ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

Those are the highlights of our statement. We are supporting the recommendations for rural electrification, rural telephone, the Farmers' Home Administration, and, of course, will support increases if it seems necessary in order to carry forward this program.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Lynn, we wish to thank you. I have listened with interest. You are following a rather consistent viewpoint, which your organization has had through the years. On this side of the table I have the same differences that I have had before.

I enjoy seeing and being with you, but I don't believe you and I convince each other very much.

Mr. LYNN. We are closer than we have ever been before.

Mr. WHITTEN. We are getting closer together.

Mr. LYNN. It is good we can have our differences and still be good friends.

Mr. WHITTEN. It surely is. I may say that this recommendation does come more nearly in line with the thinking of the committee than they have been heretofore.

Mr. HORAN. Do you mean you have got him convinced now?
Mr. WHITTEN. No.

Are there any questions?

Mr. MARSHALL. I had two questions that I would like to ask.

In your statement on page 3 you mentioned the use of $5 million local currency for utilization research, taking the funds out of the Public Law 480.

Aren't those funds available on the basis of the current season that have accumulated in the country up to 85 percent? We don't put a limitation on those funds, do we?

Mr. LYNN. I understand they are all available for use as the United States sees fit.

Mr. WHITTEN. That is my understanding.

Mr. LYNN. It is different from the old counterpart we used to have under the Marshall plan.

Mr. MARSHALL. I was interested in your statement concerning REA, that you are supporting the budget recommendation. However, the budget recommendations are based upon a proposed type of financing. Are you in favor of that proposed type of financing for REA?

Mr. LYNN. I don't know what the new proposal is, sir. We are for the same type REA financing that has been in effect.

Mr. MARSHALL. How did you arrive at the figures that you presented?

Mr. LYNN. We take this right out of the budget.

Mr. HALL. Yes; these are what were recommended in the budget. What you refer to I believe is proposed legislation, which hasn't been introduced to my knowledge.

Mr. MARSHALL. That is correct. When they came before us requesting the amount of money they would use they were considering assistance from prospective legislation that the proposed law might be passed which would provide a different type of financing.

Mr. HALL. The proposed legislation that we have referred to hasnot been before our Board.

Mr. LYNN. In order to make this perfectly clear, we are making recommendations for the amount of loan money needed under the current arrangement, the arrangement as it is now, to meet the need

of REA and RTA and would support a supplemental appropriation if necessary to do that.

Mr. MARSHALL. You accepted the budget's recommendation that that would be sufficient funds for REA and RTA throughout the year. You didn't realize that that was being done on a period until the new legislation was enacted?

Mr. LYNN. I had no knowledge of that.

Mr. MARSHALL. You aren't implying any support of those changes? Mr. LYNN. No, sir.

Mr. WHITTEN. Do you have any questions, Mr. Vursell?

Mr. VURSELL. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I am glad the Farm Bureau representatives have come in to testify. I would also like to clear up that budget matter, with reference to the funds that are carried in the budget for REA. They are very definitely 6-month funds. Some of us on this side of the table have not been very happy when we have found that they had come to us with 6-month funds, and said that language would be furnished later and the bill would be drawn later to change, very substantially change, the entire financing of the REA organization. We have had considerable testimony along that line.

Living in Illinois and being a member of the Farm Bureau for some 40 years, and being a great admirer of Mr. Shuman, I am glad to know that you folks feel that REA from the standpoint of service to the country, and financing, ought to be carried on along conventional lines, so to speak, at least until something good or something better might be found to replace it.

Mr. LYNN. That is right.

Mr. VURSELL. I feel very strongly that that is the right position to take. I do want to compliment the Farm Bureau Federation sincerely in its efforts to educate the farmers on better farm practices and better farming, and to generally educate them from the township up, all the way to the top, so that they can participate in the study and formation of the plans that you folks submit to the State, and the Congress.

I think you have done a great job in taking an interest and educating the farmers in my State, and I presume it carries throughout the Nation.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. LYNN. That is very kind, Mr. Vursell. We appreciate it very

much.

Mr. WHITTEN. We wish to thank you again, Mr. Lynn. We are glad to have your statements in the record.

Mr. LYNN. Thank you very much.

STATEMENT OF MR. KENNETH HOLUM

Mr. WHITTEN. The committee is in receipt of a letter from Mr. Kenneth Holum, a farmer. It will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The letter is as follows:)

KENNETH HOLUM, A FARMER FROM GROTON (Brown COUNTY) SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I farm 1,200 acres which my father farmed before me. We operate a grain and livestock farm and have to deal with all the problems of production and marketing common to any farm owner-operator. These problems are complex and continuous. They change constantly. Our problems during the horse-and-buggy days changed radically when the tractor and electricity came into common use. We are able to operate substantially greater acreages with less labor in a more timely and efficient manner. However, instead of having a few hundred dollars invested in horse-drawn equipment, the mechanized farm lists its operating machinery in many thousands of dollars.

I repeat-the problems of the producer of farm products are complex and all phases must be considered in their solution. However, there is one area of farming in which the individual farmer is helpless. He must look to his State and National Government for help in this field-namely, agricultural research. There are local problems which must and are being solved by our State experiment stations. There are other crop-production problems of a regional and national nature which can best, and oftentimes only, be solved by scientists employed by the Federal Government, working in cooperation with the State employed research people.

I have lived through the droughts of the past 40 years which, from 1930-39, combined with world economic conditions made the depression of the thirties one of the worst for agriculture the Nation has ever known. Winter killing of legumes, pastures, and fall-planted crops help to make farming one of the most hazardous occupations today. Insects of various kinds-grasshoppers, corn borers, alfalfa leaf hoppers, and army worms-together with constantly changing races of rusts, smuts, leaf diseases and soil organisms make operating a farm a continuous gamble.

An unfortunate experience in October gave me personal knowledge of how much we have yet to learn about some of the risks the farmers are continually facing. Cornstalk or nitrate poisoning killed 26 head of my cattle in 1 day. Since this accident I have visited with veterinarians, extension people, and others from South Dakota State College and have learned that to date we know very little about the factors that make one cornfield a deadly poison to cattle while adjoining fields produce good nourishing fodder.

In my opinion, if agricultural income is to be stabilized at a fair level compared to the rest of the American economy, and it must be, then the efficiency of production must be increased and maintained at the highest possible level under our ever-changing farm production economy. Efficiency of farm operation is dependent upon stopping the leaks and losses which individually may not involve more than 2 to 10 percent of farm output but which, added together, make the difference between an overall farm profit or loss.

Cost of production-per bushel, per ton, per animal-is very often greately affected by diseases, insect pests, soil fertility, and cultural practices. Many of these difficulties could be modified if research was given a chance to work out the

answers.

The valleys and peaks of crop and animal production must be leveled off before any sound program for agriculture can hope to succeed. Adequate farm research will help make farming less hazardous. We need more adequate crop information on quality, drought resistance, and winter hardiness of pasture grasses, grain, forage and oil crops, disease and insect resistance in plants, cultural practices involving new varieties such as rates of planting, spacing and control of weeds through chemicals or cultivation, relationship of plants to soil organisms, water and fertilizer requirements of various soils.

I realize that all this costs money, but food is of paramount importance in peace or war. We must be strong in military arms but, in my opinion, food can be a greater weapon for peace than overexpansion in some areas of weapons of destruction. You cannot win the battle for the minds of men with weapons of destruction. The cost of strengthening Federal crop research, as presented at this hearing, is very modest. Its importance to agriculture and the Nation's health and economy far exceeds the percent of the national budget now given to crop research.

As a farmer and representative from a farming State, I urge your favorable consideration of these requests for more adequate farm research in the areas discussed.

TOBACCO RESEARCH PROJECT

WITNESS

HON. EDWIN H. MAY, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mr. WHITTEN. Our colleague, Mr. May, of Connecticut, is our next witness.

Mr. MAY. Mr. Chairman, the National Tobacco Research and Marketing Advisory Committee strongly recommended both in 1957 and again in 1958, that the United States Department of Agriculture undertake a research project with the primary objective of developing machinery to mechanize the harvesting, curing, and stripping of nine items of production research. No constructive action was taken on this recommendation. Early in 1958, this advisory committee again recommended that this project be initiated and placed in A-1 priority. Thus far no positive action has resulted from this recommendation.

On January 5, 1958, in answer to an inquiry from one of our colleagues in the Senate as to the status of this project, the Honorable E. L. Peterson, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture replied as follows:

The importance of these problems is fully recognized and we have noted the priorities assigned for this research by the Tobacco Research and Marketing Advisory Committee and others who have recommended the development of research in this field.

While the 1959 budget estimates contain no funds for increased research in the mechanization of tobacco production, we assure you that these needs will be carefully considered together with other research needs in planning our budgets for future years.

It is apparent from this letter from the Assistant Secretary that the Department of Agriculture, has no intention, within the near future, of initiating this research project.

The objective of this recommended research is deserving of immediate attention on the part of the Department of Agriculture. Its primary purpose is to develop improved mechanical methods in the harvesting, curing, and stripping of tobacco. The original recommendations for this project came from the Connecticut Valley cigar leaf tobacco growers. It is imperative that this project be initiated. now, during the 1958 season, to save these tobacco growers from extinction. It is urgent that funds be allocated for this type of research on a crash program basis, without delay. An emergency exists in the cigar binder area due to use of reconstituted binder sheets instead of natural leaves, as a labor-saving measure in the manufacture of cigars. Under this process, perfect and unbroken leaves are not required. This increases the need for and the feasibility of mechanization in the production of this tobacco. The benefits accruing from such a project will be far-reaching. Though of immediate help to growers in Connecticut and Massachusetts, they will also materially aid growers of all kinds of stalk-cut tobacco, particularly the burley, dark-aircured and dark-fired types.

The technology of the manufacture of tobacco products has progressed very rapidly within recent years. This progress has resulted from effective research on the part of tobacco manufacturers. In contrast, the growing, harvesting, and curing of this crop is per

formed in much the same way and with long arduous hours of hard labor as has been the custom for many generations. The average tobacco farmer, characterized by small acreages and income, cannot finance this type of exploratory research or engineering development. This is a service that should be performed by the United States Department of Agriculture and the interested State agricultural experiment stations. The large manufacturers of farm machinery do little or no research toward developing new machinery specifically for tobacco. They probably believe that such research would not be profitable to the individual manufacturer due to the fact that tobacco is not grown in all parts of the United States, acreages per farm are small, and the number of potential customers would be limited. Naturally, manufacturers of farm machinery concentrate their research on developing machinery for agricultural commodities that are widely grown and produced in volume.

There is a real need to take a new look at the possibility of reducing the hand labor now required in the growing, harvesting and processing of tobacco up to the point of getting the product ready for the manufacturer. The approach on this research should be praetical rather than theoretical or visionary. In other words, this project should work toward the adaption of current types of machinery, frequently used for harvesting of various farm crops, to mechanize tobacco handling rather toward inventing highly complicated and new machinery for this purpose.

This research project, previously recommended both last year and again this year, should be undertaken immediately in order to reduce the long arduous hours of labor now required in the production of tobacco.

SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

WITNESS

HON. CARL D. PERKINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Mr. WHITTEN. We are glad to have our friend and colleague Congressman Carl D. Perkins before the committee.

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, the school lunch program has enabled many children to attend school where they can obtain a substantial lunch each day when, due to unemployment, they would have been forced to remain at home without adequate food.

Unemployment conditions have reached a point where the rate of insured unemployment for the entire country is well in excess of 6 percent, which the Labor Department has considered sufficient to classify a labor market area as a critical unemployment area. In my own State of Kentucky, the insured unemployment is in excess of 10 percent with the eastern Kentucky coalfields, including the major portion of the district which I represent, experiencing an unemployment rate of approximately 25 percent. In other words, 1 worker out of 4 is now unemployed and many have exhausted their unemployment insurance rights.

The children of these nuemployed workers are in dire need of both food and clothing. Numerous newspaper reports have pointed out families whose financial state is so serious that they are unable to attend school for lack of shoes and clothing.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »