We have an area office located at 310 North 9th Street, in Garden City. Our engineers and geologists in that office will be glad to discuss the availability of water with you. Sincerely yours, V. C. FISHEL, District Engineer. (The booklet entitled "Ground Water Levels in Observation Wells in Kansas, 1959" will be found in the files of the committee.) The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We will be glad to hear from you, Mr. Lightcap. STATEMENT OF HARRY L. LIGHTCAP, HUGOTON, KANS. Mr. LIGHTCAP. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we came here both prepared to make statements, but seeing that you are short of time, we just consolidated our statements into one statement and Mr. Purdy has spoken for both of us. I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you both very much. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Harding. Mr. HARDING. I would like to introduce two gentlemen from Idaho, and ask unanimous consent that they be allowed to present their statements for the record. The CHAIRMAN. All right, that permission will be granted. Mr. Claiborn represents the Twin Falls County Sugarbeet Growers and is president of the Idaho Sugarbeet Growers Association, comprised of approximately 3,000 growers in eastern and southern Ídaho. He is a farmer and a livestock feeder and has grown feeds since 1920. I would also like to introduce William M. Carson, of Weiser, Idaho, who is president of the Nyssa-Nampa Feedgrowers Association, representing growers in east Oregon and west Idaho. Now I would like to introduce Dick Westendorf, representing the Minidoka Homesteaders Association, and the Minidoka pumping project in Rupert, Idaho. This project is a reclamation project. It is made up of over 600 farmers from all over the United States who received their farms on a GI allotment. We have more Texans out there farming than we have had in this room today from Texas. However, we are very proud of the work they are doing on their farms. We are, also, proud of the cooperation between the old growers and the new growers in Idaho. (The prepared statement of Jack D. Claiborn and William M. Carson follows:) STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. CARSON, PRESIDENT, NYSSA-NAMPA BEET GROWERS ASSOCIATION, AND JACK CLAIBORN, JR., PRESIDENT, IDAHO BEET GROWERS ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this statement is submitted on behalf of the Nyssa-Nampa and the Idaho Beet Growers Associations. The Nyssa-Nampa Association is composed of beet growers in western Idaho and eastern Oregon. The Idaho Association represents sugarbeet growers of central and eastern Idaho. The areas represented by these two associations are primarily areas that have been in the production of sugarbeets for some time and would be considered established sugarbeet producing areas. While this hearing has been called to hear testimony of areas not now in the production of sugarbeets, we in the old, established areas feel constrained to file a statement with respect to the position of presently established producers. The Sugar Act of 1948 as amended has created a great deal of stability in the domestic sugar industry. It is, as Chairman Cooley has so often stated, regarded as one of the best pieces of agriculture legislation passed by the Congress. Not only has it been of extreme importance to the welfare of the domestic sugar industry, but it has made possible an adequate supply of sugar to American consumers at reasonable prices. Due to the present unsettled state of our foreign relations, the extension of the Sugar Act has of necessity been on a short-term basis. While we can understand the uncertainty that exists today in our relations with some of our foreign sugar suppliers, it does create a certain amount of apprehension on the part of the farmers whom we represent. It is of extreme importance not only to the sugarbeet industry but to the country as a whole to know what the future holds with respect to congressional attitude on sugar legislation. Early extension of the legislation is vital. Under existing circumstances it is difficult for our farmers to establish sound future planning. We urgently request that long-term legislation be passed by the Congress as soon as possible. Turning to the subject matter of this hearing, we believe that expansion of beet sugar production in this country is not only necessary but is highly desirable at this time of uncertainty in our Nation's sources of foreign sugar supplys. We support the philosophy that the farmers of America should be given the right to supply a higher proportion of this country's sugar requirements. The sugarbeet growers whom we represent are entirely sympathetic to the desires and aspirations of new producers and new areas who wish to get into the production of sugarbeets, if these areas are well suited to efficient and economical production of the crop. While we do support the expansion of the industry, we would like to point out that today the established industry has planted 1,087,000 acres of sugarbeets and it is our position that any expansion made available to new areas must be in addition to the production capacity of the presently established industry. If this is not done, present processing facilities which are now at capacity will be forced to operate at less than capacity. We firmly believe that the American public is interested in a larger and a more assured production of sugar in the continental United States. A larger quota for the beet sugar industry will be in the best interests of this country and it can be done without seriously affecting either the established sugarbeet growers or our foreign suppliers. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear fro you now, Mr. Westendorf. STATEMENT OF RICHARD WESTENDORF, RUPERT, IDAHO Mr. WESTENDORF. Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard Westendorf. I live north of Rupert, Idaho, where I am a farmer. I am also president of the Minidoka Homesteaders Association, and it is in this capacity that I appear before this committee today. Ten years ago a reclamation development began in the Minidoka area which has resulted in the reclaiming of approximately 151,000 acres of new farmland. Since 1954 to 1960 there has been developed under the auspices of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 80,923 acres known as the Minidoka project, northside pumping division, Idaho. All of these acres, in farms averaging about 100 acres each, have been issued to ex-GI's. There are at the present time 625 ex-GI families living on the project. In addition to the Bureau of Reclamation development, approximately 70,000 acres of private pump land has been developed. Water for these developments comes largely from underground sources, the full potential of which was not discovered until 10 years ago. The above area which I have described is highly fertile farmland. The principal crops that would likely be grown, were it not for the obstructions of political and economical considerations, are sugarbeets, potatoes, peas (frozen and seed), grain, and hay. The average yields of such crops are as follows: From the schedule above it is apparent that the large part of the 151,000 acres was developed in 1954 and subsequent years. In 1954, however, the Department of Agriculture requested processors to restrict beet acreage to somewhat the same level as the preceding year. From 1955 