Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

consuming public on their own merits. We have precedent for such action in the field of public utilities and labor union activity.

(6) An immediate halt to the use of taxpayers' money in reclaiming land for agricultural production. There is no need for additional production in the foreseeable future, and taxpayers should not be burdened with purely political pork barrel projects. The tillable acreage in Pennsylvania alone has declined by 5 million acres in the past 50 years, and much of this land could be brought back into use if needed, and at far less cost than many of the projects planned, or partially completed.

(7) Increased appropriations for agricultural research with special emphasis in the field of industrial utilization of farm products. There is a tremendous potential market in this field for agricultural surpluses, and individual farmers cannot afford to conduct such research projects.

There are four large regional research laboratories that were established, I believe, in 1938. The primary purpose of those laboratories was for industrial utilization of agriculture production. It is our understanding today, gained from men working in those laboratories, that a great deal of their time has now been diverted over into work in foods, and not in industrial utilization. We think this should be corrected.

The CHAIRMAN. We will check on that, sir. Mr. McSPARRAN. (8) Legislation, introduced by Senator Duff, that would prevent any regulations denying farmers the right to grow whatever grain they need to feed their own livestock, has passed the Senate and we commend the Senate for this action. We urge you to use your influence in securing House approval of this measure.

(9) Farmer cooperatives are an important tool of our industry and the farm picture would be pure chaos without them. Any attempt to hamper their effectiveness through unfair taxation should be defeated.

(10) The practice of trip leasing in the trucking industry has provided much cheaper transportation for farm products going to market and supplies coming back to our farms. The action of the Interstate Commerce Commission in outlawing trip leasing by regulation was a flagrant abuse of regulatory power, and in advancing the effective date of this regulation from March 1, 1956, to December 1, 1955, the Commission acted in extreme bad faith. Legislation should be passed immediately when Congress reconvenes to set aside this regulation and to strip the Commission of power to issue similar regulations at any future date.

(11) Farmers delivering their produce to many eastern cities are being forced to pay exorbitant fees to labor unions for the privilege of unloading their trucks. This practice, which amounts to extortion, cannot be condoned in a democratic society. We urge legislation to halt it.

(The prepared statement of Mr. McSparran is as follows:) My name is J. Collins McSparran and I am the secretary of the Pennsylvania State Grange, the largest farm organization in the State of Pennsylvania with nearly 80,000 members in 64 of the 67 counties of the Commonwealth.

We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you to present the views of our organization on the needs of agriculture.

We want to commend this committee for holding this hearing and similar hearings throughout our Nation at which farmers themselves have an opportunity to present their views. We sincerely feel that one of the main reasons agriculture is in the unfortunate situation in which it finds itself today is that it has been forced to operate under programs that too often in the past have been written for reasons of a political nature, or for the benefit of some group other than agriculture. We earnestly hope that the recommendations you make to the Senate of the United States do not fall in either of these categories, but are designed for the single purpose of helping agriculture obtain its fair share of the income of this Nation.

In Pennsylvania today there are approximately 146,000 farms, and the welfare of approximately 750,000 of our people is dependent to a large measure on the earnings of those farms. Gross agricultural income in Pennsylvania has dropped from $829 million in 1951 to $748 million in 1954 with the decline continuing throughout the year 1955. When you add to this decline the constantly increasing operating costs that our industry has faced, it does not take any crystal ball to ascertain that agriculture is not enjoying any boom such as every other segment of our economy is enjoying, but in reality is fast heading for the depressing levels of the thirties. The agricultural income situation in Pennsylvania has apparently been duplicated throughout our Nation as your committee has undoubtedly heard during your tour.

That the United States Congress is aware of agriculture's plight is evidenced by this hearing, and we believe that Congress, when it reconvenes in January, will pass legislation in an attempt to correct the situation. Our concern is that Congress, in its legislative efforts to aid our industry, recognizes the basic and fundamental problems of agriculture and designs legislation to solve these problems. Congress has never been willing to do this before, and because it so failed, the legislation passed by Congress in its futile attempts to solve the farm problem, has likewise failed.

What are these fundamental problems? First, we must recognize that a sound system for the production of food and fiber is absolutely essential if we desire to maintain a strong Nation.

Second, we must recognize that the welfare of agriculture has been very adversely affected by legislation placed on the statute books to further the interests of other segments of our economy. You cannot protect industry with high tariffs or continually increase the minimum wage of labor without placing additional burdens on agriculture. Yet Congress has done these things. We do not begrudge a fair profit for industry or a decent wage for labor, but we do say you can't protect these two segments of our economy and leave agriculture at the mercy of world markets.

Third, that while it is comparatively easy for industry to control production to keep it in line with demand, this is not true of agriculture, for factors, such as rainfall, drought, and disease, which, to a large extent, are beyond the farmers' control, exert a tremendous influence on the total production of our farms, and, because many of our products are perishable and must, therefore, be marketed rapidly, a surplus of 1 or 2 percent can disrupt our entire marketing program, It follows, therefore, that one of agriculture's greatest needs is some program by which surplus production can be insulated from domestic markets.

Fourth, that agricultural production, coming as it does, not from 100, or from 1,000 different sources, but from approximately 5 million producing units, presents problems peculiar only to our industry. We firmly believe, however, that the preservation of the family farm is essential and in the long-range interest of our Nation.

Fifth, that other nations would buy considerable quantities of foodstuffs produced on American farms if they could obtain the dollars needed to finance the purhcases. Since our tariff structures prevent their selling us goods or services for which they could obtain dollars, we, therefore, find our markets restricted.

We have tried for many years to solve the farmers' problems with a high support program. The effort was a tragic failure. Such programs have encouraged production for which there was no market, priced us out of world markets, built up tremendous surpluses, cost billions in taxpayers' money, gained us the ill will of the consuming public, encouraged speculators to enter the production picture, and failed to produce the income to the farmer they were supposed to produce. Remember, the only times since 1914 that farmers have received 100 percent of parity for their production were during the two World Wars and the Korean conflict, and the demands of war produced the favorable prices, not any farm programs enacted by Congress.

Now we are about to embark on a low support program. It will fail just as dismally as the high support program for neither or these programs recognizes the basic and fundamental problems of our industry. It will not cut production, but will simply give the farmer a lower return per unit and, to stay in business, he will have to produce more units.

We urge you to enact legislation that does recognize the needs of our industry and a program that will give the farmer equality with labor and industry, a fair return on his investment and a fair wage for his labor. We offer for your consideration the following recommendations:

(1) A commodity by commodity approach to the problem. No single piece of legislation can correct the present situation.

(2) Establishment of a domestic parity program for those basic crops, such as wheat, that will give producers 100 percent of parity for that part of their production which is consumed for human needs on the domestic market, with all surplus production moving into export or feed channels at competitive prices. Such a program would permit the Government to get out of the storage business, would return to farmers the control over their planting programs, and would enable the American farmer to regain at least a portion of the world market which we have lost under the high support programs of recent years.

(3) We feel the action of Congress in permitting the Secretary of Agriculture to accept foreign currency in exchange for stocks of surplus commodities was sound. This program should be expanded and the Secretary given a free hand in disposing of these market depressing surpluses.

(4) A complete revision of our tariff system, establishing equality for agriculture throughout the system, and reducing all tariffs by a gradual process to the lowest possible point, to encourage expanded trade between nations of the world.

(5) The problems of the dairy industry would be practically eliminated if the field of dairy products would be reserved for products made from milk. Milk is one of the finest and most important foods we have, and the invasion of the dairy products field by cheap imitations should never have been permitted. We do not object to the production of any nutritious food products, but such products should be made to retain their own identity, and stand or fall before the consuming public on their own merits. We have precedent for such action in the field of public utilities and labor union activity.

(6) An immediate halt to the use of taxpayers' money in reclaiming land for agricultural production. There is no need for additional production in the foreseeable future, and taxpayers should not be burdened with purely political pork barrel projects. The tillable acreage in Pennsylvania alone has declined by 5 million acres in the past 50 years, and much of this land could be brought back into use if needed, and at far less cost than many of the projects planned, or partially completed.

(7) Increased appropriations for agricultural research with special emphasis

potential market in this field for agricultural surpluses, and individual farmers cannot afford to conduct such research projects.

(8) Legislation, introduced by Senator Duff, that would prevent any regulations denying farmers the right to grow whatever grain they need to feed their own livestock, has passed the Senate and we commend the Senate for this action. We urge you to use your influence in securing House approval for this measure.

(9) Farmer cooperatives are an important tool of our industry and the farm picture would be pure chaos without them. Any attempt to hamper their effectiveness through unfair taxation should be defeated.

(10) The practice of trip leasing in the trucking industry has provided much cheaper transportation for farm products going to market and supplies coming back to our farms. The action of the Interstate Commerce Commission in outlawing trip leasing by regulation was a flagrant abuse of regulatory power, and in advancing the effective date of this regulation from March 1, 1956, to December 1, 1955, the Commission acted in extreme bad faith. Legislation should be passed immediately when Congress reconvenes to set aside this regulation and to strip the Commission of power to issue similar regulations at any future date.

(11) Farmers delivering their produce to many eastern cities are being forced to pay exorbitant fees to labor unions for the privilege of unloading their trucks. This practice, which amounts to extortion, cannot be condoned in a democratic society. We urge legislation to halt it.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. There is only one statement that I would like to take issue with you on, and that is what you intimate when you say "the taxpayers should not be burdened with purely po

64440—56—pt. 7- 15

litical pork-barrel projects.” I happen to serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Works for the Senate Appropriations Committee, and I can assure you that your statement is incorrect, sir.

Mr. McSPARRAN. Maybe we view it in a different light from what you do.

The CHAIRMAN. You get it probably from charges by people who do not know. · Mr. McSPARRAN. What we are attempting to say here is this

The CHAIRMAN. I know what you are trying to say, but this porkbarrel stuff is what I thought I would call your attention to, and I could not leave it unchallenged. I know what you have in mind. Mr. McSPARRAN. All right, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, thank you. Mr. McSPARRAN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. William Smith. Will you give us your name in full, please, and your occupation ?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM T. SMITH II, ELMIRA, N. Y. Mr. SMITH. I am William T. Smith, of Elmira, N. Y. I am a dairy and poultry farmer.

I consider it a great honor to be asked to testify at this hearing, and I am glad to be here.

As a poultry and dairy farmer I till 350 acres. Normally I have raised from 20 to 30 acres of wheat, which is fed to my poultry. Not only is the wheat an important ingredient of my poultry ration but the straw is necessary for bedding my 150 head of dairy cattle. In certain parts of my low valley land it is the only grain crop which I can use as winter and spring cover crop.

In 1953 the United States Government gave me a quota of 11 acres of wheat under a program of restriction on which I and thousands of other farmers were never allowed to vote because we weren't big enough. We did not have a quota of 15 acres.

It just makes you wonder how democratic this country is. It makes you begin to wonder how many dollars, or how many children you must have, or how big a house you must have before you will be allowed to vote in the next presidential election.

When I received my 11-acre quota of wheat I could not believe that in this free democratic country I could not raise a crop on my own land, in my own crop rotation, to feed and bed my own livestock.

The CHAIRMAN. May I state to you that the Senate passed a bill unanimously to give you relief. It is now before the House. I would suggest that you get after them.

Mr. SMITH. We have been.

So I planted my wheat as I always have and it covered my fertile lowland from the floods in the winter and spring; and in June came the Government inspectors and they measured my wheat—not once but three times. They walked around the field and they walked through the field, and they told me I had 28 acres and I must pay the Government $463 before I could feed the wheat to my own poultry.

I appealed my case before three different review committees and finally the third ruled in my favor. Three weeks later the Secretary of Agriculture called another hearing, brought a lawyer from Washington, and finally before a fourth committee I was convicted. It

made no difference that I was convicted on a law I had never been allowed to vote on; it made no difference that I purchased from the West about 15 tons a week of grain and grain byproducts to feed my livestock; nor did it make any difference that I consider wheat necessary to my soil management. I can pay the penalty, and probably will. My interest in this case is in the basic injustice and in the many farmers who may not be able to pay their fines. In 1954 there were over 10,000 farmers in New York State who planted over their quotas and over 500 of these are subject to fine.

I don't pretend to be Patrick Henry and I don't intend to throw tea in Boston Harbor, but I do demand that I be given an opportunity to vote on the law that condemns me.

There is too much Government in agriculture. The trend should be toward less Government help in agriculture. You cannot regulate farm prices by Government buying of surpluses. The huge holdings of agricultural products serve only to depress the prices for each succeeding year.

We in the poultry industry are particularly proud of our independence and its success. We have traditionally been willing to stand on our own feet and fight our own battles.

1954 was one of the worst years we in the poultry industry have experienced. Production was just too much for the market to absorb and prices were terribly low-down about 25 percent. It was really a tough year. Still poultrymen were almost unanimous in asking the Government to stay out of the picture; and they did. Thank God.

The adjustment was rough, but it was quick. And right now the one bright spot in the farm picture is the poultry industry. Why? Because that simple law of supply and demand was allowed to operate and the Government stayed out. If that simple law will operate for chickens it will operate for wheat, corn, cotton, or anything.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Senator AIKEN. May I say to Mr. Smith, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Senate did everything possible to get that provision which prohibits the farmer from growing enough wheat for his own use out of the law. The House Agricultural Committee refused to take action on it. It is one of the most unfair provisions of law that we have on the books today. It ought to be repealed. Mr. SMITH. We hope it will. Thank you.

Senator HOLLAND. I do not want you to be too blue. Poultry is not the only bright spot in the agricultural picture. There are a great many brighter spots. In most instances they are spots where there is no Government price support. As, for instance, in many of the tree fruit crops and many of the vegetable crops, and many, many others, which I could mention if time would permit. Mr. SMITH. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you again. Our next witness is Mr. Talmage. We want to hear about the potato farmers plight.

Will you give us your name for the record in full, please. STATEMENT OF FERRIS G. TALMAGE, EAST HAMPTON, N. Y.

Mr. TALMAGE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Ferris G. Talmage, and I reside at East Hampton, Long Island, which is the home of Home Sweet Home.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »