CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

October 16, 1969

Page 30379

AMENDMENT OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937, AS AMENDED

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 414, S. 2214.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.

The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S. 2214) to amend section 608 (c) (2) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill?

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported with amendments on page 1, at the beginning of line 3, strike out:

That section 608 (c) (2) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, is amended as follows:

And insert:

That section 8c (2) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and subsequent legislation is amended as follows:

In line 9, after the word "In,” strike out "subparagraph" and insert "clause"; on page 2, line 3, after the word "In,” strike out "subparagraph" and insert "clause"; and after line 6, insert a new section, as follows:

SEC. 2. The amendments made by this Act shall be effective only during the period beginning with the date of enactment of this Act and ending two years after such date.

So as to make the bill read:

S. 2214

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 8c(2) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and subsequent legislation, is amended as follows:

(1) In clause (A) after the words "vegetables (not including vegetables, other than asparagus, for canning or freezing", insert the words "and not including potatoes for canning, freezing, or other processing"; and

(2) In clause (B) after the words "fruits and vegetables for canning or freezing," insert the words "including potatoes for canning, freezing, or other processing."

SEC. 2. The amendments made by this Act shall be effective only during the period beginning with the date of enactment of this Act and ending two years after such date.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, this bill, reported from the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, has some amendments, but I will first discuss the purpose of the bill.

The purpose of the bill now before the Senate, S. 2214, is simply to place potatoes for other processing -- such as dehydration -- into other potato products on an equal basis with potatoes for canning and freezing which are now exempt under the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended.

In other words, the Marketing Agreement Act now already exempts potatoes for canning and freezing from coverage in any marketing order issued by the Department of Agriculture.

I might add that the term "other processing" is intended to include only that preparation of potatoes for market which involves the application of heat or cold to such an extent that the natural form or stability of the commodity undergoes a substantial change. This occurs in dehydration and in the manufacture of shoestring potatoes and potato chips. The act of peeling, cooling, slicing, or dicing, or the application of material to prevent oxidation does not constitute "other processing."

The committee's Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Marketing, and Stabilization of Prices held hearings on the bill. Some producer groups opposed the bill, while processors generally approved it.

The subcommittee and the committee felt that consistency in the treatment of potatoes was necessary. However, in order to provide protection to producers, the exemption carried by the bill is limited to a 2-year period.

The Department of Agriculture favored inclusion of all potatoes under marketing order authority, or exclusion of all potatoes for processing. Inclusion of some and exclusion of others creates competitive disadvantages. Inasmuch as potato products are in competition with each other in the national market, this bill would result in uniform treatment of potatoes for processing regardless of the final use made of the product.

The Department also reported that the use of potatoes for food processing has increased sharply during the past decade. Only 14 percent of 1956-crop potatoes used for food were processed. In 1967 about 42 percent were processed. Utilization for freezing was the most important in terms of volume, but large quantities were used for canning, potato chips, shoestrings, and dehydration.

Dehydrated potato processing increased sixfold during the 1956 to 1967 period, while the use of potatoes for chipping and shoestring potatoes more than doubled. Continued expansion of sales to all food processing outlets is expected in coming years.

Mr. President, there was some difference of opinion in the committee. Some of us would have preferred to put all potatoes destined for processing within reach of the potato producers, within their marketing orders, if they chose to cover potatoes used for processing. Others favored the method used in this bill; that is, to exclude all potatoes used for processing by which the natural form of the potatoes changes, from coverage of the marketing agreement and order.

The final settlement made by the committee was to permit this to be done as provided by the bill for a period of 2 years, to see whether or not the experiment of excluding all processed potatoes from the coverage of marketing orders would be satisfactory in general to the producers, who, after all, would be the ones most interested in marketing orders, as they are the only ones who can initiate such orders.

The bill as reported does just that. It would exclude all potatoes for processing from marketing orders, but only for a trial period of 2 years, so as to see how this program would work out.

