Слике страница
PDF
ePub

H. L. Wingate moved that the section dealing with setting up of a fund of 5 percent above the announced support price of which one-fourth of the fund would go for promotion and the remainder of the fund to go for administration and any losses that may occur under the price-support program, be adopted. R. R. Donaldson of Alabama seconded motion and the motion carried.

C. G. Boyd of Florida moved that W. V. Rawlings be contacted and ask him to furnish persons in attendance at this meeting a copy of the final proposed peanut bill to be presented to the Congress in January. Motion seconded and carried.

Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p. m.
Respectfully submitted.

J. H. WYATT,

Secretary, GFBF Peanut Committee. Name, State and position:

W. L. Alford, Poulan, Ga., farmer.
G. L. Houston, Sylvester, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Association.
H. H. Conner, Jr., Eufaula, Ala., Southeastern Peanut Association.
S. R. Baxley, Tom Huston, Columbus, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Association.
H. G. Richey, Southern Cotton Oil, Macon, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Asso-

ciation.
G. C. Davis, Arlington, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Association.
Rhett Bryson, Alabama, Southeastern Peanut Association.
H. M. Sessions, Enterprise, Ala., Southeastern Peanut Association.
E. J. Young, Dawson, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Association.
D. H. Harden, Camilla, Ga., GFA.
W. A. Cogburn, Florida, farmer.
Aubrey J. Hudson, Jackson County, Fla., Florida FB.
W.W. Glenn, Box 530, Marianna, Fla., Florida FB.
J. C. Cromley, Statesboro, Ga., farmer.
L. L. Mauldin, Georgia, GFA.
C. G. Fuqua, Georgia, GFA.
H. H. Knowles, Headland, Ala., GFA.
C. G. Boyd, Newberry, Fla., Florida FB.
Billy Newberry, Arlington, Ga., farmer.
R. R. Donaldson, Opalika, Ala., GFA.
Grady W. Dun, Samson, Ala., GFA.
B. B. Saunders, Jr., O'Brien, Fla., GFA.
W.C. Riverbark, Columbia, Ala., farmer.
Frank M. Stewart, Box 1631, Montgomery, Ala., Alabama FB.
Arlie Shultz, Route 2, Ocilla, Ga., farmer.
J. D. Gardner, Camilla, Ga., GFA.
G. C. Kearse, Leesburg, Ga., farmer.
R. L. Heath, Leesburg, Ga., farmer.
R. L. Griffin, Box 1631, Montgomery, Ala., Alabama FB.
H. L. Wingate, Box 7, Pelham, Ga., farmer.
Troy Barton, Macon, Ga., GFBF.
A. T. Mace, USDA.
J. E. Thigpen, USDA.
R. C. Singletary, Jr., Blakely, Ga., farmer.
Julian Maddox, Luverne, Ala., Luverne Peanut Co.
Elmer Paulk, Ocilla, Ga., GFA.
Billy Ewing, Georgia, farmer.
W. L. Paullin, Pelham, Ga., Columbian Peanut Co.
Mrs. Virginia Culpepper, Americus, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Association.
A. J. Singletary, Blakely, Ga., farmer.
Roy E. Parrish, Moultrie, Ga., Goldkist.
Edward Jordan, Tifton, Ga., Farmers Gin & Peanut Association.
Yank Lamb, Omega, Ga., Farmers Gin & Peanut Association.
C. W. White, Bainbridge, Ga., farmer.
Pierce Christie, Dawson, Ga., GFBF.
H. B. Wilson, Abbeville, Ga., farmer.
J. H. Wyatt, Brooklet, Ga., farmer.

