« ПретходнаНастави »
WHEAT ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS-PRICE SUPPORT
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1958
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a. m., in room 1310, New House Office Building, Hon. Carl Albert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Albert, Jennings, and Smith.
We have met this morning to hear our distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Engle, on a bill introduced by himself, H. Ř. 11092, which is similar to a Senate bill S. 3120, which has heretofore passed the Senate and has been referred to this committee.
The bills are to amend the acreage allotment and marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, to provide additional allotments for farms in the Tulare area, Modoc and Siskiyou Counties, Calif., for the 1958 and 1959 crops of wheat and for other purposes.
(The two bills referred to, H. R. 11092, with Department report and S. 3120, are as follows:)
(H. R. 11092, 85th Cong., 2d sess.] A BILL To exempt the production of durum wheat in the Tulelake area, Modoc and Siskiyou Counties, California, from the acreage allotment and marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 334 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended, effective with respect to the 1958 and subsequent crops, by adding at the end thereof a new subsection as follows:
"(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act the Secretary shall exempt from the wheat acreage allotment and wheat marketing quota provisions of this Act the production of durum wheat (class II) in the portions of Modoc and Siskiyou Counties, California, that comprise the area known as the Tulelake division of the Klamath project of California, as defined by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, durum wheat (class II) produced in such area shall not be eligible for price support as provided under section 101 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended."
MARCH 20, 1958. Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives. DEAR CONGRESSMAN COOLEY: This is in reply to your request of March 7, 1958, for a report on H. R. 11092, a bill to exempt the production of durum wheat in the Tulelake area, Modoc, and Siskiyou Counties, Calif., from the acreage allotment and marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended.
This Department does not recommend the enactment of H. R. 11092.
This bill would amend section 334 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, so as (1) to exempt from the wheat acreage allotment and marketing quota provisions of the act the production of durum wheat (class II) in the portions of Modoc and Siskiyou Counties, Calif., that comprise the area known as the Tulelake division of the Klamath project of California, and (2) to make durum wheat (class II) produced in such area ineligible for price support under section 101 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended.
Our principal objection to this bill stems from the fact that it would establish a precedent which could be used by other groups of wheat producers or producers of other basic agricultural commodities as a basis for similar requests for exemption from acreage allotments and marketing quotas. Such requests, if granted, could work to the disadvantage of producers in other areas and would be inconsistent with the real purpose and objectives of the production adjustment programs. It is obvious that this bill was designed to permit unlimited production of durum wheat in the Tulelake area of California for the purpose of supplying the entire west coast with sufficient macaroni products made from locally produced hard amber durum wheat to replace the supply of such products which is now being shipped to the coast from other areas of production.
Although we are opposed to this bill, we are sympathetic to the Tulelake basin farmers' problem and appreciate the fact that existing legislation will not permit the establishment of 1958 wheat acreage allotments for farms in the area which will reflect their operations during recent years. Therefore, the Department would not object to legislative action which would provide the area with a reasonable wheat acreage allotment for 1958 and subsequent years to be apportioned by the Secretary, through the local committee, among the farms within the area on the basis of tillable acreage, crop rotation practices, type of soil, and topography.
Whatever the amount of the allotment acreage that may be legislatively provided for the area, we would recommend that such acreage be in addition to the national wheat acreage allotment for 1958 but as part of the national allotment for 1959 and subsequent years.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours,
TRUE D. MORSE, Acting Secretary.
[S. 3120, 85th Cong., 2d sess.) AN ACT To amend the acreage allotment and marketing quota provisions of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, to provide additional allotments for farms in the Tulelake area, Modoc and Siskiyou Countles, California, for the 1958 and 1959 crops of wheat, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 334 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new subsection as follows:
“(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act the Secretary shall increase the acreage allotments for the 1958 and 1959 crops of wheat for farms in the irrigable portion of the area known as the Tulelake division of the Klamath project of California located in Modoc and Siskiyou Counties, California, as defined by the United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, and hereinafter referred to as the area. The increase for the area for each such crop shall be determined by adding to the total allotments established for farms in the area for the particular crop without regard to this subsection, hereinafter referred to as the original allotments, an acreage sufficient to make available for each such crop a total allotment of eight thousand acres for the area. The additional allotments made available by this subsection shall be in addition to the National, State and county allotments otherwise established under this Act, but the acreage planted to wheat pursuant to such increased allotments shall be taken into account in establishing future State, county, and farm acreage allotments. The Secretary shall apportion the additional allotment acreage made available under this subsection between Modoc and Siskiyou Counties on the basis of the relative needs for additional allotments for the portion of the area in each county. The Secretary shall also allot such additional acreage to individual farms in the area for which an application for an increased acreage is made on the basis of tillable acres, crop rotation practices, type of soil and topography, and taking into account the original allotment for the farm, if any. No producer shall be eligible to participate in the wheat acreage reserve program with respect to any farm for any year for which such farm receives an additional allotment under this subsection; and no wheat produced on such farm in such year shall be eligible for price support. The increase in the wheat acreage allotment for any farm under this subsection shall be conditioned upon the production of durum wheat (class II) on such increased acreage.
Passed the Senate March 31, 1958.
FELTON M. JOHNSTON, Secretary. Mr. ALBERT. Congressman Engle, we are privileged to have you appear before our committee. Everyone knows that you are the chairman of one of the great committees of this House, and you are one of our most distinguished Members, and it is certainly a pleasure to welcome you before the Committee on Agriculture with reference to your legislation this morning.
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIR ENGLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. ENGLE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In 1956, I introduced a similar bill which permitted at that time the planting of 45 durum acres of durum wheat.
Durum wheat is a particular type of wheat that is raised in a single area of the l'nited States, except the Tulelake, Siskiyou County, area, which is northern California. The area in which durum wheat is raised—and, Mr. Heimburger, you can help me with this
the three States?
Mr. HEIMBURGER. North Dakota, Montana, and Mr. ALBERT. California. Mr. HEIMBURGER. There is another one. Idaho or South Dakota. Mr. ENGLE. I do not believe Kansas is in it. In any case, the production of durum wheat in that area got into difficulty because of certain types of agricultural infection, and so, consequently, the production of durum wheat was not sufficient to meet the local demand. Durum wheat is used in the production of spaghetti.
So the people from Tulelake found out—which is northeastern California--that they could raise it, and they were permitted to do it on that basis; that is, that it would not interfere with any other area of the United States.
Now, this bill does precisely the same thing. The difference between the Senate bill and the House bill is this: that the House bill, as introduced, has no limitation in it, nor did the Senate bill. However, in the Senate bill, an amendment was offered limiting production of durum wheat outside the quota to 8,000 acres.
We are all agreeable to that amendment, and if the House bill is acted upon, I would suggest an amendment identical with the Senate bill, as amended, be adopted.
Now I refer to the statement made on the Senate floor, which appears in the Congressional Record of March 31 on page 5169, by Senator Young, in which he stated that this bill affects only a small area in California, and it is an area where this type of wheat can be grown; and, because of the rust or blister rust, or whatever it was, production in other areas was affected, and that permitting this amount of production of durum wheat in northeastern California, therefore, will not injuriously affect production elsewhere. And this bill is limited to the years 1958 and 1959.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Engle-
Mr. ENGLE. The Senate report contains all the matters that I have stated, including the letter from the Department of Agriculture, which objects to the bill as introduced because it is an open-ended bill.
We have now put an 8,000-acre limitation on it, and I feel that if that would not completely eliminate, it would certainly very substantially moderate any objection that the Agriculture Department might have to it.
And now your question?
I would like to get the record complete here on the reasons for this bill.
We passed a bill last year and the year before, giving what amounts to a bonus in allotments to growers in order to offset the fact that this wheat was not producing enough wheat to supply the macaroni market in this country.
Isn't that true?
Mr. ALBERT. Now, this bill will add 8,000 acres, as I understand it, for the purpose of permitting this section of the country to have a sufficient allotment. As I understand it, it did not have the wheat history necessary to give it an allotment comparable to what it could produce.
Is that substantially correct?
Mr. ENGLE. As I understand, it did not have any allotment for durum wheat.
Mr. ALBERT. It has no allotment.
Mr. HEIMBURGER. Mr. Chairman, the situation is this: that due to the shortage of durum wheat, which occurred because of various disease factors, these two special acts which you referred to were passed, permitting the production of a substantial quantity of durum wheat outside of quotas, or in addition to any quotas, which farmers might have.
The area in California to which Mr. Engle is directing this bill is an area where it was only discovered about the time this special durum wheat program began that they could grow durum wheat. Therefore, they came in under the ex quota provisions and have produced durum wheat in the past 2 years. But these acts, which provided for the additional durum wheat acreage in those 2 years also provided that the acreage so planted should not be counted in history.
So that the area now comes up to the point where there is no bonus or ex quota durum wheat law in effect this year, and, although they