[New York Cotton Exchange Circular No. 56, December 6, 1963] Page: 3 of 4
3 p. ; 28 x 21 cm.View a full description of this letter.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
This "penny wise and pound foolish" amendment of the Cooley Bill, which in
effect provides for a three-price cotton program, has confused and dumbfounded
the cotton industry. The first reaction of many of the leaders of the cotton
industry is that the bill as passed is worse than no bill at all. In my
opinion, this reaction will largely disappear after more careful considera-
ction since few people expected the Cooley Bill as originally passed by the
ouse Committee on Agriculture to meet with the approval of the Senate
cjriculture Committee. The amendment giving the Secretary of Agriculture
complete discretionary authority to determine the rate of the PIK payments
merely adds one more feature which must be corrected by the Senate or by a
conference committee.
Other amendments offered but easily defeated would have: (1) materially re-
duced the level of cotton price supports without any compensating benefits,
(2) made the overplanting of allotment provision effective at 16 rather than
17 million acres, (3) made the PIK payments directly to cotton producers and
(4) made provision for a new wheat program for 1964 crop.
A number of Congressmen strongly contended the Cooley Bill was nothing but a
slightly disguised direct payment program to subsidize the American Textile
Industry to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
They even went so far as to bring out large charts listing the larger tex-
tile mills and the amount of subsidy each would receive. No doubt most
Congressmen know such statements are false and were making them to confuse
the situation in hopes of defeating cotton legislation.
The bill now goes to the Senate. Although no action is expected there this
year, conditions are in such a state of flux in Vlashington that anything
could happen. Senator Ellender, Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee,
has openly stated that no cotton legislation is needed and that he does not
intend to have his committee consider cotton legislation this year. It is
also a well known fact that Secretary of Agriculture Freeman prefers the
eppr ach outlined in the Talm d 4u ;hrey Dill.
Unueseionably there will be strong pressures put on the Senate Agriculture
Committee to improve and strengthen the bill passed by the House. More and
more people are beginning to recognize that it will ultimately be necessary
to have a loan program under which the CCC loan level is at or below the
orld market price of cotton, if American cotton is to be able to compete
with foreign growths in markets throughout the world. It is also generally
recognized that until such time as the cost of producing cotton can be
.aterially reduced, it will be necessary for the government to assist in
bridging the gap between the world price of cotton and a price that would be
fair and reasonable to U. S. producers.
The Talmadge-Humphrey Bill recognizes these elementary facts and would solve
these problems by reducing the loan rate to about the world price of cotton
and would issue PIK Certificates directly to cotton producers. It appears to
ie that since so many large producers object to receiving direct payments, a
logical compromise might be to provide right in the legislation for the PIK
Certificates going to the " first buyers" of cotton.
Despite the many conflicting interests, it appears the prospects are brighter
today than they have been since 1958 for the industry to obtain a sound cotton
program.
F.4arion Rhodes, President
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This letter can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Letter.
New York Cotton Exchange. [New York Cotton Exchange Circular No. 56, December 6, 1963], letter, December 6, 1963; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1300752/m1/3/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rosenberg Library.