CONFERENCE RELATIVE TO PROPOSED PEANUT LEGISLATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

FEBRUARY 25, 1958 On February 25, 1958, a meeting was held in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of analyzing proposed peanut legislation as it affects the three major producing areas. The following persons attended representing organizations and/or areas as indicated : M. B. Braswell, North Carolina Peanut Growers, Whitakers, N. C. Joe Sugg, North Carolina Peanut Growers Association, Rocky Mount, N. C. W. V. Rawlings, Association of Virginia Peanut and Hog Growers, Capron, Va. J. L. White, Association of Virginia Peanut and Hog Growers, Capron, Va. Walter L. Randolph, Alabama Farm Bureau, Montgomery, Ala. R. L. Griffin, Alabama Farm Bureau, Montgomery, Ala. J. H. Wyatt, Georgia Farm Bureau, Brooklet, Ga. H. B. Wilson, Chairman Peanut Program of Georgia, Abbeville, Ga. John P. Duncan, Jr., Georgia Farm Bureau, Macon, Ga. Cyril G. Boyd, Florida Farm Bureau, Newberry, Fla. R. Wilson, Southwestern Peanut Growers Association, Gorman, Tex. B. D. Green, Southwestern Peanut Growers Association, Gorman, Tex. Mr. J. E. Thigpen, Director, Oils and Peanut Division (USDA), Washington, D. C. Mr. Turley Mace, Chief, Program Analysis Branch (USDA), Washington, D. C. Mr. Dan Munson, Attorney, Oils and Peanut Division, Washington, D. C.

First order of business was the election of officers for the confernce. Mr. R. L. Griffin was elected chairman and Mr. Ross Wilson, secretary. The initial discussion concerned the manner of approach to be used in discussing and analyzing the proposed peanut legislation. Mr. Rawlings suggested that the group review the proposed bill resulting from the Atlanta meeting. Mr. Griffin stated that other meetings relative to the proposed bill had been held since the Atlanta meeting and that the group might review these findings. He further stated that represenatives from the Southeast were of the opinion that no peanut legislation would be passed by Congress this session since no bipartisan support would be possible. Mr. Duncan reiterated that it was also Steve Pace's opinion that this would be true.

It was mentioned that a movement was underway in Congress to freeze price support levels at the 1957 dollar value for all commodities. Several voiced the opinion that peanut legislation as presented to Congress must be part of an omnibus farm bill rather than standing on its own. Rawlings expressed the opinion that only stopgap legislation would be passed this year. However, he considered it essential that a valid bill be ready in case the present price support program is attacked and endangered this season. Mr. Braswell agreed on this point adding that he felt it impossible for any one man to gage congressional feeling. He stated that other commodities were presently working on proposed legislation. Mr. Griffin pointed out that Alabama has just begun a State promotional program and wanted at least 1 year's experience with this approach prior to entering a national promotional program. Mr. Duncan stated that Georgia has entered such a program also, whereby $1 per ton is deducted from all peanuts marketed to be used in promotion. Mr. Griffin further stated that they would not be a part of a national promotional program as it is presently proposed.

Representatives from the Virginia-Carolina area and the Southwest stated that they were ready at this time to begin work on an analysis of the proposed peanut legislation so that a sound bill would be ready if an overall farm program comes before Congress this season. Mr. Griffin stated that it was the feeling of his group that peanuts should not be the first commodity to move into the self-supporting field since peanuts represented a substantially small area in the overall commodity program. Rawlings and Sugg both felt that there seems to be a general movement toward the self-support approach to farm legislation.

A discussion was held concerning the feeling of sheller groups regarding the possible bill. Both the Southwest and the Virginia-Carolina areas have met with the respective sheller organizations and oriented them on the implications thereto. Mr. R. Wilson stated that the Southwest shellers are generally in agreement with the proposals which the Southwest is supporting. Mr. Rawlings stated that he received little or no cooperation from the sheller organizations in his area. Mr. Griffin expressed his opinion that the sheller organization in the Southeast was not in favor of national peanut legislation at this time. Mr. Boyd said his opinion was that the proposed legislation would not favor the shellers in general as much as has the present legislation and that it seems the shellers have decided to "drag their feet” since they feel they cannot come out in open opposition. At this point Griffin stated that shellers in the Alabama area seemed quite interested in the promotional phase of the State bill.

Mr. Duncan voiced objection to the phase of the proposed bill wherein the Secretary of Agriculture is granted authority to increase acreage by types in years when a short supply of a certain type exists. He stated that his farmers are not in favor of this type provision and will not vote for it. He pointed out that the farmers in the State of Georgia are in the main, both peanut and tobacco farmers He further stated that Georgia farmers had in the recent past voted to pull out of the stabilization program on tobacco.

Mr. Rawlings cited Public Law No. 17 and said that the results of such law had been that the States of Alabama and Texas are getting more of the percentage of the national allotment each year. In contrast to this provision the law also made it possible for the Virginia-Carolina area to get an increase by types every 3 or 4 years. Ile stated Public Law No. 17 was a compromise or trading agreenient between the three major producing areas.

At this point officials of the USDA Oils and Peanut Division joined the group. Jr. Griffin briefly summarized prior events of the conference. Ur. Thigpen was asked to compare Government loses on diversion after the $9 deduction went into effect to such losses prior to the $9 deduction. He stated that on peanuts which are diverted about half the loan value is lost and that such losses average approximately 10 to 12 million dollars each year. It was Mr. Thigpen's opinion that the group should recognize the vulnerability of present peanut legislation and work toward a sound and defensible alternate program in case the present one is attackerl and/or thrown out. It was his opinion that no important overall peanut legislation would be passed by the Congress in 1958 but he foresaw no risk in proceding to produce a solid proposed program on which all three areas could agree. Mr. Griffin stated at this point that his group wanted to proceed along this line but with the definite understanding and agreement that such proposed bill would not be introduced in any manner for public hearing for at least 1 and possibly 2 years. Mr. Thigpen stated at this point that he felt there would be no risk involved in introducing i proposed bill to the Agricultural Committee or the subcommittee to show them that the major areas are working on a solid program. Mr. Braswell stated that he is in agreement with this thinking and that what risks might be inVolved would most certainly be overcome by the potential results.

Mr. Thigpen stated that he is generally in favor of promotion of peanuts ; he felt that it should begin on a small basis and, after making a solid program at this level, proceed into a larger and more out-reaching phase. Mr. Sugg told of having met with the Southeast shellers on behalf of the National Peanut Council and that the shellers seemed very interested in promotion, even to the extent of contributing to such fund. Mr. Griffin said that in Alabama $75,000 has been allocated under their program for research and promotional purposes. He voiced objection again to the promotional phase of the proposed bisl stating that he felt the Secretary of Agriculture would be given too much power or authority in saying how the money was to be spent. He therefore felt that the producers themselves would not have sufficient control of the money set aside in the proposed bill. A brief discussion was held again in reference to Public Law 17. Mr. Rawlings stated that in comparing cross-benefits from this past bill, it should be noted that Alabama and Texas have benefited over the past years approximately 152,592 acres while Virginia-Carolina increases for short supply total arproximately 111,000 acres. Mr. Wyatt emphasized again, as had others, the cross current of feeling which had existed at the Radium Spring meeting (for the purpose of analyzing and changing, if necessary, proposed legislation). He stated it was the thinking of the group that it was premature at this time to attempt to resolve a definite legislative program.

Mr. Braswell said that he had considered the meeting of this date to be for the purpose of overcoming legitimate differences of opinion concerning proposed legislation even though he did not feel that a peanut bill would be passed in 1958. He said he felt the situation could be summed up by saying that the three groups either work for a compromise bill or eventually go before Congress as a house divided and thereby weaken the overall program. Rawlings stated that he is in favor of having a proposed bill before the Agricultural Subcommittee, even to the extent of public hearing if necessary. Mr. Thigpen stated that there presently exists some interests in Congress who would expel peanuts from the price support program immediately if it were possible. Therefore, he felt that to be on guard by having a counter-attack ready to overcome criticism would be wise. Mr. R. Wilson said that the Southwest recognizes weaknesses of the present price support program and are ready and willing to work with the other two groups toward a solidified bill and that he was in favor of presenting such a bill to Congress so that it would be available if and when needed. Mr. Griffin stated that it is the thinking of the Alabama growers that they will be able to justify additional acreage in the future through their present promotional program which will create a greater potential market. Mr. Griffin stated again that his group would not want information concerning proposed peanut legislation aired in the press, that he would not want a proposed bill taken before the Agricultural Subcommittee for it to become a matter of public record and knowledge. Mr. Thigpen said that he had concluded from the morning discussion that the Southeast did not feel that the proposals are far enough along for public airing and that they would not reach this stage this spring or summer, but that if such a state was reached, the group would be in favor of presenting a proposed bill to Congress. Others said that they understood the Southeast was not in favor of public airing on the proposed bill under any circumstances this spring or summer. Thigpen stated that it is conceivable that national consumption might possibly outrun national yield in future years. If this should happen, the national allotment program would be in jeopardy. This is just one more reason in his opinion, for the group to plan ahead in an effort to overcome objections to the present peanut program.

It was agreed by the group to review and discuss the proposed bill resulting from the Atlanta meeting. Mr. Sugg read the bill proper point by point in its entirety.

(a) Discussion was held concerning paragraph (a) of the proposed bill which amends section 301, subsection (b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, by striking out “15 per centum" and adding *27 per centum" in the case of peanuts. This change has the effect of reducing the supply percentage under any given situation of carryover and production. With the supply percentage reduced, the percent of parity support is increased up to 90 percent of parity. After discussion it was agreed that it would probably be better to stay on present 108 scale and place the carryover allowable at about 20 percent rather than shifting to 102 scale since confusion might result. It was the consensus of opinion of the group that the Department would work out the arithmetic necessary to leave the proposed bill on scale 108 yet bring about the percent of parity desired.

(6) Paragraph (b) of the proposed bill provides that in determining the supply percentage the (CC carryover shall not be included in the total supply. After discussion, the majority of the members present voiced agreement with this section as written but agreed with Mr. Thigpen's suggestion to attempt to temper the wording somewhat without changing the end result in any respect. However, Mr. Randolph desired to be recorded as not in favor of this section.

(c) Section 2 of the proposed bill was discussed. Mr. Randolph registered opposition to section 2 of the proposed bill wherein certain acreage decreases are provided for under certain circumstances. Mr. R. Wilson voiced opposition to the abolishment of the minimum national acreage allotment of 1,610,000 acres. He stated that farmers in the Southwest in his opinion would not vote for such a provision. In intervening discussions it was pointed out that in farmer referendums the farmer only votes for title V of the proposed bill. He does vote on acreage reduction when he votes on marketing quotas. Mr. Randolph wished to be recorded in opposition to the provision in section 2 wherein type increases are possible in short-supply situations, saying that he felt it was beneficial to the Virginia-Carolina area only. It was his opinion that a decrease in the national acreage allotment from the present 1,610,000 acres would increase the chances of Virgina peanuts getting a type increase. Mr. Thigpen inserted the idea that the proposed bill made it no easier to designate and recognize a short supply by types but made it easier to determine the amount of short supply to be compensated for. Jr. Duncan voiced opposition to section 2 as did Mr. Boyd. Mr. White wished to be recorded in faror of section 2. Jr. Braswell is in favor of this self-supported type bill as well as being in faror of Public Law 17 allowing type increases. After all areas had voiced an opinion on this section it was decided to leave it for later discussion.

(d) Title |--Peanuts sold for publicity, promotion, and other purposes.

Mr. Randolph voiced opposition to the promotional aspects of title V. He felt that the present Alabama State promotional program, under auspices of growers rather than the Federal Government, would conflict with the proposed promotional section of title V. Mr. R. Wilson pointed out that the southwest area is opposed to that section of title V setting forth deductions for promotion at 144 percent. He wanted it made clear that the Southwest is in favor of such a promotional program at lower percentage deductions, possibly not to exceed 1 percent. After discussion, Alabama and Georgia wished to be recorded as opposed to the promotional aspects of title V as presented. Florida voted neutral on the matter. North Carolina and Virginia representatives were in favor of the provision as set forth.

Mr. R. Wilson stated that the Southwest desired that all remaining deductions provided for in title V, except promotion, be made strictly on an area basis. Mr. Duncan disagreed with this theory saying that he felt that all areas should assist each other in paying the costs of price support program on peanuts. Mr. Thigpen agreed with Mr. Wilson's suggestions in part but suggested that possibly it might be better to base deductions not only on areas but by types. He stated that past history has shown a tendency for Runner peanuts to produce over and above demand while Spanish has failed to produce sufficient quantity to meet demands. Mr. Randolph stated that Alabama is opposed to deductions by areas for two reasons: (1) Such a program could not be sold to the growers. (2) Although some economic justice is presented in the plan, in Mr. Randolph's opinion the fact that many Runner peanuts are crushed is a main factor in preventing the necessity of crushing other types. Mr. Thigpen presented for discussion his tentative thinking on a two-price system on peanuts, differing somewhat from a similar plan used several years ago. Such a plan might possibly provide for a farmer to grow a certain number of quota acres peanuts, plus a certain number of additional acres to be sold at an oil stock price. Since this plan would increase the possible surplus tonnage in any given year, some additional deduction would of necessity be taken from the amount the farmers received to finance the cost of such diversion.

Mr. Rawlings pointed out that if the national acreage allotment should remain at 1,610,000 acres the proposed 5 percent deduction would not be sufficient to finance the program. He added that additional arithmetic computations would be necessary to determine the percentage of increase necessary but that he estimated it would likely be in the vicinity of 10 percent.

Mr. Braswell stated that it is necessary to have legislative authority for the reductions of acres in order that supply may be brought in line with demand. If this is not done, the farmer will, of necessity, suffer in the long run. It is for this reason that he has advocated and still advocates a reduction in acres as proposed in section 2 of the bill under discussion.

A general discussion was held concerning the slight increase in producer advance value per ton of peanuts at set forth in the bill. Mr. Randolph's opinion was that any substantial increase in prices will affect adversely the consumption of peanuts at th commercial level. Mr. Braswell pointed out that history has proven that although price supports were lowered on wheat, the cost to the consumer has continued to rise.

Mr. Thigpen commended the group on the discussions for the day and opinioned that the group had reached a greater degree of agreement than possibly realized. He said that he felt the group agreed that eventually some sort of self-financing plan would be essential to the peanut industry and that such a plan might necessitate higher dollar value deductions or fewer acres allotted. He said that he felt that consensus of opinion of the group was that promotion is important although perhaps to a lesser degree than presently proposed percentagewise. He thought that further study might be given to the deduction by areas and/or type plan as he felt a plan of this sort had considerable merit.

Mr. Randolph stated that in his opinion the people of Alabama are not presently ready to accept a self-financing plan. Mr. Wilson, of Georgia, stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Wingate's earlier statements to the effect that any acreage or type increase should be made across the board for all areas.

(e) Section 6 of the proposed bill was briefly discussed. It had earlier been tentatively decided that the proposed bill would be based on scale 108 and, in line with that thinking, sections 6 and 7 of the proposed bill would be eliminated.

(f) Section 8 of the proposed bill was reviewed briefly. Mr. R. Wilson posed the following question concerning section 8: "What is the opinion of the group as to the effect the ad-on provision will have on the chances of the proposed bill

« ПретходнаНастави »