Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Certainly, research in the utilization of farm products for other uses, such as the manufacture of starch from surplus potatoes, should be well financed by the Federal Government, for through such research answers to many problems may be found.

I think we have to-and of course you say that your Senate committee is on record to that effect-avoid such programs as the wheat program where farmers were not allowed to feed what they produced themselves.

I believe that the ASC payments should be confined to practices that have a long time value in the public interest and current appropriations would apear to be adequate to meet these needs.

Certainly, further reclamation of land by Government when Government is spending huge sums in efforts to improve farm income is unrealistic and should be halted until such time as the additional land is needed.

This is probably a little repetitious, but the serious problems affecting farmers has been decline in net farm income rather than decline in gross farm income. Decline in net farm income has resulted in large measure from high costs of production-especially high costs of the industrial products that enter into farm production. We get our net farm income by multiplying units sold times price minus costs. Government fixed prices which encourage production necessitate production control programs and marketing quotas which reduce the number of units that can be sold. Large Government holdings overshadow markets and depress market prices below high Government support prices. We cannot veto the law of supply and demand by Government price fixing unless we have the most rigid kind of Government control imaginable, which most farmers in New York State, in my opinion, are not ready to accept and do not want.

It seems to me, as I said in the beginning, we have to face this from a realistic point of view. I am glad that you Senators are out looking over the farm scene. I hope that you have found some things that will realy help, but I would again like to throw in the caution that I hope whatever is done that we look at it from a realistic point of view and keep the emotions as low as possible in doing the job. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Your statement will be made a part of the record at this point. (The prepared statement of Mr. Wickham is as follows:)

Great effort should be placed on the expansion of markets at home and abroad. Effective farmer-financed promotional programs can accomplish much in stimulating and increasing domestic consumption.

The Government's newly established policy in foreign trade of accepting the cuurencies of other countries in exchange for our agricultural products is sound and should be expanded. They cannot buy our products with dollars unless this country gives them the opportunity to earn the dollars by importing into this country their goods. We can use their currencies in purchasing strategic materials which are needed in this country.

Action by the 83d Congress in substituting flexible price supports for the high unsound mandatory 90 percent supports on the so-called basic crops was a move in the right direction. Even the flexible price supports on the basic commodities with all of the restrictions involved are so high that they stimulate production for Government in great excess of market needs. At best, this action in connection with price supports was a change only in direction. In my opinion it would be very unwise and unsound for Congress to abandon the flexible support principle by returning to the 90 percent of parity mandatory supports.

A more realistic support level on dairy products has resulted in a 55 percent decline in Government buying of butter and butter inventories have dropped 60

percent in the last year.

Cow numbers on farms June 1 in the United States were 1.6 percent less than a year earlier and milk consumption during the past year increased more than 6 billion pounds.

During the past year butter consumption rose per capita and the consumption of oleomargarine declined accordingly. Per capita consumption of butter now exceeds per capita consumption of oleomargarine.

In 1954 egg prices dropped 23 percent, gross income dropped 19 percent and net income even more. The adjustments were rough for poultrymen but they were quickly made and the poultry and egg industries are now experiencing fairly good times.

Price supports have their place in agriculture but they should never be used in peacetime to stimulate production in great excess of market needs. They can serve their best function when used to guard against undue price depression resulting from seasonal or yearly overproduction of individual commodities.

The school-lunch program is good and should be encouraged. Additional funds for additional milk in the school-lunch program serves a constructive purpose nutritionally and the program should be continued.

Research in the utilization of farm products for other uses such as the manufacture of starch from surplus potatoes should be well financed by the Federal Government for through such research, answers to many problems may be found.

Prohibiting production of wheat on farms where all wheat grown is fed on the farms where grown to poultry and livestock is unsound and unreasonable and should be abandoned. The practice of limiting voting on the wheat program only to those who intend to grow 15 acres or more is undemocratic.

ASC practice payments should be confined to practices that have a longtime value in the public interest and current appropriations would appear to be adequate to meet these needs.

Further reclamation of land by Government when Government is spending huge sums in efforts to improve farm income is unrealistic and should be halted till such time as the additional land is needed.

The serious problem affecting farmers has been decline in net farm income rather than decline in gross farm income. Decline in net farm income has resulted in large measure from high costs of production-especially high costs of the industrial products that enter into farm production. We get our net farm income by multiplying units sold times price minus costs. Governmentfixed prices which encourage production necessitate production-control programs and marketing quotas which reduce the number of units that can be sold. Large Government holdings overshadow markets and depress market prices below high Government support prices. We cannot veto the law of supply and demand by Government price fixing unless we have the most rigid kind of Government control imaginable which most farmers in New York State, in my opinion, are not ready to accept and do not want.

The present program of flexible supports is working in the right direction and should be continued.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Robert H. Austin, president of the Upper Susquehanna Watershed Association, present?

(No response.)

We will next hear from Mr. Leon Korzeniewski. Give us your name in full and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF LEON KORZENIEWSKI, MORRISVILLE, N. Y.

Mr. KORZENIEWSKI. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Leon Korzeniewski. I am a dairy farmer in Madison County. I want to confine my remarks to the milk situation.

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.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe your statement is devoted to State laws. I wonder if you could confine your statement to anything new on the national problem.

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

This

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. 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.

[blocks in formation]

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 (c) 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.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »