GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 993 



Legislation of this type would limit the scope of administrative discretion by the 

 Department in the future apportionment of goals. Other factors in determining 

 State production goals, such as determining national requirements, determination 

 of yields, and the handling of noncommercial acreage, must necessarily be subject 

 to administrative control in order to reflect current conditions. 



The National Potato Council respectfully urges that the above recommended 

 changes in the law be made by the Congress. 

 Respectfully yours, 



John C. Broome, 

 Secretary, Southeastern Potato Committee, Elizabeth City, N. C, Chairman, 

 Special Legislative Committee, National Potato Council. 



W. M. Case, 

 Executive Secretary, Red River Valley Potato Growers Association, Grand 

 Forks, N. Dak. 



Clifford G. McIntire, 

 Assistant General Manager, Maine Potato Growers, Inc., Presque Isle, 

 Maine. 



John J. Peters, 

 Potato Grower, Shafter, Calif. 

 Favor H. Smith, 

 Executive Secretary, Long Island Agricultural Council, Riverhead, Long 

 Island, N. Y. 



(The following letter dated June 9 from Congressman Porter 

 Hardy, Jr., is submitted at this point for the record:) 



House of Representatives, 

 Washington, D. C, June 9, 1949. 

 Hon. Stephen Pace, 



Subcommittee Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, 

 House of Representatives, Washington 25, D. C. 



Dear Mr. Chairman: This relates further to our conversation concerning 

 proposals of the National Potato. Council. Reference is particularly made to 

 the council's recommendation that acreage goals for 1949 be used to constitute 

 a base from which future adjustments will be made up or down on an across- 

 the-board percentage basis. 



I have one specific objection to this proposal and hope your committee in 

 writing the legislation will give consideration to the content of this letter. 



On December 2, 1948, there was a conference between certain potato growers. 

 Members of Congress, and Department of Agriculture officials when considera- 

 tion was given to the method of establishing the 1949 goals. Following that 

 conference the Department released a report which announced the procedure 

 to be followed. It included nine steps, of which three constituted the major 

 factors. One of these was the 5-year 1943-47 average production by States, the 

 second was the 3-year 1945-47 average surplus purchases by States, and the 

 third was the 2-year average production from acreage planted in excess of goals. 



This was the first year in which a State was penalized for having sold potatoes 

 under the surplus purchase program. Such a procedure had been recommended 

 in previous years, but had not been approved. Purchases were made necessary 

 by excess production which in large measure was brought about by excess acreage 

 in certain high producing areas. It resulted in penalizing some States where 

 the excess acreage was either slight or nonexistent. It is my considered opinion 

 that this factor should never have been employed, and I understand it has been 

 agreed that in the absence of legislation fixing a formula for distributing acreage, 

 it will not be employed in the future. 



It therefore becomes necessary that if the 1949 acreage goals are used as i* 

 basis for future distribution of acreage, adjustments should be made in those 

 goal figures to eliminate the factor for surplus purchases. Justice to the States 

 in which surplus purchases were made makes it essential that your committee 

 provide for the elimination of this factor. 



I shall be glad to discuss this more in detail with you if your committee desires 

 to hear from me further about it. 

 Sincerely yours, 



Porter Hardy, Jr. 



