Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Mr. BASS. But now, would it not be almost necessary in such a case, though, to plant 2 crops instead of growing 2 crops of suckers? Mr. WILLIAMS. That is true, under the present law you can do that. Mr. WATTS. You can do that under the present law?

Mr. BASS. I realize that; but in any of the flue-cured areas would it be possible to completely harvest one crop and then set another crop?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.

Mr. MATTHEWs. Will you give me back my time?

Mr. BASS. Yes.

Mr. MATTHEWS. I would like to make this observation, that this has been a very unusual winter in Florida. I would like to say to my distinguished friend from Tennessee, in my opinion, you, certainly, could grow two crops.

Sometimes my friends doubt the fact that flue-cured tobacco in Florida is set the latter part of February. That is very common. This year we had difficulty getting plants, but coming back to my question, is it not your opinion that we could actually grow and harvest 2 crops in my section of the flue-cured area in 1 year?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. You could set it out and produce a crop in 72 days. You get through down there June 15, and you could set another crop there easily. The same thing applies right on through the Carolinas.

Mr. ABBITT. Yes; and how about Virginia?

Mr. MATTHEWS. I do not want to take the time of the committee to say anything further. I am very much in favor of doing anything that will make this tobacco program a little better and to give all of the people who participate in it on the basis of good faith a better chance to participate in it to the maximum degree. At this stage of the game I think it is very well to do so.

Mr. ABBITT. Thank you very much.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. WATTS. May I note for the record that Mr. Chelf is here. He wants to make a statement as soon as he can.

Mr. CHELF. Mr. Chairman. I am going to make a short statement if I may be permitted to do so.

Mr. ABBITT. Congressman Chelf, we are delighted to have you here. You have always been of tremendous help to this committee. You have been so interested in all phases of our tobacco program and we appreciate your coming around here today to give us the benefit of your knowledge and experience in this matter.

Mr. WATTS. May I interrupt there and comment and say that I thoroughly agree with the chairman. Mr. Chelf has stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us from Kentucky and other tobacco States in a determined effort to provide the best tobacco program that can be provided for the farmers of the country.

Mr. Spence has done the same thing. And I think I can compliment the entire tobacco delegation from whatever State they might come, that they have always worked for what is known as a better tobacco program, and taking a real good attitude toward it. And I feel very proud that I am a member of the group known as the "tobacco group of the House."

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK CHELF, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS OF THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Mr. CHELF. Mr. Chairman, you are very kind, you and Mr. Watts and my other colleagues.

You know we folks who are not officially members of your great Agricultural Committee are indebted to you good people, and I am sincere about this, for your great consideration for those of us who represent tobacco areas who are not members of the Agricultural Committee, to permit us to come in here and to participate. I mean it is really wonderful. And we not only enjoy being associated with you, but to be able to contribute what good we may to this fine program that we have now and have had in the past.

Mr. Chairman, my interest in this particular piece of legislation is very deep because I think that the gentlemen here who represent the Department of Agriculture will bear me out when I say to you quite frankly that the great congressional district that Mr. Watts, my colleague, has the honor to represent, which covers the famous bluegrass section of Kentucky, and my great district, the fourth, which is contiguous and adjoining it, the 2 of us together raise approximately 75 percent of the total burley crop of Kentucky, which in turn produces, I think, in the neighborhood of around 67 to 68 percent of the total burley crop of the world. And so, therefore, we have a vital stake in this thing.

For that reason I was delighted to join with my colleague, Mr. Watts, and others in this move here to stop an insidious thing that may like a rat gnaw its way through our entire program. That is exactly what this thing will do if we permit it to go on. It is only 5 million to 15 million pounds now. I can envision it will not be too long until the word gets around, Joe is raising and getting away with it, then Jack will do it next door and then down the line, the road it goes and county after county and the first thing you know, we haven't any program.

I appreciate your courtesy in letting us come here, and to be heard. I will make a little formal statement on this in a few moments, if I will be permitted to do so. But I would like to ask Mr. Williams for the sake of the record: Has there been any check as to the nicotine content on this sucker tobacco? I am told that the nicotine content in the sucker tobacco is much higher than the normal.

Mr. WILLIAMS. There has been. One company made a test.

Mr. ELLIS. We have been informally furnished by some of the manufacturers' chemical analyses of the sucker samples that they have taken, their own results. And the suckers are distinctively different in their chemical constituents. To single out any one element such as the alkaloids, would oversimplify the question of the significant chemical difference between the second-crop tobaccos and the first-crop tobaccos.

Mr. CHELF. Thank you.

Mr. Williams, do I understand that the Department feels that under existing law they cannot cope with this thing, in other words, you must necessarily have this legislation in order to stop this second growth crop?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Let me say it this way: The entire Kentucky delegation, senatorial delegation and the House, most of them have requested that we meet this problem administratively.

At the request of these gentlemen we went to our attorneys, and they turned it down under administrative regulations. We notified these gentlemen that we could not handle it from the administrative standpoint. As the result of that, these bills were introduced.

Mr. CHELF. In other words, you feel that it is a must that this legislation be enacted into law, if we are going to cope with this situa

tion?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Let me get back to this. The Department has not taken any position, but under the present-under present law as our attorneys interpret it, we have no way that we can deal with the problem.

