The CHAIRMAN. But at least the amendment has helped, the amendment to the order?

Mr. BISHOP. It has helped; that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I was informed, but I was also informed that the original order rather created

Mr. BISHOP. Chaos.

The CHAIRMAN. I may be exaggerating-pandemonium.

We have some woolen mills and some combined mills that use both wool and cotton, as you know.

Mr. BISHOP. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is why I asked.

is far better than the original order was. Mr. BISHOP. Yes, sir.

At least, that amendment

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you are going to speak on section 103. I didn't mean to jump ahead of you. I wanted to get that clear for the record.

Senator ROBERTSON. You are also aware that Virginia has developed a good many woolen products?

Mr. BISHOP. Yes.

Senator ROBERTSON. There is a large mill at Winchester, Stillwater Worsted, and one mill in Rock Bridge, and another in Augusta Springs.

Mr. BISHOP. Yes.

Senator ROBERTSON. The plants of Pacific Mills in Halifax County, and Appomattox County, Burlington; Marshall Field Co. has a factory in Henry County.

Mr. BISHOP. Yes.

Senator ROBERTSON. Of course, we produced at those plants, in spite of the fact that we have the largest cotton mill in the world at Danville. Mr. BISHOP. All of the plants in that area, Senator, and in the other areas of the South that Senator Maybank referred to are in the wool trade for which we speak.

The existing channels of the wool trade can provide the required stocks of wool, and the basis for this knowledge is the experience, particularly in World Wars I and II. We have found apprehension at the Government level during war periods, and steps have been taken by the Government in the past to establish supplies through stockpiling. In World War II the Government built a stockpile within the United States of 850 million pounds of wool, and not 1 ounce of it was drawn upon to provide for the military or the civilian. The industry provided all wool required for both civilian and military usage during this most serious war period in our history.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. What in the world was done with that wool, and why was it handled that way?

Mr. BISHOP. The stock was accumulated because of apprehension on the part of the Government administrators at that time that they must get some wool into this country. There was an arrangement made with the British for them to ship wool here, and hold it. In the event that we needed it, we could draw upon the supply.

Ultimately, the greater part of it was shipped abroad. Some of it was taken over by the United States Government-in connection with the lend-lease program, I believe-and that wool was sold by the Defense Supplies Corporation in the United States to any buyers, domestic or foreign, who cared to pay the price for it.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. And that program tended to depress the building up of flocks, or the number of sheep in these United States of America; didn't it?

Mr. BISHOP. I would say that it had a very, very important influence on the minds of men who were potential raisers of wool in the United States, the wool growers.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask why was it that the production of sheep in this country declined so much after the last war after OPA.

I can remember down home when I was a young fellow on the plantation we also had two or three hundred sheep, and it never was profitable.

Mr. BISHOP. That is a question, Senator, one of the wool growers could answer better.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood Senator Bricker or someone to say that in the Middle West other animals were more desirable.

Senator CAPEHART. Do you know why the sheep herds have fallen off, because during World War II, under the OPA, they sold their ewes, they had no breeding stock. They sold them all off during OPA, The CHAIRMAN. But they never build back up.

Senator CAPEHART. It takes time to build back up.

The CHAIRMAN. It was less profitable in South Carolina. Of course, that is a warm climate.

Senator CAPEHART. We had 850,000 pounds of wool on hand when the war ended. That has had a deterring effect upon growing more sheep. Then they sold the ewes during the war period, and it takes time to build back up.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if it wasn't an economic necessity, the farmers in the Middle West and South who had sheep maybe went to hogs and cattle; our country has gone steadily into beef cattle.

Senator ROBERTSON. In Virginia in 1920 as a member of the State senate I got through a bill requiring dogs to be licensed, requiring game wardens to enforce that law, and to kill all dogs that were not licensed, and to give the license fees to the counties, except 15 percent of it, which we used as enforcement funds to pay stock claims primarily for sheep and poultry. That has helped to keep the sheep industry in Virginia, although I don't have the figures, whether they have increased or decreased since the end of OPA.

