I started farming thirty-some years ago, with ambitions of being probably the biggest tobacco farmer in all of the world, that was my ambition, and this program has completely stalled me from my ambition. And I have learned to cope with it, but that is just to further my point there, that I would clearly recommend no controls, and I think that a lot of us, maybe, would do better if we had less tobacco to plant, actually, and I diversified my farming in recent years and I have increased my annual gross income by so doing.

Tobacco is not our only solution to the farmers in our county; we are blessed with other commodities that we can grow profitably.

I do say, though, that if we do have to have a control, I would go down for dual controls, one for domestic consumption, and one for the foreign trade, and if that means anything, I would like to give you that thought to study.

I think it would be a definite advantage to a lot of small farmers who have 1 or 2 acres or less, if they could, probably, have enough for a barn and they economize, they can grow an extra acre or two without too much increase in cost, and I believe that the Government could be having two programs, one for the domestic trade and consumption here at home, and for the foreign countries, and I would like for you gentlemen this morning who are here to give this serious thought, and I believe that you could come out with something workable, and that probably dual controls would be better than one.

And I will say that the greatest and the best informed man that I have ever heard from on tobacco in this particular section has recommended that we destroy or give away all the surplus tobacco accumulated in the stabilization pool because other than that too many of the tobacco companies, it is being held over our heads, and they fear that they will dump that on the world market at any time.

And he has recommended that stabilization destroy or give away this tobacco and keep it from hanging over our heads. The stabilization, I am sure, will resent that suggestion because they have the program and it has not worked, and I predict that in less than 2 years it will have to go under, and it might be it can be saved by having a dual control on the world trade.

Senator SCOTT. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF VICTOR DAVIS, MILLWOOD, GA.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I am Victor Davis, Millwood, Route 2. I think a temporary solution for this is your acreage control and your soil bank and no support price for off-type tobacco, I think that would be a temporary solution, if not permanent, and then if we have controls on the State level instead of the flue-cured belt, I think that that would suit the farmers of Georgia and Florida just fine.

As far as tobacco is concerned, if the companies would advocate or let the growers know in advance the type of tobacco they prefer, I think the farmers of the State of Georgia can produce that type of tobacco, regardless of the yield and poundage.

Thank you.

Senator SCOTT. I believe those are all of the witnesses.

Now, Mr. Wingate has been simmering here, and by now he ought to be sort of boiled out. It's your turn, Mr. Wingate.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF H. S. WINGATE

Mr. WINGATE. Well, Senator, I have been through the mill before and I know how it is.

Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen, I am not here to discuss this matter any further. I merely want to clear up one or two things that have been said with reference to the position of the Farm Bureau and my statement.

I would just like to say that these meetings were called because we knew that there was some kind of legislation coming up and we wanted to find out where the farmers stood on it, just like we did on all of the support programs and all the farm programs.

As I said this morning, we publicized the meeting and we had an attendance over in the courthouse, and it was intimated that I sort of dominated the meeting. Well, I stayed merely an hour, I presided, refusing to close the meeting until I heard from everybody to be heard from, and took a vote on it, and I told them in the beginning it was not my program, that we were there merely to explain that and they can vote it up or down.

So, I just wanted to clarify that.

Then, Mr. Chairman, the statement has been made that I have said the farmers were unanimously for it; I never have made such statement. I say that the majority that I have discussed it with were for it, and I just want to clarify that.

One other thing, there has been something mentioned about stabilization here. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I want to clarify this. That tobacco stabilization does not buy that tobacco, they have to take it; they have to take it, under the law, anything; it is bought if the Government does not want to sell at less than the loan price; they have to take it and handle it the best way that they can.

Now, I don't know, I don't think we want to change that program, although I know, but I certainly would not want the farmers to think that stabilization is in there buying tobacco. They are not-and our stabilization is our lifesaver-and I just wanted to clarify that, and thank you.

Whatever the farmers want, that is exactly what we want, too, and when it gets to where I cannot go along with what the farmers want, then is the time for me or anybody else to quit, because that is not a position for the president of any organization to take.

But the only method that I had to find out how the farmers felt after we had the meetings, and I told Mr. Ursrey, he was there, that I would not go to the Congress until we went back and had more meetings to find out where the farmers stood-and perhaps a lot of them did change their minds, they voted against it, out of about 75, he said that 4 men changed their minds-I don't know; all I know is the record, and we presented it for them to make their choice. Thank you.

Senator SCOTT. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Ellis.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF FRANK R. ELLIS

Mr. ELLIS. Thank you, Senator.

I am not going to go through it again, I don't believe you wish me to do that.

There are 2 or 3 factual points that I would like to go into because obviously I did not get them across this morning, and I am only interested in seeing that you understand this.

I also want you to understand that, as a Government employee, it makes no difference to me in my job what kind of a program you operate under, whether you want to control your acreage and grow all that you can on an acre, or whether you want to control your poundage, or whether you want to work under a combination—it is your choice.

But I do think it ought to be clear that no employee of the Department of Agriculture came down here and recommended it, because, in the first place, we are not recommending anything at this time. We were asked to explain this system, and we certainly are not explaining anything that suggests that you must lower your yield per acre or suggest that you must grow your 6,000 pounds on 4 acres.

It is fairly apparent that many of you feel this was designed as another way to reduce your allotment below its present level. That is not the case.

It is true that the 125-percent limit, if that is the way it were done, would have that effect on those farmers over the 125-percent limit.

However, the proposal does not require you to grow 1,200 pounds to the acre and grow it on 4 acres, and actually, I believe, if you will analyze it, if you once accept the division of the poundage, which is 1 of the 2 basic elements of the quota program-one, it must be capable of division in the manner you growers who are affected by it will accept as fair and equitable, and if you don't accept it as fair and equitable you have no program; and second, it must be enforcible, but once you accept whatever method, then the question is how you want to operate it.

If you agree you have made a fair division of the quota and if this proposal is the way you wish to run the program, then you take your share and grow it on as large a number of acres as you wish, and, as a practical matter, you can arrange it that way. If you want to grow your 6,000 pounds on 2 or 3 acres the program would permit you to do that. It would not permit you initially to grow more than your acreage allotment, but you can always grow less.

Now, I think there should be no mistake about this. This is not a program designed to reduce incentive to produce the maximum return that you can get of your share of the market. It relates to the question of your share of the market-I don't want to labor this point, but I feel I failed this morning to get it across to you, how this thing would work, and I guess it is too late to try now. But let me nail down one or two points

Mr. QUINCY. You are failing now; no doubt about it.

Mr. ELLIS. There have been some misstatements about the yield in North Carolina that should be corrected. I do not believe you want to leave here with the record as incorrect as it has been on that.

The yield per acre in North Carolina for 1955 was 1,525 pounds per acre; in 1954, 1,207; in 1953, 1,235; in 1952, 1,222; in 1951, 1,331; and in 1950, 1,341.

A VOICE. How much was the 39 variety?

Mr. ELLIS. A good question. That is what I was coming to. There was no 139 or 140 or 244 until 1954, when a very small amount was

planted, but the 1955 crop is the first one that has any significant 139 influence in it.

A VOICE. How much did stabilization get, what percentage in Carolina and what percentage in Georgia?

Mr. ELLIS. I will get to that in a minute. Let me complete the record on this yield.

The yield in Georgia was 1,464 for 1955; 1,172 for 1954; 1,267 for 1953; 1,115 for 1952; 1,225 for 1951.

The yield, in other words, in North Carolina and South Carolina has traditionally run higher than the Georgia yield.

Mr. QUINCY. The same varieties?

Mr. ELLIS. Would reasonably expect to run about 100 pounds higher than yours, that is the picture, that is the point I wanted to get across I am not arguing with you, but I feel you are entitled to know the facts.

The Carolina yields before 139 came into the picture normally ran about 100 pounds or so above the average of Georgia's yield.

Now, the average soil-bank yield

Mr. QUINCY. How about stabilization; how much did they get of the yield?

Mr. ELLIS. In Georgia, I can give you the exact figures out of my file.

Mr. QUINCY. It was 7.2 in Georgia; with reference to North Carolina

Mr. ELLIS. You mean last year?

Mr. QUINCY [continuing]. How much was it?

Mr. ELLIS. I want to tell you that I think that your Extension Service down here has done a good job, and your farm bureau has given you mighty good advice, and I think it was good that you followed it, that you did not start the production of these varieties in this belt

Mr. QUINCY. What percentage did stabilization take out of those? Mr. ELLIS. They took last year around 25 percent up there, and around 7 percent down here.

Mr. QUINCY. About three times as much?

Mr. ELLIS. That is right.

But there have been years, sir, though, when the Georgia-Florida take has exceeded other areas.

Mr. QUINCY. That is in particular years?

Mr. ELLIS. That is right.

Mr. QUINCY. How about the average?

Mr. ELLIS. The average-Georgia has a favorable balance with the rest of them in terms of the amount taken under loan, because you stayed off of the 139 variety the last 2 years and have protected the quality of your product, for which I think you should be commended.

And I think that we also should note that there is only a relatively small percentage of that North Carolina land that is disease infested; there is not too much, they have a great deal of land available for the production of tobacco that is not disease infested, and the same is true in Virginia and South Carolina.

Now, one more thing that I think we ought also to note, and that is that there is about 35 million pounds of Georgia-Florida tobacco of old crop under loan.

Mr. QUINCY. That was during the years they had the drought; isn't that true?

Mr. ELLIS. No.

There is one more point. Reference was made to one of the major companies recommending that some of this tobacco be destroyed.

Well, actually, there are about over 600 million pounds in stabilization corporations' inventory. That recommendation was for the destruction of 150 million pounds or 200 million pounds, that being the outside estimate of the amount of these varieties held under loan by stabilization.

Now, I would ask you to seriously consider whether you think you can continue to have price support at 90 percent of parity and take the kind of loss which would be involved in destroying $100 million worth of tobacco. I think you should give that consideration.

Senator SCOTT. We have one other statement to be heard, which will only take 2 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JOHN GIBSON

Mr. GIBSON. I have been here all afternoon off and on, and I can say this to you: That I do not have time to assay the question, but I have served as prosecuting attorney for 12 years of my life, and as a Congressman for 6, and a lawyer, and a good part of my time as a farmer, and I have farmed more time than all the three of them put together, and I want to say this to you farmers:

That I have made a close study of this thing, and I think it would be disastrous for you to change from the acreage to the poundage quota.

And I ask all of you to give serious consideration. It is not a matter of me wanting to tell you what to do, I don't, but I think I have said. enough for you to know that you are cutting your own throat, and I want you to think seriously before you do it.

I want to thank you, Senator, for this privilege.
Senator SCOTT. Thank you.

Now, it has been wonderful for you folks to come here today, listening to what has been said and giving us all the benefits of your views. I am now going to ask the president of this college, President Smith, to dismiss this meeting with a prayer.

(An invocation was delivered by President Smith.)

(Thereupon, the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 11 a. m.. March 27, 1957, at Florence, S. C.)