producing States during the year. Every farmer and every other person has had an opportunity to express his views. Everyone was invited to attend these meetings and there was open invitations to attend these meetings, and anyone could have made himself known if he so desired, and we have had communications with many of them. Any person that was interested in burley tobacco, whether he be a dealer, or a warehouseman, or whatever he may have represented, had an opportunity to speak and make his views known. After all these meetings, our council came back together and approved what we felt to be the consensus as to what farmers throughout the burley States desire in a tobacco program. These proposals were then presented to each organization for their approval or disapproval. It is our feeling that this poundage concept must be adopted if we are to continue to have and save our tobacco program. Under a poundage program, production will definitely be controlled, whereas this is not being accomplished under the present program. Everytime we get a decrease in acreage under the present program all we, as farmers do, is throw a little more fertilizer, spray it two or three times with MH30, leave it out for 110 to 120 days and get additional pounds, and as long as we are doing this we are going to continue to grow additional pounds. We have farmers in Kentucky which have produced as high as 5,700 pounds per acre. Every year our production is going up at the rate of 80 to 90 pounds per acre, and there is no telling where it will stop if we continue under the present program. In addition, quality will be improved. You know and I know when we throw fertilizer on and make a heavy tobacco, we are going to have higher nicotine and higher tar content in the tobacco. This is not the quality desired as far as the industry is concerned when they are having to produce a low-nicotine cigarette, so if we continue on this road we are going to gradually have less and less burley tobacco used. If we product better tobacco we feel we, as farmers, are going to receive a higher price for it. The production costs to the farmers under the present program can always be reduced. Many of the units of operation through the lease arrangement can be brought into more efficient uses. We can cut down on the amount of the fertilizer that we are using. We can also save money from not having to measure tobacco. At least a million and a half dollars is going to be saved by the Federal Government by not having to measure our allotment. We generally measure two or three times, so if the Government can save that much we should be able to save that amount, too. Through the carry forward feature of the poundage program, each farmer will be guaranteed he can market his allotted pounds, even in the event of a complete crop loss or crop failure. Just for this feature alone, we feel that this program would be worth it to all tobacco producers because they are guaranteed that they can sell the allotted number of pounds, whereas under the present program we are not guaranteed anything. If a hailstorm hits us or a flood hits our tobacco crop we are not guaranteed anything. We feel very strongly that the proposed program will be an advantage to all tobacco producers. As far as the lease portion of the program is concerned, many of our farmers have an average age of 57 and a half years. Many of them are getting too old to produce tobacco. These people can lease out their tobacco crops and make it possible for younger farmers who have a younger age range to lease this and get a better living income. In all of the meetings we have attended since introduction of Senator Cooper's bill last December, where the program has been explained to the farmers and they understood all of the features of it, we find very little if any opposition to it. So, I earnestly request that you give favorable consideration to the proposal before you, that of Congressman Abbitt, Congressman Watts, and Congressman Hull's bills, and we feel that it is quite important that these, this proposal be passed if we are to continue in the business of producing burley tobacco. Thank you, sir. Mr. ABBITT. Thank you very much, Mr. Balden. Are there any questions? Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. I would like to ask Mr. Balden what district have you had these meetings in, all of the districts of Kentucky? Mr. BALDEN. The University of Kentucky has been holding meetings in all of the counties throughout the State of Kentucky. Their representatives here today will make a statement on the meetings they have been conducting. We have held meetings in our Farm Bureau organizations, which I happen to be vice president of it, and Mr. Ison will probably testify to this effect, that in all we had a president's conference meeting where there were 50 some counties represented just recently and there was absolutely no opposition from the presidents and vice presidents from these 50 some counties. Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman? Mr. ABBITT. Yes, sir. Mr. CARTER. Might I ask a question? Mr. ABBITT. Yes, sir. Mr. CARTER. You say there are no counties in the Farm Bureau that opposed the poundage that have opposed it? Mr. BALDEN. No, I did not say there were any Farm Bureaus-any counties who opposed it. Mr. CARTER. In the Farm Bureau Organization? Mr. BALDEN. They have not indicated to us that they oppose it, no, sir. Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I must state that I have on file at least one county which does oppose this system from the Farm Bureau. Mr. ABBITT. Thank you very much, Congressman. Thank you, Mr. Balden. Mr. Wampler. Mr. WAMPLER. Do you favor the leasing of burley allotments? Mr. WAMPLER. Do you favor leasing across county lines? Mr. BALDEN. Do not. Mr. WAMPLER. Do you favor the sale of burley allotments? Mr. BALDEN. I might add one other thing. Of all of these organizations we have been meeting for the past year, and this is the first time in the history of tobacco that we have had all of these groups united on one particular subject, so we feel this is quite an accomplishment in itself. Mr. ABBITT. That sounds real good. Next I have on the list Mr. Louis F. Ison, president of the Kentucky Farm Bureau. We are pleased to have you here again today. It is always good to have you. STATEMENT OF LOUIS F. ISON, PRESIDENT, KENTUCKY FARM BUREAU FEDERATION Mr. IsON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and other distinguished Congressmen who are in attendance today. My name is Louis Ison. I am president of the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation. On behalf of Kentucky Farm Bureau's burley-producing members, I want to express appreciation for this opportunity to appear before you and register our interest and concern regarding the future of the burley tobacco program. May I also express our sincere gratitude to Congressman John Watts and to you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing the legislation under consideration today, and to this committee for so promptly holding hearings. At the outset, I wish to say firmly and without equivocation that the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation strongly supports the Watts and Abbitt bills, H.R. 4462 and H.R. 4328, which authorize a poundage control program for burley tobacco when approved by growers in a referendum. I will not prolong my testimony by elaborating on the importance of burley tobacco to Kentucky's economy. But in considering legislation affecting the future of burley tobacco, I certainly believe we should keep in mind the basic objective we seek; that is, the preservation of a livelihood for thousands of Kentuckians and others in the burleyproducing belt. Tobacco accounts for approximately 40 percent of Kentucky's farm income, and produces about $300 million annually for some 200,000 farm families in our State. Add to this the employment and income generated through the transportation, marketing, storing, and processing of tobacco, and the impact of tobacco on our State's total economy is brought fully into perspective. Kentucky Farm Bureau's support of poundage controls is based on the wishes of our farmer members who produce burley tobacco. They have given us a clear and impressive mandate for replacement of the present acreage allotment system with a system based on poundage quotas. For background purposes, let me briefly relate how this mandate for poundage developed. Concern about the future of the tobacco program began to spread among our farmer members early in 1970 when it was indicated by the Secretary of Agriculture Clifford M. Hardin that a 10-percent cut was the least he could apply in 1970; and that unless something was done 1 to overcome the problems of overproduction, more excessive cuts could be expected in the future. In order to get a preliminary assessment of the mood of Burley growers in our State, the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation and University of Kentucky College of Agriculture held 10 meetings across the State in June 1970. These meetings were given advance publicity and were open to the public. As a result, they were well attended. At each meeting, a questionnaire was distributed to gain the views of farmers on the Burley program. Of the farmers answering the questionnaires, 96 percent said they believe some changes are needed in the Burley program, 81 percent said they do not believe Burley production can be controlled under the acreage allotment system, 88 percent said they would be inclined to favor some type of "quantitative" control for Burley such as poundage or acreage-poundage, and 88 percent said they believe all growers should participate in future quota adjust ments. Between June and November 1970, county Farm Bureaus in Kentucky involved their members in local discussions of the Burley program and prepared recommendations for consideration by county voting delegates to the 1970 Kentucky Farm Bureau convention held November 15-18 in Louisville, Ky. The problems confronting Burley tobacco were discussed at length at the Tobacco Conference held during the State Farm Bureau convention; and, on November 18, the more than 500 voting delegates to the convention, without dissent, adopted a policy favoring a "straight poundage control program" for Burley. The following is the specific wording of the policy adopted unanimously by our voting delegates: To keep supply in line with demand, we recommend that the Burley tobacco law be amended to permit growers to adopt by referendum a straight poundage control program and this be done in time to apply to the 1971 crop. The poundage program should include the following: 1. The "base" poundage quota for each farm be determined by historical data. 2. The present formula be used in determining national quota. 3. Permit leeway for a reasonable overproduction or underproduction to be carried over to the farm's quota for the following year. 4. Provide that all growers share proportionately in general quota adjustments. 5. Provide for lease and sale of quotas within counties if all growers are to share proportionately in future quota adjustments. Now, let me turn to the basic reasons the Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation favors a move to a poundage program. Our most important reason for supporting a change in the production control method for Burley is that we fear the present acreage allotment system can eventually lead to abolishment of the total price support-production control program. We plant acres, and sell pounds, and by so doing could well be sowing the seeds for destruction of the total program. You will, I am sure, be given specific information to demonstrate the problems brought about by the acreage control system. Boiled down to essentials, this information will show that the acreage system simply has not controlled production, and every year it remains in effect our overproduction problems are being compounded. Burley production has steadily increased over the years, despite repeated reductions in burley acreage. This has happened because farmers are using techniques which enable them to get more tobacco off less land. Increased yields, averaging about 80 pounds per acre per year, have combined with declining domestic disappearance of burley to produce a serious oversupply situation. We are told that if the acreage system remains in effect, an acreage reduction of from 25 percent to 40 percent can be expected. Such a cut would not solve the problems, but merely would delay the time when overproduction can cause the fall of the entire burley program. For the record, I would like to list the cuts which have been made in acreage allotments in the past 25 years: During this period, increases were received only during the following years: Year 1951 1961 1962 Percent increase 10 6 As a result of these cuts, the 1970 allotment of 231,000 acres is only 38 percent of that in 1945. But production increases-from 1,127 pounds per acre in 1945 to 2,457 pounds per acre in 1969-coupled with a current declining demand for burley have offset the acreage reductions and consequently we face this dangerous oversupply condition. Farmers recognize that the burley tobacco program is a partnership between growers and the Government. The Government provides price supports, and in return the growers agree to production controls. Burley growers, speaking through Farm Bureau and other organizations, have expressed their willingness to hold up their end of the price support-production control program by abandoning the acreage allotment system and changing to a system whereby pounds will be controlled. Poundage controls will get directly at the problem of overproduction because, as I mentioned earlier, we sell pounds, not acres. Consequently, we honestly view poundage as the salvation of burley price supports. I also want to say that a switch to poundage does not involve drawing any battle lines between large burley growers and small growers. |