greater proportion of milk and dairy products than in the typical well-balanced ration. It is far higher proportion of total food expenditures than the typical American family spends on milk. So we have never slighted milk in our child-feeding programs-nor do we propose to do so now. We think that our milk program must continue to be an integral element of our overall program for child nutrition. We think that our milk program must also be properly coordinated part of our overall program. Within whatever resources are made available by the National, State, or local government, by parents, or by others-the proportions allocated to milk and other equally essential foods must be governed by the goal of well-balanced nutrition. We think, therefore, that the efforts of the National Government to provide milk should be in proper proportion to our total efforts to improve child nutrition. Specifically, we want each child to obtain a complete meal designed to meet his nutritional needs. We believe, and I think that all concur, that our child-feeding programs have been of immense benefit to our children. And, both in short- and long-run terms, they have been of immense benefit to our farmers and to processors and handlers of food. Yet, many needs of child nutrition are still unmet. We believe that some of these needs are of higher urgency than additional milk for children already receiving milk in the regular school lunch. We believe that providing milk for schoolchildren who do not receive it now is of higher priority than additional milk for children who now receive it. However, the compelling reason that we cannot offer full support for S. 2921 is that this bill is concerned with only one, albeit an important one, part of the nutritive needs of the child. It provides a separate program for one essential commodity and not for any other essential element of the diet of a child. It provides that a higher proportion of the resources available to us must be spent on this one commodity than can be justified either by the goals of the child nutrition program, the relative urgency of nutritional needs now unmet, or the relative nutritional merits of the various foods. If a major increase in expendtures on milk were to mean inadequate expenditures on other necessary foods, our children would be the losers. Senator HOLLAND. Do you mean that the passage of this act would mean just that? Mr. MEHREN. That was a disjunctive statement in which I said "if"; that "If a major increase in expenditures in milk were to mean inadequate expenditures on other necessary foods, our children would be the losers." And if so, we would be required to cut back. I am saying, however, that it is the considered opinion of our people that there are higher priorities in the child nutrition field, and if we were to have the funds, we think that we know where we would like to put them. Senator HOLLAND. But in meeting this question whether a major increase in expenditures on milk would mean something hurtful in other fields, really, the legislative branch of the Government has some responsibility to determine that question, does it not? Mr. MEHREN. Yes, sir. Our interest is that I would, personally, speaking quite personally, not like to see $80 or $100 million put on milk if I had to cut it out of the places where we have critical needs in feeding more kids, where the kids are not getting it. Senator HOLLAND. Is there any suggestion that that condition exists? Mr. MEHREN. No, sir. It is not, Senator Holland. That is why I put the word "if" at the opening of that statement. Senator HOLLAND. Thank you. Please proceed. Mr. MEHREN. The sponsors of S. 2921 and we in the Department agree on goals. We in the Department do not agree that S. 2921 is an effective way to reach those goals. We believe that the program outlined in the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 which has been introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 13361 is a substantially better way to achieve those goals. The bill under consideration here would require the Secretary to continue and expand the special milk program now in effect. That special milk program was begun in 1954, 12 years ago. There was no provision in the School Lunch Act-which was passed in 1946-for special treatment for milk as opposed to other essential foods. There is no doubt that the primary immediate aim of initiating the special milk program was to relieve a surplus situation. Senator HOLLAND. On that point now, despite the deficit in milk production in the last year, which still exists, there is surplus milk being purchased by the Government in the amount of over 3 billion pounds, isn't there? Mr. MEHREN. Yes, Senator Holland. Senator HOLLAND. As between the purchase of milk as surplus in the processed form in which such purchases are made, or the feeding of that milk to children through the school milk program, which do you prefer? Mr. MEHREN. In the event of the surplus, I quite clearly would prefer to see the milk go through the channel of nutrition, provided, again, that no offset is required in the other parts of the feeding program. I do refer to this, Senator Holland, briefly later on in this statement. I express again a personal opinion, that there may be the danger of a possibility of shrinkage in the productive capacity of the American milk industry. I am speaking personally. I have worked very closely with it now for months, and, if I may, I would like to defer the responses to that part of the question until later. Senator HOLLAND. You are very familiar, of course, with this subject, and we give very great weight to your interest and your knowledge, because we know of your interest and your responsibility. But when, in a deficit production year in so many areas, such as the year through which we have just passed, it is shown that over 3 billion pounds had to be processed for storable form as surplus by the Federal Government and when Mr. MEHREN. I have been disturbed Senator HOLLAND (continuing). The amount of the increase provided by the bill over last year is very small and very gradual, it seems to me that this is hardly an appropriate time to talk about a heavy reduction of the school milk program. I did not join as a sponsor of this bill because I wanted to be in a position to look at the facts as impartially as possible, but it seems to me that the facts already shown in this record and already known to me, as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, are such as to make it very clear that this is not an appropriate time for a reduction of the program. Mr. MEHREN. I may say, Senator Holland, in addition to the statements later on in my paper-which manifest the fear I have of a possibility of shortage of milk later on down the road-that the possibility is now no less than 2 or 3 months ago and that there have been 13 consecutive months of relative decline in milk production, and they have centered in the heart of the milk areas of the United States-while this is not a major point, my fear is just the opposite of yours, I think. Senator HOLLAND. Has it been your experience and I know that it has been a very wide experience that when a deficit threatens in the production of an essential commodity under our private enterprise system, people immediately start taking care of that situation? In this case by building larger herds? As a matter of fact, my information has been that many of the small dairy farmers who have gone out of business have done so because reductions in the size of their herds have made their production uneconomical. It seems to me that they would welcome the opportunity to build back their herds at this particular time to a more economic size. Mr. MEHREN. Yes, sir. My fear, to be quite exact, is that it takes far longer to do that in the dairy industry than it does in the specialty products with which you and I are familiar, and if this shrinkage, the symptoms of which now appear, do, in fact, represent a substantial threat of a substantial shrinkage in the milk industry of the United States and I do not, personally, think that it will be turned around very quickly. For one reason, the biological attributes of the lactating animal. Senator HOLLAND. The biological attributes here, of course, are very different from anything in the vegetable industry or in the fruit industry. Mr. MEHREN. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. In the fruit industry it takes even longer- Senator HOLLAND (continuing). In increasing the production. What is the time required, from your very mature observation of this problem, for a substantial increase in the milk producing unit in the dairy industry? Mr. MEHREN. My own personal judgment, while not a complete analytical view, is the industry probably has been shrinking for, at least, a couple of years; that the shrinkage began accelerating about 13 or 14 months ago; that it appears as if there is a definite shifting of milk production in a number of places, and I would think that if these symptoms are true it would take 3 years to change production trends. Senator HOLLAND. About 3 years, is that right? Mr. MEHREN. No less. Senator HOLLAND. To begin to produce larger quantities of milk, you mean? Mr. MEHREN. If, in fact, the production capacity-the number of cows, the number of enterprises-if, in fact, those have been shrinking, then I am concerned about that. Senator HOLLAND. The number of cows, of course, has been shrinking for a good many years. Mr. MEHREN. Yes. Senator HOLLAND. But at the same time the productivity of those cows that were left in production has been increasing. Mr. MEHREN. Yes. Senator HOLLAND. That is per cow. Mr. MEHREN. Yes. Senator HOLLAND. Because the process has been selective and the farmers have realized that they would have to have cows with heavy production, that is, who are heavy producers, to make their business as economical as possible. You have noticed that that tendency exists, have you not? Mr. MEHREN. There are two other things. I think it is pretty well established that the dairy farmers are just about at the bottom of the income level in the farming sector of agriculture and have been for a long, long time. And the second thing Senator HOLLAND. You mean below the average cotton farmer in income level? Mr. MEHREN. I think the data I have in mind would indicate that the actual earnings of the dairy farmer are, probably, lower than that of most cotton farmers. They are surely the lowest of the livestock part. Senator HOLLAND. I wish that you would obtain the statistical information from the Department, from that part of the Department that is handling this thing, and put that information into the record. It is my feeling and my understanding that every time there has been a reduction in the number of producing units in the dairy industry, since I have been in the Senate, there has been an upswing in the production per cow. Mr. MEHREN. That is correct. I think that is still true. Senator HOLLAND. And I think that will go on. I think it should go on. But I, also, think that the number of producing units under our private enterprise system, as it applies to the milk industry, just as it does everywhere else, will go up as rapidly as the biological cycle permits. Mr. MEHREN. Certainly. I do hope you are right. I would doubt that this would happen with a $21 cow market which is, probably, pulling the production out a little faster than normally prevails. Senator HOLLAND. That is pretty poor beef. Mr. MEHREN. You cannot tell that in a frankfurter and sausage. Senator HOLLAND. I wish that you would produce the statistics on the matter, unless you already have them. Mr. MEHREN. We will get them. I do not have them here with me now. (The information is as follows:) |