Mr. ABBITT. Do you have a copy of this? BURLEY POUNDAGE QUOTAS, STATE YIELD BASIS, ALTERNATIVE BASE YEARS1 1 Computed from State production reports, ASCS. 2 Computed from average county yields; omits 177 acres allotted in 6 other States (.08 percent of total). 3 Includes quota for 6 minor States not shown separately. Note: Important-ASCS county offices are now computing farm yields on the basis of the 4 highest out of the 5, 1966-70, as provided in the House and Senate bills. If the base period for determining yields is extended to include earlier years, it is doubtful that yields can be determined for all farms in time to notify growers of their quota prior to the referendum and planting time. The sum of the preliminary quotas will be larger when computed on an individual farm basis rather than county or State basis. For each of these base periods, the preliminary quota will be in excess of 540,000,000 pounds, the estimated domestic use and exports djring the 1971-72 marketing years, Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, I have a table of per-acre yields of burley tobacco of the eight principal burley-producing States for the last 4 years. I ask unanimous consent for that to be put in the record. Mr. ABBITT. Without objection, both will be put in the record. (The document above-referred to, follows:) Mr. WAMPLER. If you will notice, Mr. Chairman, on the chart of the per-acre yields of burley tobacco for the last 4 years, we find, for example, West Virginia with the lowest yield average for the last year, 1970. The per-acre yield in West Virginia was about 1,850 pounds, which was considerably lower than in other States. West Virginia is a small burley-producing State. The last figures that I have indicate that there are only 4,319 allotments to produce 2,253.79 acres. In West Virginia, 78.81 percent of those allotments are minimum-acreage allotments. So this points up the problem that occurs there. In discussing the bill with others who have an interest in the burley program, there has been a good deal of concern expressed as to how this bill will affect minimum producers. As I recall, during our previous hearings, it was suggested by some witneses, or in colloquy with some witnesses, that all growers would share in a 5-percent cut in a poundage program for the crop year 1971. Then it was suggested that perhaps those that now enjoy the minimum acreage protection would not share in any subsequent cuts; that is, after the year 1971. It was also suggested, I believe principally by Congressman Carter, of Kentucky, that we try to put some type of minimum floor in terms of pounds that would not be subject to further cut. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mizell, has been devoting a good deal of time and study and effort to this problem, and I think he has an approach that perhaps he would like to offer to the subcommittee for consideration. Mr. ABBITT. We shall be glad to hear from him. Mr. MIZELL. Of course, Mr. Chairman, certainly the real concern we have is trying to have a program that is fair and equitable and, at the same time, we want to keep a good, strong, healthy daily market. I am sure all of us share that concern. I have a chart that I would like, with the permission of the Chair, to have printed in the record. I do not have additional copies of it, and I regret that, but I did not get it clearly enough to have additional copies made of it. Mr. ABBITT. Without objection, it will be placed in the record. (The document above-referred to, follows:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Subject: Minimum Burley Poundage Quotas. ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE, To: Claude G. Turner, Director, Tobacco Division, ASCS. The following data are estimates of the magnitude of certain minimum poundage quotas for burley tobacco as requested yesterday by Dr. Brunthaver. Most of the present allotments at the minimum allotment size are 0.5 acre, so relatively small share of the acreage is involved at 800- and 1,000-pound minimums. No data is available to precisely convert allotment size categories to corresponding poundage, but as quotas are reduced more farms will fall in the minimum category. ROBERT H. MILLER, Head, Tobacco and Specialty Crops Section, Mr. MIZELL. I just received that from the Department, but the thrust of the bill was trying to determine at what level we could establish a minimum poundage at which the minimum producers could not be reduced below that figure. I think this chart would show us how many would eventually be protected. So until we get the chart back, I hesitate to try to explain it. Mr. ABBITT. It is your idea now to amend the bill we have before us, 5732, by putting this provision in there? Mr. MIZELL. Mr. Chairman, I would not object to either amending the bill or, when we are through with the witness here, if the chairman saw fit to draft a clean bill and vote for that one. If Mr. Wampler is going to offer his as an amendment, I would be perfectly willing to offer that as an amendment, also. Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting for the chart to be reproduced, let me make an observation or two on the first chart. that I introduced. According to the calculations of the Department, if, in arriving at a poundage quota, we were to take the last 6 years of production, beginning with the crop year 1965 and including the crop year of 1970 Mr. ABBITT. That would be No. 2. Mr. WAMPLER. It would be column No. 2. And if we were to drop the low-yield year, average the remaining years, multiply by the number of acres allotment that the grower had in 1970, the Department estimates that we would come up with a burley poundage quota of 565 million pounds, which would be 10.6 million pounds less than the figure in column 1. Then if we were to take the 656 million pounds and apply a 5-percent reduction, that would mean a further reduction, if my arithmetic is correct, of 28.25 million pounds. The disappearance for the crop year of 1971 has been estimated from 540 million pounds to 550 million pounds. And if, in fact, the disappearance were to be 550 million pounds for the crop year 1971, and with the 5-percent poundage reduction, we would come up with a figure indicating that production would be 23,250,000 pounds below disappearance. Of course, this is using the 6-year formula rather than the 5-year formula, as the present bill contemplates. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Are you going to drop Mr. WAMPLER. You drop your low year out of the 6-year formula, average the remaining five, and multiply that by the number of acres allotment that the grower had during the crop year 1970. To go back further than 6 years, I think, puts us into an administrative nightmare. The Department would be hard pressed to calculate what the individual farm allotment would be. But I am advised if you go back 1 additional year, it would not create an impossible administrative obstacle. This does not solve the question as to what happens in 1972 and subsequent years as far as minimum producers are concerned. Mr. MIZELL. Mr. Chairman, if it would be in order at this time for me to discuss what I think is in here does everyone have a copy of this now? Mr. MATHIS. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a copy of the report that Mr. Wampler put in. Mr. ABBITT. You have it now, and here is the other one. Bill, why do you not state exactly what your proposal is? Mr. WAMPLER. My proposal is that we adopt the formula of taking the last 6 years, starting with the crop year of 1965, and including the crop year of 1970. We drop the low year Mr. ABBITT. When you say drop the low year, you mean each farmer will drop his low year? Mr. WAMPLER. That is right. In figuring his individual farm base, he would take the number of pounds that he produced with the acreage allotment that he had in each of those 6 crop years. He would drop the low yield year, and then he would average the remaining 5 years, to give him his average poundage production in those 5 years. He would multiply the average by the number of acres that he had as an allotment during the crop year of 1970 to arrive at his individual farm poundage quota. By doing that, according to the calculations of the Department, that would reduce production 10.6 million pounds, rather than using the formula as the present bill contemplates. Mr. ABBITT. Did the Department, in doing that, take the national average, or did they average it by the farm? Mr. WAMPLER. Apparently, it is computed by average county yields. No. 2 at the bottom of the chart would indicate that. Mr. ABBITT. I see. Mr. WAMPLER. The figure 1 would indicate it is computed from State production. It may well be that when it is finally computed, it could be a little bit more than that, but I do not think that is too far off from what the actual figure would be. The Department has indicated that disappearance would be 540 million pounds. but I am informed by others that 550 million is probably more realistic. So by taking the 565 million pounds under the second formula that we have proposed, and then reducing that 5 percent, meaning all allotments would share in that 5-percent reduction, that brings us down to a figure of 22,250,000 pounds under estimated crop disappearance. Mr. ABBITT. In other words, you would take a reduction of this 565, 5 percent? Mr. WAMPLER. Yes. All growers would share in that first cut. In 1972 and subsequent crop years, I think the language that was in the last bill that Congressman Watts introduced, was that no grower would take greater than a 5-percent reduction in any crop year. Mr. ABBITT. That is this year? Mr. WAMPLER. Yes, sir. The question remains. Where does the minimum grower, as defined under the present law, fit in in 1972 and subsequent years? It is the feeling of many growers that have contacted me, and from other members of Congress who represent burley-producing areas, that we might well consider the possibility of extending the minimum protection to half-acre or less-growers, that is-in the 1972 and subsequent years. Mr. ABBITT. What do you propose to do under your proposal? I follow you on 1971. What would we do in 1972? Mr. WAMPLER. In 1972-assuming that disappearance remains fairly constant-we would then be under a poundage program. We could definitely regulate production and stay at the same figure. Mr. ABBITT. What authority would the Secretary then have for 1972? Mr. WAMPLER. He could not cut individual farm allotments more than 5 percent. Mr. ABBITT. In other words, he could cut them 5 percent in 1971 and another 5 percent in 1972, and so on? Mr. WAMPLER. He could not exceed 5 percent. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. In 1972, the half-acre man would be exempted? Mr. WAMPLER. That is true. Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. I mean under your proposal? Mr. WAMPLER. Yes, sir. Also, there has been a proposal that we might exempt the half-acre producer by writing in a floor. For example, a half-acre producer could not be reduced below 1,200 pounds. Then it would be proportionately less, depending upon the base allotment that he had. Mr. ABBITT. Actually, if you put that 1,200 pounds in there, the majority would not take any cut. Mr. WAMPLER. The second table would show, if you take 1970 peracre yield of burley tobacco for the eight burley-producing States that are listed, the average yield per acre is 2,585 pounds. If you take half of that, you would have, I believe, 1,292.5. Mr. ABBITT. Then you would have that many half-acre boys who would make the average? Mr. WAMPLER. That is correct. Mr. ABBITT. I understood Mr. Carter to say that they made less than the average. Mr. WAMPLER. I think it is Congressman Carter's feeling and that of others that those who have been guilty of the overproduction should share the greater part of the cut. I think that is his feeling. In the chart, in 1970, the high yield was Kentucky with 2,700 pounds per acre. The low State was West Virginia, with 1,850. Virginia was 2,550. North Carolina was 2,600. Mr. ABBITT. That would be average? Mr. WAMPLER. Yes. I do not have any figures from the Department to indicate what would happen if we were to freeze the half-acre producer after the first year. They are working on those now and promised to get them to us forthwith. It seems to me that the 6-year formula is a fair and reasonable way to cut our production an additional 10.6 million pounds. Mr. ABBITT. Do you think our people who testified here the other day will understand what we are doing and be in agreement with it? Mr. WAMPLER. I do not know that I could say that they would be in agreement with it, but it was just another way to attempt to get an equitable rollback. Mr. ABBITT. Does anybody want to ask a question about that particular proposal? (No response.) Mr. ABBITT. As I understand it, you want to have another amendment to tie into this proposal? Or am I wrong about that? Mr. MIZELL. Well, the proposal, just so I completely understand the point the bill is proposing, is that the first year, all of the producers would participate at a 5-percent reduction? Mr. WAMPLER. Yes. Mr. MIZELL. Then your minimum producers would not participate in any cuts after that? Is that part of your proposal? |