and orders issued by the Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act. In general, these two California marketing laws authorize the following op tional provisions to be included in marketing programs issued by the State director of agriculture: 1. Provisions for controlling the volume of the product which may be marketed from time to time or for the season by means of volume or quality restrictions, and establishment of surplus, stabilization, diversion or substandard pools. Such programs may also provide methods for purchase and diversion of surpluses with stabilization fund moneys collected from producers and handlers, or received from other agencies. Volume control restrictions may also include regulation of the periods during which an agricultural commodity may be processed; regulation of the movement to market of a commodity in order to prevent overshipment and market gluts, and to develop a more even flow to market. Marginal tree and vine removal programs are also authorized. 2. Establishment of minimum grade, size, quality, condition or maturity specifications for agricultural commodities and provisions for the inspection and certification of all of the commodity in accordance with such requirements. 3. Development of plans for advertising and trade promotion for agricultural commodities produced in California, including measures designed to prevent, modify or eliminate trade barriers. 4. Provisions designed to control or prevent the use of unfair market or trade practices in the processing and handling of agricultural commodities within the State. 5. Provisions for carrying on research in current problems of production, processing and distribution of agricultural commodities. These marketing order programs in California originate with a request of the producers or handlers of a particular commodity. With the assistance of economists in the bureau of markets of the State department of agriculture, preliminary programs are developed to include those provisions, authorized by the law, which are considered to be suitable for the solution of the particular problems involved. In California the programs most commonly include authorizations for quality control and improvement, for inspection and certification, advertising and trade promotion, and research studies. Only a few marketing control programs under California law include extensive regulations for control of surpluses. When a proposed marketing program has been developed in preliminary form, the sponsoring group then requests the director of agriculture to call a public hearing or hearings upon the proposal. This development affords an opportunity both for proponents and opponents of the proposed program, or of any particular provision thereof, to submit testimony and evidence to the director of agriculture. After the public hearing, the director reviews the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, and other facts available to him. If he determines that the proposed marketing order would be appropriate, and would tend to carry out the purpose of the Marketing Act, he issues the proposed marketing order for the assent of producers or handlers, or both, if both producers and handlers would be directly affected by the program. The proposed marketing order can be made effective only if written assent thereto is given by the required proportion of producers and handlers who would be directly affected. In the case of producers, written assent is required from at least 51 percent by number and 65 percent by volume, or from at least 65 percent by number and 51 percent by volume. In the case of handlers, written assent must be given by 65 percent either by number or by volume, except that in the case of fruits and vegetables for canning, or the processing of dried fruits, 65 percent both by number or by volume is required. Each marketing program provides for the appointment by the director of agriculture of an advisory board composed of producers or handlers, or both. These advisory boards administer the programs, subject to the approval of the director of agriculture. The board recommends to the director marketing regulations and programs of activities authorized in the marketing order. Upon approval by the director, the regulations become effective, and the activities may be carried out. The administrative functions necessary to carry out the provisions of the program are performed by employees of the advisory board. General supervision of the board's activities, and enforcement and financial controls, are exercised by the director of agriculture through the bureau of markets. Several of the marketing order programs currently active have been in operation for 15 years or more; others are of more recent origin. There is a widespead interest at the present time in these programs on the part of producers and handlers of agricultural commodities, and several new programs are under consideration. The programs now in active operation embrace the following commodities: apples, asparagus, bush berries, cantaloupes, dried figs, grapefruit, honey, lemon products, lettuce, lima beans, cling peaches for canning and freezing, fresh peaches, fresh Bartlett pears, canning Bartlett pears, fresh fall and winter pears, canning fall and winter pears, plums, potatoes, poultry and turkeys, prunes, raisins, strawberries, and wine. Some industries have more than one program. Each program is financed by the industry concerned. Assessments are made on a uniform basis, usually upon the units of the commodities marketed by each producer and handled by each handler. Such assessments are paid to the department of agriculture, and are deposited in special funds in the State treasury to the credit of each program. Expenditures are made by the advisory boards under fiscal rules established by the State. No general tax moneys are used for the formulation, administration, or enforcement of these programs. The provisions of marketing orders and programs, including the collection of assessments, are enforcible in law, and violators may be subjected to the penalties prescribed in the statutes. If litigation is required in the enforcement of regulations or procedures, such litigation is conducted by the office of the State attorney general. A copy of each presently effective State program and a concise tabulation of the provisions of all programs accompany this statement. (The tabulation referred to above is as follows, and the copies of effective State programs are on file with the committee:) 17. Fresh fall and winter pears. 18. Hardy pears, promotion. 19. Plums (fresh). 20. Potatoes, Delta white. 21. Potatoes, long white.. Advertising and sales promotion; grade and size limitations; volume regula- | Effective Aug. 26, 1941; indefinite term. tion and container requirements. Sales promotion, market development and advertising; research and survey studies in production, processing, and distribution. Grade, size, maturity, and pack regulations; inspection; advertising and sales Grade, size, and maturity regulations; quantity regulations; mandatory 22. Poultry and turkey improvement (mar- Control or eradication of pullorum disease and fowl typhoid in chicken and keting agreement). turkey flocks; inspection and examination for certification with respect to degree of absence or presence of disease. Advertising and sales promotion; marketing, proudction, and processing research. Advertising and sales promotion; production, processing, and marketing research. Advertising and trade promotion; research and survey studies in production, processing, and marketing. Sales promotion, market development, and advertising plans for turkeys for meat purposes. Advertising and sales promotion; production, processing and distribution research. Minimum number of grades and minimum quality standard for grades and other grade regulations; uniform inspection, grading, and certification; education and trade-stimulation plans; production, processing, and marketing research; production or acreage surveys. Effective July 11, 1955; indefinite term. Effective Apr. 25, 1950; indefinite term. Effective Aug. 12, 1953; minor amendment First effective June 5, 1945, for poultry, Sept. First effective June 28, 1949; amended, effective Effective July 9. 1952; indefinite term. First effective Oct. 24, 1938; latest amended STATEMENT FILED BY GORDON LYONS, EXECUTIVE MANAGER, CALIFORNIA BEET GROWERS ASSOCIATION, LTD., STOCKTON, CALIF. On behalf of our association and its membership, which includes more than 98 percent of the sugar-beet farmers in California, our Nation's leading sugarproducing State, we desire to join with our friends and fellow farmers in extending a warm welcome to the distinguished chairman and other members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. We are submitting this written statement today in the interest of saving the time of the committee and in affording more opportunity to our fellow farmers to present problems to the committee in which it has a direct interest. As we are sure you gentlemen of the committee are aware, the sugar industry of this Nation is now and has, for more than 20 years, been regulated by Federal legislation, the present-day prototype of which is known as the Sugar Act of 1948. Due to the peculiar problems of sugar, it was found essential in the middle thirties to give special treatment and attention to this commodity produced in equal quality from sugar beets and sugarcane by devising and enacting special legislation, the fundamental principles of which have stood the acid test of time. It is true that we have not always been happy with the manner in which this law has been administered, because there have been times when returns from sugar crops have been, in our opinion, distinctly lower than circumstances warranted. However, we do not wish to imply that these conditions arose through fault of the legislation itself. On the contrary, we pay tribute to it by joining wholeheartedly in the often and widely expressed opinion by Members of Congress that in many ways the Sugar Act is the best agricultural legislation ever to be enacted by the Congress. Through the years it has been necessary from time to time for the Congress to review and amend this legislation in order to adapt it to changing conditions. The wisdom of providing such malleability in the original law and in the several extensions thereof has been proven time and time again. Indeed, such a condition faces the sugar industry today, and there is presently before the United States Congress a bill to provide amendments to the law and an extension of it until December 31, 1962. This bill was passed by the House late in the day on July 30, 1955, but was not considered by the Senate during the remaining 2 days of the 1st session of the 84th Congress. It now rests on the table, to be the first order of business to be taken up by the Senate Finance Committee when the second session of this Congress convenes next January. With 2 or 3 relatively minor changes which have already been brought to the attention of members of the Senate Finance Committee, this bill would be completely acceptable to us. This legislation is more than self-supporting. Actually, it provides an annual net revenue to the United States Treasury. This is accomplished by the collection of a tax of 50 cents per 100 pounds on all sugar manufactured in the United States, which is more than sufficient to meet the expenses of administering the program and the payments to domestic sugar producers which are conditioned upon their compliance with the restrictive provisions of the law. The law divides the United States market among domestic and certain foreign producers of sugar by the allocation of quotas to the various producing areas. Since the Western Hemisphere produces more sugar available to the United States market than it can absorb, these quotas are naturally restrictive. For example, the quota for the domestic sugar-beet area has, for the past several years, been fixed at 1,800,000 tons of sugar annually. New production methods, better fertilizers, and great improvement in other cultural practices, new reclamation projects, and the restriction on production of other crops have brought about such an increased demand for sugarbeet acreage among western farmers that the continuation of the 1,800,000 ton production ceiling on this industry would be extremely punitive. Amendments now before the Congress provide for modest relief from this condition through the sharing by domestic areas in future increases in consumption of sugar in this country. Support prices and parity levels provided for the so-called basic crops and others are features which have never been included in the sugar legislation. This law provides that its administrator the Secretary of Agriculture, shall administer it so as to provide a quantity of sugar sufficient to meet the requirements of consumers which will be consumed at prices which will not be excessive to consumers, and which will fairly and equitably maintain and protect the welfare of the domestic sugar industry. |