Mr. KORZENIEWSKI. Yes, sir. I will skip that. That is about the only repetition in this whole statement.

Most of all, he doesn't mention the major reason for the lower returns on our produce. That reason is the steadily increasing spread between farmers' prices received and the price paid by the consumer. This condition forces families in lower-income brackets to use less fluid milk; consequently more milk goes into the cheaper manufacturing classes, further depressing the dairy farmers' blend price.

This unbalanced condition will exist in this State just as long as certain sections in the New York State agriculture and market laws are left in force. These are sections 258 (c) and (j), which deal in the granting of licenses in milk handling and distribution. As these laws are enforced today, they do no more than expand the grip of monopoly in the distribution and sale of milk. The milk handlers have a free reign in conducting their business to their own self-interests, with no regard whatsoever for the farmer, consumer and taxpayer.

Their practice of high retail prices directly contributes to the surplus dairy products which the Federal Government is compelled to buy and store. The resulting effect is that the consumer as a taxpayer must pay for these stored surpluses, which he could not afford to buy enough of in the first place. The least criticism of this situation is that the State of New York is not acting in the best interests of all the people. This law and its interpretations ignores our tradition of free enerprise, to which is given the credit for our Nation's success and prosperity. A share of the responsibility toward the welfare of the dairy farmer and the customer lies with the State of New York. The laws that stifle free competition should be repealed. Freedom of opportunity should be the law, with the bywords "free enterprise" becoming a fact in the milk industry, and not just something dealers and their cohorts pay lipservice to, in order to befuddle the dairy farmer and the consumer. Free enterprise means that one is free to enter in competition and prove that he can do a better job than the other fellow. The only argument to changes in the laws would be dealer self-interest, and in my opinion not valid in the least.

Marketing of milk in areas where bulk containers are legal has shown marked increases in per capita consumption. In Oregon it has increased as high as 17 percent over 1954. Only after the State milk price-fixing laws were repealed by referendum could this have been possible. Dairy farmers in Oregon got higher prices for their milk because more of it went into the fluid market. The Oregon consumer bought more milk cheaper, and I'll venture to guess that the Federal Government bought very little to store as surplus from the State of Oregon.

In northeastern Ohio the results of gallon jug distribution has shown still greater per capita consumption increases. In 1954 people in Akron, Ohio, drank 565 pounds of fluid milk and cream per person. This exceeded the national average for 1953 of 331 pounds, by 234 pounds. In 1952 the average of 352 pounds per person was 21 pounds greater than the 1953 average. With a downward trend in per capita consumption in the Nation as a whole, we find it increasing in Akron, Ohio. Let's give credit where it is due. It's the use of gallons and bulk sales, and the man that introduced it on a large scale, Mr. J. J. Lawson.

The prices quoted below give a comparison in free competition and the use of gallon containers in Ohio, as compared to New York State.

A simple average between New York order 27 prices and prices paid by Lawson's shows that the New York dairy farmer averaged $3.8501 per hundredweight for the first 9 months of 1955, while Akron, Ohio, producers received an average of $4.10 per hundredweight. This difference of 25 cents per hundredweight would have increased by $456.25 the extra income for 12 months of a New York producer who averages 500 pounds of milk per day.

In the comparison between the retail costs that the people have to pay here for milk in New York State and the prices that they pay in Ohio, there is a tremendous saving that the people over there receive on this retail charge.

It is evident that the higher fluid consumption rises, the higher the returns to the producer.

An official of one of the larger national farm organizations asks whether it is through ignorance that people do not drink more milk. Well, some people don't eat caviar, and not because they are ignorant. They just can't afford to buy it. It is the contention of those who understand the facts and disregard the dealer propaganda, that many people in our land don't drink enough milk simply because they can't afford it at the high prices the dealer charges. Every mother knows the value of milk and certainly in the areas where it is priced fairly she uses it in sufficient amounts to adequately supply the nutrition her children require.

The consumer buys what he can afford. It's the price that guides his action more than any other factor. Witness the amount of fluid milk the people drink in the Akron area.

Increased consumption of fluid milk at lower prices would mean increased prices to dairymen through higher class 1-A sales. The burden of taxpayers paying for stored dairy surpluses could be done. away with. This would help the whole national economy. At the rate milk is consumed in Akron, the United States would need 35 billion more pounds. This would create a greater expansion in the milk industry, with effects resulting in greater use of presently stored surplus grains. Let's drink the milk as nature intended. Let's not penalize the efficient distributor by denying him an opportunity in competition.

Congress, also, could well pass legislation whereby farmers would get the cost of production plus a reasonable profit, based on family

type farming, where all farm produce would be put on the market to sell instead of going into storage.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Your entire statement will be made a part of the record.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Korzeniewski is as follows:)

The dairy farmers in New York State under Federal regulation order No. 27 are confronted with the problem of constantly lower prices for their milk, in spite of higher prices charged to the consumer.

We hear charges made by Secretary of Agriculture Benson, that the reason we farmers are not getting a fair share of the consumer's dollar is because Mr. Walter Reuther, president of the CIO, is getting higher wages for his union members. Those higher wages reflect in higher costs for the goods the farmer has to buy. But he doesn't state that the firms which these unionmen work for are constantly setting larger profit records with each succeeding year. Most of all, he doesn't mention the major reason for the lower returns on our produce. That reason is the steadily increasing spread between farmers' prices received, and the price paid by the consumer. This condition forces families

in lower income brackets to use less fluid milk; consequently more milk goes into the cheaper manufacturing classes, further depressing the dairy farmer's blend price.

This unbalanced condition will exist in this State just as long as certain sections in the New York State agriculture and markets laws are left in force. These are sections 258 (e) and (j), which deal in the granting of licenses in milk handling and distribution. As these laws are enforced today, they do not more than expand the grip of monopoly in the distribution and sale of milk. The milk handlers have a free reign in conducting their business to their own self-interests, with no regard whatsoever for the farmer, consumer, and taxpayer.

Their practice of high retail prices directly contributes to the surplus dairy products which the Federal Government is compelled to buy and store. The resulting effect is that the consumer as a taxpayer must pay for these stored surpluses, which he could not afford to buy enough of in the first place. The least criticism of this situation is that the State of New York is not acting in the best interests of all the people. This law and its interpretations ignores our tradition of free enterprise, to which is given the credit for our Nation's success and prosperity. A share of the responsibility toward the welfare of the dairy farmer and the consumer lies with the State of New York. The laws that stifle free competition should be repealed. Freedom of opportunity should be the law, with the bywords "free enterprise" becoming a fact in the milk industry, and not just something dealers and their cohorts pay lip service to, in order to befuddle the dairy farmer and the consumer. Free enterprise means that one is free to enter in competition and prove that he can do a better job than the other fellow. The only argument to changes in the laws would be dealer self-interest, and in my opinion not valid in the least.

Marketing of milk in areas where bulk containers are legal have shown marked increases in per capita consumption. In Oregon it has increased as high as 17 percent over 1954. Only after the State milk price-fixing laws were repealed by referendum could this have been possible. Dairy farmers in Oregon got higher prices for their milk because more of it went into the fluid market. The Oregon consumer bought more milk cheaper, and I'll venture to guess that the Federal Government bought very little to store as surplus from the State of Oregon.

In northeastern Ohio the result of gallon jug distribution has shown still greater per capita consumption increases. In 1954 people in Akron, Ohio, drank 565 pounds of fluid milk and cream per person. This exceeded the national average for 1953 of 331 pounds, by 234 pounds. In 1952 the average of 352 pounds per person was 21 pounds greater than the 1953. With a downward trend in per capita consumption in the Nation as a whole, we find it increasing in Akron, Ohio. Let's give credit where it is due. It's the use of gallons and bulk sales, and the man that introduced it on a large scale, Mr. J. J. Lawson.

The prices quoted below give a comparison in free competition and the use of gallon containers in Ohio as compared to New York State.

A simple average between New York order 27 prices and prices paid by Lawson's shows that the New York dairy farmer averaged $3.8501 per hundredweight for the first 9 months of 1955, while Akron, Ohio, producers received an average of $4.10 per hundredweight. This difference of 25 cents per hundredweight would have increased by $456.25 the extra income for 12 months of a New York producer who averages 500 pounds of milk per day.

It is evident that the higher fluid consumption rises, the higher the returns to the producer.

An official of one of the larger national farm organizations asks whether it is through ignorance that people do not drink more milk. Well, some people don't eat caviar, and not because they are ignorant. They just can't afford to buy it. It is the contention of those who understand the facts and disregard the dealer propaganda that many people in our land don't drink enough milk simply because they can't afford it at the high prices the dealer charges. Every mother knows the value of milk and certainly in the areas where it is priced fairly she uses it in sufficient amounts to adequately supply the nutrition her children require.

The consumer buys what he can afford. It's the price that guides his action more than any other factor. Witness the amount of fluid milk the people drink in the Akron area.

Increased consumption of fluid milk at lower prices would mean increased prices to dairymen through higher class 1-A sales. The burden of taxpayers paying for stored dairy surpluses could be done away with. This would help the whole national economy. At the rate milk is consumed in Akron, the United States would need 35 billion more pounds. This would create a greater expansion in the milk industry, with effects resulting in greater use of presently stored surplus grains. Let's drink the milk as nature intended. Let's not penalize the efficient distributor by denying him an opportunity in competition.

Congress, also, could well pass legislation whereby farmers would get the cost of production plus a reasonable profit, based on family-type farming, where all farm produce would be put on the market to sell instead of going into storage.

The CHAIRMAN. Your main difficulty seems to be in relation to your complaint as to the State laws. I am only sorry we cannot do too much to help you in that regard.

Mr. KORZENIEWSKI. I realize that.

The CHAIRMAN. New York will have to do that for you. Thank

you, sir.

Mr. KORZENIEWSKI. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Has Mr. Austin come in yet? (No response.)

64440-56-pt. 7—16

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Alfred Van Wagenen here?

(No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Robert J. Novins present?

Please come forward and give us your full name for the record.

STATEMENT OF IRVING BERGER, COUNCIL OF POULTRY ORGANIZATIONS OF NEW JERSEY, LAKEWOOD, N. J.

Mr. BERGER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Irving Berger. I am here in the place of Mr. Novins. I am a poultryman in Lakewood, N. J., and I represent the State council in New Jersey, comprised of a number of cooperatives. I want to thank the committee for the privilege to come before this congressional committee to express the opinions of the co-ops, of the poultrymen in the area. And I would like to give the other farmers that are here as much of an opportunity as possible, so as not to detain the committee, and so that they should be able to keep their plans that they have, and I will confine myself to a few brief remarks which I have outlined in this brief.

I want to point out before I read some of the statements in this brief that the price of eggs and of poultry in the industry has been established by most of the agricultural colleges as being, without replacement, about 47 cents a dozen. Taking into consideration replacement flocks, they would be somewhere at a price presently sold on the market.

Some of these items that I would like to read would be the things that we have brought a number of times to the attention for relief of the industry. And they would be as follows:

The first was the release of certain grains and feed ingredients to commercial poultry farmers.

It has been indicated that the United States Government and the Department of Agriculture is being faced with constantly increasing surpluses of grains. A release of a portion of these grains for animal food consumption would relieve the economic pressure in the poultry industry momentarily. It is also to be considered that part of the problem confronting the poultry industry today is created by the consumption of price-supported feeds as raw material to the production of a nonsupported egg product. Consideration is requested of the proposition that eggs are as much a basic commodity as any product and should be considered in the same light with other price-supported items.

Second, extention and liberalization of FHA loans to commercial poultry farmers.

I am sure that this committee is fully familiar with some of the views.

The CHAIRMAN. On the other hand, it does not come before our committee. It comes before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee. That problem does not come before our committee, I say. Mr. BERGER. Right. That is why I will pass this point.

There are two important points that I would like to make here: That is, the purchase by the Department of Agriculture of eggs for domestic and foreign relief programs. The Department of Agriculture through its own effort and through the efforts of other governmental agencies should encourage the use of eggs in school and hos