the issue has already been heard and that was heard by Senator Kennedy in Washington, and I think next time, for those of us who have an interest in the future of this State and this country, that we should look at the economic impact and also look at regulations. We will have hearings next month, Barney, by the way, on what regulations and new environmental protection equipment have cost the consumer and how this has fanned inflation in this country. I think maybe we'll find some right interesting testimony, some right interesting facts, and hopefully that will tie into what we are getting into here. The entrenched bureaucrats can regulate what they fail to get by legislation. They legislate by regulation. I'm on your side. I appreciate you all coming very, very much and you have made three excellent witnesses. This completes the testimony, but I'd like to offer the opportunity to anybody in the auditorium who has not testified if they would like to come forward and make a statement. If you would like to do that, I would be more than willing to listen to any of you. I want to present the opportunity to anybody who might be left here today to testify. Is there any such individual in the auditorium that would like to make a statement as it relates to this legislation? [No response.] Senator FORD. I want to thank the Department of Agriculture here for all of their help and Charles Gulley, who's assistant to the dean, has just been fantastic. He's done everything from wiring up the microphones to bringing us coffee and everything else, and nobody could be any more helpful or more congenial than he is and we are just pleased. And I hope that the staff that's here with us today and myself, along with Senator Huddleston and others, can take this type of testimony back to Washington and use it feeling that we can fight the battle with the facts, and I don't think any of those who have gone on the emotional side of this issue have any idea what the economic impact would be to the various States and the businesses even in their States. So this hearing is concluded. We start in the morning at 9 o'clock at Western with another group with the same interests as we have today and we would be delighted to see you there in the morning. [Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to be reconvened in Bowling Green, Ky., at 9 a.m. Tuesday, October 24, 1978.] SMOKING DETERRENCE ACT OF 1978 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 1978 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, SUBCOMMITTEE FOR CONSUMERS, Bowling Green, Ky. The subcommittee met at 9 a.m. in the Downing University Center, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Ky., Hon. Wendell Ford (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT BY SENATOR FORD Senator FORD. If I could have your attention for just a moment. Those of you who do not have seats and want to take seats, there's no reason to make it look like a Baptist church. The front row is empty, you know. I want to introduce all of my folks and be sure I don't miss any. First, on my left is the newest and prettiest lawyer in the State of Kentucky. She'll be sworn in at the court of appeals on Friday. She passed her bar. She is from Hickman, Ky., and she's been on my staff for 3 years and now she's on the Commerce Committee staff in the consumer affairs area, and that's Amy Bondurant. Her father is a circuit judge and she cannot practice before him. The young lady on my right is Martha Maloney, who is from New Castle. Some members of the legislature here will remember Martha as she was very active and probably the top female as it related to the Legislative Research Commission in Kentucky. She's been with my personal staff now for a little better than a year and we are very pleased and very delighted that she could join us. Mary McAuliffe is here somewhere and she's doing a job for me and I want to introduce her to this group. She is representing the Commerce Committee. She is from Louisville and is very active and very helpful as it relates to the Commerce Committee staff. And Steve Halloway is the only non-Kentuckian, but we are about to indoctrinate him. I believe he found out about a brown liquid last night that was very attractive to him and he's going to take some of it back to Washington. Steve Halloway is from Wisconsin. And taking every statement that was made yesterday and that will be made today is Nancy Gibson, to my right, from Washington. She is our committee hearing stenographer. I don't understand how she can hit those keys and come up with what I say, but she's very accurate and we're very pleased to have her. Last night she was putting all her things together after the rest of us had called it a day, but she was still working and we were very pleased. I do want to make an opening statement. I want to also say in the beginning that what we are doing here is very, very important, not only to Kentucky but to the tobacco-producing States and to the total spectrum as it relates to the financial arena, the economic arena of Kentucky and the Nation. One individual I did not introduce that I want to introduce-he's like a little fellow who runs here and there but he always gets the job done. He's from Lexington, Ky., and he's my public relations man, Mike Ruehling. Mike, you were keeping your head down and working and I almost missed you. I want to thank so many of you for coming to the hearing today. I will keep my opening statement brief because the reason we're here is to give you the opportunity to tell the Kentucky side of the story about the importance of tobacco to the economy