which hurts the little man so much, will never return to him or to the community. These steady acreage reductions are depopulating our communities. Acreage reductions cripple producers and gradually destroy the economy of the area including the great fertilizer dealers, machinery dealers, small merchants at the crossroads, the laborers, and every other business that is connected with the production of cotton.

Now I wish to say a word about the small-farm feature. I have been amazed to listen to the argument about supporting this amendment as it will protect the little farmer. We who have been Members of the Senate for a long time know much of the history of this provision for the little farmer. I recall the

time when the small farmer provision was defeated on a yea-and-nay vote by two votes.

The amendment, which I was sponsoring, merely afforded a little protection for the 5-acre farmer. The former Senator from Minnesota, Mr. HUMPHREY, now the Vice President of the United States, and the late former Senator from New York, Mr. Lehman, when they understood more clearly the purpose of my amendment, announced they would change their votes and would vote for a motion to reconsider the vote whereby the amendment was defeated. Thus, the first amendment protecting the acreage of the 5-acre farmer was written into law.

The distinguished Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE] has done much as a member of the Senate committee in years past to increase the limit to 10 acres, as it is today. I commend him for it. But that is no reason why this present amendment to this bill should be adopted.

I hope that the pending amendment will be rejected and that the provisions of the committee bill will be sustained.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield 5 minutes to me?

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Sen

ator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. I am not enthusiastic about either the committee bill as it refers to cotton, or the so-called Talmadge amendment. As between the two, I greatly prefer the committee's proposal, and I shall state briefly why I prefer it. First, if we adopt the basis of production payments or compensatory payments for a large basic commodity like cotton, as proposed by the Talmadge amendment, we might as well forget about basing the whole price-support program on any idea of protecting and continuing private enterprise, or private initiative, because the program would become a dole or welfare program. Soon the whole program for agriculture would be converted to that basis.

The people of my State of Florida, who are most interested in agriculture, almost as one man, are opposed to compensatory payments. They feel that the beginning of such a system with reference to cotton would quickly spread to the other basic commodities and would have a destructive effect on the whole

agricultural support program as we have known it.

I invite attention to the fact that this is only a part of the so-called discredited Brannan plan. I also invite attention to the fact that the amendment now at the desk proposed by the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER] makes it clear that we are turning in the direction of the Brannan plan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the proposed amendment to section 707 be included in my remarks at this point. This shows that the trend is toward making the cotton program a welfare program rather than one based upon business principles, and I cannot support it for that reason.

There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

At the end of the bill add a new section as follows:

"SEC. 707. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no producer shall be eligible for price-support loans or payments under any program or programs administered by the Department of Agriculture in any amount in excess of $10,000 for any one year. The foregoing dollar limitation shall include the fair dollar value (as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture) of any payment in kind made to a producer."

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, next, I invite attention to something I have not heard mentioned, and that is that not heard mentioned, and that is that the amendment proposed by the able Senator from Georgia and others, called the Talmadge amendment, not only approves, but I believe also encourages, a 50-percent increase in acreage in the most productive areas of cotton in the Nation, and particularly in the irrigated areas of the West, which are in this field areas of the West, which are in this field of competition largely because Uncle Sam has expended countless millions of dollars to put them in business on an irrigated farm basis.

I believe that the pending amendment, if adopted, would be doing a disservice to the small producers in all of the Southeast and all the producers in the Southeast except in the delta regions-includeast except in the delta regions-including all those States which have delta areas along the Mississippi River. I can see clearly that the amendment, if adopted, will surely increase greatly the irrigated acreage in the Far West, which produces from 3 bales per acre up, in many instances, of cotton, as against one bale or less than one bale in the hill bale or less than one bale in the hill areas of the South.

For that added reason, I oppose the pending amendment.

Next, I oppose the amendment for the reason mentioned by the distinguished reason mentioned by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] a few moments ago. The committee bill includes arrangements to take care of the small farmer wherever he may be, the small farmer wherever he may be, in the East, West, far West, by providing in the East, West, far West, by providing that up to 10 acres of the production of any farmer who has an acreage of of any farmer who has an acreage of 10 acres or less shall be considered as exclusively devoted to the domestic field and is, therefore, entitled to the highest and is, therefore, entitled to the highest measure of price support.

I believe that is a much needed provision which is absent from the pending amendment, and I believe that the Sen

ator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS] is eminently correct in pointing to that as one of the major reasons.

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield to me, on my own time?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PROXMIRE in the chair). Does the Senator from Florida yield to the Senator from Georgia?

Mr. HOLLAND. I do not have charge of the time

Mr. TALMADGE. I should like the Senator from Florida to know that the 10-acre amendment is in my bill.

Mr. HOLLAND. I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from Georgia when I am through. The method followed by the distinguished Senator in his amendment takes care of small farmers only through compensatory payments, to which I strongly object.

What I am saying now is that the Senator from Mississippi is eminently correct in his statement that the 10acre devotion to support for the domestic allotment field is clearly stated in the committee bill, and I believe that it is a desirable feature.

I say also and I do not believe my distinguished friend the Senator from Georgia will deny it-that his amendment would permit a 50-percent increase in acreage in the highly productive areas of the West, and I am against this amendment for that reason also.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Florida has expired.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Florida.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Florida is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. HOLLAND. The last reason why I oppose the pending amendment is that although I supported the measure which was adopted to come to the aid of the textile industry last year, I am completely disappointed in the results, because I have not seen any showing of gratitude on the part of the textile industry which was promised at that time, and which we fully expected.

To the contrary, that showing of gratitude has been wholly lacking, as so clearly shown by the senior Senator from Louisiana.

Now the textile industry says, "We demand the right to have the same price as the foreign processors," when the fact is that it is asking for a price approximately 3 cents per pound less than foreign producers, because it would get the cotton without the cost of transportation to foreign shores.

I am not too greatly impressed by the pleas of the fervent cotton planters from Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut who, of course, are pleading only the case of the textile manufacturers.

Mr. President, I believe that the committee provision is vastly to be preferred to the pending amendment, and for that reason I shall vote for it and against the pending amendment.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Georgia yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, if the committee version of the cotton section of this bill prevails, it is my opinion that the cotton industry as a whole will plunge speedily toward financial disaster a disaster so severe that the industry may never recover.

Cotton problems are, of course, not partisan in nature. We have given consideration, time and again, to these problems, but the problems have not been solved.

Production costs are too high; research is too limited; marketing methods are too complex; Federal Government involvement is too great and too confusing. Our exports are down, and our surpluses continue to increase.

Mr. President, it is my opinion that it is essential any cotton legislation restore a market price system for cotton. We have here the opportunity to do just this.

Many millions of dollars in administrative expenses, storage costs and interest charges will be saved under the alternative proposal.

I wish to emphasize that I am confident the only way cotton can survive as a major industry in the face of foreign competition and of substitute fibers is to sell competitively. The American taxpayer cannot be expected to continue indefinitely to vote payments for ever-increasing stored surpluses.

After more than a century of growing cotton in this country, the industry is on the verge of being liquidated. It is a senseless loss and one the Nation can hardly afford. We have taught the world how to grow cotton, and they have taken over 70 percent of the business. We have forfeited completely our share in the growth of the world market to others while we stagnated. While everyone else increased production to meet demand, we reduced acreage as yields improved through the development of new farming techniques. When there was a world shortage in 1950, we let all the farmers benefit from the price increase except ours, on whom we imposed price ceilings. We must be the most experienced people on earth in building up Government surpluses and then finding cumbersome ways to dispose of them. All it takes is money. The first 10 postwar years were profitable for cotton, even for the taxpayer. But beginning with fiscal year 1956 through July 1964, the U.S. Department of Agriculture admits the cost of its cotton programs has been in excess of $4.14 billion-and that is exclusive of interest, administrative costs and the cost of all the hearings, investigations, and other Government activity occasioned by its cotton programs. During that time, CCC had to take over unredeemed loans on over 32 million bales, and these represented 26 percent of our total cotton production. This year the trend is the same.

I think we well might note that in 1958 Congress passed adequate cotton legislation and that during the time when the congressional intent on its administration was followed, it worked satisfac

retary of Agriculture increased the support price, thus increasing the export subsidy. Exports fell from an average of 6.9 million bales yearly to 4.1 million. The carryover rose from 7.1 million bales to 11 million bales and is still rising. We lost our competitive position in the world market.

The current cotton mess resulted because the Secretary of Agriculture unwisely exercised his discretionary power to set price supports at a higher percentage of parity.

Past decisions and actions, which now seem impossibly unwise, have brought the cotton industry in this country far beyond the point where it can be saved by anything less than an immediate reduction to the competitive world price, under a program that is convincingly permanent.

What is needed is a loan at the worldprice level. Such a loan would permit our export business to resume its past high levels. Such a loan would enable U.S. mills to obtain cotton at the same price foreign mills do.

To bridge the gap between the world level and the price necessary to preserve a solvent producer, the equalization payment must be made for several years to the producer, as cotton gradually reenters normal channels of trade and progressively retains its competitive status in the world. No arbitrary ceiling or limits could be placed on the amount of equalization payment.

If the loan is placed at or near the world market price, the cotton trade and the consumer can stock cotton. Furthermore, instead of being bought on a handto-mouth basis, as has been the practice in recent years, the cotton will move into market consumption.

Many millions of dollars in Government administrative expenses, storage costs and interest charges will be saved. The farmer will benefit from income protection while he is assisted by additional research projects to become competitive.

I think it is obvious that the Government loan was not intended to be a market for cotton, but only a marketing device. So long as the loan remains above the market price, it will attract into storage cotton that should be going into consumption.

So long as the export subsidy is maintained, some other subsidy will be necessary to achieve a one-price system at the mills.

In brief, Mr. President, cotton must be made permanently competitive by implementation of a convincing U.S. program aimed at restoring confidence of both domestic and foreign purchases of our cotton. Farmers' income must be protected, but by a single payment, not by a five-sided monster. Congress must move Congress must move cotton toward lesser Federal regulation, a goal that cannot be achieved by adding more subsidies and more acreage allotments.

If this committee bill goes through, it means simply that the support price next year will be 1 cent cheaper than now; and there will be a 3-cent domestic subsidy instead of the present subsidy.

The farmer will receive less for his cotton, and the mill will pay more. The

Government will pay less subsidy but will have to pay more for the lands that are idled and for the cotton that is not grown.

Caught in the middle will be the ginners without cotton to gin, the banks without cotton to finance, the merchants without cotton to buy and sell, in the areas where cotton is dropped and where all the diverse business interests will suffer.

It would end the one-price system for cotton that is presently employed and return to the program of 2 years ago with just new frills added. It appears that it would consequently and necessarily mean another trend toward use of less cotton by domestic mills.

Last year Congress took a short step toward a new day for cotton by acting to restore a one-price system. Last year's plan could have operated to move cotton into markets rather than into surplus storage; it could have allowed the private enterprise marketplace to operate with renewed vigor.

But bypassing the intent of Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture made a basic mistake. He chose not to administer the

1964 Cotton Act so as to reduce surpluses and to encourage free enterprise. Instead he administered it in a way which increased Government interference and increased taxpayer costs.

This year, the Secretary's mistake became abundantly clear. Cotton's problems are worse, not better. So this year the administration joined in a serious attempt to establish and preserve a oneprice plan for cotton. The House of Representatives approved that plan in its

farm bill.

Unfortunately, the Senate Agriculture Committee threw out the wisdom of the House and ignored the lessons of the past. The committee reported to the Senate a two-price proposal which would give the farmer less for his cotton, make the mills pay more for it, and increase cotton costs so that competition in the marketplace would be virtually impossible.

For that powerful reason, I support the Talmadge amendment and urge its adoption. I do not expect this year's cotton regulations to be a final answer.

But, I do know we must get the cotton industry moving on the right track, not into Government storage, to stand and often rot, but moving into the market at competitive prices.

The hour is late for cotton. Long years of governmental mistakes have taken their toll. I hope we can find our way this year onto the right track, because if we stay on the old track-cotton is doomed.

to permit American mills to compete with foreign mills on equal footing, insofar as raw cotton costs are concerned. The effect of a two-price system on cotton's competition with rayon and noncellulosic fibers is clearly shown by the fact that cotton's share of the market dropped almost 10 percent from the first quarter of 1961 to the first quarter of 1964. This was just prior to the enactment of the one-price cotton legislation. Rayon and noncellulosic fibers gained by this much at the expense of cotton. One-price cotton was made effective with the Agriculture Act of 1964 on April 11, 1964. From the first quarter of 1964 to the first quarter of 1965, which represents the first year under a one-price system, cotton's share of the market dropped by only four one-hundreds of 1 percent. Stated another way, the terrific inroads which synthetics were making on cotton's market were brought to an abrupt halt with the institution of one-price cotton.

What is the significance of this record of fiber consumption? During the whole period from 1961 to the present, the total consumption of cotton and synthetic fibers was rising. Thus, the textile industry industry was experiencing a period of growth. The big question is which fibers shared the most in this growth. The answer is clearly synthetic fibers. Cotton actually suffered a heavy loss relative to synthetic fibers. Thus, it is the raw cotton industry which has the greatest stake in seeing that one-price

cotton is continued. This means cotton farmers, cotton ginners, and others engaged in the business of handling and marketing raw cotton. These are the people whose incomes are almost solely dependent on a healthy cotton economy. It is clear that the textile industry is not dependent solely on cotton. This has been demonstrated by the substantial shift away from cotton to synthetics during the last 3 years of the two-price system. As one who represents cotton farmers, cotton ginners, and others engaged in handling and marketing raw cotton, I want to see one-price cotton continue. I am unalterably opposed to a return to a two-price system.

Mr. President, let me add further that I believe the basic issue is the viability of cotton as a competitive, high demand fiber. I believe that the issue is the viability of the cotton industry in the United States. I am convinced that the only way we can keep the cotton industry alive is to move cotton into free market at competitive prices.

The one-price cotton system is designed to do this.

I am a supporter of the views of the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE]. I intend to vote for his amendment, and I hope that it will be adopted.

Mr. President, I do not believe that the Talmadge amendment is a panacea. I do not believe that it is the best program in the world. I know that the sponsor himself feels that perhaps there are some things in it which could be improved upon.

We all recognize that legislation is, after all, the art of the possible. We feel that this is the best possible provi

sion we can get through Congress at this time.

Therefore, for the sake of the life of the cotton industry, and for the sake of not diminishing but improving the position of cotton as a competitive fiber as one of the great crops produced in this country, I believe that we should support the Talmadge amendment. I fervently hope that it will be adopted.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time still remains equally divided on both sides between the Senator from Georgia [Mr. TALMADGE] and the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER]. Who yields time?

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, is the Senator from Louisiana prepared to yield back the remainder of his time?

Mr. ELLENDER. No; I am not ready yet. I have yielded time to many Senators, and others will follow.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I covered the cotton proposal at length yesterday. It is my contention that this bill should be a producer's bill and not a textile mill bill. If the textile mills desire protection, they should go to the proper committees of the Senate and the House.

Mr. President, an article entitled, "J. P. Stevens Sets Earnings Record" appears in the New York Times of today. This earnings record was made possible by the so-called one-price system.

I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized for 2 minutes.

Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I am convinced that the only way to help the American cotton grower is by a bill which establishes a one-price cotton market and which does economic justice to the American textile manufacturer, regard

less of whether that manufacturer is in Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, or elsewhere.

I say this because the American textile industry is the biggest customer the American cotton grower has. If the American cotton grower is to have the benefit of a market on which he can sell his products most easily, it is essential that Congress render economic justice that Congress render economic justice to the textile manufacturer.

Mr. President, that is the purpose of the Talmadge amendment. For that the Talmadge amendment. For that reason, and because it would undertake to establish free trade, both domestic and foreign, I shall support his amendment.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Carolina yield at that point?

Mr. ERVIN. I am glad to yield.

Mr. PASTORE. I should like to read

into the RECORD a statement made by the National Cotton Council on the very point which is being developed by my good friend, the Senator from North Carolina.

It reads as follows: The committee bill

Referring to the bill as reportedwould turn back the clock to a system which has failed and which would destroy the American raw cotton industry.

That is from the National Cotton Council.

Mr. ERVIN. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his contribution, and also the Senator from Georgia for yielding to me at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

TILE PRODUCER REPORTS HIGHEST SALES AND PROFIT IN ITS 151-YEAR HISTORY

J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc., the Nation's second largest publicly owned textile producer, achieved the highest sales and earnings in its 151-year history in the 3 and 9 months ended July 31, according to a report issued yesterday by the company.

Its consolidated net earnings for the third fiscal quarter ended with July rose to $6,460,502 from $4,355,861 in the corresponding 3 months last year. The earnings were equal to $1.24 a share, compared with 83 10-percent stock dividend declared last cents a share a year earlier, adjusted for a

October.

J. P. Stevens, which ranks behind Burlington Industries as a textile producer, reported consolidated net sales of $185,236,075, compared with $171,121,008 for the third fiscal quarter last year. This brought to $538,674,403 its volume for the 9 months ended July 31, compared with sales of $479,882,902 in the corresponding threequarter period a year earlier.

The company's net income for the 9 months climbed to $18,394,486, or $3.52 a share, from $10,631,257, or $2.04 a share, on the adjusted basis for the 9 months ended August 1, 1964. Federal and State income

taxes totaled $17,377,000, while a year earlier the tax bill was $9,369,000.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, another article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on February 10, 1965, headlining that domestic mills in 1964 had one of the best years since the early 1950's with the help of the cotton bill enacted in 1964. I ask unanimous consent that this

article be printed at this point in the

RECORD.

There being no objection the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

TEXTILES GET BRIGHTER-MILLS IN 1964 HAD ONE OF BEST YEARS SINCE EARLY FIFTIES, WITH HELP OF COTTON BILL; PROFIT GAINS SPUR STOCKS

(By Ted Stanton)

Textile mills in 1964 had one of their best years since the early 1950's, helped considerably by the cotton program that President Johnson in his farm message said should be extended and improved.

Expansion, diversification, and modernization, all fueled by soaring earnings, are bringing a luster to textile company stocks that reflects the industry's brighter image.

The provision of the law that has been a major factor in the textile mills' gain permits

them, in effect, to buy U.S. cotton at the same price foreign mills pay. It has provided for payment of 62 cents for each pound of cotton domestic textile firms use. That's roughly the difference between the world price of about 231⁄2 cents a pound and the higher domestic support price for last year's crop. Mills formerly had to pay the higher price.

Mill executives are generally optimistic about this year's operations, too. Their confidence stems from the industry's overall firmness, and also from widespread expectations that Congress will vote to extend the one-price program, with, at most, minor revisions. The present law expired in mid1966.

The table below marks the rise of some leading mills' stocks from the bottom of the market slump in 1962 to yesterday's closing price. Many have outpaced the broad market advance; some have almost doubled, and shares of Burlington Industries, Inc., biggest concern in the industry, are up even more. Prices are New York Stock Exchange closing quotations, with those of J. P. Stevens & Co. adjusted for two 10-percent stock dividends. June 26

United Merchants & Manufacturers, whose diversified operations include the Robert Hall clothing store chain, earned $14,119,000, or $2.35 a share, in the year ended June 30, up 30.6 percent from fiscal 1963. Its profit in the first half of this fiscal year jumped 40 percent from the fiscal 1964 level to $9,415,000, or $1.57 a share. In all fiscal 1963 the company's earnings had declined 3 percent to $10,810,000, or $1.80 a share.

Kendall Co. recently said 1964 earnings jumped 23.5 percent from 1963 to $7,196,000, or $3.42 a share, while sales were up 7.1 percent to $149,405,000. It ascribed the gain in part to lower raw material costs and lower income taxes. The company also proposed a 3-for-2 stock split and said it planned to boost the quarterly dividend to the equivalent of 371⁄2 cents on present shares from the current 34-cent rate.

Cone Mills 9-month profit in 1964 more than doubled and net of Dan River Mills, Inc., rose 27 percent in the period. And both companies in recent months have lifted their quarterly dividend to 25 cents from 20 cents.

Industry earnings have shown strong trends before, of course. The following fig

ures illustrate the severe fluctuations textile producers have experienced. These industry profit totals, in millions, were calculated by

the SEC:

Dan River Mills.
Dow-Jones industrials.

1234

535.76

901.24

68

The substantial earnings gains that are a

prime force in these rises seem likely to continue into the summer at least. Industry profits in the first 9 months last year rose 38 percent from those of a year earlier, the Securities and Exchange Commission said. Third quarter profits were up 60 percent three times the 18-percent gain reported for all manufactuers. An analyst close to the industry calls the outlook better than in Lord knows how long.

The Nation's economic boom has carried the textile firms with it. "Tastes," says one executive, "have been upgraded. Now the consumer wants nicer clothing, better furnishings. The worker has swapped his blue collar for 10 different sports shirts. And we make more money on the better quality goods."

Because of changes in the industry in the past few years, the companies have been in a relatively good position to make the most of their opportunities. Some key factors, by industry consensus, are rising spending for

new plants and equipment, increasingly

skillful management, and the big push from the cotton legislation.

Besides lowering the price mills pay for cotton, the bill also dispelled the uncertainties that had been adversely affecting our market in 1963 and earlier, according to Ceasar Cone, president of Cone Mills Corp. EARNINGS, SALES SPURTS

Company earnings and sales graphically demonstrate the strength of the industry. Burlington's profit in its 53-week fiscal year ended October 3, jumped 25 percent to $50,800,000, or $4.15 a share, from the 52week fiscal 1963. Sales climbed 11 percent to $1,206,393,765. In the current year's first quarter, Burlington's net soared 47.4 percent above the year earlier pace and sales were up 13.2 percent. J. P. Stevens' profit in the year to October 31 climbed 27.3 percent from fiscal 1963 to $17,685,000, or $3.73 a share, and sales were up 12.3 percent to $684,860,013.

1963-

$218 416 329 280 354

Many close to the textile situation, however, contend progress has been made toward curbing such gyrations. They note the

streamlining of management and equipment plus better inventory control, and cite growing use of man-made fibers as another stabilizing influence. Total fiber use in the 5 years through 1960 averaged 6.4 billion pounds annually, of which 27 percent was in man-made fibers. Last year synthetics accounted for a third of the total.

Observes Edward Goldberger, secretarytreasurer of M. Lowenstein & Sons, Inc.:

“Up until a few years ago, the industry would expand and produce like the devil in good times, until it was suddenly ahead of demand. Then it would let things taper off. The results were sharp swings in earnings. I think there's been some leveling of this in the past few years and more is probable."

BIGGER AND BROADER

The continuing move toward larger, broader companies that began after World porate structure, some textile people say. War II has helped bolster the industry's corA congressional panel noted that 838 textile firms closed between 1947 and 1950; 110 others were acquired from 1958 through 1961.

Many family-owned, smaller firms have either disappeared or been swallowed by larger ones. A sign of the change: The 10 largest companies in the field had about 13 percent of total sales in 1950. In 1964 they had close to 25 percent. Sales of such giants as Burlington and Stevens are continuing to climb.

Capital spending programs, bringing more automation and hefty operating efficiencies, have soared in the past 4 years. Total mill outlays last year are estimated at almost $750 million, 50 percent above the $500 million of 1961. Outlays by all manufacturing firms in the same period are up only about a third. And preliminary estimates for textile spending this year call for another increase. Burlington, for example, expects its spending this year to rise to $80 million from $66 million last year.

A Government study describes some results: "Broad-scale introduction of textile

machinery that operates at higher speeds, requires less maintenance and has devices such as electronic stop motion units that increase total efficiency and maintain quality."

Charles F. Myers, Jr., Burlington president, ascribes part of the spending boost to the emergence of larger, stronger companies in the industry. "These firms are better able to finance investment required for expansion and new technology. They can put capital equipment into plants that couldn't afford it themselves," he says.

The spending torrent has helped lift productivity while allowing mills to hold down employment. Federal figures show industry employment fell an average 1.7 percent in the 5 years through 1962 while output rose an average 3.6 percent yearly. Job rolls now are a slim 0.5 percent above 1962's, while the production index is up 12 percent more.

capital outlays, and enhanced the industry's The one-price bill has spurred the heavy general health. Industry and Government officials had contended, in advocating it, that the bill would enable domestic mills to compete more equitably with foreign firms, while increasing U.S. cotton consumption. In general, these proponents now say, it has worked

well.

Cotton usage jumped sharply last year, to 9.6 billion bales from 8.5 billion in 1963, and mill profits spurted, they note. In addition, textile workers received a pay rise last year that may have been due at least in part to the mills' greater prosperity, they say.

Frank Lowenstein, an Agriculture Department economist, similarly notes the bill's benefits, but adds it may still be "too early to judge❞ the legislation's success. "When bill provided, it sometimes takes 2 or 3 years there is a whopping price change such as the

or more for the effects to work down through

the marketing system," he says.

When the bill took effect April 11, prices of cotton cloth slipped briefly. But then buyers, who had been holding off awaiting the bill's passage, began to pour their orders in, and prices edged up. Because of the rush, some mills early last fall had cotton goods output booked through this year's second quarter to a much greater degree than in several years. And prices generally held firm.

SOME EXECUTIVE CONCERNS

Some mill executives fret that if Congress delays acting on extension of the bill, the uncertainty of which Mr. Cone spoke could return. Adding to their concern: In his farm message President Johnson said he would offer specific proposals to reduce the cost of this program and the level of cotton stocks. Administration sources indicate, however, that a radical overhaul of the cotton pricing program isn't likely.

