$70 million from 1952 to 1956. In 1952 Swift's net worth was $291,720,000. In 1956 it was $362,862,000.

MEATPACKERS ENGAGE IN FEEDING OPERATIONS WHICH SHOULD BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED

Mr. Chairman, an important matter which should be given study is livestock feeding operations by major packers and chainstores. Apparently, a great deal of data on this has not been collected to date. Some of the packers have fed rather large numbers of cattle, and to a greater degree, of sheep. In 1954 Cudahy had on feed a number of cattle equaling 4 percent of the total number slaughtered that year. The number of sheep on feed lots for Rath in 1954 was equal to 44.4 percent of the total slaughtered in that year. The number of sheep on feed lots for Dubuque Packing Co., which during recent years has often ranked among the top 10 companies in terms of total animals slaughtered, was in 1955 equal to 45.6 percent of the total slaughtered. The chain grocery stores have also conducted a substantial livestock feeding operation at times. At other times these companies decide to go completely out of the feeding business. Certainly feeding, whether conducted by packer or chainstore is primarily a means of forcing the price of livestock downward. While it acts as a stockpile which insulates packers from erratic short-run market fluctuations, it could be beneficial in stabilizing prices. But this stabilization results from limiting the play of competitive market forces.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Dixon. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. We will refer the Hill bill and Dixon bill, and all related bills, to the Subcommittee on Livestock and Feed Grains, headed by Mr. Poage of Texas, and ask that subcommittee to give that matter preferred attention and to report to us as early as practicable.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, if we are to have that responsibility, I would like to suggest two things:

First, Dr. Dixon, you are a member of the subcommittee, whenever you are in attendance, as you will recall, and we would invite your attendance because I do want you present as we hear this.

The subcommittee will find exactly the same difficulty the full committee does in finding a meeting time, because members of the subcommittee, as Members of the House, have to attend this foreign aid debate just the same as other Members.

It is going to be quite difficult to find meeting time, but we will try to find some meeting time as far as we can.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get unanimous consent to insert in the record, previously to the remarks that you made, a statement that I have prepared, in regard to some of the matters that have been discussed here before the committee.

I have listened attentively to try to find out some case where some farmer has been discriminated against, and where he received less price for his animal, or his livestock, than he would if this matter were properly adjudicated.

I have been led to believe from two Senators that the northwestern part of this country is being discriminated against in the prices of their

livestock, and I have prepared a table, based upon the Agricultural Department's figures, to show that they get a bigger price for their livestock than they do over the United States.

We raise more cattle and hogs and sheep in Kansas than they do out there, and yet we take less price.

I have received no complaint from anyone, during my period in Congress, that the packers are discriminating against those farmers out there.

I just want to put those figures in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you may insert that in the record.

STATEMENT OF HON. WINT SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SIXTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, there has been some expression of opinion in these hearings that the so-called Mountain States, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado are now, and have been discriminated against in the prices that were paid to the farmers and ranchers for livestock. It was strongly inferred that the reason for this was due to the packers combine and that the Secretary of Agriculture had failed to enforce the existing law.

Let us look at some figures as compiled from records of the United States Department of Agriculture under title, "Corps and Markets," 1954 edition.

Number of sheep and lambs on farms and marketed, 1954, and price received by farmers

Number of hogs on farms and marketed in 1954 and price received by farmers

Number of beef cattle on farms and marketed in 1954, including calves, and price received by farmer

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no other business, the committee stands adjourned, subject to call.

(Whereupon, at 4:05 p. m., the committee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.)

96278-37-20

JURISDICTION OF PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ACT

WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1957

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 1310, New House Office Building, Hon. Harold D. Cooley (chairman) presiding.

Mr. POAGE. The committee will please come to order.
The chairman will be with us in a few minutes.

We have a limited amount of time, so we had better get started. I thought it might be better, before we start with any witnesses, to give you a little idea of the difference between the various proposals that are before us.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Mr. Chairman, to recapitulate briefly how we got to the point at which we find ourselves this morning, the hearings on this matter were held before the full Committee on Agriculture. At the conclusion of the public hearings, the chairman referred the matter to the Livestock Subcommittee, of which Mr. Poage is chairman, for the drafting of a bill for the further consideration of the full

committee.

That subcommittee met several times last week. It met practically all day Friday, with lawyers from the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Trade Commission. At the conclusion of that session Friday, it had agreed upon the intent of the draft, which was then put together, and the wording was approved by the Livestock Subcommittee on Saturday. It was mimeographed and distributed as widely as we could achieve distribution Saturday afternoon to those interested in this matter.

That draft which went out Saturday afternoon has since been modified in some respects. And if the people in the room here will get draft No. 3, which I believe Mrs. Downey is now passing out to the committee members, I will tell you what the difference is between the draft which was distributed on Saturday and the draft which is the current revision now before the committee.

Mrs. Downey, are those No. 3 that you are passing out?

Mrs. DowNEY. Yes.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Would you let the people in the audience have some, too, if we have enough?

I will go ahead and tell you what the difference is, because it is not so great that you need to see the language to follow it.

The draft distributed on Saturday provided that the Secretary of Agriculture would have no jurisdiction over retail sales of those commodities which were generally within his jurisdiction under the terms