« ПретходнаНастави »
conte hat they are correct, the income of the farmers in Colorado is at least I $2 percent more in 1957 than in 1956. Those figures are correct. at thMr. BRANNAN. Sure. s. I Mr. Hill. Now, they did that under what you say is all bad. What 3 rert I am trying to say is-you have come up here, not as an uninformed se te person, and I have listened to the statement that you have made, and for what you say is that the farmers are not able to pay their bills.
Now why is it that in Colorado and the West there has been substantial increase in farm income in 1957 over 1956 ? In Colorado the
increase was 52 percent in 1957 over 1956 in net farm income. In xcrete Wyoming the increase for the same period was 24 percent, in Nevada
18 percent, in Montana 12 percent, in Utah 10 percent, and in New tr.- Mexico 2 percent. All these States had an increase in net farm income ity in 1957 over 1956. Why is it true?
It is because of the fact that we did not have the controls over liveg stock, we have not had them, and we are getting from 35 cents to 37 it cents per pound for cattle and we are getting more than 20 cents per pound for hogs.
Does that not tend to prove that this came about because of not to having Government controls over the livestock industry, because of
the fact that they have not been weighted down by price control at the Federal level?
Only once in my lifetime can I recall when cattle and hog prices were higher; it might be true that they were, but I don't recall. And so it seems to me to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that we must have flexibility in the market place.
On page 7 you do mention something that I am interested in, and it is something that we should do something about. You have had that chance and you did not do it. You did nothing about the very thing that my good friend Mr. Anfuso has been talking about, that is, the unnecessary processing or handling between the farmers and the consumers. This creates the disparity between the price that the farmer gets and the price that the consumer pays. This is what Mr. Anfuso's subcommittee has been working on.
Were you the new Secretary of Agriculture when the dairy industry organized the milkshed, I don't recall-yes or no?
Mr. BRANNAN. Sure, there were many established
Mr. Hill. The milkshed has been taking over and we as consumers are not benefiting and we pay a terrific price for a quart of milk. Of course, it is good milk but the dairyman gets little benefit from a price rise on retail milk.
Mr. BRANNAN. And there has been no “up,” Mr. Congressman, it has always been sliding down, hasn't it?
Mr. HILL. Well, it has always been sliding up for the consumer. I am a consumer of milk and I know and I am not talking without information.
I am a member of the Small Business Committee as is Mr. Roosevelt. I am on that committee with him. We went to Kansas City to hold hearings on the price structure in regard to a price war on milk.
Now, who did we have there? We had 150 people testify and there was 1 dairyman who milked cows: Who were these folks ? They were all processors using the farmers' product to make a living and then they were wondering why we did not protect them, each and every one of them and that is exactly what we have been doing.
Now, what are you going to do about that? I go along with that one paragraph of your statement and that is the only one. The farm producer needs the control of his products farther along the line toward the consumer. You have done nothing to get rid of the unnecessary processors,
Mr. Poate. Well, I am glad that we were able to cover at least that one paragraph.
I am sorry but it is 11 o'clock. I do not want to cut you off. I wish that Mr. Brannan were going to be with us again to explain this bill to us, but unfortunately he is not. We have to adjourn into an executive meeting right now because it is 11 o'clock.
Mr. Hagen. Is Mr. Brannan coming back? Mr. Poage. No, I do not believe he is, but Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. McGovern will be here available for further discussion on the bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. May I say one thing on behalf of Mr. Roosevelt and myself!
I can assure the committee that if we have another opportunity of coming back we will try to discuss this as much as we can in nonpolitical terms because we are not trying to place the blame for the present predicament of agriculture on anybody.
We simply want to work with the committee and come up with the kind of a program that will benefit the farmers of this country. We would very much appreciate the opportunity of coming back and answering questions about the specific portions of the bill.
Mr. PoAGE. Well, we want to go into it and I wish we could do that now, but we cannot. I am very much obliged to you gentlemen.
(Thereupon, at 11:05 a. m. the committee retired into executive session.)
H. R. 10514, H. R. 11189, and H. R. 11753
MARCH 31, 1958
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
WASHINGTON : 1958
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
W. R. POAGE, Texas, Vice Chairman
CHARLES B. HOEVEN, Iowa E. C. GATHINGS, Arkansas
SID SIMPSON, Illinois JOHN L. MCMILLAN, South Carolina
PAUL B. DAGUE, Pennsylvania THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi RALPH HARVEY, Indiana CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma
PAGE BELCHER, Oklahoma WATKINS M. ABBITT, Virginia
CLIFFORD G. MCINTIRE, Maine JAMES G. POLK, Ohio
WILLIAM R. WILLIAMS, New York CLARK W. THOMPSON, Texas
ROBERT D. HARRISON, Nebraska PAUL C. JONES, Missouri
HENRY ALDOUS DIXON, Utah JOHN C. WATTS, Kentucky
WINT SMITH, Kansas HARLAN HAGEN, California
OTTO KRUEGER, North Dakota LESTER R. JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CHARLES M. TEAGUE, California VICTOR L. ANFUSO, New York
DONALD E. TEWES, Wisconsin ROSS BASS, Tennessee
ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota
E. L. BARTLETT, Alaska
A. FERNÓS-ISERN, Puerto Rico
Additional data submitted to the committee by-
Report of the task group on industrial alcohol from grain of the
Presidential Commission on Increased Industrial Utilization of