Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Any limitation on the period of the program tends to detract from the incentive price as an incentive for increased production just like at the present time. There will be some uncertainty on the part of growers as to whether to retain more of their ewe lambs for breeding stock until they know definitely whether the incentive program on shorn wool is to be continued beyond March 31, 1959.

In order to maintain the gains toward increased wool production already under way, an incentive price for the 1959 marketing year which begins next April must be announced this summer. Otherwise, our domestic wool growers will figure that they cannot count upon more than the free market price for their wool after March 31, 1959, when the authority for incentive payments under the present act expires. Without assurance of continuance of an incentive level, they will not have the confidence to retain ewe lambs for breeding stock.

Increases in sheep and wool production due to the very nature of the enterprise can be only gradual even under the most favorable conditions. Considering the time it takes to hold back more ewe lambs for breeding and getting those lambs into production, a 3- or 4-percent increase annually is about all that can be expected in practical operations. Raising more sheep is not like raising more wheat where the seeding of 1 more bushel of wheat can result in 30 or 40 more bushels within a few months.

Due to the longtime nature of the sheep and wool enterprise, a continuing program is essential to give growers the confidence needed for them to make plans for increasing wool production. The incentive price must be announced at the time they are deciding whether or not to hold back their ewe lambs for future breeding purposes and thus long before the increased production from those lambs will reach the market.

I respectfully, therefore, urge this committee assist the sheepmen of the United States by providing as early an extension of the National Wool Act as is possible.

In closing, I would like to direct my remarks to some considerable comment made yesterday at the hearing as to whether or not the Wool Act was working toward the goal of increased production.

According to latest estimates, domestic production of shorn wool last year totaled 235 million pounds compared to the goal for an annual production of 300 million pounds as the declared policy of Congress under the National Wool Act of 1954.

With regard to the accomplishments of the incentive-payment program toward increasing wool production, growers did not get their first payments under the program until the summer of 1956. Furthermore, severe drought conditions prevailed in Texas and other important sheep producing areas during the first years of the program.

According to the release by the Department of Agriculture February 14, stock sheep and lambs on ranches January 1 were estimated at 27,390,000 head, or 3 percent more than a year earlier and the largest inventory number since January 1, 1953. Ewe lamb numbers increased sharply to 4,347,000 head, a gain of 16 percent from a year earlier, and reached the highest level since January 1, 1952.

The retention of more ewe lambs indicates that the incentive-payment program is encouraging growers to expand their sheep and wool production operations as range and forage conditions permit in accordance with the intent of the act. There were increases in stock sheep numbers last year in 8 of the 13 western sheep States and in 21 of the 35 native States.

Current reports on the prices being paid for ewe lambs and breeding stock, both in the western and in the native sheep States, show that the greater interest in sheep raising is continuing. The increase in sheep production contributes to a grassland agriculture in areas that have been producing cash crops in surplus, and is of benefit from that standpoint.

Mr. Poage. Thank you very much, Mr. Fisher.
Is there anyone else who wants to be heard on wool?

Does anyone have a statement they want to file or make?

Mr. HAGEN. I wish to ask a questionMr. Poage. We can hardly take the time, Mr. Hagen. Mr. Fisher is leaving for his own committee meeting, and the Dairy Subcommittee has to meet here. We have to adjourn.

Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Jennings raised a point the other day about whether there was any collusion

Mr. PoAGE. There is no witness before us of whom to ask a question. Mr. HAGEN. Mr. Franklin is in the audience.

Mr. Poage. Mr. Franklin is not a witness, and the Dairy Subcommittee is due to meet here. We have imposed on them too long. We simply have to let them meet. The subcommittee will now adjourn to room 1308. You may come there and ask any question you wish to, but we have to give this room to the committee to whom it belongs.

The committee will move into executive session in room 1308.

(Whereupon, at 10:05 a. m., the subcommittee went into executive session.)

X

EXTENSION OF RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTED

CITRUS FRUITS, DATES, AND FIGS

[blocks in formation]

H. R. 7760, H. R. 7832, H. R. 7937, H. R. 8845,

H. R. 9056, and H. R. 11056

FEBRUARY 25 AND MARCH 6, 1958

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture

Serial SS

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1958

23201

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

HAROLD D, COOLEY, North Carolina, Chairman WILLIAM S. HILL, Colorado, ex officio member of all subcommittees W. R. POAGE, Texas

CHARLES B. HOEVEN, Iowa GEORGE M. GRANT, Alabama

SID SIMPSON, Illinois E. C. GATHINGS, Arkansas

PAUL B. DAGUE, Pennsylvania JOHN L. MCMILLAN, South Carolina

RALPH HARVEY, Indiana THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi PAGE BELCHER, Oklahoma CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma

CLIFFORD G. MCINTIRE, Maine WATKINS M. ABBITT,. Virginia

WILLIAM R. WILLIAMS, New York JAMES G. POLK, Ohio

ROBERT D. HARRISON, Nebraska CLARK W. THOMPSON, Texas

HENRY ALDOUS DIXON, Utah PAUL C. JONES, Missouri

WINT SMITH, Kansas JOHN C. WATTS, Kentucky

OTTO KRUEGER, North Dakota HARLAN HAGEN, California

CHARLES M. TEAGUE, California LESTER R. JOHNSON, Wisconsin

DONALD E. TEWES, Wisconsin VICTOR L. ANFUSO, New York

ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota ROSS BASS, Tennessee

DELEGATE COYA KNUTSON, Minnesota

L. BARTLETT, Alaska W. PAT JENNINGS, Virginia

JOHN A. BURNS, Hawaii D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, Florida

RESIDENT COMMISSIONER

A. FERNÓS-ISERN, Puerto Rico
Mrs. MABEL C. DOWNEY, Clerk
HYDE H. MURRAY, A88istant Clerk
JOHN J. HEIMBURGER, Counsel
Francis M. LEMAY, Consultant

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC MARKETING

GEORGE M. GRANT, Alabama, Chairman HARLAN HAGEN, California

PAGE BELCHER, Oklahoma VICTOR L. ANFUSO, New York

WILLIAM R. WILLIAMS, New York COYA KNI'TSON, Minnesota

CHARLES M. TEAGUE, California

CONTENTS

H. R. 7760, a bill to amend section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act

(1933), as amended, and as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, so as to provide for the

extension of the restrictions on imported commodities imposed by such

section to all imported citrus fruits, and to sliced figs, dried figs, and Pago

2

H. R. 7832, a bill to amend section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act

(1933), as amended, and as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, so as to provide for

the extension of the restrictions on imported commodities imposed by

such section to all imported citrus fruits, and to sliced figs, dried figs, and

1

H. R. 7937, a bill to amend section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act

(1933), as amended, and as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, so as to provide for the

extension of the restrictions on imported commodities imposed by such

section to all imported citrus fruits, and to sliced figs, dried figs, fig

paste, dates with pits, dates with pits removed, and date products.

2

H. R. 8845, a bill to amend section ge of the Agricultural Adjustment Act

(1933), as amended, and as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as mended, so as to provide for the

extension of the restrictions on imported commodities imposed by such

section to all imported citrus fruits, and to sliced figs, dried figs; fig

paste, and shelled walnuts.

2

H. R. 9056, a bill to amend section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act

(1933), as amended, and as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, so as to provide for the

extension of the restrictions on imported commodities imposed by such

section to all imported citrus fruits, and to sliced figs, dried figs, fig

paste, and shelled walnuts..

2

H. R. 11056, a bill to amend section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment

as amended, and as reenacted and amended by the Agri-

cultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, so as to provide

for the extension of the restrictions on imported commodities imposed

by such section to all imported limes, grapefruit, lemons, mandarins,

all types of oranges including temples, tangerines, 'murcotts, and tange-

loes, dried figs, fig paste, sliced dried figs, shelled walnuts, dates with

pits; dates with pits removed, and products made entirely of dates...-- 49

American Farm Bureau Federation by John C. Datt, assistant legisla-

tive director

93

Baldwin, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress of the Sixth

District of the State of California.
Brown, Ernest C., Childress, Brown and Co., Burlingame, Calif

77

Bryce, James R., 'Jr., general manager of Diamond Walnut Growers,

Înc., Stockton, Calif

11

Date Packers Council of California -

116

Fitelson, J., consulting chemist, S. M. Wolff Co., New York, N. Y. 23

Grady, Dwight K., director, California Fig Institute -

93

James A., a Representative in Congress from the Seventh

District of the State of Florida

9

Halliday, Walter S., Jr.

, assistant general counsel, National Biscuit

87

ew York City

Harvey, John, Deputy Commissioner, Food and Drug Administra-

tion, Washington, D. C..

27

Co.,

« ПретходнаНастави »