Слике страница
PDF
ePub

In case it has not been called to the attention of the committee, the resolutions of the American Farm Bureau Federation on this problem are also in line with our position. Quote:

Recent legislation designed to prevent wheat growers from building up allotments by overseeding should be retained; however, we favor an amendment to provide that this rule shall not operate to reduce a farm's allotment base.

Also on market quota penalties: We recommend that the penalties on the marketing of over-quota production be increased to 75 percent of the support price for wheat.”

I might add that we have been under somewhat of a handicap trying to prepare a statement for the committee and trying to arrive at some satisfactory solution to this problem after hearing the testimony previously presented the committee.

(Appendixes of this statement are as follows:)

[blocks in formation]

3.8

Arkansas.
California.
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois.
Indkna.
Iowa..
Kansas.
Kentucky
Maryland.
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri.
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon..
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee.
Virginia.
Washington.
West Virginia.
Wisconsin..

210
301

32
124
1, 223
1, 819
1, 296

148 7, 199

294

172 1, 005

14.7 18. 2 18. 9 13.3 26.7 19.8 20. 7 19.8 15. 8 15.6 19.3 25. 6 17.5 17.0 17.4 21.0 23.2 26. 2 16.0 14.5 23.0 25. 7 21.7 14.6 14. 2 18.1 26.4 18.6 23.6

23.8 20.9 26.4 18.0 33.0 30.4 28.9 24.8 16.8 22.8 25. 2 29.4 20.0 28.6 19.8 22. 6 29. 6 31.9 21.9 15.0 26.0 30.9 26.8 19.6 19.0 24. 2 31. 5 23. 2 25. 7

1,911,000

812, 700 240,000

582, 800 7, 704, 900 19, 281, 400 10, 627, 200

740, 000 7, 199, 000 2, 116, 800 1,014, 800 3, 819,000 1, 817, 500 21, 761, 600 10, 418, 400 5, 278. 400

Total

727 1, 876 4,341 3, 299

62 260

376 6, 481 1, 524

786 563 204 243

267
1, 964

35
57

2.5
11.6
2.4
1.6
6.4
5.7
5.9

.5 3.0 5. 2 5. 1 5.0 4.8 6.1 5. 1 4.6 2.1

396, 800 1, 482, 000 2, 218, 400 3, 240, 500 4, 572, 000 4,087, 200 2, 871, 300 1,020,000 1, 166, 400 1, 628, 700 10,016, 400

161, 000 119, 700

36, 888

128, 305, 900

States showing lower yield: Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming.

[graphic]

1, 562

632 12,046 35, 696

840 62, 906 21, 752

5, 230 31, 148 20, 829

3, 139 12,617 15, 268

3,627 18,877 3, 282 1, 303 4, 002

360

APPENDIX B

Farms with allotments of 15 acres or less

Esti- Estimated mated seeded allotment acres acres

Number of farms

153, 985

8, 908 53, 604

4,081 83, 577 117, 336 813, 783 611, 384

61, 157
318, 788
48, 223

10, 149
1, 262
4, 377

1, 581
23, 132
49, 841
249, 091
247, 488

8,854 115, 044 29, 136

143, 836

7, 646 49, 227

2, 500 60, 445 67, 495 564, 692 363, 896

52, 303 203, 744 19, 087

2, 876, 720

168, 212 1, 206,062

55,000

97,342 2, 497, 315 11,858, 532 9, 279, 348 1, 396, 490 3, 871, 136

372, 196

37, 435 517, 354 164, 019

19, 060 243, 909 33, 509

18, 375 273, 445 130, 510

395, 062 7,929, 905 2,949, 526

3, 927 49, 744 14, 271

998, 294

19, 627 159, 025

273, 264

6, 293 51, 283

725, 030

13, 334 107, 742

16, 675, 690

264, 013 2,898, 260

80, 262

1, 877 13,300

15, 505 7,514 7, 991

3, 813 1, 015 2,798 112, 787 50, 307 62, 480 261, 059 97, 386 163, 673

9, 525 3, 278 6, 247 664, 870 384, 212 280, 658 258, 031 48, 302 209, 729 54, 136 14, 504 39, 632 265, 443 157, 383 108, 060 162, 400 40, 305 122, 095

36, 626 6, 757 29, 869 119, 059 36, 839 82, 220 111, 001 33, 174 77, 827

29, 037 11, 165 17, 872 139, 805 57, 626 82, 179 35, 492 9, 176 26, 316 48, 238 10, 532 37, 706 29, 557

8, 311 21, 246 29, 452 1, 186 28, 266 6,556, 416 2,346, 245 4, 210, 171

235, 734

45, 048 2,061, 840 3, 109, 787

117, 444 6, 174, 476 2,621, 612 1, 426, 752 2, 809, 560 2, 197, 710

603, 354 1, 397, 740 1, 128, 492

419, 992 1, 561, 401

960, 534 791, 826 541, 773

624, 679 94, 520, 563

21.7

621, 487 APPENDIX C

[graphic]

1956 crop wheat

Total bushels

of excess
wheat

Stored in
warehouse

State

Bushels on which penalty

was paid

0 5, 457 106, 107

0
180
64, 177

403
606

0
60, 546

0 588 1,318

0
2, 545
12, 207
161, 036

Arkansas.
California
Colorado
Delaware
Georgia.
Idaho
Illinois.
Indiana.
Iowa.
Kansas.
Kentucky
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri.
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey.
New Mexico.
New York.
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio..
Oklahoma.
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee.
Texas.
Utah.
Virginis.
Washington.
West Virginia
Wisconsin.
Wyoming-

Total.

3,577 20, 012 486, 595

481 2,627 630, 673 32, 884 22, 282

1, 679 632, 644

6, 735 5,827 33, 122 19, 808

81, 812 2, 004, 811 3, 222, 542

4, 204 4,917 20, 940 13, 806 68, 933 58, 649 668, 901 56, 945 17, 017

2, 535 101, 634

5, 148 20, 278 185, 588

8, 442 778, 594

1, 603

4,642 488,651

108 289, 182

3,577 13,451 109, 097

417 2, 447 134, 459 27, 608 17,729

1, 283 328, 371

6,510 5, 199 30, 715

8, 650 75, 779 191, 627 774, 265

3,163 4, 917 16, 404 13, 666 24, 024 44, 811 322, 315 30, 326

8,652 2, 535 33, 821 5,046 19, 226 27, 761

7, 886 567, 483

1, 109

4.534 179, 144

7, 794

5, 317 255, 256 10, 434 1,627

0 5, 783

0 790 26, 939

0 58, 409

0 20, 325 807, 844

9, 719, 538

5,863, 687

3,048, 007

[blocks in formation]

Mr. HUGHES. I would like to give you our recommendations on the two alternatives that have been presented by the folks from the Department this morning.

We feel very friendly toward the latter one, whereby the grower who is out of compliance now because of this change in the law, which he did not know about, would be given his base acreage as far as its effect on future allotments, next year, he would not have any acreage penalty, in other words.

Then, also, it retains the thing that has been concerning us about the privilege of storing the excess wheat to be carried sort of as a crop insurance.

Both of those have been taken care of by this proposal by the Department we feel that is probably the most satisfactory solution to this current problem.

Now, if you have any questions, we will be glad to try and answer them.

Mr. ALBERT. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. I think you would agree with me when I say that my first reaction, when that first proposal was made, was that we would want to study that for sometime; do you not agree?

Mr. HUGHES. I think that is right. This latter proposal retains oneof the things which many of the folks felt was beneficial and I am sure some of the members of the committee, in that it will allow some of this allotment that has shifted because we have let this thing go back again to the commercial areas, it will shift back much slower, but at least it can be shifted back.

Mr. ALBERT. You may recall that last year we had the noncommercial area provision in the bill that tangled the bill up on the floor and we agreed to amend it in order to pass the legislation; do you remember that?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes.

Mr. ALBERT. Do you think that we might further get at this matter if we changed the 15-acre provision to provide that anyone who took advantage of the 15-acre provision received no history at all for that year? Under the law now, as I understand it, a man who plants 15 acres gets his allotment credit if it is less than 15 acres. Should we provide that he should get no history at all?

Mr. HUGHES. You mean any of the 15 acres? Mr. ALBERT. Any of it up to his allotment. Mr. HUGHES. Any of it up to his allotment—you mean above the allotment?

Mr. ALBERT. That would be all of it. At the present time, as I understand the law, if a farmer takes advantage of the 30-acre provision it does not make any difference whether he got an allotment or not, he gets no credit?

Mr. REID. The way we understand it, if he had a 10-acre allotment and he takes advantage and plants 30, the law says that any acreage planted in excess of the allotment would not be counted, he still gets credit for his 10 acres.

Mr. ALBERT. And it is true with respect to the 15-acre? Mr. REID. That is right. Mr. ALBERT. Do you think wherever he takes advantage of that, he should get any credit for his allotment, and thus keep wheat acreage in the State county which he does not need in order to take care of the 15-and 30-acre planters.

Mr. Hughes. In the past, he certainly has brought allotments in, that is, he has increased his allotment. I would not say that he has necessarily increased all the allotments but he has increased his own and he had no use for it, so it denied all of the rest of the allotment we should have had.

Now, if you go as far as you propose you would do two things in my opinion. You would move it very rapidly out of these areas. Actually it would move slower if you do what the Department proposes because he would not get credit for his base, if he has 5 acres and planted 15 acres, this will give him credit for future allotments, and his average is going to be down some, it will not average 15, it will be about 12 or 13 and it will factor his allotment from 13, which will make it about 81/2, so to that degree it will begin to move back and it would probably be better to do it at a slower rate.

One other factor, if he has an allotment below 15 acres and you take that away and put it into commercial area, you will increase wheat production by that amount, and that would probably be unwise.

Mr. ALBERT. That is very good, I am glad to hear that answer to that problem which has been mentioned. Any questions, Mr. Smith ?

« ПретходнаНастави »