interested in this matter and all other matters that affect his constituents and people as a whole. I understand, Congressman, that you have some of your constituents here.

Mr. BURNSIDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate those good words. We all like good words like that. We are very fortunate in having a good farmer to represent the West Virginia tobacco farmers today. He is secretary of the West Virginia Tobacco Farmers. He has also represented the Farm Bureau of the State of West Virginia, and he represents West Virginia on the Eight State Committee. It gives me pleasure to introduce a good down-to-earth farmer to speak He is no lawyer. He will just tell you how the farmers in West Virginia feel about this problem. Mr. Clayton Stanley, from Hurricane, West Virginia.

to us.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stanley, we are glad to have you.

STATEMENT OF CLAYTON STANLEY, FIELD REPRESENTATIVE, WEST VIRGINIA FARM BUREAU

Mr. STANLEY. Thank you. I will have to differ with you. You said a good farmer. If you left the word "good" out, I would perhaps have felt better about it.

Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I do have a prepared statement to present to you today. Perhaps first I should apologize for not having enough copies to give everyone. I happen to be just an ordinary hill billy farmer, and when I first came here, I only had a penciled copy. Being my first time to appear before a committee, I really didn't know just what to do.

I have some 3 or 4 copies that I had a secretary this morning type for me. I would be glad to present these to the committee so you can follow me.

I am Clayton Stanley, field representative of the West Virginia Farm Bureau. The West Virginia Farm Bureau wishes to commend the Senate and House Agriculture Committees for recognizing the seriousness of the present burley tobacco situation. We appreciate this opportunity to appear before this committee with regard to our suggestions as to how we think some of these problems confronting the burley growers today can be solved.

We favor continued acreage contracts.

We also favor the legislative recommendation of the Eight-State Burley Tobacco Committee, submitted to the Secretary as of February 19, 1955, namely:

A. To discourage production of excess tobacco:

1. Provide that production of nonquota tobacco shall not give any entitlement to a quota.

2. Provide that excess production by an allotment producer shall result in a penalty of allotment reduction in an amount equal to the excess production in the prior year.

3. Provide for a civil penalty that will constitute a more effective deterrent to excess production.

a. Increase the penalty on marketing excess tobacco to 75 percent of the previous year's average market price.

b. Provide that penalty is imposed to implement public policy. B. To improve measurement by statutory provision for it with standards and penalties clearly defined:

1. Require aerial surveys annually.

2. Eliminate tolerance in calculations of acreage.

3. Provide for criminal punishment as misdemeanor of not more than 1 year or not more than $10,000 or both for willful inaccurate measurement, making the penalty cover the Government employee only.

Č. To amend title 7, United States Code Annotated, section 1315, to establish a minimum allotment of 10 percent rather than 25 percent of the crop-land.

D. To provide that whenever there is an increase in quota, the increase shall be shared only by those having taken a decrease in quota in a prior year until all decreases have been restored. As far as the foreseeable future is concerned, this would benefit only those growers who have taken curtailments within the past 2 crop years, but, in any event, every segment of the industry ought to recognize that restorations of cuts should be shared only by those who have suffered cuts until original quotas have been fully restored.

E. To authorize Secretary of Agriculture to redetermine and set marketing quotas for 1955.

We also recommend that any allotment lost by a grower through condemnation procedure for industrial or governmental purposes shall be held within the county and returned to the said grower upon his purchase of another farm within the burley tobacco area of the State. We favor the present minimum allotment act.

We are opposed to poundage control.

Likewise, we are opposed to plant (number of plants per acre) control.

We wish to incorporate as part of our recommendations a letter written by the Secretary of the West Virginia Burley Tobacco Growers Association, to Secretary Benson:

Hon. EZRA TAFT BENSON,

HURRICANE, W. Va., March 2, 1955.

Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: You have in your possession 3 documents, 2 of which, dated February 19, 1955, signed by John M. Berry, chairman, Eight-State Burley Tobacco Committee, 620 South Broadway, Lexington, Ky., and the other dated February 23, 1955, signed by W. L. Staton, executive secreary-treasurer, Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association, Lexington, Ky., recommending legislative and administrative changes in the burley tobacco program.

I

May I have this opportunity to set the record clear in regard to the above three documents. I am a life-long burley tobacco producer, starting in 1934 under the old AAA burley program with a burley tobacco base of 5 acres, and this year, 1955, this same farm of mine has a burley base of 110 acres. am a director from West Virginia, district 22, Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association, Lexington, Ky.; a member from West Virginia of the EightState Burley Tobacco Committee, 620 South Broadway, Lexington, Ky.; secretary, West Virginia Burley Tobacco Growers Association; secretary of the Putnam County (W. Va.) Burley Tobacco Growers Association; and field representative of the West Virginia Farm Bureau.

I heartily recommend to you all of the administrative and legislative proposals submitted to you by the Eight-State Burley Tobacco Committee, which are primarily aimed at strengthening our present burley program. But, on the other hand, I view with alarm three of the recommendations of the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association, Lexington, Ky., February 23, namely: Legislative proposals Nos. 5, 8 and 9. My reasons for bitterly objecting to these three recommendations are as follows:

Recommendation No. 5 which reads, "Poundage control in conjunction with acreage control be established and the maximum production to be limited to 1800 pounds per acre * **" I am opposed to any program that will eliminate

individual initiative. We have thousands of growers throughout the Burley Belt who are producing over 2,500 pounds per acre, who were compelled of necessity due to their small subsistence allotments to use better cultural methods, better resistant varieties, and better care in order to secure the maximum production per acre. It would be unjust and ill advised now to tell these growers that they can only produce and market 1,800 pounds per acre. This provision would tend to nullify the very things that our Extension Service, through the helpful programs of our county agricultural agents, have so admirably promoted.

Recommendation No. 8, which reads, "All minimum allotment provisions of the present act be repealed," I feel would completely destroy our burley program. We must keep in mind that out of the total of 323,400 burley farm allotments, there are 207,100 farms with an allotment of 0.7-acre or less, or 64 percent of all our burley growers have an allotment of 0.7 or less. Also, we must bear in mind that each of the 323,400 Burley farmers have 1 vote in the referendum to establish quotas, and quotas must be supported by a two-thirds vote. I feel that the small allotment holders of 0.7-acres or less, who are in the majority, will vote against quotas if they have no protection against acreage cuts. On the other hand, if the present law is changed to permit acreage cuts to the small allotment holders, it will not be but a few years till they will be completely out of production. At that time, the larger allotment holders will have a complete monopoly. I am against monopoly, be it in labor, capital, or agriculture.

Recommendation No. 9 which reads, "The Secretary of Agriculture be authorized to redetermine and set marketing quotas for 1955: Provided, however, That any cut in the aggregate (including the 10 percent cut heretofore announced for the 1955 crop) he might make, will affect all growers of burley tobacco alike." I am opposed to this recommendation for the same reason as I opposed recommendation No. 8.

May I call to your attention, Mr. Secretary, that I feel that all the recommendations submitted to you on February 23, 1955 by the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association are completely out of order. This association is not a policymaking organization. We have no way of knowing what our members are for or against. This association is elected and organized for the sole purpose of administering the burley loan program, which has been well done. I feel that this association should devote its time and effort to administration of the burley program, and leave the legislative processes to policymaking and policy executing organizations such as the Farm Bureau.

I herewith enclose the tabulated results of a burley referendum conducted in 1953 by the West Virginia Farm Bureau, which shows that over 85 percent of the burley growers in this State, who were mailed a ballot to vote on the question-"Do you favor protecting the small burley allotment holders of 0.9-acres or less against cuts?" voted "Yes." I feel that the opinion of the burley growers in West Virginia is no different from the opinion of the growers in other States if they only could voice their feelings.

May I suggest, Mr. Secretary, that before you act on the recommendations submitted to you from the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association, Lexington, Ky., that you learn the names and addresses of each director present at this particular February 23d meeting, and from the record, check on the size of allotment or allotments each of these directors now holds, and try to determine if the recommendations submitted by them could have been for a personal or selfish motive. I do not know how many or which of the directors were present on February 23 at the specially called meeting to adopt these recommendations, as I did not receive my copy of the announcement of the meeting until February 25, and thus did not attend the meeting.

I trust that you will give careful consideration to our burley program, and pray that the Christ I try to serve will lead your heart and mind in the right decision.

Sincerely yours,

CLAYTON STANLEY,

Secretary, West Virginia Burley Tobacco Growers Association. Mr. STANLEY. We believe that those suggestions and recommendations would be beneficial to the burley program with no unjust hardship on any segment of the industry. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee today and we certainly hope that our program will be seriously considered by this subcommittee. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you excuse us, please. There is a rollcall, and we will have to go. We will return in 20 or 30 minutes, and then hear the balance of your statement and those of other groups.

Senator BARKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I can return after the rollcall. I came here to manifest my interest in this legislation. I am not quite certain I can come after the rollcall because of the press of duties in the Senate. If I can, I will be glad to. If I cannot, you will understand my reason for not coming. I wanted to come here to express my interest in the legislation, and if an opportunity is afforded, to say a few words about it. Will your hearings go beyond today?

The CHAIRMAN. We hope to conclude with the growers today, and then next week to hear Member of Congress.

(Recess taken for rollcall in the House.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order, please.

We certainly thank you for your statement, Mr. Stanley, and appreciate your coming.

Mr. STANLEY. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Polk desires to ask some questions at this time. Mr. POLK. First, Mr. Stanley, I want to compliment and commend you for your very fine statement on this very important and very difficult problem.

Mr. STANLEY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. POLK. May I say that the views that you have expressed here so far as I can learn appear to be the views of most of the burley tobacco growers in the area that I have the honor of representing. We both represent areas where most of the growers are the small growers of 0.7 of an acre or less.

I was very much interested in your statement concerning the recommendations of the Eight State Committee. I am wondering if you have a copy of these recommendations that you could put in the record as a part of your statement. You have referred to legislative proposals 5, 8, and 9. I thought it might be helpful if you would secure for us, if you do not have it at the present time, a copy of those recom

mendations and put it in the record as a part of your testimony. Mr. SHUFORD. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLK. Yes.

Mr. SHUFORD. I want to state that Mr. Higdon, the first witness after lunch, put in a copy of that statement in the record.

Mr. POLK. I am glad to know that is in the record so we can tie that up with your testimony.

Mr. STANLEY. May I say this in reference to your question, that the reference I made to proposals 5, 8, and 9 were in reference to proposals made by the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association and not the Eight State Committee.

Mr. POLK. I am glad to be corrected on that. I wonder if you could put that in the record if it has not already been included. Do you have a copy of those recommendations?

Mr. STANLEY. I have, sir.

Mr. POLK. I believe it would be very helpful.

Mr. STANLEY. I believe Mr. Berry has already put it in.

Mr. POLK. In any event, I believe it should be in the record. I believe your suggestions with reference to certain of those legislative proposals are very apropos.

I would just like to call your attention to another thing. In our wheat program we have established, as is well known, a 15-acre allotment minimum. No wheat farmer is cut below 15 acres in his wheat allotment. Mr. Stanley, do you not think it is fair to apply some such rule to the tobacco farmer? What are your comments on that?

Mr. STANLEY. I would say, sir, that I certainly think it is fair to have a minimum allotment for our tobacco growers. The statement has been made today that it is not fair to allow a certain segment of the burley program to be protected from cuts. I would like to say that these boys of 0.7 or less have already been cut to the place that they are almost on subsistence at this time. I certainly feel that if they are not protected, many of them will soon be out of production and it is going to have a very serious influence on the continuation of our pro

gram.

Mr. POLк. I heartily agree with you, Mr. Stanley, with your estimate of the situation. I feel that in the area I represent in southern Ohio, where conditions are very similar to those in West Virginia, that our burley tobacco growers have been cut to the irreducible minimum if they are going to remain in the tobacco business.

Again I want to thank you for your very clear statement on this. I have had the feeling as I have listened to this testimony that probably you are the first witness that we have had who is actually speaking for the best interests of this great mass of 207,000 small burley tobacco growers.

Mr. STANLEY. I would like to say this in answer to your statement. I certainly feel that I am speaking in the interest of our tobacco program as a whole, and not only in the interest of the small growers, but of the larger growers themselves. I am fearful, sir, that if we don't protect these small acreage allotment holders, that our program will completely fail. I do not want that to happen. I believe in this program, sir, I think it has been a wonderful help to our tobacco farmers in this country, and I want our program continued. I do want some of the loopholes plugged, and help prevent excess red-card tobacco that has been, I feel, primarily responsible for putting us in the condition that we are in today.

Mr. POLK. Thank you, Mr. Stanley. I certainly appreciate your views on this subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stanley, we certainly appreciate your being here. Unless there are other questions, that will be all, sir.

Mr. STANLEY. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like at this time to recognize Mr. Jennings from the second best district in Virginia. Mr. Jennings. I would like to say for the benefit of those present Mr. Jennings is one of the most active members of this committee. It is a privilege to serve with him here. We are glad to recognize him at this time.

Mr. JENNINGS. I feel that the first thing I should do for the benefit of the record is correct the error that I am sure was in advertent on the part of the chairman in stating that I represented the second best district. I represent not only the best district of Virginia, but the best district in the whole United States.

I have the privilege of having present here today the president of the Burley Tobacco Growers Association of Virginia, and also the secretary. It has been my pleasure to be associated with both of these