Secretary Benson to purchase eggs and poultry for the school-lunch program a year ago when poultry farmers were in the midst of a grave crisis. "Why pork and not eggs and poultry?" is a question that poultry farmers want answered. It is not that we begrudge hog farmers support. We are all for it. But why the discrimination? We have read Secretary Benson's statement that the Egg Industry Advisory Committee was opposed to support for eggs while the Hog Industry Advisory Committee was in favor of support for hogs. We are not here to judge the latter committee, but we do know about the Egg Industry Advisory Committee of the USDA, a list of which we are submitting in order to place on the record the fact that, with rare exception, these are not the representatives of the family farmer. Poultry farmers have gone through such tough sledding in the past 2 years that a mortgage moratorium law, similar to the Frazier-Lemke law that was allowed to lapse in the 80th Congress, is most necessary. Also Congress should delve into the operations of the commodity exchanges. We have in mind here the New York Mercantile Exchange, which is a major factor in determining the price of eggs to the farmer in New York City, when only a very tiny fraction of the eggs marketed are traded on this exchange. We believe that Congress should provide strict control over the commodity cash markets. In regard to milk, we believe that, here again, production payments up to the family-size level of production, is the way to achieve full parity for farmers. The fact that such a program does work is proved by the experience of 1944-47, when milk sold for 15 cents per quart in New York City, and dairy farmers received full parity for their product. However, we believe that the farmer should agree to conduct whatever soil-conservation practices are necessary in order to qualify for production payments on milk. In this way, we would not only keep the family farmer on the land, but also seek to maintain the fertility of our soil. A farsighted view into our political situation would look beyond the present so-called surpluses into the future when, with the continued growth of our population and the constant displacement of family farmers, there is the prospect not of bountiful agricultural plenty but of severe shortages. Certainly, for us not to prepare a full parity program around family-farm production now, while there is still time, would prove not only derelict to the interest of farmers, but also make us lacking in our responsibility to consumers. Let us evolve a full parity program based on the family farmer now, or face the possibility of corporation farming developing its own scarcity program. (The document entitled "Egg Industry Advisory Committee of the USDA" is as follows:) EGG INDUSTRY ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE USDA Ahlers, Hendrick, Carl Ahlers, Inc., 168 Duane Street, New York, N. Y. Beernink, Harry J., general manager, Washington Coopertaive Farmers Association, 201-217 Elliott Avenue, West Seattle, Wash. Edmonds, Clyde C., secretary and general manager, Utah Poultry and Farmers Co-op, 1800 Southwest Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah. Farr, Robert H., market analyst, Fairmont Foods Co., Omaha, Nebr. Fuchs, Leo, Ideal Poultry Farms, Cameron, Tex. Grotewold, W. Samuel, president, American Poultry & Hatchery Federation, Lake Mills, Iowa. Graham, Leland J., general manager, Southern States Marketing Co-op, 1621 Little Walsh Street, Baltimore, Md. Halstead, Fred J., Sheldon Dairy & Poultry Farm, Waseca, Minn. Hannah, Arthur J., secretary, ROP Association, 2065 Eastern Avenue, SE., Grand Rapids, Mich. Dr. John C. Huttar, Cooperative Grange League Federation Exchange, Inc., Ithaca, N. Y. Kenneth, R. C., Farmers' Mutual, Inc., Durham, N. C. Lafrenier, Edward, Allentown, R. I. Macy, Thad, Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Hatchery, 47 South Pennsylvania Street, Indianapolis, Ind. Nickerson, D. A., Armour & Co., Union Stock Yards, Chicago, Ill. Olson, Glenn H., Olson Bros., 3855 Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood, Calif. Parker, George R., Parker Poultry Farm, Rural Free Delivery, Schalka Road, Plainsboro, N. J. Rohe, H. R., general manager, Oregon Egg Producers, 306 Southeast Ash Street, Portland, Oreg. Senecal, R. W., manager, egg division, H. P. Hood & Sons, 500 Rutherford Avenue, Boston, Mass. Slusher, H. E., 208 East Capital Avenue, Postoffice Box 658, Jefferson City, Mo. Smith, Blanton, Smith Hatchery, 927 Gallatin Road, Postoffice Box 1123, Nashville, Tenn. Thompson, L. N., manager, egg department, Poultry Producers of Central California, 840 Battery Street, San Francisco, Calif. Treat, Ralph, Wooster Cooperative Poultry Association, Box 45, Wooster, Ohio. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Senator AIKEN. I note your reference to Secretary Benson's Advisory Committee on Eggs. You realize, do you not, that it was not Secretary Benson but Secretary Brannan that threw out the egg program? He had one for a while. Secretary Brannan said that it could not work, it cost half a billion dollars; so he threw it out. I was wondering what committee he had to advise him. He is counsel for the Farmers Union now; is he not? Mr. ALTHOUSE. We are not part of the National Farmers Union. Senator AIKEN. That is right. I understand that. Mr. ALTHOUSE. I would like to make that plain. We are from the Eastern Farmers Union. About the question which you asked, I believe I do not believe we had quite as much criticism while Secretary Brannan was in the poultry industry-while he was Secretary-as we have had under this administration. Senator AIKEN. Certainly got a lot of complaints when it was thrown out. The CHAIRMAN. He means the farmers received more, there was some kind of a purchase made by the Government which took the eggs and the poultry products out of the market, and thereby caused a better price. That is what you have in mind? Mr. ALTHOUSE. That is right. Senator AIKEN. I think the price of eggs is higher now than it has been for a long time; is that not correct? Mr. ALTHOUSE. The situation at the present moment may not be too bad, but we do know that the past year has been a rather severe one, possibly the last two years. They have been rather severe on poultry people. Senator AIKEN. I simply noticed that Secretary Brannan threw out the egg program, as Secretary; apparently he is advocating a restoration of it now that he is on the outside. Everybody has the right to change his mind, of course. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you. Hon. ALLEN J. ELLENDER, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. TRENTON, N. J. DEAR SENATOR ELLENDER: At the hearing called by your committe in Utica, N. Y., on November 19, there was a great deal of probing into what was the particular form best fitted to each commodity. Unfortunately, with the lack of time, we feel that this field was not adequately covered, and we wish to supplement the testimony of Clarence R. Althouse, vice president of the Eastern Farmers Union, with the following practical application relative to eggs and poultry. We are enclosing a proposed bill which would accomplish these objectives. You will note that production payments of less than $50 are not to be made. In this way, the necessity for including the smallest flock of, say a dozen birds, would be eliminated. In this regard too, we believe that there should also be a distinction between commercial and noncommercial production, such as is now the case in respect to corn, where there is a higher level of support for growers in the commercial areas. Production payments would not exceed $2,500 per family unit in any one year. This would limit the payments to the family-farm level of production. Actually, we believe that the simplest method of controlling production would be through the release of grain by the Federal Government, at such prices as to bring the egg-feed and poultry-feed ratios in line with equal-parity treatment. Only those warmers who comply with the production figures set by the Government would be eligible to receive the lower priced Government grain. Thus, there would be an incentive for compliance. With the great hope that out of these hearings will come across-the-board full parity for all farm commodities up to the family-farm level of production, Sincerely yours, LOUIS SLOCUM, Excutive Secretary, Eastern Farmers Union. A BILL To amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 so as to provide for the establishment of equitable egg-feed and poultry-feed ratios Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That title II of the Agricultural Act of 1949 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "SEC. 203. (a) (1) Notwithstanding section 407 of this Act, the Commodity Credit Corporation may sell grain, at prices determined under paragraph (2), to egg and poultry producers in any State in whch egg-production and poultryproduction quotas established under paragraph (3) are in effect. "(2) Grain may be sold under this subsection at such prices as may be necessary to bring the egg-feed and poultry-feed ratios in line with a percentage of the parity prices for eggs and poultry equal to the average level of support for corn and wheat for the calendar year in which the sale is made. The average level of support for corn and wheat for a calendar year shall be computed by adding the level of support for corn (expressed in terms of percentage of parity price) to the level of support for wheat (so expressed), as of January 1 of that year, and dividing the resulting sum by two. "(3) Not later than sixty days after the date this subsection is enacted, the Secretary shell determine and publish egg-production and poultry-production quotas for each State. Not later than sixty days before the end of each calendar year, the Secretary shall determine and publish egg-production and poultryproduction quotas for each State for the following calendar year. Within thirty days after the date a quota is so published, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum, by secret ballot, of egg and poultry producers who would be affected by the quota. If two-thirds of the producers voting in the referendum approve the quota, it shall be in effect during the calendar year for which it was determined. 64440-56-pt. 7-18 "(4) The amounts, terms, and conditions of grain sales under this subsection and the extent to which such sales are made shall be determined or approved by the Secretary. The Secretary, through the State and county committees, shall apportion grain sales and egg-production and poultry-production quotas within each State in whch such quotas are in effect. "(b) (1) The Secretary shall make available price support to producers for eggs and poultry, through sales of grain under subsection (a), payments to producers, or a combination of both methods, in States in which production quotas established under subsection (a) are in effect, at a level equal to the average level of support for corn and wheat, as computed under paragraph (1) of subsection (a). "(2) If payments to producers are utilized as a means of price support under this subsection, the Secretary may determine the rate or rates of payment annually or periodically on the basis of the amount by which the level of support exceeds the estimated average price to all producers. Such rate or rates shall be adjusted by the Secretary, to the extent he deems practicable, for differences in quality, location, and other factors. Payments shall not be made under this subsection to any one producer in excess of $2,500 in any one year. Payments to producers under this subsection shall be made on an annual basis and may, at the discretion of the Secretary, be limited to "(A) the quantity of eggs and poultry marketed by the