« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
2. The widespread application of such programs in other fields tends to make otherwise sane men adopt a “me too" attitude-a sort of "if I don't take it, someone else will” slant.
3. There is a growing tendency to vote for anything that looks like security even though such a step is a "leveler of men' which destroys individual initiative.
Our outdoor tobacco industry is presently faced with what appears to be a crisis due to a change in cigar-manufacturing methods involving the use of processed binder sheeting.
May I mention at this point that I do not believe, sir, that any Government program should be destined or designed to carry us over, to tide us over as tobacco for something that is happening as a result of change in manufacturing methods. It would be like trying to promote the old horse and buggy when automobiles and garages tended to drive him out of business, if I may be permitted to say so.
Admittedly, the Government program will be a stopgap in this crisis—but it cannot be more than that. Tobacco as yet cannot be eaten or worn as clothing--and stockpiling must stop eventually.
To summarize in generalmas a small farmer I favor steps that will as soon as possible and Federal subsidies and controls.
The CHAIRMAN. You mean on all commodities!
The CHAIRMAN. What about the protection we are giving industry--what about the protection we are giving labor, would you want to wipe that out, too?
Mr. NEWBERRY. I should like to see that protection decreased in as orderly a step as possible. And if I may be permitted to say it, if a semichaotic condition resulted from such an attempt at an orderly reduction in these controls, and so forth, I firmly believe that after the chaos was over we would come out of it as a country that was better and nearer to what we were some years ago before all of this tampering with our economy started. That is from a small grower's point of view.
May I add, sir, that I would be the first one to be hurt by such a program because I do raise a small amount of tobacco. It is marginal with me right at the moment, but I do believe I could do something else if I had to, and I believe that is what we all should do if we cannot survive under the natural laws of supply and demand.
The CHAIRMAN. You know that you might be surprised if I should tell you this, that the burden of this record shows that the farmer would not want any protection whatever if he could start from scratch, that is, all of them start from scratch-let labor struggle for itself, let industry struggle for itself, without any kind of Government controls. But the question is, Can you attain that? And until we do attain it, why should we leave the farmer out in the cold? [Applause.]
Mr. NEWBERRY. May I be permitted one more statement?
The CHAIRMAN. Surely. I want you to answer the question, if you will.
Mr. NEWBERRY. I am going to attempt. I think it is very regrettable, Senator, that we have had here today two gentlemen pushing for new control programs, both of whom have admitted that they were against control programs—they were in favor of free economy. And
this system that I spoke of that our country has done so well over the years with, but for one thing. Everybody else has submitted to this sort of thing. Therefore, they feel they are justified to ask for it. That is why in my humble opinion we get a 90-percent vote of farmers in our Connecticut Valley for this thing.
I think that if you could collar every one of those 90 percenters, or nearly all of them, and say to them, if everything else was not controlled in this manner, and if the Government was not helping this person, that person, and everybody else, I do not believe you would get anywhere near the 90 percent.
The CHAIRMAN. Of course, we would not. I know. I agree with you thoroughly. I said until we can attain that millenium to which you refer, why should the farmer be left in the cold? That is what I am talking about. You would be surprised at the large number of farmers who have taken that attitude. I am taking it now with you. But it seems to me that we cannot get back to that condition that you refer to. We did much for industry in order to encourage it, to produce for the war. We let them charge off everything in 5 years. If you will look up the records you will find that in order to permit industry to convert from war to peacetime it cost you and me and other taxpayers $50 billion. That is all it cost. That is a small amount, is it not?
Mr. NEWBERRY. No, sir; not to me.
Labor has benefited a lot since the war, before the war, and through the years, and as long as labor and industry are protected, I am saying that something ought to be done, because unless you try to protect the producer of food and fiber you will not have any industry and you will not have a prosperous country. We are all dependent on this lifeblood, food and fiber.
I have just finished a long trip around the world. You find a lot of discontent where people have been going to bed hungry at night. We are blessed with all of the crops that we have—with all of the food we have on hand today. There is nothing that would please me more as an American citizen than to be able to put the farmer on a parity with labor and with industry. [Applause.]
Mr. NEWBERRY. I appreciate your remarks, sir. May I be permitted just to say this?
The CHAIRMAN. Anything you wish to say.
Mr. NEWBERRY. I have been impressed with your sincerity and honesty and apparent attempt at fairness in conducting this hearing.
The CHAIRMAN. Why do you say “apparent attempt” ?
Mr. NEWBERRY. May I suggest that I would like to reiterate the story that we heard here where, I think, two Texans were overheard to say, "What bothers me, I cannot tell which are Democrats or Republicans." I find it the same way.
In closing, may I ask-I know that you do not agree with me, probably on this, but may I again ask that your committee exercise all of your possible authority to try to bring this thing out again where we do not all seek these Government controls and help on this and that and the other thing, and so forth, so that we can all get back on this even keel that I have talked about?
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. NEWBERRY. I am very sorry. I omitted something that is quite important. I was directed by my commissioner to deliver here for Mr. Ralph C. Lasbury, Jr., the director of the Shade Tobacco Growers Agricultural Association, Inc., Hartford, Conn., a report which he wishes me to put on file. Can I leave it here?
The CHAIRMAN. Surely. It will be filed in the record as though he had been here to read it.
(The statement of Mr. Lansbury is as follows:) STATEMENT OF RALPH C. LASBURY, JR., DIRECTOR, THE SHADE TOBACCO GROWERS
AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION, INC., HARTFORD, Conn. There are three types of tobacco grown in the Connecticut Valley. They are known as: Shade tobacco, which is used for wrappers on cigars; Havana seed tobacco, used for binders on cigars; and broadleaf tobacco, also used for binders on cigars.
Shade tobacco is not included under the Agricultural Adjustment Act (support price, acreage control), and never has been. Havana seed and broadleaf tobacco used for cigar binders, are included under the Agricultural Adjustment Act (support price, acreage control).
The development of a synthetic binder, commonly known in the trade as a homogenized binder, is creating a very definite hardship on the economic wellbeing of the Havana seed and broadleaf growers in the Connecticut Valley. It is impossible to anticipate at this time exactly what the impact of the synthetic binder will be on these two types of tobacco, but the Havana seed and broadleaf growers of the Connecticut and Massachusetts Valley surely need all the assistance from the Agricultural Adjustment Act that it is possible for them to receive.
Therefore, this association is strongly in favor of the continuance of the tobacco program under the Agricultural Adjustment Act as it concerns itself with the Havana seed and broadleaf growers. We are not in favor of any tampering with this law at the present time, and sincerely hope that your committee will give this feeling due consideration. It must be remembered that the opinion expressed is not one of self-interest, but one of assistance to our brother growers here in the valley.
In closing I would like to say that we sincerely hope nothing will be done to hamper the present program under the Agricultural Adjustment Act (support price, acreage control).
The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Benedict Kupchunos. Give us your full name for the record, and occupation.
STATEMENT OF BENEDICT KUPCHUNOS, WAPPING, CONN. Mr. KUPCHUNOS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I want to thank this committee for granting me the time to testify at this hearing. I have tried to make my testimony very short as I know there is a great deal of other testimony to be heard.
Now to introduce myself. I am Benedict Kupchunos, of Wapping, Conn., a grower of potatoes and Broadleaf tobacco, born and brought up on the farm so that I consider myself a "dirt farmer.”
At this hearing I am not representing any cooperative, Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union, Grange, or any other organization, although I am a member of most of these. I am only speaking for myself as an individual grower and possibly the thinking of the neighbors in my particular area, and I wish to assure the committee that if the farming business was good I would not appear at this hearing.
I would like to take this opportunity to condemn the present Benson-Farm Bureau flexible price support policy. It is building
huge surpluses of farm commodities, lowering farm prices to depression levels and raising the price of food to the consumer. The price of food went up a few points last week to the consumer.
The CHAIRMAN. With all due respect, I do not think Mr. Benson is responsible for that.
Mr. KUPCHUNOS. It is his program.
I am in favor of the farmer receiving 100 percent of parity for his commodities at the market which, to my way of thinking is the same comparison as minimum wage is to labor.
1. I want to go on record in favor of continuing the 90 percent of parity and rigid control on all types of cigar binder tobacco.
2. I also want to go on record as being in favor of a potato program of acreage allotments tied to bushel quotas with national and local marketing agreements, with section 32 funds to be used for diversion based on parity in years of surplus.
3. I also want to go on record that the Department of Agriculture's Bureau of Economics crop-reporting system be taken out of the horseand-buggy days and streamlined to fit the present needs of agriculture for I feel that some of our dilemma is due to the present system as it exists.
4. I want to go on record in favor of a soil-conservation or soilfertility bank (whichever would be the proper name for it). where all surplus acres be taken out of production and placed in this bank for the future generation of this country; that soil-conservation practices be established on these surplus acres to build and to rest this land for future use; and that the Federal Government pay the farmer a reasonable annual rental determined by the local value of the land and furnish him with seed and lime as required; and that the farmer be restricted so that he could not use this land for any commercial value whatsoever, not even for his personal use or that of his animals.
I thank you.
Senator HOLLAND. Did I understand when you were speaking of the Irish-potato situation that you favor acreage allotments and bushelage?
Mr. KUPCHUNos. Bushel-quota potatoes.
Senator HOLLAND. Quotas with removal of surpluses by the use of section 32 funds, but without a definite price support?
Mr. KUPCHUNOS. That is right. Senator HIOLLAND. But you do not favor price supports for potatoes? Mr. KUPCIU NOS. I at present do not. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Is Mrs. Raymond S. Wyman present? Will you step forward and give us your full name, please?
STATEMENT MRS. RAYMOND S. WYMAN SECRETARY-TREASURER,
VERMONT TURKEY GROWERS ASSOCIATION, NORTH HARTLAND, VT.
Mrs. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Mrs. Raymond S. Wyman, of North Hartland, Vt. I am secretary-treasurer of the Vermont Turkey Growers Association. Our proposals are similar to the chicken growers.
Vermont turkey growers believe that their best interests lie in the direction of efficient production of quality products and aggressive, effective sales promotion by the industry.
We badly need more research in the field of both production and marketing, better disease control and improved market reports. In our opinion, this can best be done by the Federal Government working through the State experiment stations and departments. We believe efforts by the Federal Government to increase the income of turkey raisers through price supports, subsidies, production controls, and similar programs are well intended, but can only lead to chaos through overproduction or decreased efficiency and poor business management through production controls. We believe the present rapid increase in the consumption of turkey products would be adversely affected by the housewives' reaction against price increase involving tax funds. These opinions are based on our observations of the effect of various Government programs over the years on potato growers, grain, and cotton producers, and to a lesser extent dairymen.
We want to emphasize that while poultrymen have so far solved their own price and market problems, so have the turkey raisers, and wish to continue to do so, we believe price support and production restrictions on the food grains we must buy place an unfair burden on the turkey industry. They put us in a difficult competitive position with other high-protein foods like beef, pork, and dairy products which use large amounts of home-grown roughage. We do not believe the long-range solution of any agricultural problem or the best interests of farmers lie in this direction and we urgently recommend the price supports and production controls on feed grains be substantially reduced or eliminated. We recognize sudden drastic action might lead to chaos, but we believe continuation of present high-support programs will also be disastrous. An immediate orderly reduction is indicated.
And Mr. Mills from Massachusetts, representing the Massachusetts Turkey Growers Association could not be here, and I will read his statement.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you put it in the record as though it had been read and it will be incorporated in full ?
Mrs. WYMAN. It is similar. I will do that.
(The prepared statement of Jesse E. Mills, president, Massachussetts Turkey Growers Association, Paxton, Mass., is as follows:)
In reply to a request to submit a statement for the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture and Forestry, I hereby respectfully offer the following statement as representing the wishes of the turkey growers in Massachusetts.
We feel that the function of the Government is to furnish services to the various agricultural segments of our industry which these commodity groups cannot supply for themselves.
We feel that the best help is self-help and that the freedom of solving our own problems should be left to the individual or to some organized groups representing the individual.
The Government's function, therefore, is to help solve problems through correction of such problems, rather than by means of price supports, production controls, subsidy payments, etc.
We wish to record ourselves, therefore, as being opposed to such superficial remedies as production controls, price supports and subsidy payments.
A farm program that provides fundamental information such as facts gained through research on production, marketing, improvements in quality of products, preservation of farm products, merchandising, and any other facts which the