The CHAIRMAN. Do you not think we should give weight to Mr. Filtzer's letter in support of the bill? Mr. KUEHN. Surely. I am not saying that you shouldn't. The CHAIRMAN. We are not trying to force any Federal legislation on the city of Milwaukee or anybody there. And I cannot see how you could justify opposition to a program which we think is going to be self-liquidating, which we think is sound. Mr. KUEHN. Based on the Milwaukee report, it can't be selfliquidating. The CHAIRMAN. Then they will change the plans, I assume. Mr. KUEHN. We have spent 3 years, Mr. Chairman, trying to bring these pertinent facts The CHAIRMAN. Well, if what you say is true, you may go home and rest easy. Milwaukee will not get any of this money, because it will not even be eligible to get any of the money, unless it establishes its eligibility. And one of the factors to be considered is the fact that it must be a self-liquidating project. Mr. KUEHN. I am very glad to have that assurance, Mr. Chairman. But I had to assume, naturally, that if the Department of Agriculture recommends a market in Milwaukee, it would naturally recommend that it is financially sound, or find that it is financially sound. that is the only assumption that I could go on. Now, The CHAIRMAN. I do not know what they will recommend for Milwaukee, and I do not know what they will recommend for other places. Are there any further questions? If not, we thank you very much. Mr. KUEHN. Thank you for the privilege of appearing. The CHAIRMAN. I will place in the record the following letters: A letter under date of May 26, 1950, addressed to the committee, signed by R. L. Filtzer, special planning engineer, city of Milwaukee. A letter dated May 31, 1950, signed by Leonhard J. Weiss, president, Milwaukee Gardeners Association. A letter of May 18, 1950, signed by John H. Budzien, as chairman of the Committee for the Milwaukee Marketing Authority. And a letter of May 19, 1950, signed by Martin C. Kipper executive secretary of the Milwaukee Produce & Fruit Exchange. (The letters referred to are as follows:) CITY OF MILWAUKEE, BOARD OF PUBLIC LAND COMMISSIONERS, In re bill H. R. 8320, introduced by Mr. Harold D. Cooley, chairman of the committee. COMMITTEE ON AGRICULture, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: In the above bill, the declaration of policy fully states the reason and necessity for establishing modern and efficient wholesale marketing facilities for the vending and storing of perishable agricultural commodities in large urban centers. The stated general purpose of the bill is commendable and it is hoped will make possible the creation and development of modern and efficient wholesale markets so urgently needed in many producing and consuming areas. The Milwaukee metropolitan area is one in which a new wholesale market and Federal assistance to secure it is needed. For more than 25 years, attempts have been made to obtain new, better wholesale marketing facilities in the city of Milwaukee. In November 1925 the board of public land commissioners of the city issued a preliminary report on a food terminal for Milwaukee, Wis. Since that time, many investigations and surveys have been instituted, reports on local wholesale market conditions have been written, and repeated attempts have been made to relocate existing markets and to construct modern wholesale marketing facilities. Yet, despite increasing needs and serious efforts by the public, by interested public officers, by the produce trade and others serving the industry, no substantial progress toward the ultimate solution of the wholesale marketing problem has been made, due apparently, to the inability of these interests to accomplish the desired results, either independently or jointly. The greatest obstacle to the solution of the problems is the cost of developing new wholesale markets in large urban areas. To meet these costs, Federal financing appears necessary and inevitable. The need for Federal assistance in financing the development of new wholesale markets is further indicated by Milwaukee's experience. During recent years, attempts have been made to establish a Milwaukee marketing authority which would be responsible for constructing and operating new wholesale marketing facilities. Although the need for a new wholesale market is proven and its financial feasibility demonstrated, the governor refuses to issue a certificate creating the authority because the proposed authority does not appear to have adequate financial backing or a substantial equity in a proposed market site. On the assumption that others may have failed to do so, I am forwarding, under separate cover, report on the Wholesale Produce Market at Milwaukee, Wis.— prepared by Production and Marketing Administration, Marketing and Facilities Research Branch, United States Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-January 1950, and report on Milwaukee Wholesale Fruit and Vegetable Market-prepared by agricultural experiment station, University of Wisconsin-February 1948. The reports were submitted as evidence to the Wisconsin State Department of Agriculture at hearings in the matter of establishing a Milwaukee marketing authority. They fully cover local wholesale market conditions, problems, and requirements. This department cooperated on all phases of the studies and concurs in all the findings and recommendations made for the Milwaukee area. Analysis of the information and data presented in the reports and the inability to take advantage of them because of lack of financial support indicate the necessity for enacting bill H. R. 8320 into law. Research in and study of wholesale market conditions, problems, and needs in other large urban communities multiply the arguments for passage of the bill. Although Wisconsin, especially the rural area around Milwaukee, is a large producer of perishable farm products, the Milwaukee metropolitan area is poorly equipped to handle such products. Existing market and cold storage facilities are wholly inadequate and are poorly located. Because of this situation, many perishable products are shipped out of the State during the growing season and some are later returned to the State. No doubt, this same condition exists in other producing and consuming areas. It appears that this somewhat chaotic and uneconomic condition can be corrected only with the program of Federal financing outlined in the bill. Enactment of the bill into law would confer many benefits upon metropolitan areas. It would enable the central cities, through the relocation or modernization of their wholesale markets, to replan and redevelop the old, blighted areas usually occupied by the existing obsolete market buildings and other facilities. It would make possible the construction of public and private improvements necessary to the rehabilitation and economic stability or growth of some of the oldest and most valuable sections of many American cities. Wholesale markets in the oldest sections of American cities, as a rule are handicapped by the lack of rail and street services necessary to the proper development of the market place. Consequently, they should be abandoned so that the land in and around the present market areas may be developed to its highest and best use. Such use will, of course, be governed by land use zoning, by existing or proposed street patterns, and by other public and private improvements in the area. Based on my experiences during the past 6 years in attempting to establish an adequate modern wholesale market in the Milwaukee metropolitan area, it is my opinion that the only way such market can be obtained in this and other urban areas of the United States is through Federal encouragement and financial assistance. Although they have a common stake in a modern, efficient, well managed wholesale market, it is evident that the divergent group interests of those operating in the market place the farmers, wholesalers, retailers, truckers, railroads, and others will not permit the ready financing of new market facilities by the respective groups, either independently or jointly. It is urged, therefore, that bill H. R. 8320 be enacted into law in order that producer, consumer, and urban areas as a whole may secure the advantages and benefits which would result from the establishment of efficient wholesale perishable produce markets through Federal financial assistance. Indicative of the total amount of Federal aid needed is the estimated, relatively low cost of relocating Milwaukee's markets. The total cost of constructing modern, efficient marketing facilities in this area is estimated to be between 21⁄2 and 34 million dollars. Since it appears, from numerous reports on the subject, that almost all other large urban centers need new wholesale markets, all of which will be either expensive to relocate or to modernize, it is respectfully suggested that the initial appropriation of 50 million dollars be increased. Very truly yours, R. L. FILTZER, Special Planning Engineer. MILWAUKEE GARDENERS ASSOCIATION, Mr. JOSEPH PARKER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The Milwaukee Gardeners Association wishes to go on record as approving bill H. R. 8320, also known as the Cooley bill, which is to encourage the improvement and development of marketing facilities for handling perishable agricultural commodities. Milwaukee is presently planning a new market. One of the very urgent needs for a new market is, that because of the antiquated conditions now prevailing, there has been an increase in the cost of the food to the consumer, as well as a decrease in the income of people in agriculture. Under modern conditions, we feel confident that this unfair arrangement could be balanced so as to provide a better grade of vegetable at a lower price for the consumer, and at the same time increase the wholesale price of the commodity to the grower. Yours very truly, Mr. JOSEPH PARKER, House Agricultural Committee, LEONHARD J. WEISS, President. MILWAUKEE, Wis., May 18, 1950. Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The committee for the Milwaukee Marketing Authority respectfully urges favorable consideration of H. R. 8320, a bill for better marketing facilities sponsored by the Honorable Harold Cooley, chairman for your committee. Two surveys in the city of Milwaukee, one by the college of agriculture of the University of Wisconsin, the other by the United States Department of Agriculture, Marketing Facilities Branch, have shown a minimum savings to consumers of fresh fruits and vegetables of $400,000 annually in the Milwaukee area by the construction of a modern wholesale terminal market. Present representatives of producers, consumers, wholesalers and retailers and the city of Milwaukee are in accord that the only solution to the inadequate facilities problem is the construction of an entirely new terminal, but have been unable to solve the problem of how to finance it as no one group is large enough to undertake such a major project. Some assistance from an agency able to loan on this type of improvement would make it possible to construct this selfsupporting and self-liquidating facility. Very respectfully yours, COMMITTEE FOR THE MILWAUKEE MARKETING AUTHORITY. MILWAUKEE PRODUCE & FRUIT EXCHANGE, Milwaukee, May 19, 1950. Hon. JOSEPH PARKER, Committee Counsel, House Agricultural Committee, DEAR SIR: Am writing you concerning bill H. R. 8320, which is now up for consideration by your committee. We, at Milwaukee, have a special interest in this bill and sincerely hope for its passage. It was some 15 years ago that the more farsighted members of the fresh fruit and vegetable industry of this city began to realize that, to be of better service to the producer and consumer, alike, it was necessary that such establishments as do a jobbing and wholesale business in fresh fruits and vegetables be located on a railroad terminal. The two principal reasons for such a move were, first, we would be handling our merchandise more expeditiously-unloads would be directly from car door to our warehouse floors, eliminating carting and excessive handling costs. Second, by eliminating such excessive handling and carting we would not only reduce the cost to the consumer, we would be conserving the life of the commodities we handle, making possible a better quality to the consumer and an