In urging passage of the bill last year, industry and Government spokesmen suggested consumer prices would be cut, too. While prices of corduroy, denim, and some other goods have fallen, the widely used print cloths are generally above last April's levels, and critics of the bill cite this often. "They promised savings would be passed through, but on too many goods it just hasn't happened," says Max Milstein, House Dress Institute counsel. Commenting on mill earnings gains, he adds wryly, "I'd be more prosperous, too, if the Government would hand me a present of millions of dollars."

Senator AIKEN, Republican, of Vermont, senior Republican on the Senate Agricultural Committee and a foe of the bill last year, sees a need for legislation to allow the mills to compete on an equal basis with foreign mills. But he believes the mills should prove their need for the present program in light of their earnings of the past 12 months.

Mr. Lowenstein of the Agriculture Department adds that the high level of capital ex

penditures may ultimately help bring the lower consumer prices the bill's opponents have urged.

The wage rise southern textile workers won last year may soon be followed by another for those in the North. The union has announced plans to seek a 15-percent wage increase, a pension plan, and fringe benefit gains for its northern members when it reopens its contract this spring.

George Perkell, Textile Workers Union research chief, noted the union endorsed the one-price bill last year but will await results of the wage negotiations before taking a stand this year. Last year's pay boost, he adds, "was advertised as 5 percent, but often worked out to less. The firms could have given us 25 percent across the board and still had 55 percent of the pricing bill's savings

left."

Though the law's impact on earnings has been sharp for many textile companies, for others it has been negligible. Collins & Aikman, Inc., for example, which uses synthetic fibers mainly, notes cotton goods account for so little of the firm's output that "we'll hardly

feel the law at all."

IMPROVING PROFIT MARGINS

Along with other favorable factors, nevertheless, the new law has helped to lift the industry's traditionally low profit margins. Some gains have already been posted. More are expected.

The SEC figures industry profit margins for 1963 at an average 2.3 percent, off from

2.47 percent in 1962. But for the first 9 months of 1964, profit as a percentage of sales was 2.9 percent, and for the third quarter alone it was 3.7 percent, the SEC reported. Here are some of the latest samples of profit after taxes as a percentage of sales, compared with year-earlier levels: In the year ended October 3, Burlington's was 4.2 percent, up from 3.7 percent; in the 9 months to September 30, Lowenstein's was 2.4 percent, up from 0.8 percent; Cone Mills, 3.3 percent and 1.5 percent, and Dan River, 4.2 percent and 3.4 percent, both for the 9 months.

Prime reasons for the rise: The pricing bill, last year's tax cut, benefits of efficient new equipment, and sales gains that almost certainly pushed industry volume above 1963's record $15 billion. Nine month sales, the SEC said, jumped 7 percent from 1963.

Another trend reflecting the health of the industry is the apparent reduction in unit labor costs. Official statistics aren't available, but one company executive notes that "figuring employment against either total sales dollars or production would show a

decline in labor costs."

The Textile Workers' Mr. Perkell says industry output per man-hour has climbed an average 5 percent annually in recent years while wages have gone up 2 percent a year on average, even with last year's rise. Fringe benefits, the union official contends, "have gone up only slightly."

A prime problem still facing the industry, executives and analysts agree, is the continu

ing competitive pressure of imports. Mills making woolens and worsteds, in which imports aren't regulated, have been hit hardest. The cotton goods inflow has been contained somewhat through an international agreement that took effect in 1962. A similar accord on woolens is desired by many in the industry.

Under the cotton pact, the flow of imports will rise gradually. "But," notes one executive, "it helps us because it provides for more orderly marketing procedures, allowing for more reasonable planning and production. In the past, we might be flooded by one item one year and then, after gearing to meet that competition, get flooded by another next year. Now we know in advance how much of each item is coming in and this creates some stability that previously was lacking."

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD two tabulations. One is entitled "Unfinished Cloth Prices, Cotton Prices, and Mill Margins, July 1963, 1964, and 1965." The other tabulation is entitled "Bureau of Labor Statistics-Wholesale Prices Indexes for Selected Cotton Items-1957-1959 Equals 100-July 1963, 1964, and 1965."

There being no objection, the tabulations were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: