« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Woods. Yes.
Senator WHEELER. Well, if he can get his price up, then the farmer is going to start in to buy, to buy clothes, buy the things that he needs, farm machinery, and radios and everything else, which is going to tend to stimulate the business of the country and put men to work in the factories.
Mr. Woods. Yes; but he is going to spend the quantity of money that he gets.
Senator: WHEELER. But if he gets more for his stuff and he is able to sell it, he is going to spend more. Mr. Woods. Yes, sir.
Senator WHEELER. And he is going to sell more products if these people that are walking the streets get jobs. Mr. Woods. Yes, sir.
Senator BANKHEAD. I understood you to say that if you could sell a small portion of your pork and lard in foreign markets, that that would increase the price to the farmers for the commodities here?
Mr. Woods. Yes; because we can sell a smaller supply at a higher price. If we had to sell just half the quantity of pork
Senator BANKHEAD (interposing). You mean you could raise your price then on that which you sell in this country?
Mr. Woods. If you reduce your supply, Senator, and the other conditions remain the same, the price will just naturally go up; if you increase your supply the price will go down
Senator BANKHEAD. That is by reason of exporting part of the production, and thereby reducing the supply in this country. Mr. Woods. That would be right; yes. Senator BANKHEAD. That would not apply to wheat too, would it? Mr. Woods. I do not know anything about wheat.
Senator BANKHEAD. You know the economic rule, if you have got a certain surplus and sell some of it now, that increases the prices in this country?
Mr. Woods. You would be surprised at how little I know about wheat. About the only time I come in contact with it is when I begin to feed stock.
Senator BANKHEAD. We exported about 20,000,000 bushels the last 6 months of last year. Take cotton, then, if wheat does not suit you. Now, we exported 6,000,000 bales of cotton. You do not say that the foreign market puts the price upon the domestic market, do you?
Mr. Woods. No; but I would imagine—I do not know what your tariff situation is here, but if it were poor and you did not export it and dumped it back here and had to eat all that at home, it would put the price down.
Senator WHEELER. What you are afraid of, as I gather it, if you raise the price at the present time of pork and cattle, they will eat less pork and cattle, and consequently the farmer will not grow pork and will not grow cattle, and will not get any more than he is getting at the present low prices because of the fact that he cannot sell it.
Mr. Woods. He will get less for what he has got.
Senator BANKHEAD. The trouble with his argument, as I see it, Senator, is that he does not take into account the increased consuming and purchasing power by reason of the increased commodity prices. He assumes the same purchasing power by the consumer, therefore they could buy less, but when you put prices up and increase the purchasing power, he does not take that into account.
Senator KENDRICK. It ought to be borne in mind here that there is another feature that has not been touched upon, and that is that you are going to impose an enormous burden on this product as it moves from the producer through the processor to the consumer. There is no estimate as yet given as to what that cost will be, and that cost will not accrue--that amount is not going to accrue in very large part to your consumer nor to your producer either.
(Senator Smith took the chair.)
Mr. Woods. Senator, if you are interested in examining the size of that tax, this report of the House committee shows what the rates would be. They show there that if you were going to put on a parity price, the tax in the case of cattle would be $4, in the case of hogs, $4.59 a hundred; on beef cattle, $2.10 a hundred, and lambs, $1.95. Now, when you figure that cattle will dress out about 53 or 54 percent, hogs will dress out about 75 percent, and sheep something less than 50, you have to write up those figures considerably more.
Senator KENDRICK. To take care of the fixed charges in the movement.
Mr. Woods. To take care of the actual shrinkage of cutting them up. And then add retailer's profit and expenses.
Senator FRAZIER. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to hear the other witnesses and get through this afternoon, we cannot take all the time on one witness. We have had an hour and a half now.
The CHAIRMAN. I think you lost out because I could not be here. (Laughter.]
Senator SHIPSTEAD. What do you get for hides now?
Mr. Woods. I cannot give you that offhand, but I will be glad to look it up and let you know.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. I will retire then, if I may. The only point I did want to make to clear this statement that you made, sir, is that we cannot sell the same supply, other conditions remaining the same, at an advanced price; we can sell a smaller supply at an advanced price, or we can sell a greater supply at a smaller price.
Senator WHEELER. The difference between you and some of us is that we are assuming that the conditions are not going to remain the same if we can get the price of farm commodities up; you are assuming that conditions are going to be the same if we do get farm commodities up. If we do not get them up, I agree with you; if we do get them up, you will be wrong.
Mr. Woods. If you get the quantity of money up I will agree with you; in the case of meat it does not work that way.
Senator KENDRICK. I have a telegram here from Mr. J. Elmer Brock, president of the Wyoming Stockgrowers Association, that I want to read into the record :
CHEYENNE, Wyo., March 21, 1933. Senator John B. KENDRICK,
United States Senate, Washington, D.C.: We urge opposition to administration farm bill first because it would create immense and expensive bureau cost which must in end be borne by consumers including producers themselves. Second, because it delegates to Federal bureau unlimited and dangerous power to tax. If, however, it seems probable that bill will pass in some form we urge that all livestock and livestock products be exempted from operation of bill or any tax levied thereunder.
J. ELMER BROCK,
President, Wyoming Stockgrowers Association. Senator WHEELER. Let me ask you a question. May I ask whether you got a similar telegram with reference to the proposed power to be vested in the Bureau when the bill was before Congress with reference to the soldier bonus, soldier compensation?
Senator KENDRICK. No; I did not receive it from this man. (Laughter.]
The CHAIRMAN. I want to impress on the witnesses and on the committee the fact that it is our intention to get through with the hearings this afternoon so that we may begin study of the bill, looking to its final passage. Our next witness is Mr. Charles W. Holman. Mr. Holman, will you give your name and address and occupation?
STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. HOLMAN, SECRETARY NATIONAL
COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. HOLMAN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles W. Holman. I am secretary of the National Cooperative Milk Producers Federation, with national offices at 1731 I Street in this city. I am filing with the reporter a list of our executive committee, directors, and 49 member organizations, which embraces the federation.
Executive committee: John D. Miller, G. W. Slocum, C. E. Hough, Harry Hartke, Frank P. Willits, John Brandt, Ń. P. Hull.
Alternates: W. P. Davis, R. Smith Snader, W. S. Moscrip.
DIRECTORS Butter: G. H. Benkendorf, Modesto, Calif.; John Brandt, Litchfield, Minn.; R. G. Kinsley, McGregor, Iowa.
Cheese: Carl Haberlach, Tillamook, Oreg.; R. B. Melvin, Plymouth, Wis.
Other manufactured products: U. M. Dickey, Seattle, Wash.; J. H. Mason, Des Moines, Iowa; W. S. Moscrip, Lake Elmo, Minn.
Fluid milk and cream: W. P. Davis, Boston, Mass.; Harry Hartke, Covington, Ky.; G. W. Solcum, Milton, Pa.
DIRECTORS AT LARGE H. D. Allebach, Philadelphia, Pa.; W. B. Belknap, Goshen, Ky.; P. S. Brenneman, Jefferson, Ohio; C. F. Dineen, Milwaukee, Wis.; A. E. Engbretson, Astoria, Oreg.; D. N. Geyer, Chicago, Ill.; I. W. Heaps, Baltimore, Md.; C. E. Hough, Hartford, Conn.; N. P. Hull, Lansing, Mich.; J. B. Irwin, Richfield, Minn.; John D. Miller, Susquehanna, Pa.; J. R. Smart, Columbus, Ohio; R. Smith Snader, New Windsor, Md.; H. C. Warren, Los Angeles, Calif.; Frank P. Willits, Ward, Pa.
MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS Berrien County (Mich.) Milk Producers' Association, Benton Harbor, Mich. California Milk Producers' Association, 947 Maple Avenue, Los Angeles, Calif.
Cedar Rapids Cooperative Dairy Co., 560 Tenth Street ŚW., Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Challenge Cream and Butter Association, 925 East Second Street, Los Angeles, Calif.
Champaign County Milk Producers, 201 North Walnut Street, Champaign, Ill. Dairy & Poultry Cooperatives, Inc., 110 North Franklin Street, Chicago, Ill. Connecticut Milk Producers' Association, 450 Asylum Street, Hartford, Conn.
Cooperative Milk Producers' Association for San Francisco, Inc., 740 Pacific Building, San Francisco, Calif.
Cooperative Pure Milk Association of Cincinnati, Plum and Central Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Coos Bay Mutual Creamery Co., Marshfield, Oreg.
Dairymen's Cooperative Sales Association, 451 Century Building, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, Inc., 11 West Forty-second Street, New York, N. Y.
Des Moines Cooperative Dairy Marketing Association, 1935 Des Moines Street, Des Moines, Iowa.
Dubuque Cooperative Dairy Marketing Association, Inc., 1568 Iowa Street, Dubuque, Iowa.
Falls Cities Cooperative Milk Producers' Association, 202 Bourbon Stock Yards Building, Louisville, Ky.
Illinois Milk Producers' Association, 208–210 East State Street, Peoria, Ill.
Inter-State Milk Producers' Association, Inc., 219 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
Iowa Creameries' Association, 908 Pioneer National Bank Building, Waterloo, Iowa.
Land O’Lakes Creameries, Inc., 2201 Kennedy Street NE., Minneapolis, Minn.
McLean County Milk Producers' Association, Farm Bureau Building, Bloomington, Ill.
Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers' Association, 1731 Eye Street NW., Washington, D. C.
Maryland State Dairymen's Association, 810 Fidelity Building, Baltimore, Md.
Miami Valley Cooperative Milk Producers' Association, 136-138 West Maple Street, Dayton, Ohio.
Michigan Milk Producers' Association, 406 Stephenson Building, Detroit, Mich.
Milk Producers' Association of San Diego County, Eleventh and J Streets San Diego, Calif.
Milk Producers' Association of Summit County and vicinity, 145 Beaver Street, Akron, Ohio.
Milwaukee Cooperative Milk Producers, 1633 North Thirteenth Street, Milwaukee, Wis.
National Cheese Producers' Federation, Plymouth, Wis.
Ohio Farmers' Cooperative Milk Association, 3068 West One hundred and Second Street, Cleveland, Ohio.
O. K. Cooperative Milk Association, Oklahoma City, Okla.
Pure Milk Producers' Association, 853 Live Stock Exchange Building, Kansas City, Mo.
Richmond Cooperative Milk Producers' Association, 605 East Canal Street, Richmond, Va.
Sanitary Milk Producers, room 609, Chamber of Commerce Building, 511 Locust Street, St. Louis, Mó.
Scioto Valley Cooperative Milk Producers' Association, 303 Grand Theater Building, Columbus, Ohio.
Shelby County Milk Producers' Association, 1039 South Bellevue, Memphis, Tenn.
Stark County Milk Producers' Association, Canton, Ohio.
Tulsa Milk Producers' Cooperative Association, 1120 North Boston Street, Tulsa, Okla.
Twin City Milk Producers' Association, corner Raymond and University Avenues, St. Paul, Minn.
Twin Ports Cooperative Dairy Association, 6128 Tower Avenue, Superior, United Dairymen's Association, 635 Elliott Avenue, west, Seattle, Wash. Valley of Virginia Cooperative Milk Producers' Association, Harrisonburg, Va.
I am passing around a little map which shows the distribution as to homes where the farmers live. We belong to the constituent units of this organization. It is entirely agricultural in character.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. I have been instructed by the executive committee of our federation-and I will be very brief—to express the approval of the Federation of the House bill. We do not advocate any changes in the bill as it came to this committee. We are supporting the bill in all particulars. I shall address myself, however, only to those phases of the bill that may affect the dairy farmers of this country.
We supported the former allotment bill as it came to the house, asking for certain amendments before this committee. Those amendments were drafted into the bill that is now before the committee. We believe that the bill is far superior in its draftsmanship, in its workability, than the bill that was before this committee in the last session of Congress. So far as the dairy industry is concerned, there are some provisions in this bill that we believe will be of great benefit to our people.
First, the tax, if it should be imposed, is flexible, and there is a rule, of course, governing and limiting the power of taxation, notwithstanding the charge made in the telegram just read by the Senator here. Being flexible it would be a case of trial and error, some trial, some error, perhaps, but it would not be mandatory upon the Secretary at any time to put the full tax into effect if he found that it would not have the effect of supporting prices. I speak of that because if the bill should become a law at some distant date, the tax might be applied to some part of it.
But the particular provisions that we desire to commend to you cover the power giving the Secretary the right to license the trade including the cooperatives, and to control in interstate and foreign commerce operations so far as the licensees are concerned, so far as licensing is concerned. There are a great many evils existing today in the diary industry, both with regard to price discrimination in country districts, where at noncompetitive points butterfat is often bought at anywhere from 4 to 5 cents a pound under the price paid by the same creameries at competitive points. Through a lincensing system we think that that could be corrected in great measure and considerable benefit would come to our farmers as a result.
Also, I think, I can state conservatively that while dairy products and the price of milk in the cities has fallen tremendously, that fall was not so much due to the lack of consumer buying power in the cities for our milk as it was due to the lack of coordination among the farmers themselves and to the lack of cooperation among the distributors themselves, the result being a series of disastrous price-cutting tactics which forced the price of milk down in many cities of this country to far below what there was any consumer demand for it to go down to. We believe that through licensing and through conferences with the industry, the Secretary of Agriculture can do a great deal toward stabilizing conditions in the urban communities where we are marketing our milk.
Further, the diary farmers do need relief at the present time. Their prices have dropped; buying power has dropped considerably. The simple average on some of the important markets in the price of class 1 milk, which is milk that goes into bottles, as between 1929 and