And as such, in my book, it was tantamount to certain administrative officials of Government injecting themselves into questions of administrative action under laws the conduct of which they share no responsibility whatever for.

I think that unless there is an acceptance of the realization, and I think it is highly appropriate that the Senate Committee on Agriculture be apprised of these things, unless there is some concern for the protection of the domestic economy in these special cases of industry that can ill afford to see what is going on in the way of price attrition, and so forth, that we will find great dislocations following the elimination of those industries, and those greater dislocations will simply magnify the problems of your dairy and your grain farmer and your rice producer and all of the others.

The integrity of our diversification must have, for the sake of the economy of the whole, protection. It can only be protected by keeping those industries engaged in such production strong.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Grady.

Would you be able to tell me approximately how much is involved— what is the size of the fig industry?

Mr. GRADY. The fig industry represents an investment as nearly as we can approximate of about $40 million.

The CHAIRMAN. All of that is in California?

Mr. GRADY. That means the productive facility. The crop annually runs around 20,000 tons, and depending upon what the Turks and the Greeks and the Portuguese do to us, has a variable value of anywhere from four to six or seven million dollars.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Grady.

We will now stand in recess until 1 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 1: 15 p. m., of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. Will the folks be seated, please.

We were discussing the fruit and nut crops.

Is Mr. Wilcox present?

Mr. DICK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wilcox has presented a statement; he is not present.

The CHAIRMAN. He has presented a statement; very well; thank you, sir.

Is Mr. Girton here?

Mr. GIRTON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you step forward, Mr. Girton?

We will proceed with Mr. Girton.

STATEMENT OF CAMERON GIRTON, MANAGER, CALIFORNIA CANNING PEAR ASSOCIATION, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Mr. GIRTON. My name is Cameron Girton, manager, California Canning Pear Association, a nonprofit cooperative marketing association engaged in the marketing of pears for processing by canners in the State of California. The bulk of the membership is made up of small producers.

I will also speak on behalf of three other nonprofit cooperative marketing associations who market their commodity to commercial canners. They are:

1. California Canning Peach Association. The members of this association comprise over 50 percent of the total cling-peach growers in California. Through the association they market approximately 41 percent of the total crop of cling peaches.

2. California Freestone Peach Association. This newly formed association of 200 grower-members marketed approximately 25 percent of the freestone peaches for processing.

3. Kadota Growers, Inc. The members of this association comprise over 80 percent of the total Kadota fig growers in California. Through the association they market approximately 55 percent of the total crop of Kadota figs.

In anticipation of this hearing today, representatives of these associations that I have just mentioned met recently to discuss our mutual problems and to elect any subject that we feel should come to the committee's attention.

Specifically there are two subjects we would like to bring to the attention of the committee:

1. The economic importance of fruits for canning in California. Practically all of the canning pears canned in the United States are produced in the Western States; that is, the States of California, Washington, and Oregon. Of these three States, California will produce more than Oregon and Washington combined. Thus, we are the largest producers of pears in the United States.

The 7-year average price of canning pears in California is $67.50 per ton. Therefore, the average value of the crop for canning is $14,836,000.

Cling peaches for commercial canning are produced almost exclusively in California. Actually cling peaches are the largest canned fruit item in the United States.

The 5-year average of cling-peach production is 508,000 tons.

The 5-year average price of canning cling peaches is $67 per ton. Therefore, the average value of the crop is $34,036,000.

The average production of freestone peaches for canning in the State of California is 125,000 tons.

The 5-year average price for canning freestone peaches is $50 per ton. Therefore, the average value of the crop in California is $6,250,000.

The average production of Kadota figs for canning in California is 11,000 tons.

The 5-year average price for canning Kadota figs is $120 per ton. Therefore, the average value of the crop in California is $1,320,000. If we add to these crops the income from apricots, cherries, purple plums, and apples for canning, we find the value of fruits for canning would represent approximately $75 million to California producers.

Our fruits for canning, or sometimes referred to as specialty crops, play an important part in California agriculture.

Our second point, and this is what we wish to present before the committee today, Mr. Chairman, is why are fruits for canning not included in Agricultural Marketing Agreements Act.

Contained in the Agricultural Marketing Agreements Act of 1937 is a declaration of conditions and policy. These statements say, among other things, that

it is declared that the disruptions of the orderly exchange of commodities in interestate commerce impairs the purchasing power of farmers and destroys the value of agricultural assets which support the national credit structure and that these conditions affect transactions in agricultural commodities with a national public interest, and burden and obstruct the normal channels of interstate commerce.

The act specifically states that it is the declared policy of the Congress through the exercise of the powers conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture

to establish and maintain such orderly marketing conditions for agriculture commodities in interstate commerce as will establish prices to farmers-parity prices

It also states

that it is the policy of Congress to protect the interests of the consumer by (a) approaching the level of prices which is declared to be the policy of Congress to establish * * * by a gradual correction of the current level at as rapid a rate as the Secretary of Agriculture deems to be in the public interest, and economically feasible, in view of the current consumptive demand in domestic and foreign markets ***

By specific exclusion in the statute, the Congress has in effect said that these conditions and policies shall extend to many commodities, but not to the producers of fruits and vegetables for canning.

If these policies are sound for the producers of other commodities, they certainly should be sound and valuable to the producers of fruits and vegetables for canning.

