Of course, there are variations, although they are not very important, either. There are variations in quality, for one thing. Also, there are variations introduced by the weave. One cloth is of a closer weave than another. That is what I am trying to point out to you, that some of it is more closely woven than others. For instance. Pepperell is a little more closely woven than Newton, N. C., cotton. Being more closely woven, it is of better quality. However, there is not much variation in weight.

Mr. LUCAS. Let me address myself to his question as to the difference in price. I think that the answer to that is very simple.

Cotton in the field has gone up since 1939.

In 1939 cotton in the field was selling for 10 cents, 12 cents, somewhere in there, a pound. Today, it has gone up to about 30 cents, 31 and 32 cents, a pound. I believe that last fall it was even 36 cents. Mr. WIER. That is right, but I was asking who was taking the profit.

Mr. LUCAS. And, of course, every time that you handle cotton, you increase its cost to the ultimate consumer. The more you handle it, the more labor, for one thing, is involved; and all wages have gone up, for labor.

Mr. WIER. That still does not answer my question. I will grant, Mr. Lucas-I will grant that in the processing and in the mills the wages have gone up. There have been probably at least two wage increases in the mills since 1939.

However, there is this great difference in prices since then. There is a very great difference between 17 cents and 172 cents, the highest in that year, and 50 cents today.

Now, you do not explain it.

Mr. LUCAS. Well, the raw cotton has gone up.

Mr. WIER. Yes, I know that you say that raw cotton prices have

gone up.

Mr. LUCAS. That is right, raw cotton has gone up; and all labor and handling costs and producing costs have gone up.

Mr. WIER. You are talking about wages and pay.

The witness represents the ginning industry in one case, and he represents the growers in another case. They are both in the same picture.

Mr. LUCAS. You used to get cotton picked in Texas at 75 cents a hundred; now it costs $3 or $3.25 to pick that cotton.

Mr. WIER. Well, let me ask you, and I think it might explain it. perhaps.

What do these people get? I would like to get the basis for this increase.

Mr. LUCAS. The witness can answer that.

Mr. PASCHALL. I think I could answer that. For instance I will tell you what I paid in my own case.

Mr. WIER. You understand, I am talking about paying them on the basis of time or hours, as compared to paying them by weight.

Mr. PASCHALL, I understand. For example, let me say that in my case if I paid a man, say, on the basis of $1 an hour or 75 cents an hour. for him to go out in the field and work for a fixed number of hours, say 8 hours or whatever the day might be, that man would probably pick 50 pounds of cotton.

Mr. LUCAS. Fifty pounds of cotton a day?

Mr. PASCHALL. Yes, 50 pounds of cotton a day. Your cost would be prohibitive unless you had personal supervision. You cannot pay that man per hour and get any results from him, in the cotton patch. Mr. WIER. All right, now tell me what those people make under the present system.

Mr. PASCHALL. What they make now?

Mr. WIER. Yes, under the production method under which they are being paid now.

Mr. PASCHALL. Well, in my own case, I will explain it this way. I have my own tenants. I have some 15 or 20 families.

Mr. WIER. Do they pay you rent?

Mr. PASCHALL. Yes; I rent them the land, or they can go in on a share-crop basis, under whichever they choose to farm.

Now, I require them to have three cows; I require them to have five turkeys. In other words, I give them a program, and they have got to comply with that program or else they can move off of my place. I require them to have their vegetables. If they do not raise them, then I will raise them for them, I will produce the vegetables that they need for their kitchens.

I give them the free housing; I give them free wood and free water. They don't have to pay anything whatever.

Mr. WIER. What do you pay them when they are not working? Mr. PASCHALL. Every day that they are idle, I hire them to do some work on the farm for me. Right now, for instance, I am building a big kettle house and they are working on that.

Mr. WIER. What do you pay them?

Mr. PASCHALL. I was coming to that. I pay them $2.50 a day. That is not bad, when you take into consideration the amount that they are getting additional, it runs their wages up to a greater amount than for the labor, comparatively speaking, in Washington or in industrial cities. At least, that is the way I figure it, taking into consideration the additionals.

Mr. WIER. You say you require them to have a cow.

Mr. PASCHALL. Three cows.

Mr. WIER. Who buys the cows?

Mr. PASCHALL. They buy the cows.

