ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

942

944

942

[blocks in formation]

Press release of May 19, 1952-fats and oils.

1515

Press release of Monday, May 19, 1952-suspension of controls
on raw cotton, textiles..

1512

DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1952

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1952

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Brent Spence (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Chairman Spence (presiding), Messrs. Brown, Patman, Multer, Deane, Dollinger, Bolling, Fugate, Talle, Cole, Hull, Nicholson, and Widnall.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

The clerk will call the first witness.

The CLERK. The first witness is Mr. George Paul, representing the National Creameries Association.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Paul.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE PAUL, AND O. M. REED, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL CREAMERIES ASSOCIATION

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is George Paul, of Brooklyn, Iowa. I am a dairy farmer, and president of the State Brand Creameries, a large cooperative butter and dairy product manufacturing association located at Mason City, Iowa. I am also a member of the legislative committee of the National Creameries Association, which has its headquarters at St. Paul, Minn., and its Washington offices in the Wyatt Building at 777 Fourteenth Street NW.

The National Creameries Association represents, and is directly supported by, over 300,000 dairy farmers located in the States of Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Montana, and Kansas. These farmers deliver milk and butterfat to 952 member dairy plants, of which about 85 percent are producer owned and controlled cooperative associations-the remainder local, proprietary concerns.

Since our members are largely manufacturers of butter and nonfat dry milk solids, and have such a preponderance of cooperative plant membership, we feel that we can speak with knowledge and authority concerning the position of both the producer and the processor with respect to H. R. 6546.

The National Creameries Association is opposed to the continuation of the price-fixing powers conferred upon the President by title IV of the Defense Production Act. In this respect, we support the position of the Dairy Industry Committee.

We favor the continuation of section 104 of title I of the act, which confers upon the Secretary of Agriculture the power to control the

imports of dairy products, among others, under certain conditions specified in such section. In respect to our desire that section 104 be continued, we also represent the desires of the Dairy Industry Committee.

With regard to section 104, which the House bill would eliminate from the extended Defense Production Act, we feel that the Congress is faced with a policy determination as to what it desires from the dairy farmer and the dairy processing industry in this unsettled period in world affairs. Briefly, the Congress must choose between the policies as to whether (1) we in this country have a strong, highly productive dairy producing and marketing industry to meet the needs of our rapidly growing population, or (2) it is not necessary to have such a strong dairy industry and it is good public policy to permit the serious weakening of this industry through permitting the competition of cheap dairy products from foreign lands-dairy products which are produced with cheap labor, and which are placed upon a favorable competitive price basis with our own industry through the manipulation of their currencies and through other means.

It is our purpose to indicate to you our reasons for our belief that sound public policy requires the continuation of section 104.

We believe that we should maintain milk and butterfat production at increasingly high levels, in order to meet the needs of our growing population, and that the Congress should follow policies in its legislation that will encourage such production.

We urge the Congress not to place hampering restrictions in the way of the dairy farmer and processor in utilizing to the fullest possible extent the labor, material, and equipment available for the production of milk and its products.

Accordingly, we oppose continuation of the power conferred upon the President to impose price ceilings on milk and its products, because we believe that such controls hamper production and marketing. We oppose termination of the power conferred upon the Secretary of Agriculture under title I, section 104 of the act, to impose controls on the importation of dairy products, because we believe that lifting these controls and permitting the importation of large volumes of butter and other dairy products will drastically reduce the incomes of our producers. This in turn will cause them to reduce production, interfere with orderly marketing and result in unnecessary expenditures under the price support program.

Our reasons for the preceding statements follow:

Milk production on farms is barely holding its own. Milk production is barely being maintained under present conditions, and would be seriously hampered by freezing or lowering of price levels.

Milk cow numbers are at the lowest point since 1930. As of January 1 this year, there were 23,407,000 cows and heifers 2 years old and over kept for milk on farms-a reduction of one percent from the preceding January and markedly lower than the peak numbers recorded in 1945 of 27,770,000 head. There does not appear to be any improvement in sight for this condition. (Chart 1 shows trends in cow numbers, and chart 2 the high rate of elimination of cows and heifers from dairy herds the last few years.)

On the other hand, the number of cattle on farms as of January 1 this year, reached an all time record of over 88,000,000 head. This large number, in the face of diminishing numbers of dairy cows, is

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »