Слике страница
PDF
ePub

frankly--that you are not bound by any such statement and you are not giving us any such statement of your own.

Mr. PACE. Bob, we have an executive committee that establishes policies.

Mr. POAGE. I know it.

Mr. PACE. The Virginia-North Carolina bill, please understand, has been moving around now for 211⁄2 years. It was presented to the Senate Agriculture Committee in Raleigh, in 1955. It has been before me and my executive committee 25 times. They have instructed me from time to time what their position is. I am not speaking out of the air, please understand me. I wouldn't dare to. As far as they are concerned, I have instructions as to their position. I am also speaking for the growers of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. I met with them and they took a vote and they declared themselves. I am presenting their views, not my own. Please understand that. Don't put me in a position of saying I will agree to one thing and won't agree to another.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Let us move on.

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Chairman, this is the crux of the whole thing. There isn't anything else involved here except this question of whether we are going to get a square deal across the board and everybody is to be treated alike.

Mr. MCMILLAN. We have other witnesses that desire to testify today.

Mr. POAGE. If we are to have the same rules across the belt we can settle this thing in a moment. There is no man here, Mr. Chairman, that can give us such an authoritative statement as Mr. Pace can. Everybody knows he represents a large part of the peanut industry. Everybody knows that he has done so much for the peanut industry. I think he is outstanding, head and shoulders above everybody else, in the peanut industry, and I think he has done one of the greatest jobs for his people that I have ever seen done. I want to know where he stands. I want to know if he is going to keep insisting that my people should have less for their peanuts than the people of the Southeast. If so, I must, of course, do what I can to destroy the machinery he is using. I would much prefer to work with him. But if we have no way of getting these sections together, the best thing for us to do is to wipe out the entire peanut program and grow peanuts. We may feed them to the hogs, but we will grow peanuts.

Now, if you don't want to treat everybody alike, then let us just go back to where we don't have any special privileges. All you have asked is just a "fair advantage" for your people. Now, let us just wipe out all advantage for everybody.

But I have
I thought I

Mr. MCMILLAN. Let us get on with the hearing. Mr. Pace. Mr. PACE. I am sorry, Bob. I have no authority. Mr. POAGE. I have no criticism of you personally. heard all I want to know. I am deeply disappointed. had gotten somewhere. Now I find that you refuse to treat us as equals.

Mr. PACE. I love you but you don't want an idle promise. Mr. POAGE. I cannot look upon Mr. Turner's statement as an idle promise.

Mr. PACE. Mr. Chairman, I am about done. There is a peculiar thing in the Southwest bill. It is difficult to understand. They come in the first section and amend normal supply, amend total supply, to increase the support price of peanuts up to 90 percent. As you all know-I am about done as I have said, they raised the support up in the first paragraph and about the last one, as all of you know, you have got two flexible price-support schedules. You have got cotton and peanuts. Then you have another one for wheat, corn, tobacco, and what else. The supply percentage on wheat has been down to 102 percent to get 90 percent support. This percentage on cotton and peanuts can be as high as 108 percent and you still get 90 percent support. For some reason I don't understand, and it wasn't explained this morning, they have taken peanuts out of the 108 percent with cotton and they are putting it over with wheat which will have exactly the opposite effect. It will reduce this support price on peanuts.

Now, there may be some justification, but if there is, I can't think of it.

Now, the last section, Mr. Chairman, is a section that would have the effect of telling the Commodity Credit Corporation who should or should not administer the price support schedule. That may be a subject that this committee wants to go into, but I have very serious doubts about it.

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to you, sir. I am sorry I consumed so much of your time.

The CHAIRMAN. We certainly appreciate your taking time to give us your opinion of this pending legislation.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Mr. Turner, will you give a further statement?

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the opportunity, please, sir, to help my good friend, Congressman Poage, as Mr. Abbitt, if I may, sir, to try to understand the things that you and certainly I am very deeply concerned about, Congressman Poage. I believe some of the best friends I have in the peanut industry are your constituents. We have fought this battle up one road and down the other.