Mr. President, these are all the comments that I have. If other Senators would like to be heard on the bill, I shall be happy to yield. Otherwise, I ask that the amendments be considered.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLAND. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. CURTIS. The bill now before us, S. 2214, was the bill in connection with which the hearings were centered on a locality in northern California and in Idaho and some of the adjacent States; was it not?

Mr. HOLLAND. Yes. This was the bill in which certain processors who used potatoes grown in northern California and Oregon felt that they were being discriminated against under a regional marketing order applicable only to that area, and they asked to be put in the same position as other processors using other potatoes from that area who were excluded from the coverage of the marketing order.

As I have already stated, the committee was not of one mind about this, but finally decided to give the program, as provided by the bill a 2-year period of trial, to see how it would work out.

Mr. CURTIS. My recollection is that the testimony that the committee received was somewhat divided, that one group of growers favored the legislation and another group did not.

I commend the distinguished Senator from Florida for the way he has handled the bill. I believe it was the junior Senator from Nebraska who suggested we might try it for 2 years, to see how it worked out, in fairness to all parties; and I am delighted that that was the way the bill was presented here.

Mr. HOLLAND. I thank my distinguished friend for that comment, and I am glad to say he is correct in his recollection; he was the one who suggested this compromise, which was finally accepted by all members of the committee, and we are all willing to see this program tried out for 2 years, as I recall the vote of the committee.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, S. 2214 is a bill to amend section 608(c) (2) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. Briefly, this bill exempts all potatoes used for processing from Federal marketing orders.

Federal marketing order legislation has played an important role in the orderly marketing of potatoes:

Marketing orders assure the adequate supply of high quality potatoes to the consumer at steady and reasonable prices.

The Federal marketing order has prevented the exploitation of both the consumer and the farmer by the middleman.

Current law exempts from marketing orders those potatoes that are to be processed by canning or freezing. Proponents of S. 2214 argue that processors of other types of potatoes are placed in an unfair competitive position with the canners and freezers. I recognize this problem, but the solution is not in more exemptions to the marketing order. The solution to achieving equity among processors, while at the same time preserving the benefits of marketing orders for the producers and consumers, is in the removal of all exemptions.

In my own State of Maine the Federal marketing order has been shelved. Many Maine potato producers are pressing for the reinstatement of that order. If more exemptions are granted for processors, it will be virtually impossible to convince the Maine potato growers, who produce for both the fresh and processing markets that the reinstatement of the marketing order is in their best interest.

For the good of the potato producer and the consumer I oppose the passage of S. 2214. At the same time, understanding the inequity faced by a part of the processing industry, I urge that the Agricultural Committee prepare substitute legislation to remove all exemptions from Federal marketing orders.

Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr. President, the Senator from California (Mr. MURPHY), the principal author of S. 2214, is necessarily absent today. The Senator, however, had prepared a statement which he had planned to make on this measure. I ask unanimous consent that his remarks be printed in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURPHY

As the author of S. 2214, I urge its passage. The bill would update the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937. The purpose of the 1937 act was to assist in stabilizing prices of fruits and vegetables in the fresh market at a profitable level. Canning, the only major method of food preservation in 1937, was exempt from the act's provisions. By 1946, freezing had become a common method of food preservation, and Congress updated the Act by expanding the exemption to include fruits and vegetables for freezing.

Today, dehydration has also become a major method of preserving foods, and S. 2214 would place all processors of potatoes -- canners, freezers, dehydrators, potato chippers, and shoe string manufacturers -- on a fair, equal and competitive basis.

I believe that the bill is in the best interest of the potato industries, both growers and processors, and the workers in the processing plants, as well as of the American consumer.

I support and urge its enactment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HUGHES in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the committee amendments.

Mr.: HOLLAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered en bloc.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are considered and agreed to en bloc.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended, so as to read: "A bill to exempt potatoes from processing from marketing orders."

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.

Mr. CURTIS. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.