« ПретходнаНастави »
selves are willing to pay to promote additional consumption of lamb and of our products we should be authorized to do it and this provision just sets up the mechanism by which we may give ourselves some help. I do favor this provision.
Mr. Dixon. Is there any opposition to the bill?
Mr. ANDERSON. I understand there has been a little opposition to the checkoff system, but that is the only whisper of opposition to any part of the law that I have heard. There could be no opposition, it seems to me, to having the bill open ended because it is always subject to annual scrutiny by your committee. And if a reason for changing it came up, your committee would see that those changes would be made. So long as it is on the books—although there may be some small changes may be made from year to year-growers can plan several years ahead.
Mr. Dixon. Thank you.
Mr. Poage (presiding). You do find the compensatory payment to be a sound and wonderful program?
Mr. ANDERSON. I do. I feel it should be extended to other commodities. But, certainly, in the case of wool, which is one commodity of which there is a shortage in this country, it would work at its very best.
Mr. PoAGE. Any further questions?
Mr. Poage. We will be glad to have you sit with the committee, if you
will. Mr. ANDERSON. I am going to take my constituents out in the hall and have a little talk if I may Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. All right. Thank you.
I believe that Mr. Kincaid from the Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association is with us. We will be glad to have you testify now. I understand you have with you Mr. Williams, who is the secretary and manager of the Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association. We will be glad to have Mr. Williams join you.
STATEMENT OF T. A. KINCAID, PRESIDENT; ACCOMPANIED BY
ERNEST L. WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OF TEXAS SHEEP AND GOAT RAISERS' ASSOCIATION, OZONA, TEX.
Mr. KINCAID. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is T. A. Kincaid. I am president of the Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers' Association which is one of the member State organizations affiliated with the National Wool Growers Association. I am also a grower of wool and mohair, maintaining a ranch near Ozona, Tex., on which I own about 6,000 head of sheep and goats. This ranch operation is my only source of income.
I appreciate very much this opportunity to appear before this committee in support of the extension of the Wool Act of 1954.
The Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers' Association is the only agricultural organization in Texas which represents and acts as spokesman for the woolgrowing industry of Texas. I am here today representing the 21,114 individual woolgrowers of the State who participated in the program provided by the Wool Act.
These growers produced and sold 44,764,000 pounds of wool during the 1956 marketing year with a value of $28 million. I mention these figures only to point out the fact that Texas is the Nation's largest sheep producing State and that this industry is a large and vital segment of the agricultural economy of the State.
The sheep population of Texas, like that of the other States in the national, has declined more than 50 percent since 1942—from a total of over 10 million head to about 4,800,000 in 1957, the lowest in over 30 years. This decline was speeded up greatly during the period from 1950 through 1956 by a prolonged drought. Many flocks were liquidated and nearly all others greatly reduced to allow the operators to stay in business. The drought was definitely ended in 1957 and a considerable increase in sheep numbers is already apparent there.
The intent of the Wool Act is being achieved.
It was the unanimous decision of the woolgrowers of Texas, at their annual convention last December, to request the Congress to extend the Wool Act. We feel that such an extension is necessary to bring the wool production of Texas back.
We are apparently supported in this request by the 71,000 members of the Texas Farm Bureau because that organization, at its annual convention in Dallas last November, unanimously passed a resolution favoring extension of the Wool Act of 1954 until the objectives of the act were realized.
I thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you.
Mr. POAGE. We are very much obliged to you for coming here. Stay here as long as you can. We think it is most helpful to have
I would like to have your opinion as I have asked some of the others, do you find the compensatory payment is working successfully?
Mr. KINCAID. I think it is working particularly well, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact of the deficiency production of the commodity of wool, that it is lending a most stable influence on our wool production and to our markets.
Mr. PoAGE. What will be your attitude toward other segments of agriculture in their legislative programs after the wood people have gotten theirs through? Will you be friendly or will you go home and not be concerned?
Mr. KINCAID. Mr. Chairman, we recognize that the whole of agriculture is only a minority but we recognize the right of each commodity to work out its own problems and to ask Congress for help in passing any reasonable program that will make agriculture as a whole prosperous. If producers of any commodity are agreed that a program will work for them, we will support them just as we would want them to support us in asking for the extension of the Wool Act because we know that this program works for us.
Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hill. Just this question. I am glad to note that you, also, make a positive statement about the weather. That interests me coming from an area having a drought, too. Now I have no doubt in my mind that between Texas and Utah, the drought is over. We had such a statement from Utah. I am glad to know that this testimony will tell the powers that be that we expect it to be at an end. Thank you very much.
Mr. KINCAID. Thank you.
Mr. Dixon. I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Kincaid. There are two questions.
First, do you favor the bill as proposed by Mr. Fisher as to the word "specific”?
Mr. KINCAID. Yes, sir; definitely.
Mr. Dixon. You say that the Texas Farm Bureau has endorsed this unanimously. As I understand it, the American Farm Bureau raised some question about the checkoff, but that they would go along with the bill, they said, anyway. But they had some question about the checkoff.
Has your Farm Bureau raised that question?
Mr. KINCAID. In that resolution, Congressman Dixon, they did not. They just worded it to support the extension of the National Wool Act until the objectives contained within the act were realized.
Mr. Dixon. Did they make any reference to this amendment that our colleague here, Mr. Fisher, has brought out about the limitation on the tariff receipts?
Mr. KINCAID. In so many words; no, sir. But their wording was that they supported the extension of the Wool Act until such time as the objectives were realized. To me that definitely meant that they did not intend to place a definite termination date on the act that the objective of the act should determine the termination or the action.
Mr. Dixon. In other words, that it should be continued, and the inference is that it would have to be financed. That is the position?
Mr. KINCAID. Yes, sir.
Mr. FISHER. I would like to emphasize that Mr. Kincaid is a highly respected sheep grower and raiser in Texas. They even changed the bylaws this last fall in order to reelect him as President to serve another term, which is almost without precedent down there.
Mr. Williams is our very able secretary of the association in Texas. He has been in that position for quite a number of years.
Mr. PoAGE. Did they have to change the bylaws to retain him? Mr. FISHER. No. He is very efficient.
Mr. Poage. We are delighted to have both of you with us. I know Mr. Kincaid and Mr. Williams have done a fine job for the sheepgrowing people and for the whole country for a long time.
We who are interested in the success of the sheep-growing business are appreciative of the fact that you have taken your time to come
Mr. KINCAID. Thank you very much.
Mr. J. A. Crowder, apparently, represents a number of wool associations
We shall be glad to hear you now.
STATEMENT OF J. A. CROWDER, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRE
SENTING THE BOSTON WOOL TRADE ASSOCIATION, PHILADELPHIA WOOL AND TEXTILE ASSOCIATION, AND NATIONAL WOOL TRADE ASSOCIATION
Mr. CROWDER. My name is J. A. Crowder. I am an attorney in the law offices of Clinton M. Hester, this city. I appear here today on behalf of the Boston Wool Trade Association, the Philadelphia Wool and Textile Association, and the National Wool Trade Association, for which we are Washington counsel.
The members of the 3 associations which we represent here supply the woolen and worsted manufacturing industry of the United States with approximately 90 percent of the wool which it consumes.
With me here today are Mr. George L. Anderson, former president of the Boston Wool Trade Association and representative of the president of that association; Mr. Matthew J. Gill, chairman of the domestic wool committee of that association; Mr. I. J. Horstmann II, president of the Philadelphia Wool and Textile Association; and Mr. Richard W. Wells, immediate past president and chairman of the domestic wool committee of the Philadelphia association. The presence of these gentlemen here today attests to the importance which our segment of the wool textile industry of the United States attaches to the need for extension of the National Wool Act of 1954.
Mr. PoAGE. Would you like to have them come up here and sit with you?
Mr. CROWDER. If that is all right with you.
Our members buy wool from the producer, sort it, classify it as to type and grade, process it through the cleaning operation known as
'scouring” and perform all other services necessary to prepare the raw wool from the sheep's back for use by manufacturers. In addition, some of our members perform the early stages of manufacture known as combing and topmaking, which prepare the wool for manufacture into yarn. The function of the wool trade is to act as a connecting link between the woolgrower and the wool manufacturer. We are, therefore, vitally interested in the welfare of both the woolgrowing and wool-manufacturing industries of this country.
We urge the enactment of the bills which are before your committee which would extend the National Wool Act of 1954. Further, we suggest that if the terminal date provided for in these bills be omitted it will represent substantial progress toward the effecting of a permanent solution to the problems of the wool industry of the United States.
The National Wool Act of 1954 was a great step forward in providing the means for the maintenance and growth of the sheep industry of our country.
As a result of the direct-payment provisions of the act, the domestic wool production has been moving directly into the channels of trade at full market values determined by competitive demand. Our domestic wool production is no longer destined to deteriorate in warehouses for Government stockpiling under loan or purchase programs to be later sold in damaging competition with current production.
The members of the wool trade associations are gratified to have restored to them their normal and historic function of serving both wool producers and wool manufacturers in the distribution into consumption of our domestic wool production.
The Congress deserves great commendation for having tailored the National Wool Act of 1954 to fit the needs of the domestic wool producer, to provide him with the incentive to continue and increase his production with confidence that the distributing and manufacturing interests of the country will absorb and use his increased production.
Of prime importance in the existing Wool Act are the provisions of section 708 which authorize the use of part of the incentive payments of wool producers for the purpose of developing and conducting on a National, State, or regional basis advertising and sales promotion programs for wool, mohair, sheep, or goats or the products thereof.
This is an age of advertising, and huge sums are being spent each year for advertising fibers that are competitive with wool. It is essential that every effort be made to advertise for the purpose of promoting the use of wool for apparel and other purposes and increasing the consumption of lamb with a view to stimulating production of domestic pulled wool.
It is significant that the wool producers have by an overwhelming majority recognized the value to them of a promotion program. By so doing, they have expressed their willingness to spend their own money to promote the use of their product, and they should be encouraged to continue this activity so vital to their industry.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee for the privilege of appearing before you to present to you our views on the extension of the National Wool Act of 1954.
Mr. PoAGE. We are glad to have you with us. We are interested in hearing from the trade and the manufacturers' end of the industry. I think that you feel just as enthusiastic as to the direct payment program as the producers?
Mr. CROWDER. That is true, sir.
Mr. PoAGE. And you also find, just as the producers have found that it is highly desirable to allow the livestock industry after a vote of the membership to use a portion of the proceeds of their sales to promote their product?
Mr. CROWDER. We cannot speak for other segments of the livestock industry but in the case of wool, we are highly in favor of this; yes, sir.
Mr. Poage. That raises the very question we have to raise, I am afraid. We are all in the position of knowing one industry best, but the committee must act for a lot of people that you do not represent, that we do represent.
Mr. CROWDER. Yes, sir.
Mr. Poage. I can see nothing wrong with continuing the wool program. We understand that you feel that the program is good and many others have found that, but I have noticed in times past when they got their program as they wanted it, that they immediately lost all interest in everybody else's program and everybody else's welfare,
How do you think your people would feel if we make this wool program permanent and then find that the cotton needs a similar