increased consumption of the products we handle. Repeated efforts over the years to consolidate our industry here (we have two separate markets at Milwaukee, both some distance from the railroad terminals) and relocate somewhere on a railroad track have been dismal failures, always because of a lack of the right kind of leadership to handle a project of this sort. Always, there were objectors-a few merchants who owned the buildings in which they operated did not wish to make a change. Others, fearful of taking on extended liability and, with immature plans being offered, refused to commit themselves. In the meantime locations that today would be considered ideal for our purpose have been lost to the industry. Sites with the proper facility, available in the past, are now built up and we have a new problem on our hands-where to go. Mr. Crow, of the Department, will verify our statement, that we appealed to his office for help quite a number of years ago, and that Mr. Otten, also of the Department, finally got here within the past 2 years and helped with a survey of our needs. The Department has the record and would appreciate your ascertaining from the Department our status in the matter, You will then appreciate why we should like to see H. R. bill 8320 made into law. Hoping for your favorable consideration, I am Sincerely yours, MARTIN C. KIPPER, Executive Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fred Alt of the Merchants Refrigerating Co. of New York is scheduled ot appear next. Mr. Alt, would you mind waiting just a moment? Mr. Pretzer, how long would it take you to submit your statement? Mr. PRETZER. I could do it very briefly, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Would you mind waiting, Mr. Alt? Mr. ALT. That is quite all right. Mr. PRETZER. It would take me 5 or 10 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. As anxious as we are to hold full hearings, I know that you will cooperate, and we will appreciate your cooperation, in trying to make these statements as brief as possible. STATEMENT OF WALTER F. PRETZER, PRESIDENT, VEGETABLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, CLEVELAND, OHIO Mr. PRETZER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Walter F. Pretzer, president of the Vegetable Growers Association of America, and proprietor of Ruetenik Gardens, a vegetable farm, producing fresh vegetables near Cleveland, Ohio. My entire active life has been applied to the production and marketing of vegetables grown under glass, as well as out of doors. In the pursuit of this occupation, it has been my privilege to travel throughout this continent and adjacent islands, as well as Europe. I have served in the capacity of chore boy to manager and proprietor of our farm, as well as executive officer of local, State, and national vegetable organizations. The Vegetable Growers Association of America represents, primarily, the area of production which furnishes the bulk of vegetables for consumption of nearby markets during the spring, summer, and fall seasons of the year, as well as the production of fresh vegetables under glass. One of our continuing studies has been that of marketing. At present, our greatest problem is marketing and marketing facilities. A considerable number of our members are and have been for many years active in attempts to improve present marketing facilities; especially, in the areas served by New York City; Boston, Mass.; Milwaukee, Wis.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Rochester, N. Y.; Norfolk, Va.; Chicago, Ill.; and Albany, N. Y., as well as many others. In all of these instances financing is the major problem. In most areas special private interests in a minor but strategic position have created continuing delays, which have caused untold losses to the consumer, producer, and distributor by the inefficient, outmoded marketing facilities through which the major part of their fresh produce must move. Surveys made by competent agencies of the Department of Agriculture substantiate this statement. This condition and situation creates a state of mind on the part of interested parties and segments of the industry which further discourages support of rebuilding programs. The need for adequate fresh produce marketing facilities is known to the members of this committee. However, for the sake of the record, I wish to emphasize the importance of time in marketing fresh produce. We have become very efficient in the production of fresh food. As producers, we have installed facilities at the farm level to move our crops quickly from the field to the packing shed; then via latest precooling and packing methods and the use of refrigerated trucks, transport the produce over high-speed roads to market. Where markets are modern, this efficiency for the protection of freshness is maintained with minimum cost of labor or loss of time. However, all this is completely lost where facilities are cramped and inadequate. The value of freshness cannot be measured entirely by money. It represents health and vigor. This latter value is largely contained in the vitamins which are lost by the moment, through oxidation, whether the oxidation is that of preparation for the table by cooking or the slower process of exposure to sun and wind. Certainly, a cooked salad by any means is hardly a salad at all. Many tons of salad crops and other vegetables fail to reach the consumer in an acceptable condition or serve the purpose of good food due to loss of quality from faulty marketing. Some find their way to the bargain counters-the bargain counters, created and maintained by the time and exposure factor of antiquated marketing facilities. Many studies have been made of these loss factors and the records are on file for any one to read, in our State colleges, States experimental stations, and the United States Department of Agriculture libraries. For these reasons, the Vegetable Growers Association of America subscribes to the general principles of H. R. bill No. 9320, introduced by Congressman Cooley, as found on pages 1, 2, and 3. We further subscribe to the items of the act, as set forth on pages 4 to 23, except the following: |