ago. Milk consumption in the United States is up, but per capita consumption is still far below many other countries, such as Germany, France, United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Canada, and others. Whole-milk prices are still far too low especially when we consider the high-equipment and labor costs involved in dairy farming. Yesterday, I heard a sidewalk radio interview program originating in downtown Des Moines. The question of the day was, "What do you think of the Government pork-buying program?" Most of the interviews were with women and the almost unanimous answer was, “It's all right if it doesn't increase the price of pork." Gentlemen, let's reappraise values and do everything in our power to convince our consumers that our kind of food is a good buy. Let's put some salesmanship into agriculture. In summary: 1. Farmers must do a better job of selling their products. 2. We must have a minimum of Government controls. 3. We must continue the Federal school-milk program. 4. Our ultimate goal must be to achieve 100 percent of parity. Senator THYE. Does your milk go to the city here as a fluid milk? Senator THYE. At the time that the price support was reduced from 90 to 75 percent, did that reflect a reduction to the consumer that bought a quart of milk? Mr. HITZ. To my knowledge it did not reflect on to the consumer. Senator THYE. No, sir. And that has been my "beef," and my complaint relative to the fact that the producer suffered the reduction, but the consumer got no benefit. Mr. HITZ. That is right. Senator THYE. This morning there were questions raised about what the producer contributed to a sales program. We have called Washington. We have tried to learn just exactly what the producers are doing nationally relative to their promotion and advertising of their products, in trying to sell dairy products. We find from the best figures we have been able to obtain that 106 cooperative organizations in 1954 contributed and spent in advertising around $5,500,000. That is, understand, 106 cooperative organizations. The American Dairy Association's budget for 1954 was $6,500,000. All told, the milk industry's entire advertising campaign involved expenditures of $84 million in 1954. This program has been in development for the past 12 or more years across the United States. I have sat in many conferences back in the early forties with Washington producers, that is, the State of Washington, as well as with Idaho, Colorado, and Midwest producers, in the development of a national advertising program. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. HITZ. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. David Noller. STATEMENT OF DAVID E. NOLLER, SIGOURNEY, IOWA Mr. NOLLER. Gentlemen, it is indeed a privilege to be able to come before you today. Our American heritage is being strengthened greatly by meetings such as these. My name is David Noller. I live about 85 miles east of Des Moines, and am the third generation of my family producing cattle and hogs on the home place. My operation includes raising about 1,000 hogs annually in conjunction with feeding about 200 cattle and farming 600 acres of land, of which I pay taxes on 450. My hog setup is one of the most efficient in the State, according to swine extension specialists from Iowa State College. An extensive set of records are kept on my farming business and I hold a firm conviction that this thing of selling hogs for $12 per hundredweight when it is costing $13.95 per hundredweight to produce them is not profitable. Furthermore, you don't pay income tax when you're producing choice beef on a $1.50 margin. The thing that hurts most is the fact that in 1948 I bought a tractor with the proceeds from 37 hogs. That tractor needs to be replaced now and it will take all the revenue you can muster from 138 hogs on today's prices to swing the deal for a new one. You know, a salesman said the new tractor would pay for itself in a year's time, and I told him when it got through paying to bring it out. The CHAIRMAN. The same sized hogs? Mr. NOLLER. The same sized hogs. Senator THYE. And the same size tractor? Mr. NOLLER. And the same size tractor. I have the record at home to prove that. The CHAIRMAN. We believe you. Mr. NOLLER. Gentlemen, frankly, I'm not smart enough to figure out an airtight farm program, but I have full confidence that you are. I feel certain that you are earnestly endeavoring to weigh the problems in these meetings, and that you will not sell us down the river. The farmers in my community are dissatisfied with the present situation, but I only know of two who have sold out and moved to the city because of their dissatisfaction. Here are some of the things we would like to see happen: 1. We would like to see still more emphasis placed on foreign trade. Our exports of farm commodities are still below the volume we disposed of through these channels in the 1920's. 2. We would have the present Government agencies, namely, the Soil Conservation Service, agricultural conservation program, and Extension Service all put under one Director to form an efficient program, administered by the Government and controlled by the farmer. Under the present program, I have one neighbor on 160 acres with a 52-acre corn base. Another neighbor on 430 acres has only an 81acre corn base. There is no material difference in the fertility or terrain of these two farms. The SCS has set up a 127-acre corn base on my farm and the ACP has established a 109-acre base on the same land. 3. The soil fertility bank plan has been accepted with fervor by those who have studied it in my community. Everyone, however, has some reservations to add to his fervor. Lastly, gentlemen, we would have you keep first and uppermost in your minds the fact that we definitely do not want future generations of our families to read in history that this was the generation which plunged us into socialism. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. At this point I wish to place in the record a statement by Mr. James S. Sponsler of Humeston, Iowa. (The prepared statement of James S. Sponsler is as follows:) In determining what is best for farmers should we not consider the true source of our wealth? It does not come from Washington rather it comes from the soil, air, water, and sunlight. This material frontier of agriculture stands before us more fabulous than ever before but this promise of abundance and profit will not be realized if all the made-in-Congress restrictions to trade and commerce are not removed. These restrictions are tariffs, price supports, confiscatory taxes, and minimum-wage laws. Remove these and an efficient American agriculture can compete and capture the world food market. Since the idea that wealth can be legislated has been thoroughly discredited this leaves markets and efficient production as the farmers true income supports. We should then clear the road for their successful operation. Present price supports favor one group within agriculture over others reducing competition which in turn brings inefficient production and lowered income. As a result we are producing corn for twice the cost it can be produced. Our hog-raising efficiency can also be raised and fortunately we have economic compulsion that will raise that if not too much pork is bought by the Government and the price raised. This economic compulsion that competition brings is the best means for bringing into use more efficient methods of production which benefit producers and consumers alike. Our current problems are the result of legislation which has deprived us of markets, and inflation not based upon production, which are products of the fake liberal mind and has led us to the door of the totalitarian state. Aside from the poor economics of price supports they are unconstitutional as minority rights are not protected with a two-thirds vote imposing restrictions. In the field of attitude destruction price supports are the most dangerous as it cultivates the illusion that wealth is created in Washington, leading many of us to believe that a law is all that is needed to bring prosperity rather than markets and efficient production. Congress could do the merchant marine and farmers both a favor by removing 50 percent shipping requirement. I have heard it said that competition is a dog-eat-dog proposition but is a child compared to state control as evidenced by Russia today and other recent totalitarian governments. As a farmer I see a great future for agriculture with a free competitive economy, but a dark one if state control is allowed to grow. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Putney. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PUTNEY, WATERLOO, IOWA Mr. PUTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I live on a 410-acre farm near Waterloo, Iowa. I disagree with a lot of these gentlemen. I do not think we have much of a surplus in meat. I think that all we need is a little control on these packers. They kind of run roughshod over the farmers, and what we need is a limitation of what they can take off in a day's time. Now, they will take off 50 cents one day, stay steady the next, and if they want some hogs, they put on a dime. They get some hogs, and then they take off 50 cents, stay steady, and put on a dime. We have lost 80 cents a hundred in about 3 or 4 days in that kind of business. They never put on as much as they take off. It is a planned program of reducing the price of hogs for the farmers, and I think it could easily be done. It is done in the grain market through some way, and another thing, in this surplus, it might be news to a lot of you, but our local packing plant is now holding back hams for the Christmas rush. That does not sound like 12-cent hog markets to me. Another thing, the local packing plant-I have no quarrel with it-we have done a lot of business together, but they have been talking about a large surplus, but they have been using and buying soybean oil to replace lard within their shortening. Now, that does not sound like the lard is such a big burden either, does it? I do not like to see a lot of Government controls. I hope that I can turn over my farm to my children in better shape than the one in which I got it, and I think I can do it myself. I do not thing we need all this land bank. I think we should put a lot of this poor land into forestry for future generations to use. Another thing is that it might be cheaper for the Government to buy some of this land at the rental price I hear about. That might be a better deal; then they can sell it off to the young men later on. I think another thing, we can take less money for some of our livestock, but I do not like this protein-feed deal. Now, they will take a ton of rolled oil meal, wrap a little molasses around it, and a little antibiotics or somethng, and take a $50 ton of that meal, and it is $100 for the farmer. There is too much spread for what the farmer pays for things he buys for feed and his price. We can operate a lot on less prices on the stuff if the other boys want to come along, and I am willing to take a little less, but I want to buy for less, and I think every farmer feels that way, too. This price of everything we have been buying has been going up, and it startled everybody. It really got me excited, or I would not be here today. I know that this soil-conservation program we have had at times has been of benefit. I remember when the war broke out in 1941 I was able to buy corn from the Government. We emptied all the bins in our local town, and we raised a lot of hogs that were needed, and I think it was a great program. I think we used up much of the surplus corn, and I think, if we quot using the word "surplus" and talk about a reserve, or even not mention it, it would help. We depress the market every time we mention surplus, and it boomerangs, and some of these Government figures have been a little bit twisted, and twisted to the disadvantage of the farmer. I know I had about 1,600 bushels of soybeans on hand, and the Government released an article in which it said they had enormous surpluses; they found 20 million more bushels; so I sold them. It was not long until I found out I had just lost $1,600; that the figure was inaccurate. I think they were put through to get a lot of soybeans sold, and in other words, I got gypped out of $1,600 by the Government figures, and I do not think we should have a lot of these crop reports that come out. We start out the 1st of May with a bumper crop, and every month they come out with that crop, and every month the corn market goes down, and then pretty soon it gets kind of dried, the hot winds come along and our corn shrivels, but still that old estimate is way up there. Well, we raised half a crop this year, and we did not do too good this year, but we are hoping we will do good next year. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator HUMPHREY. Mr. Chairman, I will take 1 minute. I think this gentleman has brought a new thought into our deliberations here. It is true we regulate the grain market in terms of its price fluctuations, on its quotations today. It seems to me you have some merit on your observations with regard to the packers. I might tell you, sir, there are other farm people who feel exactly as you do, and I have had a number of letters in recent weeks on the very subject you brought up. Furthermore, your comment on the use of this word "surplus," where is this surplus in corn that everybody is talking about? All I have heard the last few days is a surplus in corn. The frank truth is if we just look upon the amount of corn that we have, recognizing, as witnesses have stated here, that you have about a 3 months' supply of corn in so-called surplus, now that is no surplus of corn. Good grief, I have lived through enough years of drought to know that will not be enough to take care of the chickens, much less the hogs, if you really got into trouble. Mr. PUTNEY. I have got one more statement. Maybe a lot of you people do not know it, but Swift does not kill hogs in Chicago any more, and neither does Wilson. Wilson does not even maintain a large stock office in the yards at Chicago. Well, you take Swift and Wilson out of the hog market in Chicago, and you have got a pretty sick deal there, and we have had nothing but trouble in the hog market since Swift and Wilson moved out, and I think that is why we have got to regulate this daily price on hogs. It really runs the shivers down a fellow when he has got a lot of hogs, when this hog market drops about a dollar a day. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Slusher? STATEMENT OF H. E. SLUSHER, PRESIDENT, MISSOURI FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, JEFFERSON CITY, MO. Mr. SLUSHER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you have my sympathy; I am going to file my statement. I want to heartily endorse the statement that Mr. Hill made this morning. It seems to me that is the only new look we really have at this program, and certainly the one we have at the present is not working. I would like to make this additional statement. I think we have got to be more realistic as we talk about this surplus. Now, maybe we do not have any surplus corn, but if we do not, we surely have got a lot of surplus tin bins scattered all over the State of Iowa and other sections of the country; and I think we are kidding ourselves when we say that a surplus does not have an effect on the market whether the Government owns it, whether I own it, or whether the trade owns it. It does have a depressing effect. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Senator HOLLAND. May I ask him one question? I notice you are president of the Missouri Farm Bureau Federation. Mr. SLUSHER. That is right. |