be if this committee saw fit to pass legislation that did give the farmer an option where he could either accept the poundage as proposed in the legislation or accept a continuation of the program limitations or the reductions that would be proposed by the Secretary, or even go a little further-give him a third option of accepting the poundage as proposed with a built-in float under the little producer whereby he could not be cut below a certain poundage? This would give him three options. How much trouble would this be to the department to present this in referendum? Mr. FRICK. The three options, no matter which three options, become a problem. As to two choices, I do not see this is a major problem. We do get into a time factor here, as to being able to get one or the other to him. What we would have to do is the first two options you suggested, we would have to be sure when he got the pieces of paper in his hands he would know the minute the votes are counted which option he has. Mr. MIZELL. I see. Well, would it be possible even to permit the referendum to be held under the present law, and then at a later date present a chance to vote for poundage, if this is what is desired? Mr. FRICK. Well, look, we will go back and check our timing, but off of the top of my head I believe we will run out of time, sir. I believe the planting time is somewhere about the middle of May, and really not much later than that. Mr. MIZELL. We then would not have time this year? Mr. FRICK. That is right, sir. Mr. MIZELL. But it could be presented to him next year? Mr. FRICK. Yes. Mr. MIZELL. The answer is yes? Mr. FRICK. Yes. Mr. MIZELL. Well, needless to say, Mr. Frick-and I am sure the others can understand my concern for the producers of burley in my area-we share this same concern as you for a good, healthy industry, but I am hoping that before this legislation is reported we will be able at least to get some minimum protection in there for that small producer who is not depending on this for money that is over, in excess of any cost he might have-I hesitate to say this, with a group of farmers present-or money that he could put in the bank, but that which merely contributes to his livelihood. He is very dependent on it. I think we have the danger in my area, in the mountain areas of North Carolina, that if we drive this man off of the farm and into the cities and the towns, it is going to create even more problems for us, and this is my major concern. I appreciate your responding to my questions and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ABBITT. May I ask you just this: What is the difference in the allotments of a dark-fired tobacco in Virginia and burley tobacco, say in Virginia? Mr. TURNER. You are thinking of the size. The Fire-cured acreage is much larger. Mr. ABBITT. What is the average for Fire-cured? Mr. MIZELL. Mr. Chairman, I have one other question to follow through, if I may. Mr. ABBITT. Yes. Mr. TODD. In Virginia you have 6,169 allotments, 11,672 acres, and a little less than 2 acres per farm on your Fire-cured. Mr. ABBITT. And the burley is what? Mr. TURNER. About half an acre. Mr. MIZELL. You are in the high rent district if you have got that much. Mr. TODD. In Virginia you have 16,327 burley allotments, 8,750 acres a little more than a half acre. Mr. MIZELL. Well, you are down in my area. Mr. ABBITT. Did you have another question? Mr. MIZELL. Yes, I did. I did not follow through with the point I had started out to make in reference to the Flue-cured as far as acreagepoundage. Could not this same principle be applied to burley, and if we are not able to develop poundage protection for the little man, then he would have protection under an acreage? Mr. TURNER. Under the law Mr. MIZELL. He could put a poundage-acreage control on it. Could you not do that? Mr. TURNER. Under the law, you could for 1972-you could not for 1971-unless there is a change in the law. Mr. MIZELL. But it could be incorporated in this legislation and be presented to him, and it could then be done under this legislation? Mr. TURNER. Could be. Mr. MIZELL. I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Frick, if I may, have you projected a little as to what would take place if H.R. 4462 or H.R. 4328 were not passed? What position would that put the Secretary in, and what position would that put the man who owns one-half acre or less in? Mr. FRICK. We would operate under the law we have today, and the half-acre man would not be reduced if there is any reduction. We have not made any final decision as to the extent of a reduction, we recognize there must be a reduction in the coming year or in the 1971 year under the present law, and let us talk in terms of 30 percent. If you project on again, trying to aim for the 2.8 years total supply, this could be projected at an additional 10 percent cut in each of the next 4 years. Still, even with that we would come out at a 2.9 years supply, and this is just using, you see, these are pure projections. No one knows for sure the consumption or production, but projecting in the trends at the department, as