Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1966, H.R. 10586—Continued FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ACT OF 1965 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9811) to maintain farm income, to stabilize prices and assure adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, to reduce surpluses, lower Government costs and promote foreign trade, to afford greater economic opportunity in rural areas, and for other purposes. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, the pending farm bill will mean a considerable improvement in existing farm price-support programs. programs. However, it leaves much to be desired. The price-support programs, particularly for wheat, feed grains, and cotton, are still more complicated and difficult for farmers as well as others to understand than they should be. The level of price support, too, should be higher to help farmers meet the serious situation they find themselves in that of constant and sharp increases in the cost of operation while farm prices, particularly for wheat and feed grains, are lower today than they were 20 years 200,000 180,000 95,000 420,000 85,500 420,000 180,000 85,500 420,000 180,000 85,500 420,000 1,396, 950,000 1,066, 655, 500 1,223, 181, 500 1,250, 655, 500 1, 407, 181, 500 1,066, 655, 500 1,223, 181, 500 deficit and are purchasing huge quantities from Canada and every other surplus-producing country in the world. They are paying for this wheat in hard currencies-including dollars. If the wheat producers in the United States had access to these markets, as do the Canadians, then the need for wheat price-support programs would become far less urgent. Canada recently sold Russia $450 million worth of wheat at $1.93 a bushel. Unfortunately, because of a Presidential order, half of all the wheat shipped to Russia or Russian-bloc countries must be carried in U.S. bottoms. This means a shipping rate for U.S. produced wheat of from 20 to 30 cents a bushel higher than Canadian wheat. This is enough of a price differential to prevent any U.S. sales. Mr. President, I can never understand why all of these protests are made against selling wheat to Russia when there is no impediment on any other farm commodity, or most industrial goods being sold to Russia or its satellites. Indeed, there are some huge sales of industrial goods, and even industrial plants, to Rumania and other bloc countries. There are ever-increasing sales of soybeans to these countries and soybeans are much more of a strategic commodity than wheat since they are far more useful in the manufacture of ammunition than is wheat. soybean-producing country in the world. The United States is the only surplus If we were to shut off our shipments of bloc countries, we could effectively prevent them from obtaining soybeans. But we are only one of many surplus wheat-producing nations. The Russians are obtaining all the wheat they want. They can get it because other surplus wheat-producing countries are now increasing their production. soybeans to Russia and the Communist Over the years the wheat producers of this country have had to depend on exports for markets for more than half of their production. Since wheat is singled out as the only farm commodity that cannot be sold in the big dollar markets of the world, there is no alternative but to continue and improve in every way possible wheat price-support programs. Failure to do this would mean bankruptcy for this large and very important wheat segment of our economy. Because of the great need for improving the income to wheat farmers to meet the problems they have of being locked out of most of the dollar markets of the world, I introduced legislation to increase the blended price-support level for wheat from $1.81 a bushel, contained in the House-passed bill, to $1.90 a bushel. This was approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee and lacked only one vote of being unanimous. The blended price support should be far more, but I felt this was the most that would be obtainable. I sincerely hope that the Senate will approve this very modest increase. In many respects my other amendments which were accepted by the committee will simplify the wheat program. I hope, too, that these will be retained. Mr. President, the feed grain section of the bill which is also important to my area of the United States, is somewhat of an improvement over the existing program. ing program. It does provide more discretionary authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to lower price supports, The feed grain price-support program is not only important to the producers but I hope he will not follow this course. of feed grains, but of equal if not even cattle, hogs, and poultry. There always more importance, to the producers of has been and probably always will be a direct relationship between the price of feed grains and meat products. The wool price-support program contained in this bill is a considerable improvement over the existing program. It provides a simple and reasonable formula in setting future levels of price supports for wool. It will mean a slight increase, too, in price-support levels. This is an industry, Mr. President, that would need no program whatever if some protection were provided against the vast imports of wool into this country. More than half of all the wool used in the United States is imported. Of considerable interest to people in the upper Midwest, too, is the land retirement section of this bill. In several respects it represents a considerable improvement over the old soil bank program. It will be more effective in reducing the production of crops in surplus. It is a more effective and less costly way of diverting land from production of surplus commodities than under the present program of diverting acreage on a year-to-year basis. There will be considerable benefit to the wildlife interests of this country. Through voluntary cooperation with farmers, there will be a substantial amount of acreage set aside specifically for wildlife programs. All of the price-support programs under this bill will be extended for a 4year period. This, too, will be a great advantage to farmers over present programs which have been of shorter duration and presented difficult planning problems for farmers. Unfortunately, the costs of these pricesupport programs have been badly distorted by even some proponents of this type of legislation. For example, the cost of the Public Law 480 program as it pertains to wheat is added to the cost of the wheat pricesupport program. Mr. President, let me give you just two or three examples. Under title I of Public Law 480 it is estimated that this year we will sell approximately $851 million worth of wheat to foreign countries for foreign currencies. This wheat will go to the hungry people in almost every part of the world. This is really a part of our foreign aid program and I think most people would concede that making our food available to hungry people gains us far more friends than giving away billions in U.S. dollars. Under title II of Public Law 480 it is estimated we will give away $77 million worth of wheat to famine-stricken countries of the world. This will be either through outright gifts or the food contained in the food packages distributed by church organizations and CARE. It seems almost incredible that anyone would want to charge the cost of such a worthy relief program as this as a part of the wheat price-support program. Unfortunately, under this kind of bookkeeping, the average person thinks that the farmers are getting subsidy checks for the cost of the food that we give to these needy people. These are only a few of the examples, Mr. President, of how wrong it is to charge this more than $1 billion cost of the Public Law 480 program for wheat to the wheat price-support program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a table prepared by the De 1 Denotes receipt. Fiscal year 1963-64 1964-65 estimated 1965-66 estimated $263 $176 $161 276 331 368 79 115 33 35 97 10 15 410 468 2 This amount of net receipts is more than offset by (a) subsidy payments (certificate refunds) to exporters on wheat and products exported and (b) the value of marketing certificates included in the price paid by CCC for wheat products purchased. 3 Consists of loan settlement costs, net overdeliveries or underdeliveries of loan collateral, net inventory transfers, and miscellaneous income and expense. Represents total estimated recoveries over the time period specified in the various agreements (up to a maximum of 20 years) for shipments during the fiscal year. The expenditure is offset by strategic materials of equal value transferred to the supplemental stockpile, subject to eventual disposition by the General Services Administration. NOTE.-Accounting records do not disclose expenditures by commodity for interest, ocean transportation for sec. 416 shipments, dollar recoveries under Public Law 480, title I, or the cost of wheat applicable to bartered materials transferred to the stockpile. Figures for these items represent estimates or allocations of total expenditures or recoveries applicable to wheat and wheat products. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, I hope very much that there may be some further improvements to this farm bill on the floor of the Senate and later by the House-Senate conferees which will be appointed to iron out the differences between the House-passed bill and the Senate bill. We need this legislation badly. Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield. Mr. CARLSON. I commend the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for the very excellent statement he has made on the agricultural situation as a whole, and particularly as it affects wheat. I was pleased to hear him bring out the fact that most of the wheat that is exported goes through Public Law 480 and food-for-peace and other humanitarian programs; and also that he stressed the fact that we are losing a market in the world competitive market for wheat by not selling wheat to the Soviet Union and Eastern-bloc countries. Last year we exported 730 million bushels of wheat, and only 165 million bushels were sold for dollars. We have an opportunity to sell in the world market, a market taken over by Canada, Argentina, and Australia, probably 200 million bushels of wheat, which would help our balance of payments and would save our taxpayers money by reducing the storage costs. In my opinion it would make a difference of 20 cents a bushel to the wheatgrower. It seems to me that we are cutting off our nose to spite our face in this situation. Coming from a wheat State, I know that every wheatgrower is indebted to the Senator from North Dakota for proposing the section in the bill which is largely the amendment he introduced earlier this year. It is of great value to the wheatgrowers and to agriculture as a whole. We are all indebted to the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I thank the Senator for his kind comments. The wheat section in the bill is a major part of a bill introduced by the Senator from Kansas, the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT], and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER). Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield. Mr. LAUSCHE. What is the Senator's estimate as to the increase in the price of selling wheat to foreign countries because of the obligation of carrying half the wheat in American bottoms? I believe the Senator gave a figure previously. Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I understand it is about 20 to 30 cents a bushel. AMENDMENT NO. 432 Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 432. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The legislative clerk proceeded to state the amendment. Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be not read, but printed in the RECORD at this point. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. "(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, for the 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969 crops of upland cotton, if the farm operator elects to forgo price support for any such crop of cotton by planting an acreage not exceeding 50 per centum in excess of the farm acreage allotment established under section 344, all cotton of such crop produced on the farm may be marketed free of any penalty under this section: Provided, That the foregoing shall be applicable only to farms for which acreage allotments were established for 1965 and the farm operator for the current year was the operator of such farm for 1965 or has acquired such farm by inheritance from the operator since such year. The operator of any farm who elects to forgo price support for any such year under this subsection shall not be eligible for price support on cotton on any other farm in which he has a controlling or substantial interest as determined by the Secretary. farm acreage allotment established under secAcreage planted to cotton in excess of the tion 344 shall not be taken into account in establishing future State, county, and farm acreage allotments.' "(3) Section 350 of the Act is amended, effective with the 1966 crop, to read as follows: "'SEC. 350. In order to afford producers an opportunity to participate in a program of reduced acreage and higher price support, as provided in section 103 (d) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, the Secretary shall determine a national domestic allotment for the 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969 crops of upland cotton equal to the estimated (standard bales of four hundred and eighty domestic consumption of upland cotton pounds net weight) for the marketing year beginning in the year in which the crop is to be produced. to be produced. The Secretary shall determine a farm domestic acreage allotment percentage from each such year by dividing (1) the national domestic allotment (in all States of the product of the State acrenet weight pounds) by (2) the total for age allotment and the projected State yield. The farm domestic acreage allotment shall be established by multiplying the farm acreage allotment established under section 344 by the farm domestic acreage allotment percentage: Provided, That no farm domestic acreage allotment shall be less than 65 per centum of such farm acreage allotment: Provided further, That, except for farms the acreage allotments of which are reduced under section 344 (m), the farm domestic allotment shall not be less than the smaller of ten acres or the farm acreage allotment established under section 344. Such national domestic allotment shall be determined not later than October 15 of the calendar year preceding the year in which the crop is to be produced.' "SEC. 602. Section 103 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is amended by adding the following new subsection at the end The amendment, ordered to be printed thereof: in the RECORD, is as follows: Strike out all of pages 104, 105, and 106 and insert in lieu thereof the following: "TITLE VI-COTTON "SEC. 601. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended as follows: "(1) Section 348 of the Act is amended by adding the following new sentences at the end thereof: "The Secretary may extend the period for performance of obligations incurred in connection with payments made for the period ending July 31, 1966, or may make payments on raw cotton in inventory on July 31, 1966, at the rate in effect on such "(d) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if producers have not disapproved marketing quotas, price support shall be made available for the 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969 crops of upland cotton as provided in this subsection. "(2) Price support for each such crop of upland cotton shall be made available to cooperators through loans at such level, not exceeding 90 per centum of the estimated average world market price for Middling oneinch upland cotton at average location in the United States for the marketing year for such crop, as the Secretary determines will provide orderly marketing of cotton during the harvest season and will retain an adequate share of the world market for cotton produced in the United States taking into consideration the factors specified in section 401 (b) of this Act: Provided, That the national average loan rate for the 1966 crop shall reflect 21 cents per pound for Middling one-inch upland cotton. "(3) The Secretary shall provide additional price support for each such crop through payments in cash or in kind to cooperators at a rate not less than nine cents per pound: Provided, That the total of the national average loan rate for any crop under paragraph (2) and the rate at which payments are made under this paragraph shall not be less than 65 per centum nor more than 90 per centum of the parity price for cotton. Such payments shall be made on the quantity of cotton determined by multi plying the projected farm yield by the acre age planted to cotton within the farm domestic acreage allotment: Provided, That any such farm planting not less than 90 per centum of such domestic acreage allotment shall be deemed to have planted the entire amount of such allotment. "(4) The Secretary shall also make price support payments in cash or in kind in addition to the payments authorized in paragraph (3) to cooperators who reduce their cotton acreage by diverting a portion of their cotton acreage allotment from the production of cotton to approved conservation practices to the extent prescribed by the Secretary: Provided, That the total reduction in such cotton acreage shall not exceed 35 per centum of the farm acreage allotment, but no reduction shall be required on small farms with minimum domestic acreage allotments under section 350 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. The rate of payment under this paragraph shall be such rate as the Secretary determines to be fair and centum of the national average loan rate esreasonable, but shall not be less than 50 per tablished under paragraph (2). Such payment shall be made on a quantity of cotton determined by multiplying the acreage diverted from the production of cotton by the projected farm yield, except that payment to small farms with minimum domestic acreage allotments under section 350 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, shall be made on a quantity of cotton determined by multiplying an acreage equal to 35 per centum of such farm domestic acreage allotment by the projected farm yield. "(5) The Secretary may make not to exceed 50 per centum of the payments under this subsection to producers in advance of determination of performance and the balance of such payments shall be made as soon after determination of performance as practicable. "(6) Where the farm operator elects to participate in the acreage reduction program authorized in this subsection and no acreage is planted to cotton on the farm, price support payments for the 1966 crop shall be made at a rate equal to 50 per centum of the national average loan rate established under paragraph (2) on the quantity of cotton determined by multiplying 15 per centum of the farm acreage allotment by the projected farm yield, and the remainder of such allotment may be released under the provisions of section 344 (m) (2) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended: Provided, That for the 1967, 1968, and 1969 crops such rate of payment shall be that which the Secretary determines to be comparable to the rate of payment under paragraph (4). The acreage on which payment is made under this paragraph shall be regarded as planted to cotton for purposes of establishing future State, county, and farm acreage allotments and farm bases. "(7) Payments in kind under this subsection shall be made through the issuance of certificates which the Commodity Credit Corporation shall redeem for cotton under regulations issued by the Secretary at a value per pound equal to not less than the current loan rate therefor. The Corporation may, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, assist the producers in the marketing of such certificates at such times and in such manner as the Secretary determines will best effectuate the purposes of the program authorized by this subsection. "(8) Payments under paragraphs (4) and (6) of this subsection shall be conditioned on the farm having an acreage of approved conservation uses equal to the sum of (i) the reduction in cotton acreage required to qualify for payments under paragraph (4) or the acreage with respect to which payments are made under paragraph (6), as the case may be, and (ii) the average acreage of cropland on the farm devoted to designated soilconserving crops or practices, including summer fallow and idle land, during a base period prescribed by the Secretary: Provided, That the Secretary may permit all or any part of such reduced acreage to be devoted to the production of guar, sesame, safflower, sunflower, castor beans, mustard seed, and flax, if he determines that such production is necessary to provide an adequate supply of such commodities, is not likely to increase the cost of the price support program, and will not adversely affect farm income. "(9) The acreage regarded as planted to cotton on any farm which qualifies for payment under paragraph (4) of this subsection shall, for purposes of establishing future State, county, and farm acreage allotments and farm bases, be the farm acreage allotment established under section 344 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, excluding adjustments under subsection (m) (2) thereof. "(10) The Secretary shall provide adequate safeguards to protect the interests of tenants and sharecroppers, including provision for sharing on a fair and equitable basis in price support under this subsection. (11) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the amount of pricesupport payments made with respect to any farm may be adjusted for failure to comply fully with the terms and conditions of the program formulated pursuant to this subsection. "(12) Notwithstanding any other provi sion of this Act, if as a result of limitations hereafter enacted with respect to price sup port under this subsection, the Secretary is unable to make available to all cooperators the full amount of combined price support to which they would otherwise be entitled under paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection for any crop of upland cotton, (A) price support to cooperators shall be made available for such crop (if marketing quotas have not been disapproved) through loans or purchases at such level not less than 65 per centum nor more than 90 per centum of the parity price therefor as the Secretary determines appropriate; (B) in order to keep upland cotton to the maximum extent practicable in the normal channels of trade, such price support may be carried out through the simultaneous purchase of cotton at the support price therefor and resale at a lower price or through loans under which the cotton would be redeemable by payment of a price therefor lower than the amount of the loan thereon; and (C) such resale or redemption price shall be such as the Secretary de "(14) Section 