[Because of the sensitivity of these discussions, and concerns that statements intended as inquiry or preliminary proposals might be interpreted otherwise, no effort is made to relate specific statements or ideas with individuals except as required for understanding. If you have questions about any portions of the meeting, we suggest that you contact a participant or Frank Dukes (804-924-2041).]

The meeting began with introductions of the participants and statements of what they hoped to achieve during the day. Key themes ranged from general statements about an opportunity to learn from one another and the hope that face-to-face discussions would clarify areas of agreement, to specific mention of protecting farm equity built up over generations and continuing tobacco farming communities' ability to educate their members and provide for their general welfare.
 

UPDATE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION FOR THE TOBACCO PROGRAM

Advocates for the LEAF Act, introduced by Senator Ford of Kentucky, and advocates for what is called the "Robb" plan, introduced by Sen. Robb of Virginia, explained how their most important needs would be met by the two plans. Key functions of the plans follow:

Sen. Ford's LEAF Act:

• Keeps small farms viable;
• Levels the playing field among larger and smaller growers;
• Provides assurance of government enforcement of a public tobacco program;
• Provides a shield of sorts for the tobacco producers relative to the manufacturers;
• Unites farmers;
• Keeps price supports;
• Continues the ability to acquire the right to produce tobacco (to purchase quota);
• Provides for farm-based development through its economic development funding.

Sen. Robb's bill:

• Protects equity by compensating quota holders and producers through buy-out and transition payments;
• Protects the program from annual assaults, if part of a 25-year global settlement;
• Allows family transfers of a right to produce;
• Offers some price support;
• Allows for acquisition of quota under some conditions.

Tobacco growers clarified the differences among different categories of producers. "Quota owners" refers to ownership of the farm which has the quota; a "lessee" has bargained with the quota owner for the right to produce any or all of that quota; and a "tenant" produces the tobacco on the quota owners' farm. Tobacco producers may own some quota, lease some, and serve as a tenant as well.

It was also noted that no program, whether private or not, is immune from Congressional action. Participants generally agreed that the greater the amount of input to and support for any plan as it is being developed, the more likely it is to avoid or survive challenges. It was noted that any plan for compensation will face opposition, particularly from those from outside of the tobacco growing regions and those who do not want to see absentee landlords offered substantial sums of money. The producers emphasized how the quota represents an investment as real as property, whether the owner lives on the farm or off.

While the LEAF Act is generally supported most by burley tobacco producers, and the Robb plan is generally supported most by flue-cured tobacco producers, there were elements of both plans which appeared attractive to both groups. A question about the possibility of two plans, one for flue-cured growers and one for burley growers, was answered by the observation that it would be impossible to get producers to agree to two plans. It was noted that a modified version of the LEAF Act, which would provide for a voluntary buyout of quota among other changes, is to be introduced by Congressman Baesler of Kentucky. Tobacco producer and health participants both offered strong support for bringing together the legislators offering these competing proposals to create a program which would address the needs and concerns of all growers. A letter to Sens. Ford, Robb, and Helms urging them to work together was drafted at the end of the meeting and signed by those participants who stayed for lunch (see enclosure).
 

UPDATE ON NATIONAL TOBACCO CONTROL LEGISLATION

Members of the public health community offered their assessment of the prospects of any national tobacco control legislation. There was general agreement that the prospects are uncertain. It may be that legislation will occur in separate pieces rather than as a comprehensive program.

Two coalitions of public health groups have been formed, "ENACT" and "Save Lives Not Tobacco." The major distinction is that the latter opposes any form of limitations of liability for the industry. It was noted that the principle goals of both groups included statements of support for tobacco farming communities [see enclosure for requested copies of the two groups' goal statements]. It was pointed out how the concerns about litigation against the industry extend all the way to the farm and farmers.

It was emphasized that it is unlikely that any health group would endorse any one piece of legislation concerning national tobacco control legislation, much less legislation concerning the tobacco program. At most, they will comment about how portions of legislation are consistent or inconsistent with their stated policy goals, which are generally stated in broad terms. Given the uncertainties surrounding national tobacco control legislation, and the efforts being made by public health groups to ensure that their priorities are addressed in any such legislation, there is "uneven attention" being paid to the concerns of tobacco producing communities.
 

STATEMENT OF "CORE PRINCIPLES"

There was considerable discussion of the "Core Principles Statement" which had been developed since the Dec. 3 meeting. A statement was read from a public health advocate who could not attend the meeting, expressing her support for the Statement as well as continued support for tobacco producing communities.

There were concerns expressed that the Statement had been developed and circulated for endorsement without adequate consultation by certain tobacco producers. It was explained that at the end of the Dec. 3 meeting one public health participant asked that the growers to say what public health goals they would be willing to support. A grower responded that Scott Ballin had sent him a document and that they agreed to most of what he wrote. Other participants asked to see this document, and the Southern Tobacco Communities Project agreed to distribute it and serve as contact point for discussion and editing.

A number of phone calls were convened by the Project to discuss the Statement. At some point those individual working most on the Statement made a decision that they would circulate the revised Statement for endorsement, even without the support of a number of major groups. However, participants agreed that they should continue to work to gain broader support.

A number of concerns were raised about the Statement in its Jan. 8 version. Participants agreed to changes clarifying the support for a tobacco program and use of any excise tax money. There was concern raised about an endorsement of "local" legislation for preventing youth access to tobacco products. That language is not acceptable to groups which do not support "local option" legislation currently being considered in Kentucky. Public health advocates felt that they could not change that language at this point without jeopardizing the endorsements they have received from their organizations.
 

The Institute for Environmental Negotiation agreed to circulate the revised "Statement of Core Principles" to the Project mailing list, along with a list of endorsees, and a statement that participation in these discussions does not imply endorsement of the Statement. Concern was again expressed that the process used for developing any consensus document should be open and inclusive.
 

CONCLUSION

An informal lunch was provided, which allowed for further discussion. Participants asked one another to find ways in which they could educate others about what they have learned through these discussions.