I have been there and I know they must be considerable, the salaries are tremendous when taken collectively-they are not included in that. I have not any way of knowing what they are or should be. So I cannot argue too much on the point, except to say that I do not think it is justifiable for a person to make the statement that any program of that type is completely self-sustaining unless they take into account these other factors which are difficult to arrive at.

My opposition is for the following reasons:

1. I do not believe any group should be subsidized at the expense of taxpayers in general.

2. The program has maintained high level production on marginal land basically unsuited to the production of high quality tobacco.

3. By the same token it has reduced production on the best land which has over the years produced the best quality tobacco.

4. The net result is an across-the-board reduction in the average quality of product.

5. Price support and allotments have kept in business numbers of inefficient and temperamentally unsuited farmers who were attracted by high wartime prices and who now would have been in other fields of activity.

6. The program has rendered ineffective the old law of supply and demand and the survival of the fittest, which principles, if allowed to function, would have minimized our present problem of oversupply. 7. Enforcement of acreage restrictions is difficult to the point of being impossible in many cases.

And if you wish to spend the time, I should like to elaborate a little on a further point.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you think tobacco would be selling for now per pound by the farmer without price supports?

Mr. NEWBERRY. I do not know. Everything else in the country has gone up since then. It has not improved the price. In fact, it has reduced the price to us as growers over the past 2 or 3 years in small amounts like 3 cents, 4 cents, 5 cents a pound each year for the last 2 or 3 years. And this year we do not know because of the special situation to which Mr. Hutton referred.

The CHAIRMAN. I dislike to contemplate how much tobacco we would have on hand without acreage restrictions. With acreage restricted as it has been by virtue of the farmers themselves voting it, we have a tobacco supply of over 32 years. It is true that you have a carryover, a 2 years' supply, but there is now a year plus of supply on hand. And all that has been accomplished with more or less restricted acreage controls imposed by the farmers themselves.

Mr. NEWBERRY. I gather, sir, from your remarks that you would like to elaborate on No. 7.

The CHAIRMAN. No, no.

Mr. NEWBERRY. The enforcement of acreage restrictions is difficult to the point of being impossible in many cases.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be in Connecticut, but you would not find it in North Carolina or Virginia or Kentucky.

Mr. NEWBERRY. Yes, sir. I will not harp on it, sir, but as a 10-acre grower it has not been easy for me to reconcile myself to my next door neighbor who grows 3 times as much as I do who has never in the history of this program cut 1 acre not 1-that is just 1 case. The CHAIRMAN. Are you folks under restrictions now?

Mr. NEWBERRY. Yes; we are. We voted it 2 years ago for a 3-year period and we have 1 year to go.

The CHAIRMAN. How did he get by with that?

Mr. NEWBERRY. May I proceed with my report?

The CHAIRMAN. Give us his name. We will look into it for you. Mr. NEWBERRY. I would like to add

The CHAIRMAN. What is his name?

Mr. NEWBERRY. I thought you wanted me to continue.

The CHAIRMAN. You go ahead.

Mr. NEWBERRY. His name now, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Give me the name of the fellow who is collecting and producing all of this tobacco and not complying with it-give us the name and the address.

Mr. NEWBERRY. I cannot do it. I will tell you why.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, forget about it. Do not make any charge here against anybody unless you want to give us the name. Do not complain about it. I would have tried to help to get these fellows that are violating the law. I do not think it is fair.

Mr. NEWBERRY. May I say

The CHAIRMAN. You are making the complaint. I would like to get the name of anyone violating a program. If you do not give it, we might as well strike the rest of your testimony from the record.

Mr. NEWBERRY. That is why I dislike this program, sir, for one reason. Sitting over here and two gentlemen that have direct connections with Washington on this thing and they sit in authority. And were I to disclose the name of that individual right now, particularly the authority that one of them has, sir, it would put me in a very bad spot.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you say that-do you think you would be punished for telling the truth or for making the charge or helping the Government to weed out nonconformers who should follow the law? Mr. NEWBERRY. I am unpopular enough for a stand that I am taking here that seems to be fairly unpopular among certain of my compatriots.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to be frank and saying with you that you are the first man who has appeared as a witness since October 24 who is against price support for tobacco. I think the record will show that. Mr. NEWBERRY. I do not know whether I should thank you or not, but I do.

The CHAIRMAN. I want you to because it takes a brave man to do that.

Mr. NEWBERRY. May I proceed.

The CHAIRMAN. Surely.

Mr. NEWBERRY. I would like to add at this point that I recognize the necessity of such programs to encourage production during wartime but I am very much opposed to continuing them in peacetime.

It is, of course, true, that two-thirds of growers entitled to vote in a referendum must vote in favor of the program to have it be effective. This happened 2 years ago when it was voted in for 3 consecutive years. In this connection may I make the following points:

1. Turning to the Federal Government for help is an insidious thing that grows like a cancer.

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 general—as a small farmer I favor steps that will as soon as possible and Federal subsidies and controls.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean on all commodities?

Mr. NEWBERRY. That is right, sir.

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.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you do not deal in big figures, as we do. 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. Apparent to me.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh.

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