Слике страница
PDF
ePub

CONTENTS

17

3

23

[ocr errors]

Statement of --Continued

Mack, James E., on behalf of the National Confectioners Association,

the Peanut Butter Manufacturers Association, and the Peanut Pago

Butter Sandwich and Cookie Manufacturers Association..

119

Miller, Clarence, administrator, Commodity Stabilization Service,

United States Department of Agriculture; accompanied by James
E. Thigpen, USDA.

-. 37, 125

Pace, Stephen, a former Congressman from Georgia --

65

Pilcher, Hon. J. L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Georgia. -

36

Preston, Hon. Prince H., a Representative in Congress from the First

District of the State of Georgia.

59

Randolph, Walter L., president, Alabama Farm Bureau Federation.- 54

Rawlings, William D., executive secretary, Association of Virginia

Peanut and Hog Growers.-

49, 110

Reagan, Sydney C., general counsel, Southwestern Peanut Shellers

Association..

-- 39, 114

Scott, Barton, president, Caddo County Peanut Growers Association.. 113

Sikes, Hon. Robert L. F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Florida

33

Sugg, Joe 8., executive secretary of the North Carolina Peanut

Growers Association.

58

Teague, Hon. Olin E., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Texas.

33

Thornberry, Hon. Homer, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Texas

34

Turner, Luther, Clifton, Ga..

70

Wilson, Ross, manager, Southwestern Peanut Growers Association,

Gorman, Tex.

37

Vance, John B., president, Virginia Farmers Union.

103

Additional data submitted to the subcommittee by-
McMillan, Hon. John L.:

Acres allotted and harvested with percentages, 1953–57 (tables)-- 13
Peanut price support per 1 percent sound mature kernels per ton
by farmers' stock, by type, by year, 1951-57---

47

South Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., Columbia, S. C.,

letter of June 4, 1958..

57

Report on H. R. 12566 and H. R. 12545, by True D. Morse,

Acting Secretary, of June 9, 1958.-

136

Rawlings, William D.:

Minutes of Peanut Producers meetings in Atlanta, Ga., November

18-19, 1957, Radium Springs, December 6, 1957, Washington,

D. C., February 25, 1958, and Macon, Ga., March 13, 1958.-- 82-93

PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOTMENT

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1958

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMODITY SUBCOMMITTEE ON PEANUTS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a. m., in room 1310, New House Office Building, Hon. John L. McMillan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding:

Present: Representatives McMillan (presiding), Abbitt, and Smith. Also present: Representatives Gathings, Matthews, Hagen, and Mabel C. Downey, clerk.

Mr. McMILLAN (presiding). The committee will come to order.

The committee has met this morning for the purpose of considering a bill introduced by Congressman Matthews of Florida, H. R. 11098.

(H. R. 11098 is as follows:)

(H. R. 11098, 85th Cong., 2d sess.)

A BILL To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 with respect to acreage

allotments for cotton and peanuts

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 344 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U. S. C. 1344), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection :

“(n) The planting of cotton on a farm in 1957 or any subsequent year for which no farm acreage allotment was established shall not make the farm eligible for an allotment as an old farm under provisions of this section: Provided, however, That, by reason of such planting, the farm need not be considered as ineligible for a new farm allotment under provisions of this section."

Sec. 2. Section 358 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U. S. C. 1358), is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

“(i) The production of peanuts on a farm in 1957 or any subsequent year for which no farm acreage allotment was established shall not make the farm eligible for an allotment as an old farm under subsection (d) of this section : Provided, however, That by reason of such production the farm need not be considered as ineligible for a new farm allotment under subsection (f) of this section, but such production shall not be deemed past experience in the produce tion of peanuts for any producer on the farm."

Mr. McMILLAN. We have with us Mr. James W. Merrill and Mr. James E. Thigpen from the Department of Agriculture. Will you move up to the witness stand?

We would like to hear the Department's views on this legislation. Mr. Matthews has indicated that he will make a statement or submit one for the record after the Department has spoken.

1

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 acreage 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. McMILLAN. Thank you. Any questions?

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.

Mr. GATHINGS. Yes, I would imagine it would.

Mr. MERRILL. In Mr. Matthews State of Florida for example, farmers have taken in any 1 given year as much as 3 or 4 percent reduction because of having to establish these allotments for farmers who had never grown peanuts before. In other words, these farmers did not come in and make application for a new-farm allotment. They just went out and grew peanuts without an allotment. Establishing allotments for these farms has in certain years reduced the allotments for regular old farms by 3 or 4 percent.

Mr. GATHINGS. And that would hurt, too, believe me, if it goes on year in and year out and that would make considerable difference in the income of these farmers; isn't that so!

Mr. MERRILL. That is right. However, in that regard I would like to point out that the legislation that the Congress enacted last year on green peanuts did help the situation considerably.

As you know, there is a tremendous acreage of green peanuts grown in Florida and prior to the enactment of the green peanut legislation the State and county ASC committees had to establish allotments for these green peanut farms so that the legislation did help that situation.

Mr. GATHINGS. As I understand from Mr. Matthews' letter, they have approximately an allotment in the State of Florida of about 54,000 acres.

These farmers, of course, would assume that if that same allotment of 54,000 acres comes to the State each year, they would be given the same acreage on their particular farm?

Mr. MERRILL. That is exactly right, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. And I just wondered whether or not it is the opin. ion of the Department-I did not get your comments as to whether or not you would favor Mr. Matthews' bill.

Mr. MERRILL. Mr. Matthews, prior to introducing this legislation, wrote a letter to the Department requesting the Department's opinion on the bill. The Department informed Mr. Matthews that we favored the legislation.

To carry it one step further, at the moment speaking of the problem close to Mr. Abbitt, this is not as serious a problem in the State of Florida as it is elsewhere—not as serious.

Congressman Abbitt will remember that 2 years ago in Virginia, instead of a farm with a 10-acre allotment getting 10 acres, it received 9.9 acres. Every farm with an allotment of less than 9 acres did not receive a reduction. This occurred because of the factoring process.

Now, those fellows down there had a terrible time explaining why allotments of over 10 acres were reduced.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Chairman, may I at this point in the record submit the letter from Mr. True D. Morse, the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, dated March 14, 1958, in which the Department expressed approval of this legislation ?

Mr. MCMILLAN. Without objection.
(The letter referred to is as follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D. C., March 14, 1958. Hon. D. R. MATTHEWS,

House of Representatives. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MATTHEWS: This is in reply to your request of January 2, 1958, for a statement of the Department's position relative to provisions of a bill which you plan to introduce during the current session of Congress.

« ПретходнаНастави »