producers; "(B) the quantity of eggs and poultry marketed in compliance with a marketing quota, if applicable; "(C) the quantity of eggs and poultry produced in compliance with the applicable production quota ; or "(D) the quantity and quality of eggs and poultry produced for commercial sale. "The Secretary may refuse to make payments to any producer under this subsection for any year if he determines that the total amount to be paid is less than fifty dollars. "(3) Compliance by the producer with production quotas established under subsection (a), and with such marketing quotas and marketing practices as the Secretary may prescribe, may be required as a condition of eligibility for price support under this subsection." The CHAIRMAN. We will next hear from Mr. Norman Dailey. Give us your name in full for the record. I hope you have something new to offer. STATEMENT OF NORMAN DAILEY, PRESIDENT, EASTERN FEDERATION OF FEED MERCHANTS, INC., NARROWSBURG, N. Y. Mr. DAILEY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am going to confine this paper to 4 or 5 paragraphs. My name is Norman Dailey. I am a feed manufacturer and retailer, and president of the Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants, Inc., a trade association of 667 feed manufacturers and retailers, independents, who operate feed businesses at country points, at scattered locations throughout the 11 Northeastern States. The thinking of livestock and poultry people and their feed suppliers is accurately reflected, I feel, in the statement that Government supporting of prices of agricultural products is not good for our farm economy. It nullifies demand-and-supply impacts on prices and, unquestionably, has resulted in the building of large troublesome surpluses of the basic agricultural products that are artificially price supported. While conscious that the discontinuance of Government price-supporting programs would have far-reaching impacts, among them, economic hardship for farmers, we in the Northeast believe that our farm problem can only be solved by removing such Government supports, thus permitting supply and demand to determine price levels. Granted it is that such a retreat from artificial price supports would temporarily cause severe headaches for farmers. However, it seems logical that from the long-pull standpoint, such is the better course; in fact, the only course that offers a practical solution to the farm problem. Overproduction of agricultural products must end. A flexible pricing plan keyed to a gradual reduction in the degree of supports until they become nonexistent seems under all circumstances to be the commonsense approach. The degree of reduction of supports should be substantial enough to realize their complete elimination at the very earliest possible date. Another strong conviction, based upon experience, is that Government price-support programs put the Government into business competition with private enterprises. Literally speaking, Government is in competition with private enterprise in every commodity groove in which price-supported commodities move. our The Commodity Credit Corporation, I am reliably told, is the largest nonfinancial corporation existing in our country today. Contributing no tax revenue to the Government, it strongly competes with taxpaying private businesses. It has been encouraging to know during the last year that national policymaking leadership believes that the Government should get out of business. Government price supporting of agricultural products, however, moves the Government more and more into business, rather than out of it. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. made a part of the record at this point. Your entire statement will be (The prepared statement of Mr. Dailey is as follows :) Your witness is Norman Dailey of Narrowsburg, N. Y., a feed manufacturer and retailer and president of the Eastern Federation of Feed Merchants, Inc., the trade association of 667 feed manufacturers and retailers (independents) who operate feed businesses at country points at scattered locations throughout the 11 Northeastern States. Feed suppliers live very close to farmers. Like farmers, they have a heavy stake in our agricultural economy. Northeastern livestock and poultry farmers have found the economic going real rough in recent years. The cost of things farmers necessarily have to buy has mounted, while their income has gone down. These two important factors are currently out of balance. The thinking of livestock and poultry people and their feed suppliers is accurately reflected, I feel, in the statement that Government supporting of prices of agricultural products is not good for our farm economy. It nullifies demand-and-supply impacts on prices and, unquestionably, has resulted in the building of large troublesome surpluses of the basic agricultural products that are artificially price supported. Our section of the country is a feed-deficit area necessitating the inshipment of a heavy volume of grains and feeds used for livestock and poultry feeding. Government price supports have kept the price level of these commodities high. Poultry products and fluid milk are unsupported. By and large, farmers of the Northeast have spurned price supports on these products, because of a deeprooted philosophy that they want to run their own business without Government aid or interference and, also, because of a firm belief that artificial Government pricing disrupts natural and businesslike distribution and, accordingly, is detrimental rather than beneficial. They feel, too, that any Government agricultural policy should be productive of equitable distribution of its benefits to all farmers regardless of where they may operate and that any policy which discriminatingly works to the advantage of one sectional segment of agriculture to the detriment of another section isn't in keeping with the American spirit of fair play. |