through 1960 the USDA imposed acreage controls of its own on beet plantings determined largely by previous years' beet planting histories. The effect was thus to deny to this new area what would normally be the development of a beet growing industry. That such would have taken place is without question when it is realized that this new area is adjacent to the Minidoka project (Minidoka and Burley irrigation districts) which embraces about 107,000 acres of irrigated land. This old irrigating project, dating back to the building of the first sugar factory in Burley in 1912, has averaged around 15,000 acres yearly. A beet processing factory was built at Paul, Idaho, in the middle of the Minidoka project in 1917. This is only 3 miles at the closest point to the new area of which I speak. In 1960, because of the workings of the acreage control program, the new area had succeeded in obtaining acreage allotments totaling 5,674 acres. In 1961, with acreage controls lifted, approximately 13,860 acres have been planted to beets. Were it not for the fact that processing facilities could handle no more acreage than the 13,860 acres, probably another 5,000 acres would be planted to beets. Thus, the potential is 19,000 acres for this district, or 12.5 percent of the total acreage farmed. This compares with 5 percent for the rest of Magic Valley, Idaho. The difference is explained by the fact that neither dry or seed beans can be readily grown because of climatic conditions, whereas they are grown in Magic Valley on about 5 percent of the irrigated lands. If, as we urge this committee, we are permitted through an amendment of the Sugar Act to grow beets even under a control program to the extent of 19,000 acres, we are assured by our processor that processing capacities can be secured more readily here than in most other areas of the United States. The present plants until this year have not operated to full capacity. Thus, that amount is available without question. Beyond that, so we are informed by our processor, additional capacity can be attained by simple enlargement of present plants, which is much more economical than building complete new facilities or moving the existing plants. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I think that concludes all the witnesses we have listed for today. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (The following statement and letter were also submitted to the committee:) STATEMENT OF HON. J. FLOYD BREEDING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present my views on amendments to the Sugar Act, with particular reference to aiding domestic producers of sugarcane and sugarbeets. My particular interest, of course, is sugarbeets, as I represent a district which is presently engaged in producing a limited amount of the commodity, and can, if given an opportunity, produce a much larger amount without any difficulty. My district at present is growing only 11,000 acres of sugarbeets. This is an irrigated district, Mr. Chairman, and we could easily plant an additional 25,000 acres. That is what I proposed in a bill introduced earlier this session along with Representatives from other western sugarbeet growing States. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the committee and the Congress is faced with an important and fundamental question in writing permanent changes in the Sugar Act. Shall we permit domestic producers to provide a larger share of our sugar requirements or shall we continue to depend upon foreign sources? I firmly believe we should pass legislation that will authorize larger domestic production. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to write into the Sugar Act a provision earmarking half of the former Cuban quota for domestic producers. It is right that we should do so. We will not be penalizing any foreign producing nation from which we have been securing sugar. They can continue to supply their normal quota, and perhaps share in the Cuban quota. Should the Cuban nation rid itself of the despotic Castro and return to the family of nations, we naturally would resume buying sugar from Cuba. But I believe the 50 percent of the quota which would be assigned to foreign nations, plus increases in consumption, would be sufficient to provide Cuba with an adequate quota. Radical changes in the island's agricultural patterns under Castro are taking place and we have no assurances that Cuba can ever again produce the amount of sugar it once did. Domestic producers need the additional acreage on a permanent basis. That is the only arrangement under which we can expect refineries to be built in the new producing areas. So I urge the committee to look with favor upon legislation now before it to give a larger quota to sugarbeet producers in Kansas and other producing Western States. E. W. RISING, BLUE EARTH, MINN., May 15, 1961. Western Beet Growers Association, Washington, D.C.: To be presented at hearing on sugar legislation: Mason City District Beet Growers Association wants to go on record as being opposed to any bill that would reduce acreage of those raising sugarbeets in 1961 or before. Any cut would seriously lower the net return on a very large investment in equipment of both grower and processor. KENNETH MORE. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, May 19, 1961.) SUGAR New Areas and New Growers FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1961 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 1310, New House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage presiding. Present: Representatives Poage, Gathings, Thompson, Jones of Missouri, Hagen, Johnson of Wisconsin, Matthews, Inouye, Harding, Hoeven, Belcher, McIntire, Quie, Short, May, Dole, Beermann, Reifel, and Fernós-Isern. Also present: Christine S. Gallagher, clerk; Hyde H. Murray, assistant clerk; John Heimburger, counsel; and Francis M. LeMay, consultant. Mr. POAGE. The committee will please come to order. The committee is continuing with consideration of the problem of sugar. We are delighted to have with us as our first witness this morning a former Member of the House of Representatives who has moved upstairs, the Senator from Nebraska, Hon. Carl Curtis. STATEMENT OF HON. CARL T. CURTIS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Senator CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, it is a distinct pleasure to return to the House of Representatives and appear before one of your important committees. The purpose of my appearance here is to urge that Congress take the initiative and the leadership in (1) writing a long-term extension of our Sugar Act and (2) providing for a very substantial increase in our production of sugar domestically, both cane and beet. Coming from a beet area, I am more familiar with this industry than the cane area. Most of my remarks will relate to the growing of sugarbeets and the sugarbeet industry. At the present time the United States is importing 45 percent of our sugar needs. The 55 percent that we produce domestically includes that which is produced by our offshore islands and possessions. A continuation of this ratio cannot be justified. There are two basic reasons why our domestic sugarbeet growing and processing should be increased. In the first place, the Nation is wrestling with a difficult farm problem. It involves billions of dollars. We are plagued by surpluses. Commonsense dictates that 69 |