FINDINGS TO DATE The data obtained so far indicates that there are at least two distinct periods during the growing season when prevailing temperature conditions have a determining effect on fruit development, maturation, and quality. The first is the 9-week period following full bloom. A good linear correlation has been established between the accumulated heat units (above a 45° base) for the 9-week period and the number of days for maturation. This correlation has been established for Bartlett and Anjou pears. The second period when temperatures influence the fruit is the final 3 to 6 weeks prior to harvest. The incidence of certain post harvest physiological disorders has been shown to be induced during the second critical period. Premature ripening of Bartletts has been reproduced experimentally by controlled temperature equipment which points up the prevailing temperature influence on this cool season disorder. Areas or districts within a region are known to be more susceptible to certain quality disorders for reasons generally not fully understood. Exploratory studies of these problems relative to specific meteorological conditions indicates that preharvest seasonal temperature variations definitely influence the expression of the disorder. The relationship of preharvest minimum temperatures to the severity of internal browning of Newtown apples appears indicative. It has also become obvious that the fruit samples of this study must be stored under identical temperature, humidity, and atmospheric conditions if a correct relative evaluation is to be made. LETTER OF PHILLIP ALAMPI, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE EGG PRICING NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE, Hon. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Nashville, Tenn., May 17, 1965. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations, DEAR SENATOR HOLLAND: For 5 years, I have been chairman of a steering committee of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture to study the egg pricing problem. Numerous meetings have been held with representatives of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the agricultural experiment stations, State departments of agriculture, and others to study methods of establishing and reporting market quotations on eggs. Industry groups have shown great interest in the pricing system, especially when prices have been low as during recent weeks. Our committee has developed a 16-point program of research (see attached) and recommended it to the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We proposed an appropriation of $150,000 annually for 2 years. The item is not in the U.S. Department of Agriculture appropriations bill now being considered by your committee. For the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture committee, I would urge you to have the $150,000 included in the appropriations bill. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, working with the agricultural experiment stations, the State departments of agriculture, and industry members, can bring to bear a vast reservoir of professional talent. All have indicated a sincere desire to help the poultry industry. We now need your assistance to help the poultry industry. Thank you for cooperating. PHILLIP ALAMPI, President. SIXTEEN PROPOSED AREAS OF RESEARCH THAT COULD BE UNDERTAKEN IN STUDYING THE EGG PRICING PROBLEM 1. Using studies made in recent years in New York City, Chicago, and pos ibly other cities as benchmark information, determine changes, if any, in methods used to establish quotations and report egg prices. Identify suggestions made for further changes in conditions of trading and quotation making. 1 Extracts from preliminary reports to Hood River Traffic Association, Hood River, Oreg. 46-950-65-pt. 2-29 2. Related project on procurement and pricing practices and policies of large retailers of eggs and their suppliers. Includes information on pricing bases used in selected markets and attiudes toward new pricing systems. 3. Studies of selected cases where price changes occurred and identification of the factors and forces which caused them. 4. Study trucklot shippers in selected egg producing areas to determine: (a) Selling and pricing practices in relation to base price quotations and methods used to price uncommitted supplies. (b) What factors affects the position of individual firms in the premiumdiscount structure. (c) When and why buyers and sellers renegotiate premium-discount differentials and other terms of sales, and (d) Where and how could a price facilitating mechanism be established if open-market trading declines to the point that it will no longer be feasible to establish base price quotations in specific markets. 5. Study to determine: (a) Whether or not base price quotations have fluctuated more or less in recent years than 10 to 15 years ago. (b) The reasons for and result of such fluctuations; and (c) Relationship of volume of exchange trading to the magnitude of price changes. 6. Study to: (a) Appraise the effects of futures trading in eggs on spot market prices and whether or not the effects of futures prices on spot prices or vice versa have changed in recent years, and (b) The future need for or modification of futures trading as conditions in the industry change. 7. Analysis of the proposals that have been made for improving mercantile exchange trading and other aspects of the base price quotation system. After listing all of the proposals, develop advantages and disadvantages for each one. Develop analyses, test, and appraisals that may be applied to each proposal. 8. Analysis of the proposals that have been made of alternative methods of establishing quotations and reporting egg prices. After listing the alternatives develop advantages and disadvantages for each one. Develop methods of appraising each alternative. 9. Study the possibilities for establishing base price quotations at some level and conditions of trading other than the wholesale level. At least the following trading levels should be studied: (a) Prices to producers. (b) Prices to assemblers and shippers. (1) Wholesale packs. (2) Consumer graded cartoned packs. (c) Prices to retailers: (1) In job lots. (2) In truckload lots. Wholesale packs. Consumer graded and cartoned packs. (d) Prices to consumers. (e) Large integrators. 10. Study the possibilities for expansion or modification of USDA services : (a) How can the services best provide adequate marketing information on egg production, prices, supplies, movement, storage, demand, and other factors of importance? (b) What organizational structure would be required in terms of number and location of offices, and functions performed. (c) What should be the relation of the services to price determination and/or price reporting? 11. Detailed analysis of the possibilities of using industry or quasi-public pricing committees or Government agencies to establish quotations which would: (a) Reflect supply and demand conditions. (b) Provide a basis for rapid and effective pricing. 12. Detailed analysis of the possibilities of using formula pricing for the egg industry. Include: (a) Private versus public sponsorship. (b) Conditions necessary in the industry. (c) Nature and types of controls needed to implement. 13. Effects on pricing mechanisms of programs by which producer prices and/or income can be maintained at desired levels (including marketing orders). 14. Need for additional regulatory authority for Commodity Exchange Authority. 15. The effectiveness of present grades and standards as aids to pricing. 16. Program planning, review, coordination, consulting. Summary and evaluation of findings, recommendations, and suggestions for implementation. This should be a concise report for release to the public. LETTER OF THERON J. RICE, LEGISLATIVE ACTION GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECOMMENDATIONS RE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FISCAL YEAR 1966 BUDGET REQUESTS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Washington, D.C., June 4, 1965. Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture and Related Agencies, DEAR SENATOR HOLLAND: Attached are the national chamber's recommendations for the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1966. You have previously received a copy of the national chamber's recommendations for reductions of $5.8 billion in the President's overall budget requests. The adoption of these recommendations by Congress will result in potential savings of $5 billion in new spending authority for fiscal 1966 and $845 million in the supplementary requests for fiscal 1965. The chamber recommendations reflect the work, in part, of 17 committeescomposed of approximately 600 businessmen, professional men, educators, and leaders of business and professional organizations. Aided by national chamber staff specialists, these committeemen analyzed the President's proposals contained in the 1966 Federal budget. Following this action, the board of directors carefully reviewed committee findings. The attached recommendations were approved by the board of directors on February 26, 1965. The national chamber considers its recommendations as ceilings on appropriations and urges your subcommittee to search for other areas where your prudent judgment dictates further economies. Sincerely yours, Soil Conservation Service THERON J. RICE. Watershed protection: Budget request_-_. Recommended reduction---- $67, 171, 000 1, 501, 000 The request represents, in part, an increase of $1,501,000 in funds for river basin program development and coordination. There is no objection to this activity except that such planning and coordination should give appropriate attention and evaluation to the needs of an area now and in the foreseeable future and only broad scale planning for the development of water resources to achieve these goals. Large expenditures are not necessary for detailed and costly field investigations and designs of specific projects that obviously will not be built for a great many years and which would almost certainly be outmoded by the time the projects are constructed. Resource conservation and development: Budget request_-_ Recommended reduction____. $4,303, 000 1, 583, 000 An increase of 137 percent in the request over the fiscal year 1965 appropriation appears to be an inordinatė increase for 1 year. There is also proposed a personnel increase of 123 percent for the same period. If this trend were continued in succeeding years, the budget requests could well exceed $15 million by 1970. Care should be exercised in management of this program which is primarily designed to aid areas where acceleration of conservation activities are planned to provide additional economic opportunities to the residence of a localized region. Overconcentration on any given region may work to the detriment of many regions of the Nation. Foreign Agricultural Service, salaries and expenses Budget request (support recommended) $23, 691, 000 This is a reduction of $205,000 from the fiscal year 1965 appropriation. Rural Community Development Service Budget request_-- $750,000 750,000 The main objective of this agency is to expedite the extension of other Federal assistance programs throughout rural areas of the country. A large share of project activity has occurred in rural areas designated for assistance under the Area Redevelopment Act. This act expires June 30, 1965, unless extended. The Rural Community Development Service has no program of its own, makes no grants or loans, and is not responsible for the administration of any program authorized by Congress. The extension of Federal rural area development programs and services will continue without the services of this agency. The request for a sixfold increase in funds to open 20 additional offices throughout the country is unwarranted. Rural Electrification Administration Loan authorizations: Budget request_. Recommended reduction___ $447, 000, 000 93, 587, 000 The Rural Electrification Administration has substantially fulfilled the purpose for which it was created. Specifically, it has made possible central station electricity distribution to approximately 98 percent of all U.S. farms. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that 6 million farm and other rural consumers (24 million men, women, and children) are being served by REA borrowers. From May 1952 to April 1958 the number of farm consumers grew from 4 to 5 million and from April 1958 to February 1965 to 6 million. In view of the fact that the number of farms in the United States today is about half the number existing in 1935 and the concomitant steady rate of growth of new consumers shown from 1952 to now, the chamber believes that if loan authorizations for electrification purposes are maintained at the 1961 level, an adequate source of funds will be available to bring central station electricity to the remaining 2 percent of rural area persons who do not now have it. This means an authorization in the order of $183,413,000 instead of $277 million as requested for electrification loans in fiscal year 1966. The annual increase in authorization and allocations for expenditures since 1961 is not justified by the mileage of new lines put into service or by the estimated number of new customers to be serviced by REA-financed electric cooperatives. Further, rural electric cooperatives and generation and transmission cooperatives supplying electric power for use by nonfarm customers in areas where central station service is available should not, with respect to such power supply, be entitled to low interest rate loans (2 percent) or free administrative services from the Federal Government. They should not be exempt from Federal income taxes. Where they are operating under the same conditions as investorfinanced utilities, they should be subject to the same regulation be established State and Federal agencies. Further, the chamber recommends that REA loans should be granted for construction facilities only when no adequate, dependable source of power is available to the grantee or when power rates offered by the existing power sources would result in higher costs to borrowers than the cost from facilities financed by the REA when compared on an equal basis, including tax and interest rate differentials, and then only after public hearings are held with regard to engineering and economic justification and feasibility. Farmers Home Administration The chamber supports the action taken by the House of Representatives on the appropriations for the following Farmers Home Administration accounts: Rural housing for domestic farm labor: Budget request_--_. $5, 000, 000 3, 000, 000 This is a new program which has been authorized on an experimental basis. No funds should be provided any applicant in excess of 50 percent of the development costs. Rural renewal: Budget request_. Recommended reduction_-_ $3, 000, 000 1, 800, 000 As of March 31, 1965, an unobligated balance of over $1 million was available for future activities under this program. Rural housing for the elderly revolving fund: Budget request_-- Recommended reduction.. $5, 000, 000 2,500,000 As of March 31, 1965, slightly over $8.5 million was available in this account to meet future needs. The reduced program level should make possible the savings recommended. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Budget request. $8, 478, 000 1, 000, 000 The Crop Insurance Act placed this program entirely on an experimental basis to provide the means for research and experience helpful in establishing such insurance. Subsequent authority has permitted successive expansions into additional crops and new areas. Premiums have exceeded indemnities in 7 of the past 8 years. Income from operations is adequate for 1966 at the current program level, exclusive of administrative expenses. Since private insurers have proved their ability to meet the needs of farmers for hail and fire insurance on growing crops, the FCIC program should be limited to providing coverage against other perils of weather. Premiums for FCIC protection against perils other than hail or fire should gradually be increased to permit the program to be totally self-sustaining, including administrative costs. Emergency famine relief Budget request (support recommended)‒‒‒‒‒‒ $298, 500, 000 Support is recommended for U.S.-owned local currency loans and the humanitarian objectives of Public Law 480 programs. However, the chamber recommends phasing out of Federal agricultural subsidies and supports direct congressional control of funds for famine relief and economic assistance to foreign nations. Commodity Credit Corporation Bartered materials for supplemental stockpile: Budget request_-- Recommended reduction___ $52, 500, 000 52, 500, 000 The national chamber supports a recent recommendation of the National Agricultural Advisory Commission that this program be eliminated. It is not necessary for obtaining strategic materials and it is not consistent with the purposes of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act. It is also extremely difficult to prevent bartered farm surpluses from entering commercial trade channels and displacing our hard currency exports or those of friendly countries. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN TOWER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE It is my sincere hope that the subcommittee will see fit to increase the amount of funds budgeted for the Soil Conservation Service, both for technical services and for cost sharing, to a point where this valuable work will not be impaired. I do not believe the proposed $20 million revolving fund proposed by the Budget Bureau is wise in light of present circumstances. I have had numerous letters from constituents on this matter, pointing out that fund reductions pro |