Mr. WIER. I see. Then, they have got to start off with a bank roll? Mr. PASCHALL. Well, yes, sir. I try to make them self-sustaining. Mr. WIER. And suppose they have a poor crop?

Mr. PASCHALL. Even if they have a poor crop-at least, they have plenty to eat. Also, when they are idle, I give them work on the farm.

Mr. WIER. That is all right, but I still have not got the answer which explains this difference in price. I am still asking about the difference between 172 cents and 50 cents or 62 cents, the prices of today.

I am making allowances up the ladder, I am willing to make allowances for increases for the producer and for the grower; I will make an allowance for the mills; but that still does not make up the differential of about-well, it is about 35 cents a yard. Now, that is something— and I mean something.

Mr. PASCHALL. Well, you would have to talk to a textile man.
Mr. LUCAS. I think the question was answered.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Wier, I still return to my question: What does that yard of cotton weigh?

Mr. WIER. As I just said to you, it is all about the same per yard. Mr. LESINSKI. Yes, you have said that it is 12-gage, or 12 ounces. I know that, but there must be a certain weight of cotton which goes into a yard of 12-ounce cotton. In other words, it has to be a certain amount, by weight; a certain fixed amount of cotton must be neces sary to make that yard.

Mr. WIER. I cannot tell you the amount, or what it weighs, what goes into that 12-ounce flannel.

I can tell you, however, that there is only little variations. As I said, some of it is more closely woven than others. Pepperell is more closely woven than the textiles from Newton or from Regal, Ga. There might be a little variation in weight, some of it being more tightly woven; some of it may have more body than others.

Mr. LESINSKI. You say you cannot get an answer to your question; and I cannot get an answer to mine. One reason I asked that ques tion was that I understand that originally it takes 2 pounds of wool to make a suit, 2 pounds of actual wool. If that is true or not, I do not know. That is one reason I repeated my question, How much cotton have you got per yard? If we can get that, then we will have a basis for figuring.

Mr. WIER. Only the mill fellow can tell you that.

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Bailey, did you have a question?

Mr. BAILEY. I have one question. I do not want to give you any ideas, Mr. Paschall, but has any consideration been given to the thought that you might have this cotton picked on contract and thereby avoid the hourly wage?

Mr. PASCHALL. We have not been under it, so we have not given it any thought.

Mr. BAILEY. That is one way out of it.

Mr. LUCAS. Nearly all cotton is picked under contract.

Mr. PASCHALL. Yes; I know what you mean; it is.

Mr. Lucas. It is $2 a hundred or $3 a hundred, under contract, for picking.

Mr. PASCHALL. That is right; you pay them to pick your cotton. I pay my men so much to pick the cotton.

Mr. BAILEY. Why not pay so much a bale?

Mr. PASCHALL. Some do.

Mr. BAILEY. As I said, I did not want to put ideas into your head.
Mr. PASCHALL. That is all right; I am open to suggestion.
Mr. LESINSKI. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Paschall, don't you make profits out of dairying and livestock, in order to carry your cotton?

Mr. PASCHALL. Yes, sir. I do not make any money on cotton. My chief revenue is from cattle. I operate a gin and I raise some cotton, just because I have the set-up there.

When the restrictions on cotton acreage came, we had to take the course of least resistance. In our case it was cattle, because we had the grasses and the clovers for cattle. We went into whatever seemed to be the best thing, which was cattle. That took us out of cottonI mean, the restrictions did-and that forced us into cattle, which has been profitable, both dairy and beef cattle.

Mr. LUCAS. Has your gin been profitable?
Mr. PASCHALL. No, sir; no, sir.

Mr. Lucas. How new is your gin?

Mr. PASCHALL. I bought it 4 years ago. We got a new outfit. That brings me back to this point in my statement, about how the distance is going to increase. Therefore, you are going to eliminate some gins, too, if you pass this bill, because the people are going to the gin that gives the best cotton, and that has the best samples, and that has the newest equipment.

There are three gins in my town, and I gin more cotton than both of the others because they have not got modern equipment.

Mr. LUCAS. Do you use your tenants?

Mr. PASCHALL. Altogether.

Mr. LUCAS. On the gin?

Mr. PASCHALL. Altogether; I have the same crew that I have used ever since I bought the gin.

Mr. LUCAS. And you buy houses for them, and all these other things that you told us about?

Mr. PASCHALL. Yes, sir. For example, I haul them to work, and I take them back. I feed them at noon and I feed them at night if they work overtime. If they get off at 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock, if there is no cotton to work on in the yard, I let them go. However, if they have to work past dark, then I feed them. I do not give them the money to get their meals; I prepare them meals and I see to it that they get the right food.

Mr. LUCAS. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. WIER. I have not got an answer yet. You buy your cotton from the grower; you also grow it; in both instances the cotton is for ginning purposes.

Mr. PASCHALL. No, sir; I do not buy it.

Mr. WIER. Can you give me some idea of the differential between what you are getting now and in 1939, on 100 pounds of cotton? Mr. PASCHALL. You mean, ginning price?

Mr. WIER. Yes. That is, what the farmer gets, over 1939.

Mr. PASCHALL. In 1939, I do not remember what the price was; but our ginning prices are practically the same.

Mr. WIER. That is to say, it costs you now about what it cost in 1939 ?

Mr. PASCHALL. That is right, about.

Mr. WIER. All right. So that eliminates you from any of this profit. Mr. PASCHALL. That is right.

Mr. WIER. Then it must be going somewhere else.

Mr. PASCHALL. I will say this now, that my labor costs for ginning have increased every year. They have raised more every year. Mr. WIER. You said you were growing the cotton, too?

Mr. PASCHALL. That is right.

Mr. WIER. All right. Are you getting more for your cotton than you were in 1939, for 100 pounds of cotton?

Mr. PASCHALL. No, sir; not getting as much.

Mr. WIER. In other words, neither the farmer nor the ginner is getting any of the increase out of this increased price?

Mr. PASCHALL. No, sir.

Mr. WIER. Well, then, how do you answer that one?

Mr. LUCAS. He has given one different answer than I have. The producer is getting more for cotton, Mr. Paschall.

Mr. PASCHALL. Oh, yes; I got mixed up.

Mr. WIER. You represent here the ginner and the grower. Now, first, the cotton goes from the grower to the ginner?

Mr. PASCHALL. That is right.

Mr. WIER. And that is where you come in.

Mr. LUCAS. In Texas, in 1939, cotton was, I seem to recall, 10 cents or 15 cents a pound.

Mr. WIER. What is it now?

Mr. LUCAS. Thirty cents or thirty-five.

Mr. PASCHALL. In Alabama, 30 cents.

Mr. WIER. There is something wrong somewhere.

Mr. PASCHALL. I will agree with you, sir. Considering the amount of money involved, the amount of difference, there is a great deal of difference; something is wrong somewhere.

Mr. WIER. Off the record.

(There was discussion off the record.)

Mr. LESINSKI. Mr. Bailey.

Mr. BAILEY. I have one other thought. My thought is this, that I would not want to impose too great restrictions upon these cotton producers, too many impositions, because of the effect that it is going to have on the textile industry in this country if their costs for production go up any higher.

The point I am getting at is this: For instance, I brought out in the Ways and Means Committee that the average textile worker gets $1.42, and a man doing the same work in England gets 42 cents per hour.

If you up the cost in this country, then you are going to have all of the textile manufacturers in this country, in America, at a disadvantage.

That is the same thing I was complaining about on the floor Wednesday, that comes into this picture also. That is to say, that textile people are moving to Mexico, Haiti, Chile, even Brazil.

As I said, one man will be getting, in England, 42 cents an hour, as compared with what the man in the American textile industry is getting over here.

The difference is such that they can make those textiles in England and bring them over here, the semi-finished products, for example, the shirts that I mentioned on the floor, as an example.

They are taking advantage of our reciprocal trade agreements. Well, what is going to happen to our textile industry and our other industries in this country if that condition keeps up? You can see that we are just putting a premium upon American capital; the result will be that the textile industry and everything else will be leaving this country and setting up plants in other countries where they can exploit the people and take advantage of foreign working conditions.

That is what I meant when I said, the other day, that we are going to have to decide whether our American economy of which we are so proud, is what we are going to retain; or whether, rather than maintaining our present levels, whether we are going into the world, into foreign countries, and go down to their level, or meet their level somewhere between the lowest standards and our standards. Are we going to do that, or are we going to maintain our own standards!

As I have said before, the first session of the Eighty-first Congress of the second session of the Eighty-first Congress is going to have to