Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

compared with the same months of 1954, which show a continuation of the trend toward less Government support:

[blocks in formation]

The above in our opinion tends to support the program of flexible price supports. We are hopeful that in a few more years we as an industry will again be able to "stand on our own feet." We wish to remind you that all the butter and cheese held by this Government is not surplus. Prior to the Government price support program the industry did its own storing of these products during the season of high production for use during winter months of less production. Prices then were flexible to both producer and consumer and varied with the amounts of storage. Currently the Government does the storing. Consequently flexible price supports are not new.

During the presentation of our paper in 1953 to the United States Legislative Interim Committee we pointed out only certain elements or parts of our industry were directly involved, the producers of milk and cream used for manufacture of those products operating under parity support. We stated we favored flexible supports to check the mounting of Government purchases and surpluses of 1953, but in so doing not to overlook the fact that large portions of our total prduction went into market milk which was not directly involved in parity supports. On the contrary much of it is under Federal or State milk marketing programs.

Good judgment and management of these marketing programs would seem to dictate the inclusion of the percentage of parity for manufactured products in formulas or other means of arriving at prices for market milk. Your committee knows this matter has been before Congress in Washington. We regret the absence of a national economic research study to determine whether or not the milk marketing programs are in surplus volume sufficient to affect the overall program and purpose. In fairness to producers of both classes of milk this question should be answered factually. We urge that you give consideration to having such a study made by the USDA.

Conclusions:

(1) We continue to favor flexible price supports.

(2) From information available to us we believe the program of flexible price supports is developing satisfactorily.

(3) We urge a research study to be made by the USDA to determine (a) to what extent are parity prices for dairy products used in formulating market milk prices, (b) is there an excess of surplus market milk going into manufacture of dairy products to influence the prices paid to producers of manufacturing milk and cream?

STATEMENT FILED BY ROBERT J. TAYLOR, JR., GEORGE ZARINOVICH, FRED BEAR AND KENT A. FISH OF ORANGE COVE, CALIF., AND L. R. HAMILTON AND A. APHARLAN OF REEDLEY, CALIF.

American farmers, the backbone of this country, are calling on you and your Department to innovate some adjustment that will make farming a better business and establish it on a secure basis for the benefit of the farmer and the entire economic setup.

We realize your position that you have inherited a tremendous job of handling the huge surpluses piled up by previous administrations. We feel you devote more attention to the disposal of these surpluses than to the marketing of the crops maturing yearly; these are most economically important to the country.

We would like to turn back to 1932 when a new President established the New Deal. He waited until the suppliers got all they needed to run us that year then

he instructed that all the surpluses be destroyed; kill the little pigs, plow under corn, wheat, oats, potatoes or any other crop that we could not sell to suppliers

for that year.

Then in 1945 another President took over. He was really a New Dealer. He waited until the suppliers got all they wanted, then he paid the growers good prices for all that was left and started to pile these crops up in storage for his full 7 years. This program cost several billions of dollars, and filled practically all the storage spaces in the country. The public are entitled to a detailed statement of the scope and actual expenditure of this program.

Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Benson, you came along in 1952 to carry on with this great handicap and the tremendous expense added to your Department. You are faced with many elements. Let us list a few of them:

1. Human element

2. Speculative element

3. Gambling element

4. Crime element

5. Self-interest element

6. Communist element

7. Political element

8. False pretense elements

These and many more are playing a big part in this country and the world economy. We have to do everything we can to keep them under control or they will dominate us. Every man or woman in our Government, county, State, and Federal, every Member of Congress, Cabinet officers, and all citizens should keep intouch with each other to try to meet this condition and make this a clean country to live in not only for ourselves but for the coming generations.

We submit for your consideration the fact we have farm bureaus all over the Nation with departments already set up for all the various farm products. There is also in each county a stabilization and conservation office of the USDA. We ask that each Farm Bureau office and each USDA branch office prepare and submit to the Department of Agriculture a detailed report from their various departments on their different problems, what they have to contend with and what they need to help them out to establish farming on a more secure basis and prevent these inroads and losses.

As you know, a farmer is a very tired man after his day's work is over and what he has to contend with to control pests, diseases, weather, and marketing problems. Farmers are reluctant to attend meetings and service clubs like other lines of business. He operates under free enterprise. He is more interested in expenditures to improve his quality and production then he is in the marketing factors important to the sales of his products. Strange as it seems, he is slightly apathetic to markets-he is inclined to consider marketing problems as far and beyond his power to control.

It is our suggestion that a mailing list be made up of all the farms in this country and that your Department furnish them with a simple form of questionnaire for them to report to you of their problems and crop prospects, and let them make suggestions from their own operations. This information should be very valuable, especially from the point of establishing fair prices for farm commodities.

Rapid transportation is a most vital factor in our fresh fruit and vegetable industry. We desire to impress the United States Department of Agriculture with the importance of providing our products with fast deliveries to market. Due to the perishable nature of our commodities and the market value dependent upon fresh appearing, unspoiled arrivals the grower is risking an entire year of production costs plus packing and material charges upon the interval of time and the nature of the handling by carrier between shipping point and market arrival.

Prior to World War II, using the years 1934-38 as the base period, we exported an average of 8,298 tons a year of table grapes (mostly Emperors) to European countries, including England. Since the war, our export of table grapes has been practically nothing, amounting to less than 1 percent of our prewar tonnage. Compared to 8,298 tons per year prior to the war, we exported only 1,585 tons in 1946, nothing again until 1951 which was only 96 tons, only 187 tons in 1952 and 31 tons in 1953. You can see that these postwar shipments of grapes to Europe are negligible.

In the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the European countries were permitted to exclude importation of certain commodities until their dollar position reached a satisfactory stage. The dollar position of some of these countries

has improved to the extent that they should have opened up their borders so as to permit the importation of some of our commodities, including our fruit. Some countries are not living up to their agreements and our State Department has not used a strong policy in dealing with them. They have permitted them to violate their agreements and exclude our commodities by using certain fictitious barriers such as lack of licenses, pleading exchange difficulties, etc.

Emperors are the strongest and hardiest table grape, making them a very desirable grape for export. With an average yield per acre, we have an overproduction of this variety. Therefore, these historical export markets which we had prior to the war are very necessary for the balanced marketing of Emperors. Our Department of Agriculture and our State Department should do everything in their power to help us regain what is rightfully ours.

We have advanced far in the past half century; farming has become a mechanized system, together with scientific cultural practices that are constantly improving. But it seems impossible for us to improve the gap between producer and consumer. We are still going on in the same old horse-and-buggy manner. We all have to get behind the wheel and do something for the improvement of this situation. We all must pray to God to give us the strength and vision and courage and faith in one another that we may live in security, better unity and better understanding and peace among ourselves and the world.

STATEMENT FILED BY F. R. WILCOX, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND TREASURER, SUNKIST GROWERS, INC., LOS ANGELES, Calif.

This statement is prepared for your committee on behalf of Sunkist Growers, Inc.

Sunkist Growers is a nonprofit cooperative marketing organization owned by 11,300 citrus growers in the States of California and Arizona. The position of Sunkist Growers with regard to certain important legislative programs pertaining to California and Arizona citrus is outlined below.

Full support is given to the continuance of section 32 programs which apply particularly to perishable commodities. The California and Arizona citrus industry has been aided in solving its own problems through the export-payment program under provisions of section 32. The exportation of small-size oranges, which have been in heavy surplus in this country but in strong demand abroad, has been made possible by this Government program. During recent seasons from 5 to 10 percent of the total California-Arizona orange production has been utilized through export outlets. Aided by this effective Government program the industry has been able to obtain about 60 percent of parity.

This organization believes that the National School Lunch Act was properly designed to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's children through the use of nutritious agricultural commodities as distributed under the schoollunch program. This program should be continued both by direct purchase under section 6 and in conjunction with surplus removal as provided by the section 32 program.

The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937, as amended, permits certain agricultural commodities to establish marketing agreement and order programs for the purpose of orderly marketing. Such programs have been in effect almost continuously for California and Arizona citrus since 1934. The industry has used this provision of Government to keep a regulated and steady flow of fresh citrus in the markets for the benefit of both producers and consumers. Continuance of these programs is strongly supported.

