« ПретходнаНастави »
have been growing at about this 8,000-acre acreage of durum wheat, they have no history because these laws specifically provided that the acreage that they planted last year and the year before would not count as history.
Mr. ALBERT. How have they been growing it without history?
Mr. HEIMBURGER. They came in under the ex quota provisions of the durum wheat laws that were passed in 1956 and 1957.
Mr. ALBERT. I see. And those are running out there without any history!
Mr. HEIMBURGER. Those laws are not in effect this year, so they are left at the point where they have no history on which to get an állotment this year.
If this bill were enacted, it would sort of arbitrarily give them history for 2 years, after which point they would be able to pick up on their own because they would have a farm and a county history established.
Mr. ALBERT. It certainly seems to be a reasonable legislative request, and the committee appreciates you bringing this matter to its attention, Congressman Engle, and we will act on it just as soon as we can.
Is it a matter that needs urgent attention?
Mr. ExGLE. I assume that the sooner action is taken the sooner those people will be able to know whether or not they can go ahead, and that is a matter of some importance to them inasmuch as this area has been barley and potatoes. The Tulelake area is a area settled by veterans, a reclamation project, and both barley and potatoes have been in poor shape, and they are anxious to get an allotment so they will have a cash crop. The Senate committee report points that out with some force.
Mr. ALBERT. Maybe we can have an executive session before our regular meeting
Do you have any questions, Congressman Smith ? Mr. SMITH. No, sir. Mr. ALBERT. If not, we thank you, Mr. Engle. Mr. ENGLE. There is no controversy or objection to the bill—thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
(Thereupon, at 10:15 a. m., the subcommittee proceeded to other business.)
(The following communication with attachment was submitted to the subcommittee:)
BONNEVILLE COUNTY GRAIN GROWERS, INC.,
Idaho Falls, Idaho, April 9, 1958. Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. COOLEY: We are issuing a protest relative to inequities in our present wheat allotment program. We feel there are faults in legislation and administration of our wheat allotment program, and until the faults are remedied, our wheat program will not be effective.
Please read the accompanying article, Should We Change Wheat Program? by W. S. Young. This article typifies the usurpation of old established wheat markets by new growers, and we feel no effective legislation or administration exists to control this expansion.
We are equally concerned about substitution of crops such as planting feed grains on land taken out of wheat production, or planting of wheat on land taken out of corn, cotton, tobacco, or peanuts. One surplus is as bad as another. Prior to World War II, we had total soil depleting goals in our farm program which forced a reduction of total soil-depleting crops on each farm. Why was this soil depleting goal ignored in our present program?
We are weary here in Idaho of sharing our wheat market with the corn, cotton, tobacco, and peanut farmers in other States; because of natural climatic conditions, the Idaho wheat farmer cannot usurp the natural markets of the corn, cotton, tobacco, and peanut growers.
It has been proven by now that general farm organizations cannot speak effectively or without bias for any one commodity group. We still have hope that we may mature enough, as a Nation, that someday wheatgrower representatives from all the wheat States will be called into a national council to recommend and decide on the kind of wheat program we need for this Nation. Very truly yours,
President. SHOULD WE CHANGE WHEAT PROGRAM?–LACK OF ENFORCEMENT Hits MARKET
(By W. S. Young) All too often the stepchild is an unwelcome member of the family.
Our existing wheat program is, so to speak, a stepchild of the present administration, having been enacted as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act back in the thirties during the great depression.
As such, it has hardly been popular with those officials who today, are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the act.
Let's take a quick look at the situation in Arizona : The dismal lack of enforcement of the program in this State is reacting this year in a severe setback to the primary market of the northern Utah, southern Idaho wheat farmer.
And it is all so unnecessary. There are 12 States in the Union which were classified a few years back as noncommercial wheat States because they were growing less than 25,000 acres of wheat annually. CCC loan values in these States are only 75 percent of normal--but, there are no controls, no penal es.
With the rest of the Nation under strict acreage controls, and with severe penalties imposed on excess production, it is only natural that wheat acreage has been expanded in this area wherever growing conditions permitted, and inarkets could be exploited.
WINTER WHEAT FIGURES We are indebted to the Department of Agriculture's Marketing Service in Salt Lake City for the following figures :
This release bears a date of December 26, 1957.
Since the Arizona winter wheat crop is planted through November, December, and well into January, it is all too probable that many more acres have been seeded since the compilation of the 1958 total above.
Seed houses and grain dealers down Phoenix way estimate that almost 100,000 acres in the Salt River Valley alone have been planted to wheat. Added to this the seedings in the remainder of the State, including some large scale new developments near Salome and Gila Bend, and the 1958 total could swell to 150,000 acres.
The 1958 crop Arizona wheat has actually been traded in the Los Angeles area at
prices ranging from $1.80 to $1.85 per bushel. This wheat is of a variety called Ramona, and it is superior in some respects to our hard winter wheats.
COULD TAKE MARKET
With rail freight rates from our area to Los Angeles now averaging $1 per hundredweight and truck rates approximating 75 cents per hundredweight-as compared to 30 cents for rail and 25 cents for truck from Arizona-it is easy to visualize that this Arizona wheat could take as much as one-third of the California markets which have always been ours.
According to statistics published by the Government, Arizona averaged 30 bushels per acre of wheat harvested in 1956 and 31 bushels in 1957. With growing conditions never better, this year's harvest is potentially equal to Utah's entire winter wheat production.
At this writing there are still no controls, no penalties, on wheat production in Arizona. Arizona is not alone: There are at least three other States-Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana—which have violated, equally as much, the limitations of a noncommercial wheat State, and for at least 3 successive years.
Yet the United States Department of Agriculture officials turn their backs on such inequities while they detail the shortcomings of the agricultural program.
If the Department of Agriculture will not, of itself, impose controls, then perhaps we should work through our Congressmen to force the necessary action.