« ПретходнаНастави »
And then he would go to the next man and say: "Listen, I would like to plant an acre of peanuts on your farm."
There would probably be just 1 man in that community, and that would not affect but a small portion, but it does add to the surplus in that area, and the man that does not do that does not like it very well; and I understand that there are more that do not follow that practice than there are that do.
Mr. THIGPEN. Just as a comment: From having spoken to those in different areas, I do not know of anyone, in any area, who would oppose this from that standpoint.
Mr. MERRILL. May I make an observation?
Mr. MERRILL. We held a peanut meeting in Atlanta, Ga., Thursday and Friday of last week, and we passed out copies of this bill to all the people present.
Present at the meeting from Georgia-Mr. McMillan, I believe you asked about Georgia—was the chairman of the State ASC committee, the administrative officer in the State, 2 county office managers, and 2 administrative people out of the State office.
We also had representatives of the ASC organizations from each of the peanut States.
Mr. McMILLAN. Was Mr. Pace present?
you have any of those there? Mr. MERRILL. Some of the county office managers were, more than likely producers. No one at the meeting stated any objection whatsoever to the bill.
In fact, everyone there recommended its enactment.
Mr. MATTHEWs. Mr. Chairman, the committee will recall that after our previous meeting, Mr. Abbitt presented the problem that is embodied in section 2 of the bill.
Mr. McMILLAN. Yes. I remember it was the thinking of the committee it would be wise to introduce a clean bill.
Mr. MATTHEWS. Yes, sir; and the chairman will also remember that in the original bill we had a reference to cotton, and it was at the request of the committee that we eliminated cotton from it.
Mr. MCMILLAN. Yes.
Mr. ABBITT. I would like to ask Mr. Miller or whoever might want to respond if you think this language on page 2, at line 17, will answer their suggestions: If you add to line 17, after the word "period”, “this section shall not be applicable to the 1958 crop.”
Would that take care of what you have in mind ?
Mr. MILLER. We recommend this provision be made applicable to that.
Mr. ABBITT. Well, my question was, Will this suggested language take care of that?
Mr. MILLER. I believe so; yes.
Mr. ABBITT. That is: “This section shall not be applicable to the 1958 crop.
Mr. SCHOONOVER. I suggest that perhaps it be made applicable to the 1959 or subsequent crops.
PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOTMENT
Department of Agriculture; accompanied by James E. Thigpen,
Burleson, Hon. Omar, a representative in Congress from the 17th
PEANUT PRICE SUPPORT PROVISION
TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1958
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met in room 1310, New House Office Building, Washington, D. C., at 10 a. m., the Honorable John J. McMillan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. McMILLAN. The committee will come to order. The committee has under consideration this morning H. R. 12566 and H, R. 12545. (The bills referred to follow :)
[H. R. 12566, 85th Cong., 2d sess.) A BILL To amend the peanut marketing quota and price support provision of the Agri
cultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Agricultural Act of 1949, 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 301, subsection (b), of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended as follows:
(a) Paragraph (10), subparagraph (A), is amended by striking out in the second sentence the language "15 per centum in the case of peanuts" and inserting in lieu thereof the language “25 per centum in the case of peanuts”.
(b) Paragraph (16), subparagraph (A), is amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a colon and adding the following proviso: “Provided, That, for purposes of determining the supply of peanuts and calculating the supply percentage, only peanuts carried commercially shall be considered."
SEC. 2. Section 358 of the Agricultural adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended (a) by inserting in the first sentence of subsection (a) immediately following the words “prospective demand conditions” the language "so as to provide, together with the carryover of peanuts for 105 per centum of a normal supply of peanuts", (b) by changing the proviso in subsection (a) to read as follows: “Provided, That the national marketing quota for the crop of peanuts produced in any calendar year shall be a quantity of peanuts sufficient to provide a minimum national acreage allotment of not less than the larger of 95 per centum of the national acreage allotment for the preceding year or one million five hundred and twenty-nine thousand five hundred acres”.
SEC. 3. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof a new title V as follows: *TITLE V—PEANUT FUND FOR SURPLUS DIVERSION, PUBLICITY,
PROMOTION, AND OTHER PURPOSES "SEC. 395. (a) The Secretary shall, not later than December 15 of each calendar year, conduct a referendum of farmers engaged in the production of peanuts in the calendar year in which the referendum is held to determine whether such farmers are in favor of, or are opposed to, the establishment with respect to the crops of peanuts which are produced in the three calendar years immediately following the year in which the referendum is held, and for which marketing quotas for peanuts are in effect, of a fund for the purposes of (1) defraying the net losses sustained by the Commodity Credit Corporation in disposing of peanuts acquired under its price support program; (2) providing payments to shellers STATEMENT OF JAMES W. MERRILL, CHIEF, PRODUCTION PRO
GRAM BRANCH, OILS AND PEANUT DIVISION, COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES E. THIGPEN, DIRECTOR, OILS AND PEANUT DIVISION
Mr. THIGPEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a short statement first.
I believe that the problem here arises out of the situation which has existed on peanuts in recent years and which relates itself to the war, when the acreage of peanuts was roughly doubled at the request of the Department to provide peanuts for the production of oil. After the war that acreage was reduced by approximately half; the allotments by States are, I might say, frozen by existing legislation.
With the price support for peanuts the crop is attractive to the farmers in the areas in which it is grown and consequently there is an effort on the part of farmers to increase their production or to get new allotments.
Under existing legislation a farmer can plant peanuts without an allotment and the next year he becomes eligible for some allotment, or the farm becomes eligible for some allotment as an old farm.
To the extent that allotments are established in such case the acreage involved must be taken away from the other farmers who have been growing peanuts for a longer period of time and who already have allotments. That creates a rather difficult situation on the part of these farmers who had their acreages cut by half after the war.
The Department, even though this acreage is reduced by half, still is faced in most years with some surplus coming from the minimum total allotment which is fixed by law and the diversion of that surplus is a relatively costly item.
The change proposed here would prevent a farmer from planting without an allotment in a given year and then obtaining an allotment as an old farm in the next year.
It would not, however, prevent that farmer from obtaining an allotment as a new farmer. It would prevent a consideration of acre. age grown without allotment as experience in establishing allotment for a new farm.
I believe that is all that I care to say at the moment.
Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this gentleman from the Department would give us some information with respect to the reductions that the growers in peanuts have to take as the result of the fact that these people who plant small acreages in peanuts get the old-farm status and are permitted to get a little of that acreage which is taken away from those other farmers in the county. I just wondered how that affects these old growers who, I should think, grow more peanuts than the one with the smaller acreage.
Mr. THIGPEN. Mr. Merrill, I believe you have the figures on that.
Mr. MERRILL. I do not have the exact figures on the subject. I think however that I can point out pretty generally how it has affected them in the past.
Now, that varies tremendously by States.