The act specifies the commodities which are included under its provisions as follows:

SEC. 8. (c) (2) Orders issued pursuant to this section shall be applicable only to the following agricultural commodities and the products thereof (except products of naval stores and the products of honeybees), or to any regional, or market classification of any such commodity or product: Milk, fruits (including pecans and walnuts but not including apples, other than apples produced in the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and not including fruits, other than olives, for canning, or freezing), tobacco, vegetables (not including vegetables, other than asparagus, for canning or freezing), soybeans, hops, honeybees, and naval stores as included in the Naval Stores Act and standards established thereunder (including refined or partially refined oleoresin).

Gentlemen, you will note apples produced in the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, asparagus, wherever produced, olives for canning, wherever produced enjoy the provisions of the act. Congress has created a group of second-class fruits and vegetables for canning.

If apples in specified States may have the advantage of the legislation, why not pears, peaches, and other fruits for canning?

If asparagus growers may have the advantage of the act-why not tomato, artichoke, bean, and pea growers, why not all canning vegetables, why not all canning fruit?

These are the questions producers of fruits and vegetables for canning ask whenever the benefits of the Federal marketing legislation come up for consideration.

The producers of these agricultural commodities are not asking for mandatory regulation. They are merely asking for permissive legis

lation so that the producers of fruits for canning may have the right to petition the Secretary of Agriculture for the imposition of orders or agreements upon the approval of the requisite vote or assent.

Specifically, the producers of fruits for canning endorse the amendments to the law in the following respects:

1. Amend the present law to extend its coverage to any agricultural commodity.

2. Provide in the law for initiation, formulation, and effectuation of marketing orders or agreements for or on producers only.

3. Provide in the law for optional orders or agreements whereby producers and processors may effectuate, through the Secretary of Agriculture, joint program.

4. Provide that orders may not be imposed on producers or processors without the requisite percentage assent or vote of each.

5. Provide that producers' programs may be financed 100 percent by producers and the assessment for financing such programs be collected by processors, or deducted from the amount due producers for their products.

6. Eliminate from the law all restrictions against the imposition of orders or the formulation of agreements covering fruits or vegetables for canning.

7. Authorize producer or joint producer-processor advertising and trade promotion.

8. Authorize general research and surveys.

9. Exempt certain regulations on the fruit and vegetable for canning programs and the fresh fruit and vegetable programs from the Federal Administrative Procedure Act.

10. Provide for continuous operation of a program despite shorttime price variations above parity.

The producers of agricultural commodities in California have had the opportunity to test the value of marketing orders and agreements since 1937. The overwhelming acceptance of these programs is best demonstrated by the fact that at the close of 1950 (my last available figures) there were in effect under the provisions of Federal and State enabling legislation, 38 marketing orders and programs.

Of these, 12 were under the Federal statute and 26 under State laws. Currently there are 28 marketing order programs or agreements in effect under State laws which directly affect over 34,000 producers and over 3,700 handlers. The value of the commodities regulated exceeds $460 million measured at the producer level.

Testimony presented by Secretary of Agriculture, the Honorable Ezra T. Benson, when, as secretary-treasurer of the National Cooperative Council, he testified before the House Committee on Agriculture concerning H. R. 6208, June 1, and 2, 1939. is as valid and potent today as when uttered by him.

On behalf of said council, Secretary Benson stated:

We recommend

The inclusion of canning fruits and canning vegetables or such other commodities as may express a wish to be so included, in the commodities specified in section 8c as eligible for the issuance of marketing orders.

When asked if canners should be included, Mr. Benson's answer indicates that canning fruits and vegetables should have the permissive right to use the law. His answer:

It is important that canning fruits and vegetables be included in the amendment. This is permissive legislation but provides that they are not compelled to take advantage of it; but we take the position that any group ought to be included that wishes to establish a marketing order or agreement in their commodity.

In conclusion, in the American tradition the growers for whom I speak do not ask for class legislation. However, they do request that Congress give them the same opportunity as it afforded asparagus for canning and olives for canning.

They ask that legislation be enacted giving all producers the optional or permissive right to effectuate producers marketing orders, financed 100 percent by producers, administered under the guidance of the Secretary of Agriculture by producer or grower members of the agricultural commodity involved.

The CHAIRMAN. Am I to understand that you represent the canners?

Mr. GIRTON. No, sir; I represent producers only.

The CHAIRMAN. Producers only?

Mr. GIRTON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Because it is my recollection that the chief objectors to what you are asking for are the canners.

Mr. GIRTON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And they have vociferously objected to being included in the law, and that is the reason why the producers have not been placed under the law.

Mr. GIRTON. I understand, sir.

If I recall at the last session of Congress legislation was introduced to include all commodities under this program.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. GIRTON. And there was objection to that.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. GIRTON. So in this particular case I have offered recommendations referring to commodities I have mentioned, namely, pears, freestones, and Kadota figs.

The CHAIRMAN. Only those you have mentioned?

Mr. GIRTON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. GIRTON. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now we go to livestock. Is Mr. Rudolph Schwartz here? Is Mr. McDougal here? All right.

I will call you in a minute, Mr. McDougal.

Mr. Olaf George, please keep yourself in readiness.

All right, Mr. Schwartz. You may proceed, sir.

STATEMENT OF RUDOLPH SCHWARTZ, PRESIDENT, NEVADA STATE FARM BUREAU, PARADISE VALLEY, NEV.

Mr. SCHWARTZ. My name is Rudolph Schwartz. I live in Paradise Valley, Nev. I am in the cattle-raising business.

I understand, Senator, this meeting was called for the purpose of getting some of the ideas of thinking of the people on price supports. The CHAIRMAN. That is right.