Mr. CARTER. May I respond to that? You know, we see here strong evidence without exception here of this poundage proposal. I want to tell you that I had a friend who visited the tobacco markets throughout Kentucky. I have known him for years and I took him to be a truthful man, and his purpose was to find out what the rank and file members felt, and I want to tell you that there was strong opposition to the poundage proposal. Mr. ABBITT. I cannot recall what they said the average poundage Mr. Berry, do you want to say something? Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, I feel somewhat reluctant in asking for your indulgence further, and I had hoped that we might avoid the impression that someone is trying to mistreat someone, or that one group or one class is here against another, and I want to tell you something of the history of the minimum allotment, Doctor, and Congressman Mizell, and Congressman Wampler. I have here a background statement that was provided at my request in 1955, and while I regret that this issue has been injected here in the manner that it has been, I feel that it is imperative that this bit of his tory be recorded in the proceedings here today. The 1-acre minimum allotment for burley tobacco was enacted in 1944 as a wartime measure to increase production and continue the program at that time. Simply, it provides that for any farm having a 1943 acreage allotment of less than 1 acre, the allotment for 1944 would be increased to 1 acre, whether he had one-tenth, two-tenths, fivetenths, seven-tenths, it was to be increased arbitrarily to 1 acre. Subject to certain limitations relating to the acreage of cropland in the farm, you will remember that this was during World War II, and that all other farm programs had been suspended except those designed to increase or encourage production of food and fiber. Here is the preamble of the legislation enacted by Congress in the spring of 1944 as Public Law 276: Whereas the increased demand for cigarettes and other tobacco products has resulted in regard to usages during recent years of burley tobacco, and Whereas due to a shortage of labor and equipment and the need for the production of essential food and fiber, the production of burley tobacco has not kept pace with this increased usage, and Whereas all growers of the burley tobacco, if their acreage allotments were increased, produce an additional burley tobacco without adversely affecting their production of essential food and fiber crops; Therefore, be it Resolved This legislation accomplished the desired objective— that in the increase in the production of burley tobacco during the war emergency and the period following it, production was increased and the quota acreage allotment program was maintained without interruption. Public Law 276 was enacted as permanent legislation at the time of its emergency passage, and no one could foresee an end to the worldwide conflict in which we were then engaged. New reduction in allotments were made for the year 1945, but by 1946, when it was realized that a reduction in allotments was necessary, it became evident that Public Law No. 276 needed revising. The first such legislative action came in that year when Congress kept the legislation but, for the year 1946 only permitted 7-acre allot ments to be reduced by 10 percent. This was the same reduction applied to all other allotments in that year. In 1947 a further decrease in acreage allotments of 19.6, the percent was invoked with the reduction applying only to allotments above the 9/10ths acre level. By this time the group of protected allotments had increased to an estimated 150,000 or an estimated 50 percent of the total number. Since the 19.6 percentage reduction in 1947 applied to only 50 percent of the allotments of 1 acre or more, the actual overall reduction obtained in the total allotted acreage amounted to less than 16 percent during the following 3 years, 1948, 1949, and 1950, and a further reduction of 16.1 percent was imposed on all growers having allotments in excess of 9/10ths of an acre. No reduction was made during any of these years, though the minimum acreage group, by this time the size of the protected group had increased to an estimated 56 percent of the total. The 16.1-percent reduction for these 3 years resulted in only an 11-percent reduction, all of which came from the protected 44 percent of the growers. In 1951, an 11-percent increase was proclaimed, which was applicable to all allotments, including the 58 percent having allotments of ninetenths acres or less. A change in farm acreage allotments was not necessary for the year 1952, and it was during this year that the Congress approved a revision in the minimum acreage level to seven-tenths of an acre. Therefore, the acreage reductions which were necessary and taken successively for the years 1953, 1954, of nine-tenths percent previously announced for 1955, have all been taken to an equitable basis. These three reductions reduced the protected 1-acre allotment group to a level of seven-tenths of an acre. This group now totals, and that was speaking of 1955, 207,000 growers or 64 percent of the total allotments established. The remaining 36 percent of the growers have allotments in excess of seven-tenths of an acre. Under the 1955 burley tobacco legislation, the present seven-tenthsacre minimum allotment is to be cut to five-tenths of an acre. The reduction, however, is limited to not more than one-tenth acre in any year. That coincides with the suggestion from you, Congressman Wampler, of limiting the reduction to 5 percent for the 3-year period that you suggested. Also under the new legislation the Secretary of Agriculture has been authorized to make another cut in burley acreage for 1955, not to exceed 25 percent of the 1954 acreage allotment. If two-thirds or more of the growers voting in the referendum on April 28-and so on. That referendum was conducted, and the people after they were advised in public meetings throughout the belt, voted for the 25-percent sever reduction in acreage allotments. We are confronted here, as has been asserted time and again this afternoon, with a critical problem. Acreage allotments do not control. It is an ineffective measure. We have to have something better. I wish we could do everything, doctor, that you want done for your small growers, and you, Congressman Mizell, and Congressman Wampler, and Congressman Abbitt, and, indeed, for Kentucky. All of Kentucky is small growers, but to do as you insist, and earnestly maintain that we should do, means that we will lose what we have; namely, price protection and bargaining power in the market. I represent, I know, I have been connected with the administration of price support programs since they began. I have served the tobacco growers for 50 years, and I do not have but one single interest, and that is to preserve for them the thing that they had for 30 years, in your district, and in your district, and in yours, and in mine, and in my Kentucky, and if we lose it the whole economy will collapse. And let me say this to you, and this is not a warning or a threat from a big grower, I am speaking for an organization that makes no distinction between growers, but if we do not remedy this now, 34 percent of the so-called big ones will vote it out in the referendum rather than to take a 30-percent cut. Mr. ABBITT. Thank you very much. Anybody else? If not, the meeting stands adjourned, and I appreciate all of you folks being here. (Whereupon, 4:50 p.m., the committee adjourned.) BURLEY TOBACCO-FARM POUNDAGE QUOTAS TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TOBACCO OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room 1302, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Watkins M. Abbitt presiding. Present: Representatives Abbitt, McMillan, Stubblefield, Mathis, Wampler, and Mizell. Also present: Mrs. Christine S. Gallagher, chief clerk; and Hyde H. Murray, associate counsel. Mr. ABBITT. I ask the subcommittee to come to order. The purpose of the meeting, of course, is to further discuss H.R. 5732 and any other bill dealing with the burley tobacco situation. Does anybody in the audience care to say anything further about our problem? (No response.) Mr. ABBITT. Maybe some of the members might want to have some discussion. (No response.) Mr. ABBITT. This is the one we introduced the last time? The CLERK. H.R. 5732, yes, sir. Mr. ABBITT. I just wanted to be sure that it was not revised. We shall be glad to hear any discussion or proposals about the leg. islation. Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Wampler, are you satisfied with this proposal? Mr. WAMPLER. I think if we go into executive session, I may make a suggestion or two. Mr. Mizell has a proposal, I think, that his staff member brought in just now. So perhaps we can suspend for a moment. Mr. ABBITT. The Chairman will be glad to recognize Mr. Wampler at this time. Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, since the last meeting of the subcommittee, a request was made of the Tobacco Division of the Department of Agriculture to prepare some additional figures and estimates, by taking an additional number of years in arriving at what our burley poundage quotas would be. I have a table that was prepared by the Department, taking into consideration the burley yield for the last 5 years dropping the low-yield year, averaging that, and then multiplying it by the number of acres that the grower had as his allotment in the crop year of 1970. · We also asked them to do this for the last 6 years, last 7, last 8, last 9, and last 10, with the estimated poundage quotas on a State-yield basis. Without objection, I would like to put this in the record. |