408(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, is amended by changing the period at the end of the first sentence thereof to a colon and adding the following: "Provided, That for upland cotton a cooperator shall be a producer on whose farm the acreage planted to such cotton for the 1966 crop does not exceed 90 per centum of such farm acreage allotment and for the 1967, 1968, and 1969 crops does not exceed such percentage, not less than 90 or more than 100 per centum, of such farm acreage allotment as the Secretary may determine, except that this proviso shall not apply to any farm receiving a minimum farm domestic acreage allotment under section 350 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended." "(15) The provisions of subsection 8(g) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended (relating to assignment of payments) shall also apply to payments under this subsection.' "SEC. 603. Section 301 of the Agricultural "(L) 'Projected National, "(M) 'Projected farm yield' for any crop "SEC. 604. Section 407 of the Agricultural FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ACT OF 1965 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9811) to maintain farm income, to stabilize prices and assure adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, to reduce surpluses, lower Government costs and promote foreign trade, to afford greater economic opportunity in rural areas, and for other purposes. UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT TO LIMIT DE- Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time up to 11 o'clock tomorrow morning, following the prayer, be limited to a discussion of the pending Talmadge amendment, one-half hour to be under the control of the distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry [Mr. ELLENDER], and the other half hour to be under the control of the distinguished junior Senator from Geor amendment. Act of 1949, as amended, is amended by gia [Mr. TALMADGE], the sponsor of the through July 31, 1970, (1) the Commodity Secretary may make such estimates and ad- termines will provide orderly marketing of sale in an orderly manner and so as not to cotton during the harvest season and will retain an adequate share of the world market for cotton produced in the United States. "'(13) An acreage on a farm in any such year which the Secretary finds was not planted to cotton because of drought, flood, or other natural disaster shall be deemed to be planted to cotton for purposes of payments under this subsection if such acreage is not subsequently devoted to any pricesupported crop in such year. affect market prices unduly.'" Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, without the Senator from Georgia losing his right to the floor, I ask unanimous consent that I may suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. The unanimous-consent agreement, subsequently reduced to writing, is as follows: Ordered, That the Senate proceed to vote at 11 a.m. on Friday, September 10, 1965, on the amendment by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE], numbered 432, with the time for debate, beginning after the prayer tomorrow (10 a.m.), to be equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE] and the Senator from Loui siana [Mr. ELLENDER]. Mr. MANSFIELD. Earlier today the Senate agreed to a vote on the pending Talmadge amendment at 11 o'clock tomorrow. I should like very much to change that time to 12 o'clock, so that there will be an hour to be equally divided between the distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE], the author of the amendment, and the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER). Mr. TALMADGE. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Montana the whether he expects to convene the Senate tomorrow at 11 o'clock? The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- suggest The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors of the amendment: the senior Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL], the senior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. PASTORE], the senior Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. COTTON], the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], and the senior Senator from North Carolina [Mr. ERVIN]. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, for many years I have been advocating a cotton program which, in addition to maintaining adequate farm income, would do three things: First, allow the cotton farmer more freedom to plant for the world market; second, make cotton more competitive in the world trade and with_manmade fibers; and, third, take the Federal Government out of the business of buying, storing, shipping, and selling cotton, which has been estimated by the Department of Agriculture to cost an average of $25.15 a bale, for which the farmer gets not one red cent. The only beneficiary of that program is the Federal employee or the keeper of the pawnshop. We took a step in this direction last year when we enacted a cotton program that did away with the iniquitous twoprice system that was about to destroy the American cotton industry. Under the program, which required American textile mills to pay $42.50 more for a bale of cotton than any foreigner on the face of the earth would pay for the same cotton, we witnessed the loss of almost half a million employees who worked in textile mills, and we forced the liquidation of almost 1,000 textile mills in this country during that time. It seemed to me most strange and most illogical that cotton grown within the shadow of a textile mill in the United States would cost that same textile mill $42.50 a bale more than the same cotton would cost when shipped to Tokyo, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, or anywhere else on the face of the earth. I do not know if it would be considered a subsidy if business in the United States paid premium prices for products produced in the United States. A Chevrolet automobile made by General Motors in Detroit, Mich., might cost $3,000 in Atlanta, Ga. It might cost $3,200 in London, England. But I do not believe General Motors would be considered as having given me a subsidy if I bought the automobile in Atlanta, Ga., cheaper than I could have in London, England. Yet, we have heard that strange and completely illogical reasoning on the floor of the Senate and in the committee that reported the committee version of the farm bill. We are again at the crossroads on cotton. The present program will expire next year if we do nothing and pass no cotton legislation. We will go back to the old two-price system that prevailed from 1956 to 1964. It almost wrecked the cotton industry in this country. When I say "wrecked the cotton industry," I mean the man who plants the seed on the farm; the man who gins the cotton and buys the crop; the man who buys the cotton and spins it into cloth; and the individual who works on the looms in the textile mills. I also mean those who buy the cotton from the textile mill, as well as the ultimate consumers of textile apparel. The textile industry was the weakest industry in the United States. If we return to the inequity of the two-price system, we will again see all the damage we saw in that era. The liquidation of jobs has not ceased. Two years ago, a number of mills in the northwest part of my State of Georgia liquidated, and 2,300 employees were thrown out of jobs. In Covington, Ga., this year, a mill was liquidated, and hundreds of people became unemployed. In Cedartown, Ga., this year the same thing happened at a time when we are attempting to fight poverty by spending millions of dollars. I do not believe that Congress should pass laws that are designed deliberately to force poverty by rendering the people who work in textile mills unemployed or by making them work on short time. If the Senate passes the cotton program that was approved by a one-vote majority of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, we will go back to the ruinous program of the past. If we are to save our cotton industry, the only alternative is to vote against the committee majority and adopt the amendment that is now pending before the Senate. I regret that I must disagree so sharply with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry [Mr. ELLENDER] and those who think as he does on the cotton issue. The chairman of our committee is a most able, man of our committee is a most able, dedicated, and conscientious individual. I am proud of his friendship. He works tirelessly in the interest of our farmers and our Nation. In this instance, he is wrong, and I am forced to disagree with him. I am forced to disagree with and to oppose with all the vigor in my being that I possess, the committee cotton pro gram that was approved by an 8-to-7 vote, because I am convinced that if the committee bill is approved, we shall soon see the end of the road for cotton in the United States for a long time. The handwriting has been on the wall, and has been plain for anyone to see, that our cotton policy for many years has been badly in need of change. In 1930 the United States produced more than 50 percent of the world's cotton. In 1930 the United States produced 14 million bales of cotton against a world production of about 12 million bales. What has been the practice since that time? Foreign production has increased from 12,298,000 bales in 1930 to 36,425,000 bales in 1964. What has the United States done during that period? Our cotton production to 15,148,000 bales in 1964. has gone up from 13,932,000 bales in 1930 In other words, while cotton produc tion in the United States during 34 long years has been almost constant, there has been a 200-percent increase in the rest of the world. Why has that been? It is because we have had a system under which our farmers pawn cotton with the Federal Government but forfeit title thereto, and the Federal Government has held a price umbrella of high price supports over the rest of the world, thus making it profitable for so many throughout the rest of the world to expand their cotton production, while we were contracting our acreage. Cotton acreage in the United States has been constantly reduced. More than 60 percent of the farmers in Georgia and the other Southern States have cotton allotments of less than 10 acres. We have been plowing under the American cotton farmer and guaranteeing a profit to the rest of the world. Our policy has failed. It is high time we thought of some new approach. I favor high income to our farmers. I believe that the man who tills the soil and produces cotton should receive a fair price for it, but the price should be devised in such a way that the very program designed to aid it does not put him out of business. That has been the program we have lived with for more than a quarter of a century. Foreign cotton production has increased to three times what it was, while ours has remained at about the same as the 1930 level. For nearly 15 years the support for cotton producers' prices has been unrealistic and unresponsive to the needs of the cotton industry. Our protective umbrella of high price supports has kept American cotton out of foreign markets and has encouraged the expansion of cotton acreage and cotton production in foreign countries. It has also encouraged the production and use of competing man-made fibers. World production of synthetic fibers has increased from 22 billion pounds in 1950 to 11.3 billion pounds last year. It continues to increase year after year after year. Because of this impracticable price support system, which is pricing our cotton out of the world market, the Federal |