Associated Press | July 29, 2001 | By JEFFREY McMURRAY, Associated Press Writer
Many peanut farmers figured Alabama Rep. Terry Everett would be their knight in shining armor, a defender of the 60-year-old quota system against those wanting to end it.
But just months after Everett took control of a key House agriculture panel, the days appear to be numbered for the program that has long propped up many Southeastern peanut producers.
And it was Everett who reluctantly helped broker the deal.
"Many of us like the old program, but Congress has said it simply won't allow that program to continue," said Everett, a Republican who represents the nation's third-largest peanut district.
For decades, farmers lucky enough to own government-assigned quotas have bickered with those who don't. Quota farmers are guaranteed $610 per ton of peanuts they harvest, while others are forced to settle for much less on the open market.
That, say the program's congressional critics, is inherently unfair. When the last farm bill was approved in 1996, peanut farmers narrowly escaped an effort to eliminate all price supports for their crop.
Everett and two peanut-friendly Georgians, Sanford Bishop and Saxby Chambliss, say the effort to kill the peanut program has since gained steam. The only option, they've concluded, is to dramatically alter it or risk losing any type of government help.
Last week, the House Agriculture Committee took the first step toward a compromise that delights shellers, manufacturers and non-quota farmers but has upset many southeasterners who have owned quotas for decades.
Under the plan, which would be included in the next 10-year farm bill, quota farmers would get about 10 cents a pound for their peanuts until 2006. After that, quotas would be eliminated for good.
In place of that system, the government would agree to buy peanuts for $350 a ton if farmers can't sell them for more. Those with a production history would be guaranteed an even higher price floor.
"The argument has always been we had an artificial cost built in to quota peanuts because the purchaser had to pay the quota price," Chambliss said. "Under this program, we'll eliminate the quota and anybody in the country can grow peanuts."
The most important reason for change, supporters say, is that the market loan concept will likely help peanut price supports survive the next farm bill. Randy Griggs, executive director of the Alabama Peanut Producers Association, says the change is also important because it allows American producers to compete with lower-cost peanuts on the world market.
"The current system would still be a dead-end street because of trade," Griggs said.
But many quota holders, including some who simply rent out their quotas to other farmers, say the change will threaten their livelihood. Wilbur Gamble, a Georgia farmer who chairs the National Growers Group, says Everett, Bishop and Chambliss betrayed him.
"They just gave up and didn't try," Gamble said. "They're putting a fraud on the whole Congress with what they've got. This thing is about more controls, not less controls."
Now that the House agriculture panel is finished writing its farm bill, the best hope for Gamble and others to reverse the change may come in the Senate.
But Sen. Zell Miller, a Georgia Democrat who sits on that chamber's agriculture committee, is disturbed by the squabbling among peanut growers in his state. If they don't get on the same page, Miller fears peanuts will be left out of the farm bill altogether.
"You know, they say the hangman's noose focuses a man like nothing else will," Miller said. "It makes me look silly as hell that my peanut people back in Georgia are all divided."
One thing all elements of the industry can agree on is that it's a tough time to be a peanut farmer. Last year, drought conditions and an oversupply drove down the value of the crop. Unable to sell peanuts for the $610-per-ton price floor, the farmers were saddled with a debt.
Because of that IOU, a provision in the 1996 farm bill, the current peanut program is designed to operate at no net cost to taxpayers. The new proposal would come with hefty price tag: about $3.4 billion over 10 years.
All the same, Bishop said he believes congressional critics are more concerned about fairness than cost.
"It's not a done deal, but we're hoping we can keep it intact," Bishop said. "It appears we'll be able to fend off attacks a lot better than we have been able to in the past."
Most farmers have conceded one thing: the next peanut program, whatever it is, will be far different from the current one.
"This is not a perfect science," said Bob Redding, lobbyist for the Georgia Peanut Commission. "We're doing the best we can, and our leadership is working hard to get us a good program that does not ignore the investment of quota holders.
"You're talking about a lot of jobs, a lot of economic impact in the southeastern United States. We've got to keep this industry."Associated Press:
