return for this safeguard of the public interest, they have very properly geared market supply levels to a full employment economy. Moreover, the bills point the way to a farm program which, under conditions of full employment and prosperity, would require very small expenditures by the Treasury, if indeed, cost anything. Another feature of the proposal would assure that the primary benefits of the program would go toward maintaining the family farm in America. This is not a new or revolutionary concept. I point out that Congress has recently seen fit to limit the amount of payments made to any one farm under the soil-bank legislation and that President Eisenhower has also expressed an opinion along this line. In a special message to Congress on January 9, 1956, the President said: I ask the Congress to consider making a dollar limit on the size of price-support loans to any one individual or farming unit. The limit should be sufficiently high to give full protection to the efficiently operated family farms. I know that this is a difficult question in and out of Congress, but I also know that huge cash payments to big operators have given our entire farm program a bad name in many quarters and kept us from getting certain much needed support for strengthening the program. The major features of the proposed legislation include constructive suggestions for allowing farmers to vote on their commodity programs, as well as to help administer them as they once did before the farmercommittee system was put on an advisory shelf. The proposed legislation would enable farmers to exercise responsibility for adjusting their production to the Nation's need for food and fiber, always taking into consideration ample reserves for defense needs or natural disaster. The bills provide for the use of parity income deficiency payments to farmers as a method of farm income protection under conditions which might make such payments necessary. I emphasize that this method would be used in workable fashion with such other methods as price-support loans, purchase contracts, and direct purchases as used in existing programs. This would give the farm program the type of flexibility I have often said it needs-flexibility of method to deal with different commodities and different conditions, rather than flexibility of price levels geared solely to supply. Another desirable feature of the bills is their attempt to bring up to date the formula to be used for measuring and guiding the farm income improvement program. This feature parallels discussions, held recently by the National Conference of Commodity Organizations, in which the National Grange and the National Farmers Union have been participating. There are many other specific features which could be commented upon, but there are other witnesses more competent to discuss the details of the proposed legislation. I would like to close by commending these bills to your thoughtful consideration again, as constructive steps toward a vigorous, workable, and dynamic farm program which would also be in the best interest of the general public. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. POAGE. Thank you, Mr. Brannan, we are very appreciative of your statement and of your work in agriculture and of your willingness to come and give us the benefit of your views. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. OMAR BURLESON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 17TH DISTRICT OF THE STATE of Texas Three major objectives will be accomplished by this bill, all of which are highly desirable and should be encouraged by Congress. These objectives are: 1. Permit peanut growers to put the price-support program on a self-help basis and remove the burden of the program from the taxpayers. The costs of carrying out the price-support program would be financed by deductions from the price received by growers. 2. Provide for an expanded market for peanuts through a promotion program financed out of deductions from the price received by growers. 3. Correct certain defects that have developed since the last revision of peanut legislation in the early 1950's. I strongly believe that Congress should give peanut growers an opportunity for self-help program in financing the costs of the peanut price-support program and in promoting peanuts. Congress should provide for the correction of certain grave disadvantages under which the Southwestern peanut industry is now forced to labor as a result of present legislation and the administration of this legislation. At the present time the support price on a ton of southeast runner peanuts is between $5 and $6 below the support price on a ton of southwest Spanish peanuts of the identical grade. As a result of this great disparity in support prices and as a result of the very high quality of southeast runner peanuts, the southeast runner peanuts have been displacing southwest Spanish peanuts in the edible market. The evidence is overwhelming that the southeast runner peanut is an extremely high-quality peanut. This is freely admitted by the growers and shellers of southeast peanuts. For example, at a meeting held by the Department of Agriculture on March 14, 1958, in Washington, D. C., the representative of all the growers and shellers in the Southeast area testified that all types of peanuts are completely interchangeable and substitutable. He stated that: "I was instructed to state at this meeting that the peanut growers of the Southeast and the peanut shellers of the Southeast are opposed to any allocation of peanuts on the basis of types. All type peanuts are good peanuts. They are completely interchangeable and substitutable***" Similar statements have been repeatedly made by other representatives of the Southeast area. The manner in which runner peanuts have been displacing Spanish peanuts is dramatically shown in the use of these peanuts in the making of peanut butter. In the 1946-47 marketing year, only 92 million pounds of shelled runner peanuts were used in making peanut butter. By 1956-57, the last complete marketing year, the use of runner peanuts in making peanut butter had increased to 177 million pounds. In sharp contrast, the use of Spanish peanuts in peanut butter decreased from 175 million pounds to 105 million pounds during the same period. The fine quality plus the low prices of runners have caused peanut butter manufacturers to favor runner peanuts to the serious detriment of Spanish peanuts. The following table shows by years and in millions of pounds the quantities of shelled runner and shelled Spanish peanuts used in peanut butter: This bill would provide for equality in support and would help check the shift away from Spanish peanuts to runner peanuts. This bill provides for the growers in each area financing the costs of diverting the surplus in their area. It would be most unfair for growers in areas not producing surpluses or producing only small surpluses to bear the cost of sur pluses in other areas. For example, during the last 6 years (1952 through 1957) there have been losses in the Southwest area in 2 of these years. There were losses in 1953 and 1955. During the same 6-year period there were substantial losses in the Southeast area in 5 out of the 6 years. The total losses during this 6-year period in the Southwest area were approximately $7 million, compared to approximately $43 million in the Southeast area during the same period. Furthermore, it would be an impossible undertaking to persuade growers in the Southwest area to accept a uniform deduction program. There is an urgent need to take action now to protect the peanut marketing quota, acreage allotment, and price support programs. The opponents of the peanut price support program will not remain idle in the future in response to inaction on our part. Twice during the last few years the peanut price support program has come close to being voted out as a basic agricultural commodity. When such an attack is launched on the program it is too late then to make constructive reforms. The peanut industry today faces a golden opportunity to set its house in order so that it can effectively withstand attacks. This bill should have the support of all who want to put the peanut price support program on a sound basis so that it can effectively withstand the attacks upon it. Mr. POAGE. That is, of course, exactly what I was trying to ask the witnesses if they favored. I wonder if we could ask if there is anybody in the room that objects to either one of those things, other than representatives of the Department and the salters and roasters-of course they object. Is there anybody, though, that represents any peanut producer that objects to either one of those proposals? Mr. GRANT. This is rather a limited audience to take a poll on. Mr. MATTHEWs. As I said before, I certainly cannot see any. Mr. MCMILLAN. If no one else cares to be heard, the committee will go into executive session. (Whereupon, at 4:10 p. m., the committee went into executive session.) |