of not only this State but other parts of the Nation. Smoking has been under attack continuously since tobacco was first introduced over 400 years ago. The controversy over tobacco continues to simmer, not only in Washington but elsewhere. For example, since 1963, at least 30 States and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that ban smoking in certain public places. Antismoking restrictions have been imposed in hundreds of local communities and airlines are now considering banning smoking from all commercial air flights. The most recent controversy over tobacco at the national level has centered around the crusade of Health, Education, and Welfare Secretary Joseph Califano, who has waged virtually a one-man war on tobacco. His request for funds to carry out this campaign were substantially cut by key tobacco-State legislators in Congress. Even though we have been able to hold Califano at bay for the time being, several other attempts were made in the recently concluded 95th Congress to enact legislation that can only be characterized as punitive to the tobacco industry. Among the most publicized of these legislative efforts was the bill introduced late in the session by Senator Edward Kennedy and it's this legislation which is serving as the focal point for these hearings. Even though the bill failed to be brought to the Senate for a vote, Senator Kennedy or others may reintroduce similar legislation, and I expect it to be introduced, including a bill to tax cigarettes on the basis of tar and nicotine content. Thorough and exhaustive hearings have been held to advance the cause for why this legislation should be enacted and every aspect of the health questions surrounding tobacco has been explored in great detail in hearings held by Senator Kennedy. Meanwhile, those who oppose such an approach as the one Senator Kennedy proposes have had little opportunity to make their views known for the record, particularly as they relate to the economic repercussions of this legislation. The proponents of this legislation do not recognize that tobacco is a multibillion dollar business which makes a sizable contribution to the American economy. They do not understand that more than 600,000 farm families, 90 percent of the small family farms in this State alone, derive much of their income from tobacco, and they continue to refuse to consider the argument that the sheer economics of this situation dictate finding a solution rather than abolishing an industry. This is the point that I, along with other tobacco-State Members of Congress, have been trying to get across for years and our arguments are becoming time-worn and weary. We do not want the Congress to be a willing accessory to the further demise of the family farm because unless we find a suitable alternative to growing tobacco that's what will happen, and the people are going to be left with only two choices-to leave the family farm or end up on welfare. I intend for these hearings to reflect the serious nature of this situation. Hopefully, through the testimony that was presented in Lexington yesterday and here today, we will be able to balance a record which at this point is tilted strongly in the antitobacco direction. Abolishing tobacco from the American scene is not the answer to the questions which have been raised. Such an approach is unrealistic and it is unfair. It is also more than 300 years too late. I eagerly look forward to your testimony and, once again thank each of you for the time you have given to provide us with the information that we feel is so important to all of us. The first witness this morning will be State Senator Frank Miller, who represents the 32d District of Kentucky, which comprises Butler, Logan, and Warren Counties. You have two options here this morning, Frank. If you want to read your total statement, that will be fine. If you want to submit it for the record, it will be included in toto and you can hit some highlights, whichever you prefer. We are just delighted to have you here. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK MILLER, STATE SENATOR, 32D DISTRICT, KENTUCKY Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Senator Ford, members of the committee staff, we are very pleased to have you in Bowling Green today on such an important matter. My statement is rather brief. I will read it in its entirety and we have copies for the record. If I should cough this morning, it's not from smoking; it's because I have a cold. I am Frank Miller, State senator for the 32d District of Kentucky. The 32d District consists of Warren, Logan, and Butler Counties. These counties are in a predominately agricultural section of the State. The agriculture is highly diversified including all types of grain crops, dairy and beef cattle, and tobacco farming. The 32d District has 6,075 farmers involved in the production of burley tobacco. The total quota allotment is 10,744,000 pounds. Also, in my senatorial district are two sales markets located in Bowling Green and in Russellville. During the 1977-78 sales season, they sold approximately 21 million pounds of burley. This is twice as much tobacco as was actually grown in the three counties. Although the area I represent would not be considered the prime tobacco growing area as would be the bluegrass region, tobacco growing is very important to the economy of our people. The average net income from tobacco per farm in this three-county area in the 1977-78 season was approximately $2,100. This is lower than the State average of $3,540 per farm on the basis of 142,304 farms. By many standards 37-447-78-7 |