The same thing goes with a lot of your constituents, Congressman Abbitt, and you have seen me at these peanut meetings over a period of 20 years, I suppose. Times and conditions change most everything, and it certainly has changed the peanut-growing habits, productionwise, tonnage per acre. Types of peanuts have been improved considerably by our esteemed gentlemen, some of Congressman Matthews' constituents, who have added to the peanut industry a type of peanut, if you please, Mr. Poage, that has brought about this thing that you and I are talking about, maybe an inequity in differentials, if you please.

The Dixie runner peanut has replaced what used to be, Mr. Abbitt and Mr. Rawling, a hog peanut. It isn't so any more. It is now an outstanding competitive product. We don't deny that, not in one degree. We are proud of it. We are glad of it, sir.

Now, getting back to these differentials-and Mr. Moake I believe is not here on the same grade, if you please, and this is going in the record, we pay within 50 cents a ton for Runner peanuts of what the

is, cooking and salting-for ultimate sale to the consuming public. The members of this association purchase in large quantities, and it has been estimated that the association annually purchases at least 75 percent of the total production of the extra large and medium type Virginia shelled peanuts.

The ePanut & Nut Salters Association is opposed to any legislation that will reduce peanut acreage, and thus reduce the supply of available peanuts.

Our only worry is the question of any possible reduction in peanuts. The growers grow them; the shellers shell them. We process them and sell them to the consuming public.

During the last few years, we have had several problems. One was some relief from the Tariff Commission, imports on peanuts. I think peanuts today are in rather short supply. And our purpose in coming here is to tell you that we would hate to see any legislation that would cut down the supply for the consuming public.

Other than that, we do not desire to go into the technicalities of the two bills.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Any questions?

Mr. ABBITT. Mr. Gravelle, as I understand it, section 2 of the billand that is on page 2-does amend the minimum acreage allotment clause of the present law.

Do I understand you to say that if that section were eliminated, that your association, as of now, would have no objection to the bill?

Mr. GRAVELLE. I would rather put it this way. I think you have some rather technical legislation that is being proposed. I was in hopes that the Department of Agriculture would have gone on first this afternoon, so we could have had detailed information as to what, in their opinion, this bill would do or would not do. And in the absence of any information in that connection, we would much prefer to just tell the Congress that we don't want you to cut down acreages, because we sell more peanuts if they are available.

Mr. ABBITT. I can well understand your not wanting to go into the technicalities. I wouldn't want to myself, unless the Department made a statement.

Mr. GRAVELLE. Yes. We were in hopes that the Department representatives would testify first.

Mr. ABBITT. But what you are mainly concerned with now is that section that deals with more or less modifying and doing away with the minimum-acreage allotment, as guaranteed-1,160,100.

Mr. GRAVELLE. That is right.

Mr. ABBITT. I might, for your information, say that a number of people have expressed to me the same feeling, and I think it is generally understood, among the people interested in this particular legislation-certainly those I have talked to-that if the bill were reported out, that provision would not be in it.

So far as I am concerned, I can speak for nobody else but myself, and don't pretend to. So far as I am concerned, that section is not necessary to the legislation. And I think the main reason it was put in there was, I understood, the Department had been harping on the fact that they could not get a good program so long as we had a guaranteed minimum, that they couldn't handle it or do anything

about it.

But as far as I am concerned, I think that that provision should come out. And I feel as far as I can speak, that it will come out before

Mr. GRAVELLE. And that provision to reduce the acreage.

Mr. ABBITT. It doesn't reduce the acreage. It is merely discretionary, and lets the Department say what the acreage need is to meet the needs and demands of the trade, and they can't lower it more than 5 percent in any one year.

But it does give the Department a discretion. It does not reduce it itself, but gives the Department the discretion to lower the minimum acreage as much as 5 percent.

That is the section I am talking about. It is section No. 2 of the bill, on page 2. And as far as I am concerned, it will certainly come out of the bill before it goes out of here.

Mr. ALBERT. I might say that section was put in when the peanut law was first passed, with an understanding, if I remember the legislative history correctly, that it would remain there. And it was agreed on as a permanent base for peanuts-1,610,000 acres. I think we should go slow about knocking out that provision.

Mr. POAGE. The Burleson bill provides they cannot go any lower,

doesn't it?

Mr. ALBERT. No, it is the same.

Your position here is, you are opposing that section and you are reserving all comment on the rest of the bill?

Mr. GRAVELLE. We are opposing any reduction in acreage. You furnish the peanuts, and we will sell them for you.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Gravelle.
Mr. James E. Mack, National Confectioners Association.

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. MACK, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
CONFECTIONERS ASSOCIATION, THE PEANUT BUTTER MANU-
FACTURERS ASSOCIATION, AND THE PEANUT BUTTER SANDWICH
AND COOKIE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I am James E. Mack. I am an attorney here in Washington, and I appear for the National Confectioners Association, the Peanut Butter Manufacturers Association and the Peanut Butter Sandwich & Cookie Manufacturers Association.

The members of the National Confectioners Association are candy manufacturers, and the usage of peanuts in the manufacture of candy is approximately 22 percent of total usage. Peanut butter manufacturers and peanut butter sandwich and cookie manufacturers use slightly in excess of 50 percent.

We have been pleased that our industries have been using increased amounts of peanuts consistently now for a number of months. We want to see that continue. It is not back to anywhere near where it was at one time. But we feel that the increase may be attributed to the lessening of the sphere of Government influence over the entire peanut producing and marketing operation. These bills would increase, rather than further lessen, the sphere of Government influence over the industry. Therefore we cannot support these bills.

Mr. ALBERT. What do you mean by "a lessening of Government influence"? I have not seen any lessening of it. It seems to me it is just like it has always been.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Has your organization seen copies of these two bills here?

Mr. DUNN. No. They do not have that information. They have it now, but they did not have it at that time. But they were informed that there was something of this kind up. They didn't know all the particulars of it.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Suppose you take these two bills back with you and let them go over them and send in another statement.

Mr. DUNN. We will be happy to do that at the next director's meeting.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. R. H. Knowles.

ILLAN

STATEMENT OF H. H. KNOWLES, HEADLAND, ALA.

Mr. KNOWLES. I am H. H. Knowles, of Alabama, president of the Alabama Peanut Producers Association, president of GSPA.

I did not see a copy of this bill, but just a few minutes ago Mr. Sugg gave me a copy of the bill. I do not have a copy of the bill for the Southwest. Consequently I am not in a position to discuss it at all. We would be happy to get a copy of the Southwest bill and go back and go over it with our directors and register some statement later on. Until today the producers of Alabama are opposed to any legislation at this time.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. MCMILLAN. The committee will furnish you with copies of these bills, and if you would like to send us a statement for the record, we will be glad to incorporate it in the record.

Does anyone else here care to make a statement?

Mr. RAWLINGS. Mr. Chairman, could I add just a remark or two in view of some of the testimony?

I am William D. Rawlings. I am not going to take the time of the committee in too much detail here, but in view of some of the statements made this afternoon, I feel I should clarify the record a little bit.

First, with reference to the numerous meetings that have been held, I would like to have permission of the Chair to file for the record complete minutes of a number of meetings which have been held on this legislation which I think will be clarifying in view of a lot of the misinterpretations that apparently have been made.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Without objection, that will be done. (The material referred to is as follows:)

MINUTES OF THE PEANUT PRODUCERS MEETING RELATIVE TO DRAFTING PROPOSED PEANUT LEGISLATION, HENRY GRADY HOTEL, ATLANTA, GA., NOVEMBER 18-19, 1957

Those in attendance assembled in room 306 at 9 a. m., November 18, 1957, and H. L. Wingate was elected to act as chairman of the meeting. Joe S. Sugg was elected to act as secretary. A pad was passed for the purpose of determining those present. They were as follows:

R. L. Griffin, Alabama Farm Bureau, Post Office Box 1631, Montgomery, Ala. H. H. Knowles, president, Alabama Peanut Producers Association, Headland, Ala.

R. L. Donaldson, Alabama Peanut Producers Association.

Grady W. Dunn, Alabama Peanut Producers Association, Samson, Ala.
H. L. Wingate, Georgia Farm Bureau, Pelham, Ga.

« ПретходнаНастави »