 2 years ago by Representative Frank Smith, of Mississippi, which was written into law. Every garment must state what type of fiber went into it. Is that not true! You are proud of your products is that not right?

Mr. CORTRIGHT. Yes. We think it was a very beneficial piece of legislation to the industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say that we have quite a list of witnesses here and we have only 2 days for these hearings. Are there any further questions? Let us go off the record.

not proper.

[blocks in formation]

(Discussion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.

Mr. Horne has placed his prepared statement in the record and without objection, it will be made a part of the record at that point where it was placed in the record.

Mr. GATHINGS. The council brought to us recommendations in 1964 that we write into that legislation $10 million for a program of research on cotton. We hoped that we could get a program of that kind, if the funds were made available, so as to get a crash program underway and get some results, but will you tell us, Mr. Cortright, just what has been done with reference to that?

Mr. CORTRIGHT. This was an authorization for $10 million to be used specifically for research to reduce the cost of producing cotton. It was implemented to the extent of about $5,400,000 in the last fiscal year. Of course, the matter is again before Congress and the Appropriations Committee as to how much more they will appropriate during the current session.

Mr. GATHINGS. Have any results been obtained ?

Mr. CORTRIGHT. Yes, sir. I think quite significant results are being obtained on this.

Mr. GATHINGS. I wish that you would furnish for the record specifically just what has been done.

Mr. CORTRIGHT. Mr. Buck, I will ask you to answer that. You followed this program closer than I have. Would you specifically answer the question? Dr. Buck is on our staff as a technical consultant.

Mr. GATHINGS. Yes.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE S. BUCK, JR., DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,

NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL, MEMPHIS, TENN. Mr. Buck. The effort has been underway just a couple of years, but very substantial progress has been made in developing new systemic insecticides to lower the cost of controlling insects and viruses for use against boll worms and better methods for controlling weevils by chemicals and improved herbicides. Progress has also been made in quality evaluation to permit more effective marketing of cotton. All of these have promising areas, Mr. Gathings, but we still do not have the full level of effort that we need in that area.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will yield.
Mr. GATHINGS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You plan to introduce this program again to the Appropriations Committee?

Mr. CORTRIGHT. We will be before the Appropriations Committee again this year. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dole.

Mr. DOLE. What you propose to do, apparently, according to your statement, from reading page 5 where you discuss uniform collection is that you really mean compulsory collection, because as you indicate you do not get enough voluntary contributions; therefore, it will have to be a compulsory assessment. This interests many of us. Would you have any objection to providing in the bill that the burden would not be placed on the producers? If he does not want to be assessed,

« PreviousContinue »