they have developed them, why, we would have to continue a cut under the present system and there would have to be that much, recognizing that some of the acreage would not be cut at all. Mr. MILLER. And this would be necessary for a referendum in order to continue the program? Mr. FRICK. Yes, there would be a referendum this year to continue the program. Mr. MILLER. Under that condition, could you project that such a referendum could or would be approved? Mr. FRICK. I realy do not know, sir. I have gotten both indications. Of course, it has passed in the past. Mr. MILLER. But not with a cut like you mention? Mr. TURNER. Well, we had a 25-percent cutback in 1955, and it carried. Mr. MILLER. And it carried? Mr. TURNER. Yes. Mr. MILLER. Let us go beyond that. If the two bills were approved by the subcommittee, the full committee, and then approved by the House and become law and the referendum failed, then what position would the Secretary be in, and also the man who owned one-half acre or less allotment? Mr. FRICK. Well, for the 1971 year we would have no program. Mr. MILLER. I understand that. Now, would you project that the man who has an allotment of one-half acre or less, would be better or worse off without that program? Mr. FRICK. I do not know, sir. Mr. MILLER. No predictions? Do we have enough alotments of large size where people would be able to mechanize and produce more economically which would create a hardship for the man who has the one-half or less acre allotment? Mr. FRICK. Well, certainly as you look forward and in Flue-cured in particular, there is more mechanization taking place, and it has been told to me recently that where the costs of gathering the tobacco and the whole process might be as much as 25 cents a pound, when you are fully mechanized you reduce this considerably, by more than half, and so, I presume that if burley were ever mechanized similarly, why what you are saying is probably true. Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ABBITT. I did not quite understand what you personally felt or some people in your department felt, that if there is no additional program offered this year whether or not the referendum would pass, and what is the story on the present proposal? What was your answer to that? What does the department feel? Mr. TURNER. It would be a pure guess. I think it would be close. Mr. ABBITT. You think it would be close, and that is as to whether it would carry, or not? Mr. TURNER. Yes. Mr. ABBITT. Any other questions? Mr. MURRAY. One for the record, Mr. Frick, could you supply the committee with an estimate of the cost of the enactment of each of these bills for the current and each of the five subsequent fiscal years. We would also appreciate the same cost estimate based on the amendments suggested by the Department. Mr. FRICK. We will. Mr. MURRAY. Thank you. (The information referred to above follows:) BURLEY TOBACCO: PRODUCTION, PRICES, INCOME, AND CCC ACTIVITY, 1969-70-1975-76 MARKETING YEARS 1 Estimated farm marketing quotas equals 576 million lbs. by .95 equals 547 million lbs. national quota. 2 Dry weight. BURLEY TOBACCO: PRODUCTION, PRICES, INCOME, AND CCC ACTIVITY, 1969-70-1975-76 MARKETING YEARS-Continued 1 National quota divided by 576 (estimated sum of preliminary farm marketing quotas). 2 Dry weight. Mr. ABBITT. That concludes the witnesses, except the Members of Congress, and I would like to recognize the Honorable John C. Watts, the author of a bill, who was for a long time a member of this committee, and as you gentlemen know from the sound of my voice, he has been an active leader, and taken an active leadership part in every piece of tobacco legislation we have had. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN C. WATTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Mr. WATTS. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and distinguished guests, all of you: Throughout the 20 years I have been a Member of Congress, I have appeared in Congress before this committee, on the floor and before other committees in behalf of making changes in the tobacco program that I thought would be to the betterment of it. Many of them that were made have led to the betterment of it. I cannot recount all of the various bills during that period of time that I have introduced and that have been enacted into law that have helped the tobacco program, but we are not here to merely help the tobacco program, we are here today to make a decision whether we are going to have a program or not and that is what is before the Congress, and that is what is before the Tobacco Subcommittee of the House Agriculture Committee. The tobacco program has been amended and changed all it can be changed. Today we are here to see whether or not we want to continue the tobacco program which has been the most satisfactory program that has been enacted by this Congress, because it has cost the Government practically nothing, whereas lots of programs, such as the cotton program, the wheat program, or whatever other program ou want to look at, has cost a tremendous sum of money. But, due |