Excise taxes on transportation and communication were instituted as a war measure to restrict unnecessary travel and communication and to obtain revenue under wartime conditions. While these purposes may have been logical in support of the overall war effort, there is definitely no shortage in supply of these services at the present time and they are certainly not luxuries. In addition, these taxes are discriminatory against long-haul users. The citrus industry believes these taxes are no longer necessary and requests termination at the earliest possible date.

PRICE-SUPPORT PROGRAM

NOVEMBER 4, 1955

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY,

Albuquerque, N. Mex. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 8: 30 a. m., in the ballroom of the Hilton Hotel, Albuquerque, N. Mex., Senator Ellender presiding.

Present: Senator Ellender (chairman) and Senator Clinton Ander

son.

Also present: Congressman J. J. Dempsey.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. The Chair will recognize Senator Anderson.

Senator ANDERSON. I merely wanted to say to this group that it is an honor and a privilege to have the chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry with us today.

Senator Ellender has worked long and faithfully on the committee. I am very proud that he has chosen our State as one of the States that he would visit on this trip. A long time ago, when we had the matter of agricultural legislation under consideration, Senator Ellender said, "I want to go out and find out from farmers what they think about this problem. I want to examine the thoughts across the country before we report out a bill."

And I think that this trip has justified his belief in his conviction that it was desirable to make this trip.

I merely wanted to have this opportunity to say to my homefolk, and those visitors that come from adjoining States, that we in the Agriculture Committee are very proud of our chairman. We are proud of the energetic way in which he works. We are proud of his interest in government and in economy in government. And most of all, we are happy that he is so genuinely devoted to the welfare of the farmers of this country.

I could not have a greater joy than to see the chairmanship of this meeting in the hands of Allen Ellender.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. You know that we Senators are always nice to each other, but I am very happy to be here in New Mexico. Your State is very fortunate in having such a fine Senator as Senator Anderson. He is one of our leaders in Congress, and when he gets up to speak the Senators listen to him. Of course, they do not always vote the way he thinks, but he has much power in Congress. With respect to these hearings, at the beginning of this session it became apparent that an effort would be made by the House to amend the present act, so as to revert to 90 percent rigid controls. As Senator Anderson indicated, when the matter came to our attention before our

own committee of the Senate, it was decided by the Committee as a whole to go back to the people, to find out whether or not we could not get some substantial evidence that would assist us in handling the farm program.

This is not new to me. I happen to be the only member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry who, in 1937, made a similar tour all over the country. We had hearings in the northern part of the country, we had hearings in the southern part of the country, in fact, all over the country. From those hearings came the act of 1938, which lasted for quite some time.

Of course, because of the emergencies that arose during the war, the act was amended, and the 90-percent program was then put into effect and retained until last year.

As I have stated on several occasions, when hearing witnesses all over the country, neither the flexible price program nor the rigid program will, in themselves, solve our farm problem.

It will be necessary to go into other matters. trying to find from you farmers what you think.

That is what we are

I want to say that my hope is that those who will testify here today will be farmers, people who can give us a message, people who can give us ideas, and information. I do not want this hearing to be a contest between organizations that you may have here in New Mexico. I have made that plain, when I first started these hearings, I have made it plain that not only are we to hear from the farmers, but we want to make these hearings nonpartisan and nonpolitical, because it makes no difference if a farmer is a Democrat or a Republican.

There is no doubt that in many segments of farming they are losing money, and since, in my humble opinion, farming is one of the most important, in fact the most important segment of our society, it strikes me that if help is needed it ought to be accorded.

I need not stress to you gentlemen that we can have big armies, we can have big steel production, and everything else, but unless our country has ample food and fiber, somebody is going to die on the

vine.

So with that preliminary explanation I believe the committee is ready to start these hearings, unless Senator Anderson has something else that he would like to add.

Senator ANDERSON. No, thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

The first witness on the list is Mr. Reuben V. Anderson. Will you step forward?

(No response.)

I want to say this also, witnesses were placed on this list alphabetically, and the manner and method in which the witnesses may be examined during these hearings is not to be taken as indicating the sentiment of the person examining them. We are simply trying to get the facts. I learned early in life, particularly as a young lawyer, that the best way to get the facts is to take the negative of your opponent's affirmative. So that now, if any of us take an opposite view, it will be done for the purpose of trying to elicit from you various facts, and elaboration of any ideas that you present for the solution of the problem.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »