Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

a

Mr. WAMPLER. That is one proposal, yes.

Mr. MIZELL. Well, if this proposal were adopted then, of course, I would not see any need for pursuing it further, Mr. Chairman. But if we do not have something in here that is going to be an incentive for the small producer to support the program; then I think we are in just as serious condition as if we tried to make any segment of the burley producers bear the brunt or all of the reduction. According to the figures that I have, and these came from the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Chairman, and I just got them. That is why I have not had a chance to really go into these in any detail. But according to the chart, those with the half acres, the maximum allotment size on the half acre, we have 168,839 that would be affected by that 1,200pound minimum.

Mr. ABBITT. In other words, that is the grower with a half acre or less?

Mr. MIZELL. Yes. And trying to compute this into pounds, so we will have an idea, I just do not have those figures at this time other than the 5 percent across-the-board reduction that Bill has proposed. But I think this at least gives us an idea of how many of your minimum producers would be affected by it. If we established a limit of 1,200 pounds, I think that they would accept the participating in this across-the-board 5-percent reduction this year if they were not going to be reduced after that. If we had some kind of minimum protection in there for them, Mr. Chairman

Mr. ABBITT. How many farmers got less, and I cannot tell from this schedule, how many farmers are less than a half acre?

Mr. MIZELL. As I read this chart, we would have 65,000 that would be protected under 1,000 pounds, Mr. Chairman. This is not in direct answer to your question, but then, those with—and this is reading below. You have 65,000 with a 1,000-pound limit, which would be 0.42. Then with acreage of 0.34, there are 53,000. This was drawn up to put in 1,200, 1,000, and 800 pounds.

Mr. ABBITT, Actually, they are getting an increase?

Mr. MIZELL. No, sir; nobody would get any increase. Under the proposal, nobody would be allowed to produce more than he is producing now, and he would participate in the 5-percent cut. Then, because his production would be frozen after that point, he would not be allowed to participate in any increase other than an increase that would be coming out of the Department of Agriculture assuming that the problem would be solved and no increased production. Nobody would be allowed to increase any more, but he would participate in the 5-percent cut.

Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, I think part of the dilemma in which we find ourselves is to report a bill out of the subcommittee to the full committee, one in which we find general agreement among those Members of the Congress who represent burley tobacco districts. The fact that we have to face is according to the information I have here, almost 60 percent of our allotments are those that are minimum allotments. As you know, the referendum will have to have a two-thirds favorable vote. We must have a substantial portion of these minimum growers in order to pass the referendum.

I have been working to try to come up with bill on which there could be general agreement. I simply offer these two suggestions as possibili

[ocr errors]

ties that we might be able to get agreement on, and one when submitted to referendum will pass with a two-thirds vote.

Mr. ABBITT. It seems to me before we move on, we need to put it down in writing so we can have the amendment before us and be able to look at it before we can proceed.

Mr. WAMPLER. I regret that I do not have mine in written form, but some of this information was just presented to me.

Mr. ABBITT. I am not fussing with you, but I think it would be better to have it in writing. The first thing we need to know is what the proposals are, and the next thing we need to know is what the rank and file grower back home will go for, and we need to know what Congress will pass on.

Mr. WAMPLER. I think the chairman will agree with me that time is of the essence. We are going to have to do something forthwith.

Mr. ABBITT. We are going to have to do something this week. Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to work with counsel to see if we cannot draw up some language and make it available to the subcommittee later today.

Mr. ABBITT. I feel that we ought to have something in writing so we can pass it around and look at it and consult with the people who are interested and see how they react to the proposal.

What do you think about that?
Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Well, your amendment involves column 2?
Mr. WAMPLER. Yes.
Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. And we are going to take 5 percent off that?

Mr. WAMPLER. Yes. If the estimated disappearance is 550 million pounds for the crop year 1971, that would put production 23,250,000 pounds under estimated disappearance.

If it turned out that disappearance was lower than that it would change. But it seems like 550 million pounds disappearance for the crop year 1971 would be realistic.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. That is what we are going to do for 1971. What about 1972 ?

Mr. WAMPLER. I would hope that the Department would see fit to see that production that much less than disappearance would be acceptable to them. I do not know.

Mr. ABBITT. What authority would you give the Secretary for 1972 ?

Mr. WAMPLER. I think what we would have to do is what I understand we did in the amended bill. He could not cut it more than 5 percent.

Mr. STUBBLEFIELD. Or put a poundage floor.

Mr. WAMPLER. If you go to a poundage floor, I submit that is what he would figure.

Mr. McMILLAN. Possibly we should decide right now about it and bring the bill before the full committee.

Mr. WAMPLER. I have no indication what the Department's view would be on the two things we discussed, other than the one now in writing about what the burley poundage quota would be. These are their figures. That is what they say they will be. If we use 6 years rather than 5, there will be a reduction of 10.6 million pounds.

Mr. ABBITT. I reckon the simplest thing to do is see if you and Mr. Murray can draw something up in writing. Whatever we are going to do, we have to do tomorrow or the next day.

Mr. MURRAY. The 5th of April is the next suspension date.

Mr. ABBITT. If we did not do it by then, it would be so late that we could not do it. So it seems to me what we had better do is try to prepare something this afternoon and see if you could get it to us by tonight.

Mr. WAMPLER. I shall do my best. Certainly, it will be by morning:

Mr. ABBITT. I would not want to pass on it unless it was passed around among all the members.

Mr. WAMPLER. I am not insisting. I just offer that as a basis on which we may be able to get some general agreement.

Mr. ABBITT. Off the record.

(The following letters and statements were also submitted to the subcommittee:)

CYNTHIAXA, KY. I am Paul McCauley, a director and Young Farmer Chairman for the Harrison ('ounty Farm Bureau, Cynthiana, Kentucky.

For the record I wish to say that the Harrison County Farm Bureau is in favor of an acreage-poundage program for burley tobacco. This organization approves Representative Watts' proposal on burley tobacco. His efforts are appreciated.

PAUL MCCAULEY.

WILSON, N.C. Hon. W. M. ABBITT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Tobacco, Committee on Agriculture, House of Rep

resentatives, Washington, D.C. The board of directors of Tobacco Associates unanimously support and urge enactment of H.R. 4328, relating to burley tobacco.

JOHN D. PALMER, President.

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,

February 26, 1971. Hon. WATKINS M. ABBITT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Tobacco, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington, D.O. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ABBITT: The delegates to the most recent annual meeting of the American Farm Bureau Federation gave careful consideration to the tobacco program. The following policy position was taken :

“We support a tobacco program providing that growers shall keep supply in line with demand in return for price support.

"We do not favor the lease of burley tobacco allotments as long as the minimum allotment provision is in effect."

As we understand the provisions of your bill, H.R. 4328, and H.R. 4462 by Congressman Watts of Kentucky, acreage allotments are to be converted to poundage quotas and all poundage quotas are to be treated the same in the future.

We, therefore, believe that H.R. 4328 and H.R. 4462 are consistent with the policy position taken by our members. We urge favorable consideration of these bills by this committee and the Congress.

We respectfully ask that this letter be made a part of the hearing record on this legislation. Sincerely yours,

MARVIN L. McLAIN,

Legislative Director.

STATEMENT OF HARRY L. GRAHAM, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE

NATIONAL FARMERS ORGANIZATION Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Harry L. Graham, Legislative Representative of the National Farmers Organization with headquarters in Corning, Iowa.

During the past four years the remarkable national growth of the N.F.O. has included the burley tobacco belt as well as other tobacco areas. Our growers are alert, informed and concerned. They helped develope the basis of the bill by Senator Cooper.

It has long been obvious that allotments on farm commodities should be based on market terms such as pounds, bales, bushels or hundred-weight. We are aware of the problems of increased production per acre and their ramifications. And we have been in close contact with our membership regarding this proposed legislation.

Having said that we support controls on an acreage-poundage basis, we would respectively submit the following suggestions :

(1) The provision for the elimination of all programs if the referendum on poundage is defeated should be removed. It is in Sec. 319(a). The first referendum should simply let the producers decide which kind of a control program they prefer, with full knowledge of the probable acreage cuts if they choose that method.

We are informed by our Kentucky NFO officials that this was not in the grower agreement. They view this as a means of defeating all programs and this they oppose.

(2) In section 319(b), the provision is included in the last sentence that "insofar as practicable" be deleted. We have had some unpleasent experiences with notices from ASC offices being late. In one instance a notice that soybeans under reseal in a county elevator were to be moved to a terminal elevator was received at 10:00 A.M. with a redemption deadline of 12:00 noon that same day.

We believe that the accepted USDA practice is to mail notices at least ten days in advance and this is the provision we suggest.

(3) At the end of 319(d), we propose to add “nor less than 1600 Lbs. per one: half acre allotment or a proportional poundage for allotments of less than one half acre.”