I do not-we do not have so many sheep in Virginia now as we had in 1861.

The CHAIRMAN. In South Carolina we don't have any. We had 200 when I was a child on the plantation. We don't have any now.

Of course, I agree with the Senator that OPA had a lot to do with what happened. We can make more money off cattle, for instance.

Mr. BISHOP. On page 8 of Mr. Steiwer's statement, I find that he has cited numerous factors, and I would say that there is meat in there for many Government administrators to work on. I believe that some of the apprehension which exists in this country about our having an inadequate stock of wool at this particular time can be removed, not necessarily today or this week or this month, or this year, but in just a very few years, if attention is given to the possibilities for increasing wool production within the United States.

I have the figures here. In 1920, we produced in the United States. 3 million pounds of wool.

83762-51-pt. 2- -45

In 1930 we produced 420 million pounds; in 1940 we produced 475 million pounds. But in 1950 we produced 260 million pounds, so that it appears to me that right within our own country, within the last decade, we have produced 200 million pounds of wool more than we are producing now. I say let's get that wool produced in the United States, and we won't have to worry about going overseas, meeting competition, and paying prices that seem to be disturbing to the pricecontrol authorities here, to the manufacturers, or to anyone else.

Senator ROBERTSON. In addition to that, should we get into another war in the Orient and lose the Philippines and Japan, we couldn't get the wool in from Australia.

Mr. BISHOP. It would be a problem for us. Having the wool right here, Senator, is what I believe in.

Senator ROBERTSON. Is there any way in which the merchants can sell wool and the processors who fabricate it can do anything to encourage production of sheep in this country?

Mr. BISHOP. We in the wool marketing field consider that the profession of the wool growers, Mr. Steiwer's group, the Wool Growers Association. We make recommendations and we are very sympathetic to many of the points they have made here about the difficulties they have. For example, the husbanding of national park areas.

Senator ROBERTSON. The point I make is they claim you make more money out of this business than they do.

Mr. BISHOP. The grass is always greener in the other fellow's yard, Senator.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. Mr. Bishop, were you in the room awhile ago when I made reference to the wool's Big Four bolstering prices? Mr. BISHOP. Yes.

Senator SCHOEPPEL. If we had developed a system, or an approach to the economics in the situation, in a proper manner, we would have had a greater supply in this country, at this moment, of sheep, to prevent these good United Nations neighbors of ours, who certainly never overlook a bet, to dig and gouge the American taxpayer on trade relationships such as are going on and are being reported in this article right here, and your association-I take it from what you said a moment ago-would be most happy and willing to see a good, strong sheep industry within the continental United States. It would help us all here.

Mr. BISHOP. We certainly would, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON. There hasn't been any cut in the tariff on raw wool?

Mr. BISHOP. There has been some cut in the tariff on raw wool since the Hawley-Smoot tariff.

Senator ROBERTSON. Schedule K is what made Taft-he went out in Minnesota and made his famous case on that. There haven't been any alphabet schedules in the tariff since. In order to take out K, they took the whole alphabet out, but that happened to be a touchy subject, because Taft was for a tariff on wool, and Teddy Roosevelt was for cheaper clothes for the workingman, and it made rather a hot issue.

Senator CAPEHART. I suppose Teddy would turn over in his grave if he knew what clothes cost the workingman today, under the New Deal.

Senator ROBERTSON. In those days $10 bought a good suit.
Mr. BISHOP. I have just one further short statement.

The point I wanted to make, gentlemen, is that the industry provided all the wool required for both the civilian and the military during the most serious war period in our history. That is our record. It can be checked.

Now, we say that if the United States Government is granted the power to buy the products of foreign nations on a subsidy basis, it would provide the Government with a complete monopoly with respect to the handling of the products it might buy under such a program.

If wool is to be purchased under this grant of power, it will create certain problems which we believe should be carefully considered before granting such authority.

Wool, as I stated before, is a complex commodity. For example, the British Dominions, which produce approximately 60 percent of the world's wool supply, set up some 2,000 to 3,000 types in classifying their wool production for world markets. These many and varied types are determined according to fiber, diameter, length, color, freedom from vegetable content, and adaptability for the many end products made from wool and the varied types of machinery used in the manufacture of such products.

The products made from wool cover a wide range, running from the daintiest fabrics for ladies' gowns through all types of men's and women's outer garments, both lightweight and heavy, underwear, socks, blankets, rugs and carpets, upholstery, draperies, and industrial products such pressed felts, and woven felts used in the manufacture of paper. The wool requirements of nearly all these products constantly vary according to market conditions, style, climate, and many other factors, which in turn vary the selection of types of wool and the relative quantities of these types in order to meet the requirements of the whole industry.

To supply these varied requirements, at the right time, in the right amounts, and at the right places, has been the specialized function of the wool industry. At no time, either in peace or war, has the industry failed to perform this function both for civilian and military requirements. The composite ability and judgment of the various operators, refined by years of experience, has accomplished this function with an efficiency which could not be duplicated by any individual centralized purchase program, regardless of any industry talent employed in such program.

The bulk importation of wool by a central agency could not be accomplished in an efficient manner to meet the needs of the industry and the desires of the consuming public. Instead of being patterned to fit economic needs, it would likely be governed by political and social expediency.

The CHAIRMAN. They have been stockpiling wool.

Mr. BISHOP. They have done some stockpiling, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Don't you think that is a wise thing to stockpile in the event we do have, as Senator Robertson suggested, a major tragedy in that we can't import wool? Of course, on the stockpiling problem, Mr. Small stated to the committee the other day how carefully they guard it, and they never let it and would never let it get out unless there were an emergency.

Mr. BISHOP. The industry made a recommendation to the Government that some stockpiling be done.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we ought to do that. In the last war we found we didn't stockpile enough.

Mr. BISHOP. In the form of clothing-in the form of cloth—

The CHAIRMAN. That is the way they have been stockpiling it; is it?

Mr. BISHOP. They now have started on that stockpiling program; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that is the wise thing to do, provided it is guarded carefully and secretly as we understood Mr. Small said he would do through the RFC funds.

Mr. BISHOP. We advocated the stockpiling of the clothing first, because if a call comes from a commander in a war theater, we don't want any stocks of wool lying in a warehouse in Boston. We want to have the clothing made up so they can put it on a boat or an airplane and get it out there.

The CHAIRMAN. There might be perhaps the danger of being shut off-we hope and pray it won't happen-as we were shut off from rubber before.

Do you know how Mr. Small operates this? The RFC puts money up. He stockpiles it. You have no objection to the way he is handling it?

Mr. BISHOP. I think the stockpiling was not done-well, perhaps it was through the recommenadtion of Mr. Small's Munitions Board. It was under a direct authorization by Congress, Senator O'Mahoney's bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I meant Mr. Small has charge of it.

Mr. BISHOP. Yes. That has been stopped. There was an accumulation of some 7 million pounds. While I have no authentic information, I understand that the governmental departments are considering it would perhaps be more advisable to stockpile or to use the funds for cloth and clothing, rather than for the stocks of wool.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, they didn't tell us that.

Mr. BISHOP. The bill finally passed by the Senate called for the stockpiling of a reserve, called a reserve purchase program, of 100 million pounds of wool.

The CHAIRMAN. In addition to that, you have the ordinary stockpiling program under the Munitions Board, which stockpiles anything declared in shortage in the interest of the national defense, like manganese or copper. They can, under that law stockpile wool, and in fact are doing it.

Senator CAPEHART. Mr. Chairman, I see by the article in the New York Times which Senator Schoeppel referred to, you had better add another $183,800,000 to the budget, because it says:

John McEwen, Australian Commerce Minister, announced today that the four Commonwealth countries would set up a $183,800,000 fund to buy up any wool which did not bring the agreed price at auction.

Now, we had better add that $183 million to the budget, because they are going to want us to give it to them to buy this wool.

The CHAIRMAN. With all due deference to my good friend, he knows that is under the Republican leadership of Mr. Johnston and Mr. Wilson.