Mr. CHELF. There isn't any doubt if this thing is allowed to grow and expand and develop but that it will eventually destroy our entire tobacco program? Is that a fair statement? It is is allowed to go on and on and on unchecked?

Mr. WILLIAMS. My personal opinion is that it would be detrimental to the future of the program. That is not the Department's position, but my personal position is that every pound of suckers that enters into trade is harmful to the overall burley program.

Mr. CHELF. The more buildup we have of our so-called supplies, the more trouble we find ourselves in.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well not only the supplies but if the quality were the same it would not be as bad, but you are substituting an inferior quality for something superior upon which our foreign trade is really built.

Mr. CHELF. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, in order to conserve time may I be permitted to insert this in the record?

Mr. ABBITT. Yes. Put it in the record as though read.

Mr. CHELF. My name is Frank Chelf, representing the Fourth Congressional District of Kentucky. I appear here today in the interest of my bill, H. R. 11063, and all similar bills which prevent the sale of what is known as "sucker" tobacco.

Frankly, since my colleague, the Honorable John Watts of the Sixth District, introduced the first bill on this subject, I feel that his bill should be given priority in your deliberations.

While the sale of "sucker" tobacco is not a common practice, nevertheless, there has been a marked increase in the sale of "sucker" tobacco within the past few years. Its "weight" and its influence has been felt on the market. Due to the industry's great use, at the present time, of a lower type of tobacco-used with filter cigarettes"sucker" tobacco, therefore, has had a ready market.

As a result, this tends to overstock the tobacco market and harms the sale of higher-quality tobacco which, in the final analysis, results in a penalty to those who live, respect, and abide by our present very fine tobacco program.

In my opinion, if the sale of "sucker" tobacco is permitted to remain unchallenged, serious injury will result to the tobacco program that we have all fought so hard to preserve and protect-it is the cash crop and, therefore, the lifeblood of my farmers.

All of us who introduced this legislation feel that existing law prohibits the sale of "sucker" tobacco, but since the Department of

Agriculture does not agree, we have drafted this legislation to show the absolute intent of Congress to prevent "sucker" tobacco from becoming competitive and, thereby, injurious to our entire tobacco program.

Mr. ABBITT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chelf.

Mr. Spence, we are delighted to have you with us here today and know of your great interest in this tobacco program and we deeply appreciate your coming, and will be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRENT SPENCE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS OF THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Mr. SPENCE. I have no statement to make, Mr. Chairman. I am deeply interested in the problem that is before you, because for the great majority of my farmers the cash crop is burley tobacco.

I am interested in this legislation. Mr. Watts introduced a bill and suggested that I introduce a similar bill, which I did with pleasure. I understand that the second crop produces inferior-grade tobacco. Of course, if that comes in contact with the good tobacco, it depreciates the price. I think that is an economic law that cannot be denied. And I think this is a very important question that you have to decide. There ought to be some control of the planting of the crop-the second crop on the allotted acreage.

I think that is a very important question to be solved for the benefit not only of the growers, but I think it would depress the price, but our foreign market should be considered. If you send an inferior tobacco to them, it will probably have a tendency to ruin the market. And I know this able committee which has made a great study of this question will come to some right solution that will give it help and the protection to our farmers that they need.

I have enjoyed this hearing very much. I come here partly to learn something of the conditions with regard to the bills. It has been a very interesting hearing.

I feel complimented that you gave me the opportunity to come here.

Mr. ABBITT. We appreciate your coming and we deeply appreciate your interest.

Mr. SPENCE. I have a hearing of my own committee, and I have to go.

Mr. ABBITT. We appreciate your coming. I would like the record to show that Senator Cooper from Kentucky expressed his regret that he could not be here today. He wanted me to say, however, that he has introduced a similar bill in the Senate and made a statement explaining it on the floor of the Senate. He was not able to come; his assistant, Mr. Guard, is here.

Mr. JENNINGS. I don't have any questions.

There is something I would like to discuss for a few minutes with Mr. Williams after we have completed here.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, may I make another statement?
Mr. ABBITT. We will be delighted to have you do so.

Mr. BASS. I have always been able to agree with the subcommittee here on just about everything we have ever done and Mr. Watts, who is a great champion of burley and other tobacco, has been a great help to us on the committee. He and I have always agreed in prin

[blocks in formation]

Legislation enacted during 1957 provides authority to conduct complete area work in South Dakota. Supplementing this authority there was a substantial increase in State funds appropriated for brucellosis control and eradication activities. Other improvements in the program include enlargement of laboratory facilities, quarantine of infected herds and the use of properly trained and supervised technicians to supplement the professional force.

The most serious problem preventing faster expansion of the program in South Dakota is the acute shortage of veterinary personnel. Through increased use of qualified technicians this problem will be partially alleviated.

Local brucellosis committees were helpful in obtaining the necessary legislation that now permits complete area work.

It is estimated that by December 31, 1958, twelve counties will be certified and complete area work will be underway in an additional eight counties. A goal for State-wide certification has not yet been established.

There are no provisions in South Dakota for the establishment and maintenance of brucellosis-free swine herds.

« ПретходнаНастави »