Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Mr. ALBERT. We wanted to thank you.

Mr. BERRY. I want to thank you. I would say this: I sent out a questionnaire in my district, and I think probably 50 to 60 percent of the questionnaires that came back from farmers have written on the bottom, under the space provided for remarks, something to the effect that we should have a bushel allotment instead of an acreage allotment for wheat. I am sure it is safe to say that more than 50 percent stated that.

Mr. BELCHER. I have had the same experience. How would you set up a bushel allotment under the present acreage allotment system? Mr. BERRY. I do not think you could.

Mr. Bass. You could have a double allotment system, acres and bushels. In other words, you base his acres, of course, on the history, and then give him what you consider to be an average number of bushels, or the bushels that he will produce, and then he can either market, we will say, 50 acres or a thousand bushels, whichever would be the greater.

Mr. BELCHER. All of us would have to overplant in order to know that he would get his full quota of bushels. They would have to be a violator always.

Mr. Bass. You would not let him be a violator. You would restrict his number of acres to make sure that he did not overproduce.

Mr. BELCHER. Supposing he underproduced !
Mr. Bass. That is so much better—the market improves.

Mr. BELCHER. But that particular man, though, is terribly hurt, isn't he?

Mr. Bass. It makes a better farmer out of him. You will get his number of bushels.

Mr. BELCHER. We had farmers in my area that did not produce over 50 bushels on a 100-acre farm; ordinarily that would produce 3,500.

Mr. ALBERT. Let us keep the committee colloquy down as much as possible. We can do this in executive session. I would like to ask one question before you leave.

I have asked it of the other witnesses on the subject.

If the Committee on Agriculture decides to report an omnibus bill containing various commodities, including wheat, would you favor the two-price system as being in the wheat section of that bill?

Mr. BERRY. I would, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. ALBERT. Thank you very much.
Mr. BERRY. Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. ALBERT. Is there any other Member of Congress present who would like to be heard on these bills?

Mrs. Dow NEY. I told Congressman Horan's secretary that I would get permission for him to file a statement.

Mr. ALBERT. Without objection Congressman Horan, of Washington, may file a statement at this point in the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF Hon. Wat Horan, FIFTH DISTRICT, WASHINGTON Mr. Chairman, I consider it a privilege to again present for the consideration of this committee, H. R. 5308, popularly known as the domestic parity bill.

This bill is the product of the wheat industry of the Pacific Northwest, which industry is searching for a program that would, if this measure were enacted into lar

(1) Eliminate the program of acreage restrictions which are so burdensome a part of the law of 1938 and with which the wheat industry has great difficulty living in the Pacific Northwest where so much of our production programs call for summer fallow;

(2) Set out a program that would give great promise of actually operating at no expense to the Government; and

(3) Progressively remove the Government from its present key position as a part of wheat commerce at home and abroad.

I do hope that the committee will give this bill every sincere consideration.

Mr. ALBERT. I understand there are representatives of various farm and wheat associations here. I think all of you understand that the committee has set aside a period during which we hope that you may all be heard along with the Department and others the second week following Easter, that is the Easter recess rather, April 22.

Is there anything else to be brought before the committee?
Would you like to be heard at this time?

Mr. Floyd Root. I am in town now; if you would choose to hear from me, the National Association of Wheat Growers, I have this statement prepared. If you prefer I could come back later.

Mr. ALBERT. I don't know whether it will be fair to you. I was not aware that you were going to be here to testify this morning.

Mr. Root. This statement includes the program of the National Conference of Commodity Organizations, and also the program of the National Association of Wheat Growers.

Mr. ALBERT. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. ALBERT. Back on the record.

The committee stands adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair or until April 22.

(Whereupon, at 11:35 a. m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was adjourned.)

WHEAT_TREATED FOR SEEDING

PURPOSES

137

WHEAT-TREATED FOR SEEDING PURPOSES

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1958

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMODITY SUBCOMMITTEE ON WHEAT,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a. m., in room 1310, New House Office Building, Hon. Carl Albert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Albert, Jones, Watts, Belcher, Smith, and Krueger.

Also present: Mabel C. Downey, clerk; John J. Heimburger, counsel. Mr. ÅLBERT (presiding). The committee will please come to order.

The committee is meeting this morning to consider two bills of our colleague from Michigan, Mr. Bentley. The bills are H. R. 3360 and H. R. 11581, bills to remove wheat for seeding purposes which has been treated with poisonous substances from the "unfit for human consumption" category for the purposes of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. (H.R. 3360 and H. R. 11581 are as follows:)

[H, R. 3360, 85th Cong., 1st sess.) A BILL To remove wheat for seeding purposes which has been treated with poisonous

substances from the "unfit for human consumption" category for the purposes of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, for the purposes of proclamation numbered 2489 issued May 28, 1941, pursuant to section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (55 Stat. 1649) and paragraph 729 of the Tariff Act of 1930, wheat for seeding purposes which has been treated with poisonous substances shall not be classified as unfit for human consumption.

(H. R. 11581, 85th Cong., 2d sess.) A BILL To remove wheat for seeding purposes which has been treated with poisonous substances from the “unfit for human consumption" category for the purposes of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, for the purposes of proclamation numbered 2489 issued May 28, 1941, pursuant to section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 (55 Stat. 1649) and paragraph 729 of the Tariff Act of 1930, wheat for seeding purposes which has been treated with poisonous substances or otherwise made unfit for human consumption shall not be classified as unfit for human consumption but shall be classified as wheat. This Act shall apply only with respect to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after thirty days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Mr. ALBERT. We will now hear from our colleague from Michigan, Mr. Bentley. We are very pleased to have you here, and we would like to have your statement at this time. 22856–58--pt. 1--10

139

« ПретходнаНастави »