Слике страница
PDF
ePub

14 counties which grow considerable acreages of peanuts. I want to read to the committee part of a resolution which was adopted at that meeting after studying a previous draft of the bill by Congressman Abbitt.

Whereas the peanut producers of Alabama, in a meeting at Ozark, Ala., March 27, called by the Alabama Farm Bureau Federation, believe, after thorough discussion and study, that the proposed legislation on peanuts by the Virginia and North Carolina peanut associations appears to be most untimely; and Whereas the peanut problems of all areas are more or less the same and these problems should be thoroughly studied and discussed before any changes are made in the now existing law and in this proposed legislation we find many areas of disagreement and because of the many uncertainties involved: Therefore be it

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this group of producers, representing the growers of Alabama, that no legislation of any kind should be introduced in the Congress at this time; and be it further

Resolved, That attempts be made to work out differences and if any effort is made to present any bill to the Congress on peanuts at this time the Southeast area would be compelled to vigorously oppose such legislation.

That is very similar to a resolution adopted previous to that time by a similar meeting in Georgia.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Randolph, was that resolution drawn up after the provisions of the Abbitt bill were removed as mentioned by Mr. Rawlings?

Mr. RANDOLPH. No, sir. This was adopted on March 27, 1958. I don't know just when the bill was revised. I think it was after that. The bill is dated May 20. I wanted to explain that the revision of the bill does not remove the objections which were voiced by this resolution. I want to go into those in just a few minutes in detail. The resolution states the general position of the peanut growers in Alabama on peanut legislation. We had at that meeting also the board of directors of the Alabama Peanut Producers Association. Mr. H. H. Knowles, the president of that association, is in the room, and also Mr. Grady Dunn, a member of the board of directors of that association, is here. They were present also at that meeting. I shall be as brief as I can, Mr. Chairman.

We have about three principal objections to the legislation, although we have really more than that. No. 1, as we state in the resolution, we do not think this is the time to pass peanut legislation. Second, we do not see any need for any additional peanut legislation at this time. If we did see need for it, we consider this bill objectionable and discriminatory to Alabama producers.

The principal objection is section 2. I will take it the way Mr. Rawlings explained it. Mr. Rawlings said this provided for a 10 percent reduction in the allotment one year. It could be a total of 10 percent, but it doesn't read that way, Bill. Is that right?

Mr. RAWLINGS. That is what it is intended to mean. We may have made a mistake. I don't know.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Be that as it may, it is either 5 or 10 percent reduction in the national allotment. As is well known, there is a provision in the act now which has been referred to here previously, under which if any type of peanuts is found to be in short supply under certain rules in the bill, the allotment can be increased for that type of peanuts. Mr. Chairman, we have the feeling that, whatever the intention of the sponsors of this bill was-and I have no doubt of their sincerity,

and so on-the effect of this would be to move acreage from Alabama and Georgia and Florida to North Carolina and Virginia, and we object to that, naturally, because you would cut the national allotment and then, if you found the Virginia-North Carolina type of peanuts in short supply, you would simply add on there.

Cutting the national allotment would tend to cut the supply and create a shortage. Consequently, we consider the principal purpose of this bill is to provide simply a device to move acreage from one area of the belt to another area; that is, out of our area into the area commonly known as the Virginia peanut type. That is our No. 1 objection.

No. 2, we object to the promotional portions of this bill. We believe in promotion and advertising peanuts, but in Alabama we have organized an association, the Alabama Peanut Producers Association, and under that association this last year $1 per ton was deducted from farmer's stock peanuts and we created a fund under which we are now carrying on, as Mr. Knowles will tell you in more detail when he testifies, I am sure, what we think will be a very effective program in public relations and promotion for peanuts. We would prefer to do that ourselves rather than have it under the Government, with all the redtape and supervision we would have to be under if we had a Government program.

John Duncan I am sure will say a movement similar to that is on in Georgia. One of the Congressmen from Georgia mentioned that. We hope we shall be able to join with them. They produce a lot more peanuts than we do, and carry on a very fine program of that kind under the control of the peanut growers themselves. Therefore, we do not see any need for that part of this bill from our standpoint. I think Florida would join with us in that.

A similar thing could be done in other peanut areas.

The point was made that producers would pay the fees collected under this act. I do not believe that is quite true. I think actually the support price would be raised and the consumers in general would pay this amount. I think in the first year they would pay half of it, and thereafter all of it. There is a 10 percent deduction in the first year, and 5 percent thereafter. Then it provides for raising the support level on peanuts 5 percent.

However, that is not too serious a point. I did not mean to make a big mountain out of that. If somebody is going to pay it, I suspect our growers would just as soon the consumers would pay it. However, that does raise a question on just what effect price has on the consumption of peanuts.

Mr. Chairman, I have not had an opportunity to study the bill as presented by Mr. Burleson of Texas, because I received a copy only this morning. There are 2 or 3 things about it which I have noticed, however, and on which I should like to comment.

It contains something new to me in farm legislation, which I have been watching for quite a long time. I refer to the provision in here that because you underplant your allotment you get an increase in your allotment. I do not see any justice or sense or equality in that provision. We do have a provision in the Peanut Act now which is a very fine one, I think, under which allotments are not lost by States because of underplanting. I think that goes far enough.

The point is that because you underplant peanuts in a certain area, you will get an increase which presumably would come off the other States as far as I can tell. It might not. It might be added on. Either way, it would be undesirable.

I am critical of that particular part of the Burleson bill. I have not had time to study the remainder of the bill sufficient to make further comment, except that the latter part of the bill by Congressman Burleson, title V, of course is somewhat similar to the provision of the Abbitt bill.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Randolph, I notice we have Mr. Dunn and Mr. Knowles from Alabama also scheduled to testify. Do they represent you in their statements?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I am sure there will be no disagreement between Mr. Knowles and Mr. Dunn and me. We are all representing the same program.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. RANDOLPH. I have not been able to study the differences in title V, which is in both bills. They seem to be similar.

The main point I want to make is that we oppose this legislation as strongly as we know how to do. We hope it will not be enacted into law.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Randolph, we are always delighted to have you appear before our committee. I know the other members of this subcommittee join with me in that statement. Thank you very much. Without objection by the chairman I should like to insert at this point the statement of the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, INC.,
Columbia, S. C., June 4, 1958.

Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN,
Member of Congress, House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. MCMILLAN : Please insert in the record this statement as the position of policy of the South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation with respect to H. R. 12545 and H. R. 12566.

We oppose both these bills for the reason that we do not believe that the national allotment for peanuts should be reduced in order to permit producers to petition for an increase by type.

We produce both the Virginia and Spanish type peanuts in South Carolina and we do not believe that producers of either type should be privileged to have an increase in allotments at the expense of producers of the other type.

We urge that you oppose both these bills.

Kindest regards.

Yours sincerely,

(Off the record.)

E. H. AGNEW, President.

Mr. MCMILLAN. The committee stands adjourned until 4:30 p. m. this afternoon.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 4: 30 p.m., of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. MCMILLAN. The committee will be in order.

Mr. ABBITT. I would like the record to show that Mr. J. L. White, president of the Virginia Peanut and Hog Growers Association is here, and so is Mr. Delman Carr, chairman of the Virginia ASC Committee.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Sugg, do you care to make a statement at this time?

STATEMENT OF JOE S. SUGG, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE NORTH CAROLINA PEANUT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. SUGG. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Marcus Braswell, president of the North Carolina Peanut Growers Association is here, and he is my boss, and I think it would be presumptuous if I would say anything than to say I would like him to make a statement for us, and I would like to have the privilege of sending a prepared statement at a later date if it seems advisable.

Mr. MCMILLAN. What is his name?

Mr. SUGG. Marcus B. Braswell, president of the North Carolina Peanut Growers Association.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Braswell, we will be glad to hear from you if you care to make a statement.

Mr. BRASWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

STATEMENT OF MARCUS B. BRASWELL, PRESIDENT, NORTH CAROLINA PEANUT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. BRASWELL. I want to reiterate those things that Mr. Rawlings said this morning to assure the committee that in our discussion of proposed legislation with the North Carolina nad Virginia group we have not at any time proposed to introduce separate peanut legislation, to throw it out by itself so it would be a target for controversy.. We have been quite cognizant of the precarious position of the peanut program and have attempted, by working with other areas as closely as we knew how, to get a proposal which could merit the consideration of this committee. We had hoped that by so doing we could get the constructive criticism of other areas, mindful always that several heads and the thoughts of many areas are often better than one.

We do not believe that we have in this bill, proposed bill, many controversial issues. I have been somewhat amazed at some of what I think were contradictions that have developed during the testimony so far. We believe that most of those things that were controversial in the beginning have been removed from this bill.

I see no reason to go into detail at this time with all of the other testimony that has been given. At a later date if it seems necessary or desirable we would be quite pleased to do so.

Mr. MCMILLAN. The committee will be happy to have you and Mr. Sugg file a statement for the record if you desire.

We are happy to have you here today, Mr. Braswell. I remember you very pleasantly when you were down at the Department of Agriculture, and how helpful you were on several occasions.

We have Mr. Preston, Representative of Georgia, with us. Would you like to make a statement at this time, Mr. Preston?

Mr. PRESTON. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate an opportunity to make a brief statement.

Mr. MCMILLAN. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. PRINCE H. PRESTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. PRESTON. I am Representative Prince H. Preston from the First District of the State of Georgia.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I just returned at 1 o'clock today from Georgia, and was not aware of the fact that this legislation was up for a hearing. I have not studied the bill carefully, but have been informed of the general nature of the bill and the general objective of the bill. I certainly want to say to the committee that without any reservation on my part, with the limited knowledge I have of the contents of the bill, but being familiar with its objective, I am unalterably opposed to it. I think it would be a grave mistake at this time for us to open up this question of peanut allotments during this session of Congress.

Based on the experience I have had in past years in the House, I am convinced that we would certainly invite a disastrous attack upon the peanut program. We have had some experience with that in the past, and I may say it was not exactly pleasant.

It was my understanding that perhaps we were not going to go into this matter of allotments this year, but if this is going to be the policy, to bring legislation up on this question of peanuts, I think in fairness we should certainly go into the question of tobacco acreage, because I believe we can make out as good a case as the peanut people say they can make out on this bill. I think it would be a mistake to do either at this time.

Now there is certainly nothing in my feelings about this matter that would reflect any unkindness toward these gentlemen who sponsor this legislation. In fact, they are among my very best friends, and it is not a pleasant matter to oppose a bill offered by one who has my admiration, as does the sponsor of this legislation. He is certainly one of our great Representatives, and I respect him and admire him tremendously. But when a bill is introduced, even by a good friend, that goes against the consensus of the people of my State, the peanut growers of my State, and goes against the unanimous opinion of those people, then I feel it my responsibility to make that sentiment known, as it has been made known to the committee by other members of the Georgia delegation. And for that purpose and for that reason I do come today to emphasize the position of the Georgia growers and Georgia shellers on the question under consideration of changing the allotment figures for peanuts.

Mr. MCMILLAN. We have also the bill introduced by our colleague, Mr. Burleson of Texas, which is almost the same as the one that Mr. Abbitt introduced. I do not know if you have had time to read both of them.

« ПретходнаНастави »