Quantity of principal United States agricultural exports, July-December 1950-52-Continued

1 Data for calendar year 1951.

5, 163, 992

* Calendar-year exports or imports expressed as a percentage of (a) the 1950 production of annual crops such as corn, or (b) the 1951 calendar-year production of commodities such as milk which are produced and marketed throughout the year. Quantities exported also include estimates of processed forms.

Includes wheat and flour, macaroni and macaroni products, wheat cereal foods, wheat semolina, and wheat feeds and bran.

Cash farm value of dairy products was apportioned according to the percentage the whole milk equivaent of each product was of total milk production: Dried whole milk, 0.9 percent; cheese, 10.3 percent; evaporated milk, 5.6 percent; condensed milk, 0.7 percent; butter, 26.1 percent.

Includes soybeans, soybean oil, and soybean oilcake and meal.

Based on the assumption that lard is equivalent to 5 percent of the income from hogs.

'Includes peanuts. peanut oil, and peanut oilcake and meal.

Exports of dried prunes expressed as a percentage of dried-prune production were 15.7 percent for 1951, and averaged 33.0 percent for the 3 years. 1949-51.

'Exports are important to raisins and fresh grapes; wine producers desire protection; however, adequate statistical data are not available to apportion farm income from grapes among these 3 important end uses. Includes wine.

" Includes exports of fresh grapes and raisins. Taking only raisins into account, exports of raisins in 1951 amounted to 26.9 percent of raisin production, and averaged 32.3 percent for the 3 years, 1949-51. Includes cottonseed, linters, cottonseed oil, and cottonseed oilcake and meal.

Includes fresh, canned, and juice.

Includes grain. corn meal, corn starch, corn flour, hominy and grits, corn cereal foods, corn feeds, corn oil, and glucose.

is Less than 0.05 percent.

15 Cash farm income from vegetables for fresh market was assumed to be 73 percent of the total cash farm income from truck crops, which was the percentage that the value of commercial truck crops for fresh market for the 1950 s asen was of the value of commercial truck crops for both fresh market and processing. Excludes fresh market tomatoes, potatoes, and sweetpotatoes.

Inculdes flaxseed, linseed oil, linseed oilcake and meal, and flaxseed screenings.

16 Cash farm receipts not available. Represents value of commercial crop for fresh market.

1 Only a rough approximation. From available data, it is impossible to compute an accurate relationship between imports and production since the import figures include composites of processed forms and processed forms for which conversion factors are not available to convert to a fresh equivalent basis. Includes olive oil.

The Sugar Act of 1948 provides protection for the domestic sugar industry up to specified levels of production for the different producing areas by authorizing the use of quotas to limit the total amount of sugar that can be placed on the domestic market and to apportion this totzl to the various domestic and foreign areas which have historically participated in the United States market.

Source: Based on data published in the Farm Income Situation, July 1952. Burcau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture and in Foreign Agricultural Trade-United States Foreign Trade in Agricultural Products, Calendar Year 1951, with Comparisons, June 1952, Office of Foreign Agricultural Relations, United States Department of Agriculture.

The CHAIRMAN. There is one thought I hope you will give to this. You know, the nations that we are friendly with change, through history. There is a sort of kaleidoscopic change in the world arrangement. First we are allied with one country and then we are allied with another, and the foreign countries are doing the same. Everybody is looking forward now to peace. They hope to get peace with Russia. Of course, Russia has practically all the resources that any country will need. It is a great wheat-producing country, cotton-producing country, and of course they can use conscript labor and do use it. Great Britain is doing business with Russia. Many of the things that we export now ultimately are reexported to Russia.

Now we helped Russia during the war. She was an ally of ours then, and we spent some $17 billion, gave them a lot of ships, and everybody was embracing the Russians. They were very popular. Russia was decorating our leading men and entertaining them. Everything was lovely.

Well, now we have had our quarrel with Germany, and as far as West Germany is concerned, we are trying to build up good feeling there. So there is this constant realinement that is going on.

When this peace comes, you will find that these allies of ours, these free nations, if they can buy any of the products of Russia more cheaply than they can buy them from us, will be trading with them. There is no question about that. That is human nature. And those are the things that, in evaluating any program that we have, we cannot overlook. We cannot overlook those things that are just as sure to some as that the sun will rise. We are not always going to have the same alinement of nations that we have now. We must keep our country prosperous. I have always figured that the best foreign policy we could possibly have woud be to make our own Government work in the eyes of the world. Then they would see that we had something in our free-enterprise system that was worth emulating.

Many countries, when we adopted our Constitution, all through South America, Australia, patterned their constitutions after ours. So as we set the example in this country of maintaining a high standard of living, we cannot afford to lower it. I admit that. We have to hold it.

So I am only throwing that out in view of your observations. We thank you for your appearance.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Cooper will inquire.

Mr. COOPER. I do not want to detain you gentlemen. I simply want to congratulate you on the splendid statement you have presented and the very helpful information you have given the committee.

Mr. LYNN. Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to make just one comment on what you said?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LYNN. I think if we are going to demonstrate to the world how good America is, we have got to trade. Now, in agriculture, we cannot have a prosperous agriculture in these United States without exports. We are already in a squeeze in agriculture. While employment is the highest on record, while the personal income of everybody in the United States is the highest on record, the farmers' net income has been going down for 4 years.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no question about that. We are really familiar with that. I do not want to interrupt you. The only thing I am worrying about now is that we have 5 or 6 witnesses more, and you have had 40 minutes.

Mr. LYNN. Well, I would just like to add one more sentence, with your permission, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. LYNN. If we are going to demonstrate to the world how democracy works in America, we have got to keep America prosperous. And I think that if we are going to keep America prosperous, we have got to have a prosperous agriculture. And if agriculture is going to be prosperous, we have got to export.

The CHAIRMAN. It has been my feeling always that unless the farmers of this country are prosperous, industry is not prosperous, and we have no prosperity in this country. And the drop in prices of farm products has always been a prelude to some form of recession or depression.

Mr. LYNN. Thank you very much, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. Ernest Falk, manager, Northwest Horticultural Council, Yakima, Wash.

Mr. HOLMES. Mr. Chairman, may I say that Mr. Falk is a distinguished citizen of the State of Washington. He is representing before this committee very important organizations in the State of Washington. His residence is in the city of Yakima.

We are happy indeed to have you before the committee, Mr. Falk.

STATEMENT OF ERNEST FALK, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE NORTHWEST HORTICULTURAL COUNCIL, YAKIMA, WASH.

Mr. FALK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Holmes. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am appearing today on behalf of the Northwest Horticultural Council, with offices at 704 Larson Building, Yakima, Wash. The council is composed of the following organizations of fruit growers and shippers in Washington and Oregon: Washington State Apple Commission, Winter Fear Control Committee, Hood River Traffic Association, Rogue River Valley Traffic Association, Wenatchee Valley Traffic Association, Yakima Valley Traffic Association

The member traffic associations are composed of growers, marketers, and shippers of deciduous fruits in their respective areas. The council represents the growers of practically 100 percent of all apples and in excess of 90 percent of all other deciduous fruits grown commercially in the two States, totaling approximately 9,000 growers. Thousands of employees are engaged in orchard work, harvesting, and preparing the fruit for shipment. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views with regard to the reciprocal trade program and the extension of the Trade Agreements Act.

Northwest apple and pear growers and shippers carefully and painstakingly developed export outlets prior to World War II. These export outlets were an integral and normal part of our program. This was not a surplus disposal or dumping program but a normal marketing activity. Most of these export outlets prefer smaller size fruit whereas the domestic consumers prefer large and medium size fruit.

Thus the export market was complementary to the domestic market, since all sizes of fruit grow on the same tree. Consumers in these world markets had come to appreciate and demand United States apples and pears. Consumer reaction to and demand for the small volume of United States fruits shipped to the United Kingdom and Europe since World War II demonstrates that there is still a market for our fruit even though many European countries have increased their production.

Tables 1, 2, and 3, attached to the statement, show the annual production of apples and the decline in exports. And I believe the exhibits themselves are self-explanatory.

From 1923 through 1938, 13 million bushels of apples were exported annually. From 1947 through 1951, 234 million were exported annually. Exports during the current season will probably be less than 1 million bushels, with practically no shipments to the United Kingdom or Europe. Excluding the current year, exports of apples since 1947 are about 21 percent of 1923-38. The decline in exports to the United Kingdom and Western Europe is even greater whereas exports to South and Central America and to the Pacific have been more stable through 1951.

Table 4 shows similar information for pears. The figures thereon include both summer and winter pears. If summer pears shipped to Canada were excluded, the decline would be even more startling. Before 1939, about 44 percent of the winter pear production was exported. Since the war export outlets have taken about 10 percent. of the production.

The major portion of the prewar export apples were grown in the Northwest. Our Northwest apple exports declined from about 22 percent of our crop prewar to less than 5 percent since 1947.

That would indicate, of course, the importance of apple exports from the Northwest. But I don't want to create the impression that the Northwest is the only apple-exporting area, because there are substantial exports from the Applachian States-Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, and through the New YorkNew England area. And, of course, all of the 36 apple-producing States are similarly affected, because, as we are denied these export outlets, we must market our export apples in competition with the fruit grown in the other apple-producing States. So that, actually, all of the apple-producing areas of the United States are interested in the export outlet.

While United States apple exports declined during this period, imports of apples from Canada increased from an average of 27,000 bushels to over 1,750,000 bushels annually.

With this wide experience in the export field it was natural for Oregon and Washington producers to endorse the objectives of the reciprocal-trade program. We urged extension of the Trade Agreements Act when the issue was before prior sessions of the Congress. We have become somewhat disillusioned as to the interpretation of the principle of reciprocity and impatient with the tolerance of the then executive branch of our Government toward the frequent unilateral and discriminatory actions on the part of countries who entered into treaties or agreements with our Government and then immediately nullified them by unilateral action. Concessions granted have