We would point out that the producers of one-half acre or less have not been nor cannot be responsible for the great increase in tobacco yields. They simply have not had the captial, facilities or know-how to accomplish this increase. Most of them are planting and cultivating as they did twenty-five to fifty years ago. They clear a patch of brush, use the brush to "burn" the bed for the plants, and plant the patch for a year or two and then let it return to brush.

Furthermore, for many of these people, this represents the only cash income they have in year. As we consider a minimum national wage or a minimum welfare payment, it seems foolhardy to further lower these cash incomes that are at or below all suggested minimums.

With the increased vocal support from high places for rural re-development. it seems equally foolhardy to force people off the land and into the towns and cities. This would be the effect of such legislation.

American farmers are being required by low farm prices and high costs to earn a substantial amount of their total income off the land. If rural population is to be stabilized and if the rural to urban migration is to be stopped and hopefully reversed, and if the costs to the government are to be minimized, then this provision should be included.

(4) If we are to preserve this production in the marginal and sub-marginal areas and thus stabilize and strengthen rural communities the sale of allotments should be prohibited and the leasing of allotments across county lines should likewise be prohibited.

We are aware of all the arguments for economically efficient units, but we are in complete disagreement with the Marxist and orthodox capitalist concept that all economic problems must be solved of the basis of historical trends toward economic determination.

If this democracy is to be preserved and if its modified and controlled capital. ism is to survive, then people must be factored into the equation used to determine policy. Bigness and efficiency are desirable at a price_but not at any price.

It is our considered judgment that the concentration of economic factors must be controlled.

In the case of tobacco, the large growers and the industry should recognize their present political problems. One of the real defenses against those who . oppose any tobacco program has been the fact that this represents the only cash income for a great number of impoverished people who live on farms with limited productive land available.

If programs are pursued to destroy these producers, then the programs will die and the industry will die. I remember a statement by Senator Humphrey in 1964 when he said, “the first law of politics is to learn how to count.” Some of the big producers and industry people better learn how to count. When they do, they will see the necessity of maintaining the widest possible base of support for the programs and the industry. Our proposal will preserve that base.

In summary, we believe that S. 789 is a good bill moving toward desirable objectives. However, our tobacco growers believe that the suggestions we have made will improve the legislation and best serve the long-term interests of both producers and the tobacco industry, as well as our national policy and welfare.

STATEMENT OF REUBEN JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES,

NATIONAL FARMERS UNION am Reuben L. Johnson, Director of Legislative Services, National Farmers Union, 1012 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005.

At the convention of National Farmers Union last week here in Washington, D.C., delegates adopted policy as follows concerning production bases, allotments, and quotas:

Production bases, allotments, and quotas for individual commodities should be allocated to states, counties and farm families, including new producers, by farmer-elected committees of farmers so that each state, county and farm or ranch will receive its fair share.

“Adjustments of bases, quotas or allotments should be consistent with the objective of strengthening family farm structure of agriculture with adequate minimums for individual farms below which there should be no further reduction.

“Priority should be given to families entering farming and hardship cases where additional quotas or allotments are needed to make a fully sufficient family farm unit.

“Protection should be afforded individual farm units from encroachment by larger factory-type operations. Adjustments of quotas and allotments should be managed in such a way as to assure that they are not subject to becoming a part of vertically integrated production, processing and marketing units.

“Released acreage and/or quotas should not be moved over county and State lines if there is need for additional acreage and/or quotas on family-type farms in the county or state affected.

“Marketing quotas should be expressed in terms of commodity units such as bushels and pounds where approved by producers.

“Acreage allotments based on crop history, soil classification, conservation practices, tillable acres and other factors should be used either singly or in combination with bushelage and poundage quotas where preferred by producers.

“Sale and lease of marketing quotas and acreage allotments can destroy rural communities through further toss of farm families. We oppose, therefore, legislation or administrative action to expand sale and lease or production rights and to weaken the traditional role of Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service committees in administrating such transfers."

The bill before the Committee would extend to burley tobacco authority for farm marketing quota based on poundage rather than acreage. Producers are afforded the opportunity to determine in a referendum whether they favor poundage quota. If 43 or more farmers approve poundage quotas they will be in effect for the next three years.

Farm marketing quotas would be based on the average of each farm's four highest yields during the five years, 1966–70, multiplied by the farm's 1970 acreage allotment. Farm marketing quotas, regardless of size, would be adjusted uniformly to equal the national marketing quota (less a reserve of no more than one percent for correcting errors, adjusting inequities and for establishing quotas for new farms). Under the bill, the National marketing quota would be the amount of burley tobacco produced in the United States which the Secretary determines will be utilized and exported during the marketing year, adjust.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »