« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
to sponsor it. It was left to the county or to the city. You would not want to have them excluded so that they could not go forward and be entirely dependent upon private enterprise, would you?
Mr. CRIBB. I believe I said I would not want that stricken from the bill, but I would like to see insofar as possible moves made to business people or people who would operate it. I would not want it stricken out but just want some care in the administration of it.
The definitions in the act are legal terms and I do not have a legal mind, so I won't have anything to say about those.
In section V under "Market research and analysis," I would like, if this bill is passed, for every precaution to be thrown around the administration of it so as to see that adequate analysis and research is made so that there will not be any markets established that will not be used. I can think of some State farmers markets that have been built that have not been used, that is State and county farmers markets, where money has been wasted. I believe that the author of this bill and the people working on it want to help folks, but I don't think they want to see any money thrown away any more than I do. I want to see it handled in such a way that the Federal Government will get back every dollar that is expended, if it is possible to do it in
I like the bill because it provides for financing other than direct loans, in other words, for insurance, and I think the bill is well written in that respect.
I like the bill because, as I say, it provides for help to any legitimate group. Toward the end of the bill there is a provision that the Secretary of Agriculture shall exercise certain controls until the maturity date of the obligation and the bill provides for loans up to 40 years. I do not know whether it is intended if the loan is supposed to run for 40 years, that the Secretary of Agriculture could exercise control of it for 40 years, whether the obligation is paid off or not, but I feel that a provision should be made for the obligation to be retired as fast as funds are available from the operation of the facility to retire it, and when the obligation is retired, I feel that the business people in the community are the people who are operating the market, should then have full control of it. I do not bʻlieve that the Secretary of Agriculture should be given authority to control it for any number of years, even though the loan is paid off. As I say, I do not know whether it was intended that that should be written in there or not, but I would like for that to be considered.
I believe that if this bill is passed, that there are many cities and communities that can use financing, that they can get under this bill, or because of this bill, to improve the marketing facilities and reduce the spread between the producer and the consumer. That is what we should all be interested in.
I have been with the South Carolina Peach Growers Association since 1924, and I have seen the volume of fruits and vegetables increase manyfold, and I have seen the inadequacy of many of the marketing facilities and we know that in many instances groups have tried to improve their marketing facilities, and some of them were bought because of inadequate finacing, some because of some selfish interest in real estate which they were afraid might be depreciated, but I do believe that this bill might be used to or could be used to improve the marketing facilities in many places in the United States and, as I say, result in reducing the spread between the producer and
DEVELOPMENT OF TERMINAL MARKETING FACILITIES
the consumer which should give the producer a little more and give the consumer food at a lower price.
The CHAIRMAN. It also will result in the saving of a lot of waste, would it not?
Mr. CRIBB. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? We thank you very much, Mr. Cribb.
Mr. CRIBB. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. We have with us Mr. Samuel H. Williams, manager of the transportation department, Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia, Pa. We will hear you, Mr. Williams. STATEMENT OF SAMUEL H. WILLIAMS, MANAGER, TRANSPORTA
TION DEPARTMENT, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Samuel H. Williams. I am manager of the transportation bureau of the Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia, which is an organization of all types of business enterprise in Philadelphia, and has as its object, among others, the promotion and protection of the commercial and industrial interests of Philadelphia.
The Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia is opposed to the enactment of H. R. 8320, proposed Marketing Facilities Improvement Act. It should be understood that the chamber's opposition is to the legislation itself and not to logical improvements which may be made that will enable perishable agricultural products to be marketed and distributed in the Philadelphia area with as little waste and at lowest possible expense.
There is a considerable investment in Philadelphia in facilities for the marketing and distribution of perishable agricultural commodities. Furthermore, there are many parties in interest, including the railroads, with substantial investments in large produce terminals and property owners in the Dock Street area of Philadelphia. The interest of many such parties would be involved in the establishment of a single market facility in Philadelphia, such as contemplated by this bill. The Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia has recently established a special committee to study this subject. If, as a result, a more suitable plan than now exists can be devised and the plan is economically feasible, it is our belief that private enterprise would undertake the development without assistance from the Federal Government as provided for in this proposed legislation.
The Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia is opposed to the nationalization of business and any industry. This legislation is particularly objectionable as it is proposed that the Government finance such projects as are deemed by private financial interests to be unsound. The results would be that the Government could ultimately own and operate the markets throughout the Nation or sell them to private enterprise at a loss. The bill, if enacted, therefore, would be another source of Federal subsidy to certain interests and a burden on the general taxpayer.
Under the plan, control of the operation of such facilities would be vested in the Secretary of Agriculture or in a subordinate selected by him and the initiative and judgment of private enterprise would be submerged.
I wish to emphasize the fact that our appearance here is only in opposition to the proposed bill and not in opposition to improved facilities which may be devised in a proper way for a more economical and expeditious handling of perishable agricultural commodities.
The principle of this bill is fundamentally wrong and we sincerely urge that your committee disapprove the proposal.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. Mr. Phillips would like to ask you some questions.
Mr. Phillips. Mr. Williams, the Philadelphia market is the old Dock Street market?
Mr. WILLIAMS. That is correci, sir.
Mr. Phillips. What improvements have been made in the Dock Street market in the time that it has been in existence?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am told that some improvements have been made, but I do know that there is some dissatisfaction with the present situation, and as I emphasized, and I will emphasize again right here, we are not opposed to improvements. In fact, we have recently established a committee for the purpose of making a complete study of the whole proposition to see whether or not some method can be devised for handling the matter.
Mr. Phillips. What number committee is that, would you estimate? Is that the first committee that the chamber has appointed?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, it is the only one that I know of, sir, specifically to deal with this subject.
Mr. Phillips. I lived in Philadelphia for 20 years. I was wondering what the chamber of commerce had done to improve the Dock Street market besides appointing what appears to be the first committee now to go into it.
Mr. Williams. It has been a subject of discussion over many years, and there are a number of interests there as you well know, and it is our purpose now, that is, the chamber of commerce, to try to see whether or not something may be done in connection with the subject.
I might mention while passing that our city planning commission has designated the area in which the market now lays as one that should be redeveloped and has certified that to the redevelopment authority, which may or may not require some change within the immediate future.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Is it not the fact that the Dock Street market is about one hundred and some odd years old, that up to the present time the chamber of commerce has done nothing about it, and is it not also a fact that the marketing facilities of Philadelphia are rapidly being lost to that area and to the small producer? Is it not a fact that they are moving out into the western sections of Philadelphia, and being taken over by the large marketing corporations, the A. & P. and American Stores and the Safeway, if you have them down there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I would not doubt that, sir, at all. I think that perhaps is true throughout the whole Nation with the development of these chain stores, and so forth.
Mr. Phillips. I am just talking about Philadelphia now. Is not that what is really happening in Philadelphia ?
DEVELOPMENT OF TERMINAL MARKETING FACILITIES
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think so, maybe not to a greater extent, but the general process is that throughout the country with the development of the chain store method of distribution as I understand it.
Mr. PHILLIPS. Is it not a fact that section 11 of this bill, and section 3 (d) or section 9 (d) are perhaps the most important sections of the bill, and therefore I will ask just one more question. You represent the industrial section of the chamber. Do any of your members of the industrial section, that is, do any of them take advantage of the RFC? Do any of them borrow money from the RFC or bave they sold their securities to the RFC?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I am in the Transportation Bureau. So far as the industrial section is concerned, I am not directly connected with that. The answer to your question is that I do not know.
Mr. PHILLIPS. I think you probably bave a good idea that they do. Mr. WILLIAMS. They perhaps have.
Mr. PHILLIPS. I was wondering why the chamber was in favor of that on one side for industry, and then opposed to the same thing what it came to agriculture.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, I do not know that that is the position of the chamber of commerce. I do not know that we have favored and supported that legislation, sir.
Mr. Phillips. You just stated that you did. You stated the Chamber of Commerce of Philadelphia opposes the enactment of H. R. 8320.
Mr. WILLIAMS. We are opposed to this particular bill. But I do not know that we favored the enactment of the other legislation.
Mr. Phillips. You did not favor it, but you take advantage of it. Mr. WILLIAMS. That I do not know, sir.
Mr. Phillips. Your thought is that you are opposed to this but will take advantage of this.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have to say, sir, that I do not know as to the other legislation.
Mr. PHILLIPS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement, Mr. Williams. We have numerous witnesses to be heard, but we will have to recess until 2 o'clock.
(At 12:10 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 2 p. m. the same day.)
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Mr. J. B. McLaughlin, Commissioner of Agriculture, Charleston, W. Va., will now be heard.
STATEMENT OF J. B. MCLAUGHLIN, COMMISSIONER OF AGRI
CULTURE, CHARLESTON, W. VA. Mr. McLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is J. B. McLaughlin, commissioner of agriculture of the State of West Virginia, Charleston, W. Va. I appear before your honorable body in support of H. R. 8320.
I have one suggestion to make to you, that is, that you broaden the scope of the bill to include what might be termed assembly point marketing. I have some very definite reasons for that.
In the first place, we in our State have a public market act or law which makes all of these marking facilities setups a public market. It is as much a public service as the electric people or telephone people, transportation, and all such services that come in the common category of public services, but the real need, as I see it, with some of the programs that we have already in operation, namely, the HopeFlanagan marketing research, will tie into this if it can be coordinated and correlated with an assembly point facility.
I want to give you an example. I will take over tomorrow the Inwood packing plant in our state, which was a State facility provided for the purpose of teaching the apple growers how to pack their apples. That had been operated by the college and extension division of our State, the university, but they notified our board of public works, of which I am a member, comprising the seven constitutional officers of our State, that they had no longer use for this facility, and the board of public works asked me if I could use it, and I can. There we would use that as an assembly point. That is not located in any large consuming area, but the producers of that product in that community make a contribution all over the East, and by the use of this facility, we can very materially help those who are engaged in the production of fruits on an orderly distribution plan which has never been undertaken in our State.
It might be, Mr. Chairman, that in our market set-up in West Virginia, take for example Huntington, concerning which one of the gentlemen testified this morning, another one we have already going in a small way in Parkersburg, W. Va., we will operate another one in about 2 weeks at Weston, W. Va. At Weston, again, there is no large consuming area. That will be primarily in there and set in operation for the purpose of helping those farmers in that community in their programs and plans of assembling their products so that we can get it to these centers of large consumption.
There is a reason for it. We full well know that it will only be a short time that if and when the coal pile, and we are a great coalproducing State, when the coal pile comes up to a certain level our employees in that kind of work will be on a 3-day basis or something like that.
First of all in our market set-ups in the consuming areas, we want to make that facility. there expand and reach out as far as we can to the adjacent communities which does come in the trade area in developing an agricultural program there that will give gainful employment to these people who are only partially employed, and we believe in West Virginia that we can gainfully employ in addition to the present employment that they have by merely the use of what labor they would have, and their land resources, that we can give employment to at least half a million people. I think that is vitally important, and not only that, but we in our State, about 75 percent of the consumer's food dollar goes to someone or maybe many of the 35 States around us. They may be at the North in one season of the year or one period of the year, or in the South at another period of the year.
I want wholeheartedly to support your bill. I think it is a wonderful piece of legislation. I cannot see where anybody could find any fault with it because there is nothing compulsory about it. It leaves us in West Virginia in my State, if this bill becomes the law, we can use it if we want to, and I think it is a wonderful thing on the part