He asks permission to file a statement to be inserted into the record with the testimony of the other representatives from Missouri. Without objection, that permission is granted.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM J. RANDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in the past, the United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the purchase of sugar from foreign countries, now proven to be our enemies. It is my considered opinion that we should become ever less dependent upon any outside source of supply. Many farmers of the Midwest are urging that they be given the opportunity to produce sugarbeets.

Missouri, my home State, produces principally grains, livestock, and dairy products. It is an important agricultural area, important not only to Missouri, but to the Nation as a whole. At present, we have almost 100 on-the-farm sugarbeet demonstration plantings which are supervised by the University of Missouri Agricultural Extension Service. It has already been determined that the soil and our general weather conditions are suitable to this crop. There are many farmers in this area who are keenly interested in growing sugarbeets; and I can see no justifiable reason why they should not be permitted to do so. There is no sugar refining plant in Missouri. The nearest plants are located in Iowa and Nebraska. Because of the distance involved, freight rates, as well as the spoilage problem, makes it impracticable to ship beets out of State. It is the opinion of many leaders in my area that the sound solution would be one or more sugar factories in our State.

It is my information that a new plant of appropriate size would cost from $12 to $15 million. Such a plant would take about 2 years to construct and would require a supply of beets from about 25,000 acres. In my opinion, that notwithstanding the cost, existing sugar companies or even others, would be willing to develop a program and construct a factory or factories in Missouriif the Congress would amend the existing legislation to provide for sugarbeet production in Missouri.

The population of my State is about 4 million. Based upon average per capita consumption of sugar in this country, this means that Missourians alone use over 200,000 tons of sugar each year. I believe that at least one factory, which would even then supply less than one-third of the amount of sugar used in Missouri each year, warrants favorable consideration for an acreage allotment. Two other points which strongly support an acreage allocation for my State are: (1) Such an allocation would permit farmers to supplement their now declining incomes; (2) the building of a plant or plants would also be of great assistance to the general economy as there are presently sections of Missouri which have been designated as having a labor surplus.

I strongly and sincerely believe my home State of Missouri offers outstanding possibilities for the expansion of the sugarbeet industry. Since our sugarbeet area presently supplies not more than 25 percent of the total sugar requirements of our Nation, I urge amendments to the Sugar Act which would permit an increase in this percentage and which would provide Missouri farmers the right to grow sugarbeets to meet at least a part of the sugar requirements of our State.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. McIntire, our own colleague, wants to make a statement. And inasmuch as we have not heard anybody east of the Hudson River, I think we will be especially glad to hear Mr. McIntire

now.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFFORD G. McINTIRE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to advise this committee that a great many Maine farmers are interested that a new growers provision be a part of legislation that revises and extends the Sugar Act. This may

come as a surprise to many members of the committe; however, I am certain that you can appreciate a great portion of our sugarbeet production is at high elevations and in the northern areas of continental United States, with climatic conditions not unlike those of northern Maine. It is also interesting to note that beet production in Canada, an important industry in that country, is located in a similar climatic

zone.

In Maine, we have about 400,000 acres of land presently in agriculture that we feel certain is of a soil type adaptable to beet production. We have farm managerial ability fully capable of meeting the challenging adjustments that would be associated with the production of a new crop. Our farms are fully equipped as far as farm power is concerned and we in Maine can readily acquire the special equipment necessary for beet planting and harvesting.

The fields and farms of this production area are of a size that would be ideal for efficient management and production.

While thoughts of producing sugarbeets and cattle feeding beets are not new, this area has not in recent generations produced beets for commercial sugar production. We of Maine have no history of production under existing law nor any processing facilities in the area. The principal crop in the area is potatoes. We also produce peas for freezing and small grains and hay. To balance the farm pattern an additional crop is sorely needed. Farm earnings on potatoes are traditionally speculative and currently below cost of production. We believe sugarbeets would fit well into our productive pattern and supply both an important crop and an industrial income. Grower interest is very sincere and we believe that acreage necessary to support a processing plant can be readily assured.

The Maine Agricultural Experiment Station has done considerable research on beet production in Maine. On the basis of research conducted about 10 years ago, we believe tonnage per acre and sugar content is comparable with yields in areas now in commercial production. Our research work is continuing with seeds of new varieties already being planted this year on plots located in various parts of the production area.

It should be further noted that all of New England is in a feed deficit area and that all of the beet pulp, a byproduct of refining, would find a ready market.

May I point out, too, that this production area in Maine is located only 200 to 250 miles from tidewater and within a 700 to 1,000 mile radius of markets involving about 50 million people. We recognize that this market is now supplied by cane sugar and that sugar production in Maine would have to successfully compete with sugar from other sources. We believe that we can compete in this market as successfully as beet sugar from other areas.

Mr. Chairman, I have set forth some of the basic facts supporting a deep interest on the part of Maine farmers in legislative action relating to domestic sugar production. We respectfully request that any consideration of new producing areas include recognition of the very definite potential of sugar production in Maine.

Gov. John H. Reed, the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, the college of agriculture, the agricultural extension service, the State department of agriculture, the department of economic development,

Mr. PoAGE. I do not know what we can do about questions now. I know that we are not going to get through if we have questions now. We have to get along.

Mr. HAGEN. I tried to ask a question a while ago.

Mr. POAGE. I know that you did, but you understand the situation. Mr. HAGEN. I have no objection to Mr. Johnson asking a question, but I think we should have an understanding that governs all of us.

Mr. POAGE. I understand that. We will now hear from the next witness. I believe that yesterday Mr. John L. Harper was passed over because of the pressure of time. Because of that he was not called. Do have a statement to make? We want to hear you and will be glad to hear you now.

you

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. HARPER, PRESIDENT, TRANS-PECOS SUGARBEET GROWERS ASSOCIATION, PECOS, TEX.

Mr. HARPER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

My name is John L. Harper, of Pecos, Tex., in Reeves County. I am president of the Trans-Pecos Sugarbeet Growers Association, and I represent that group here today.

I must confess that the statement I am about to offer for your consideration is not the statement I had prepared originally. After having heard those who have preceded me, I thought the committee might appreciate my effort to avoid, as much as possible, repeating what others have said-and probably better than I could have said it. I would like to emphasize, however, two or three points which have not been belabored as hard as some others, and I feel the emphasis is warranted, because these are virtually critical considerations.

First, there is a great deal of reason for urging that action on sugar legislation be completed this year. If the law is not revised to permit a larger quota for the domestic areas, there very probably will be no explanation of sugarbeet acreage next year or the year after, but actually a cutback. That would mean a cutback of the so-called old growers.

On the basis of the information available to me, it is quite evident that the domestic sugarbeet areas quota for the next year, under provisions of the present law, will be considerably below total beet sugar production. To hold production within the limits currently drawn could be accomplished only by reapplying acreage controls and reducing 1962 acreage below this year's levels.

Certainly, that would not only be a disagreeable circumstance so far as present growers are concerned, but it would slam the door in the face of those who aspire to become new growers, at least for several more years.

By the same token, if present quotas are not revised upward this year for the domestic producers and especially the best areas and acreage controls are not applied next year, then a very undesirable buildup in stocks would result. In short, a surplus of domestic beet sugar that would overhang the market well into the future.

I do not know how, under the present law which covers only half of next year, the Secretary of Agriculture could comply with the law and still avoid ordering a sugarbeet acreage cutback in 1962.

Aside from this one effect of delay in revising the law, there are also the consideration involving farm, processing, and sales programs for next year under rules which extend only half-way through the year.

It is conceivable, if the law is not changed this year to open the door a reasonable amount for entry of new growers, that our hopes and aspirations will be put off not for a matter of months, but for a matter of years. The experts tell me that it would require 2 years to build a new beet sugar factory starting from scratch. We cannot grow sugarbeets until there is a factory ready to receive and process them. So, delay until next year in developing a new law to allow sugarbeet expansion means we must wait 21/2 or 3 years more before we can hope to achieve what we feel are perfectly right and legitimate goals.

All this would seem to me to create a really ridiculous situation : Our Government would, in effect, be forcing a cutback in its sugar production at a time when international developments indicate there is need for us to become more self-sufficient. U.S. farmers would be asked to reduce their sugarbeet acreage, while foreign sugar producers would be receiving a windfall of Cuban quota replacement sales in our U.S. market. We would go down, the foreign producers would go up. I believe I do not misconstrue the facts when I say that this committee has recorded its opposition to acreage controls on sugarbeets in 1962. Therefore, I think the urgency of congressional action on sugar this year becomes inescapable.

If I may, I would like to refer briefly to another point: farm labor. Certainly, one of the things that interests today's farmer in the sugarbeet crop is that it is a mechanized crop. By that I mean, its labor requirements are growing less each year. It is an efficient farm industry.

In view of the steadily worsening farm labor picture, almost every farmer in the country is extremely interested in producing a crop that will help relieve him of labor problems. Part of our labor supply is being taken from us by other industry. In the faced cost-price squeeze which is a reality-and a nightmare too, at times for farmers, we must do everything we can to cut costs. The labor situation now indicates that one of the most rapidly rising costs we face is for labor. Hence, mechanization and the efficiency of sugarbeet production serve as big incentive for most of those you have heard here, too.

Finally, if I may make one final reference to the international situation, I would suggest that sugar has not, apparently, proven to be a very effective instrument of foreign policy, as witness what has happened in Cuba and the Dominican Republic. It would be my guess that the Communists might be hopeful that we will continue to keep our sugar supply lines spread out so that they can embarrass us and create more sugar problems for us in the future, as they have already done so successfully. As many have said before me, let me bolster and strengthen the homefront and we will be better able to cope with the enemies from without.

I want to thank you again for this opportunity to appear before you, to repeat once more my deep hope that sugar legislation may be brought before the Congress and enacted during this year. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Harper.

Mr. PoAGE. I do not know what we can do about questions now. I know that we are not going to get through if we have questions now. We have to get along.

Mr. HAGEN. I tried to ask a question a while ago.

Mr. POAGE. I know that you did, but you understand the situation. Mr. HAGEN. I have no objection to Mr. Johnson asking a question, but I think we should have an understanding that governs all of us.

Mr. POAGE. I understand that. We will now hear from the next witness. I believe that yesterday Mr. John L. Harper was passed over because of the pressure of time. Because of that he was not called. Do you have a statement to make? We want to hear you and will be glad to hear you now.

STATEMENT OF JOHN L. HARPER, PRESIDENT, TRANS-PECOS SUGARBEET GROWERS ASSOCIATION, PECOS, TEX.

Mr. HARPER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you.

My name is John L. Harper, of Pecos, Tex., in Reeves County. I am president of the Trans-Pecos Sugarbeet Growers Association, and I represent that group here today.

I must confess that the statement I am about to offer for your consideration is not the statement I had prepared originally. After having heard those who have preceded me, I thought the committee might appreciate my effort to avoid, as much as possible, repeating what others have said-and probably better than I could have said it. I would like to emphasize, however, two or three points which have not been belabored as hard as some others, and I feel the emphasis is warranted, because these are virtually critical considerations.

First, there is a great deal of reason for urging that action on sugar legislation be completed this year. If the law is not revised to permit a larger quota for the domestic areas, there very probably will be no explanation of sugarbeet acreage next year or the year after, but actually a cutback. That would mean a cutback of the so-called old

growers.

On the basis of the information available to me, it is quite evident that the domestic sugarbeet areas quota for the next year, under provisions of the present law, will be considerably below total beet sugar production. To hold production within the limits currently drawn could be accomplished only by reapplying acreage controls and reducing 1962 acreage below this year's levels.

Certainly, that would not only be a disagreeable circumstance so far as present growers are concerned, but it would slam the door in the face of those who aspire to become new growers, at least for several more years.

By the same token, if present quotas are not revised upward this year for the domestic producers and especially the best areas—and acreage controls are not applied next year, then a very undesirable buildup in stocks would result. In short, a surplus of domestic beet sugar that would overhang the market well into the future.

I do not know how, under the present law which covers only half of next year, the Secretary of Agriculture could comply with the law and still avoid ordering a sugarbeet acreage cutback in 1962.