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 situation?

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

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.

that my distinguished friend from Kentucky, knowing his long standing on this problem, on the tobacco problems, I do not believe he would oppose a referendum in any case.

Mr. WATTS. Certainly, if the gentleman will yield again, I would not oppose a referendum. But this is a matter that is so fundamental to me, and I think the gentleman will find out it is so fundamental to the tobacco growers in his district.

Mr. BASS. Without_belaboring it or delaying the committee any more, Mr. Chairman, I would like for the record to show that I think this legislation should be explored a little further, and that my personal opinion would be, as my friend from Kentucky's would be, that if we were to have a referendum that it would be passed overwhelmingly and accepted by the growers. When do we have another referendum?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Next year. In February of next year.
Mr. WATTS. This covers all types of tobacco.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back to you.

Mr. ABBITT. Are there any other questions of this witness?

Mr. JENNINGS. Mr. Chairman, do we have any other type of tobacco or any other threat to the program that are similar to this in nature. Let me qualify it a little further. Do we have anything confronting the burley program that is similar to the threat that we had in the other types of tobacco, such as the other large varieties? Mr. WILLIAMS. You mean from the quality standpoint? Not at the present time. I don't think we have a serious quality problem in burley tobacco. It may be in the search for higher yields that one of these days in the future that you will stress this to the extent you will do like we did in flue-cured, affect your quality.

In my opinion, at the present time it is that you do not have a serious threat to quality on burley.

Mr. ELLIS. We do not know about the quality of these varieties. Mr. WILLIAMS. We do have the potential there of that, but up to this time they have not appeared in production to the extent that we have had an opportunity to test the quality of it and it is not a serious threat in our production. Once it hits, then of course it may completely change the picture overnight.

Mr. JENNINGS. Are you familiar with the production of this mammoth, so-called mammoth variety tobacco, and are you looking at the overall as the future effect this might have upon the burleytobacco program?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am looking at it to this extent, the production of it is pretty well limited within the experiment stations I understand at the present time. It is not generally among the farmers. Until it does get out among the farmers, it is not a serious threat. Once it gets to the farmers, then we will be particularly interested in it from the quality of the tobacco that it produces, not necessarily the vield, if it produces a ton or a ton and a half, if the quality is all right; it is all right.

Mr. JENNINGS. Do you have any figures or any records as to the amount of this type of tobacco that is now on hand and has been produced?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not.

Mr. JENNINGS. I ask that for this reason, How would that compare with the amount of sucker tobacco that has been harvested?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would say that it is considerably less.

Mr. JENNINGS. But you have no figures to substantiate that. Mr. WILLIAMS. No. I do not feel that it has entered into the production. There may be some isolated cases where the farmer has gotten some. But it is not a serious threat. We never know when it could be. It could be during these winter months that these seeds have been scattered out and in 1958 it could be a serious thing. The flue-cured problem hit almost overnight.

Mr. JENNINGS. You are familiar with it, and you are officially appraised of the situation that you could give us the information which we need beltwide that would prevent the burley program coming in the same jeopardized position as the flue-cured with the so-called resistant varieties?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am not familiar with, and I don't think we can become familiar with it, unless there is enough production of this type of tobacco for us to analyze and ascertain the quality of that tobacco. Mr. JENNINGS. Let me say this then very frankly, that I am very much interested in that particular phase of this program. And I hope that you will become sufficiently acquainted with it, that it will not reach the stage that the Coker and so-called other varieties reached in the flue-cured tobacco; that it will not reach that stage before we in burley take some action, if action is warranted.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I would appreciate that, and I think you are very wise. We will cooperate with you to give you the full benefit of any information that we can get as we get it.

Mr. JENNINGS. Let me ask that you concern yourself with it to the extent that you seek that information rather than wait until the information happens to descend upon you, because I have reason to believe the threat is much larger than you have indicated to me. I think that it is something which we should be investigating and we should have an eagle eye upon because I think it could wreck our program almost in 1 year or almost overnight. And to me it is something that should be given every consideration before it reaches alarming stages.

Let me say in addressing myself to this problem of suckers I want to associate myself with the remarks that have been made by those who are in support of the program, and I think it is very imperative that we pass legislation which will prevent the growing of sucker tobacco or the growing of 2 crops of tobacco on 1 allotment, on the same acreage.

I think it would be disastrous and ruinous to the program, and I certainly want to advocate that we pass this legislation.

As I understand it, you say it will take legislation and the practice cannot be prevented administratively?

Mr. WILLIAMS. That is true.

Mr. JENNINGS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHELF. May I make one other remark? I would like to have the record straight and clear on one point. In my statement a while ago I may have left the implication or the meaning that I condemn everybody who has raised a sucker crop up to now. Frankly, I cannot blame the farmer, especially the little farmer who has been subjected to financial woes and obligations that he cannot meet for trying to make an extra dollar. The Lord knows he is carrying a terrific burden this day and age, especially down in my part of the country.