general approach the draft of the bill be discussed section by section and paragraph by paragraph, in detail using both enclosure No. 1 and enclosure No. 2 to help clarify the various points developed in the discussions. This plan was followed in the remainder of the meeting, which continued through Monday and adjourned at 11:30 a. m., Tuesday, November 19, 1957.

During the discussions of the bill, certain changes were made, and certain instructions were issued, which would create changes in the redraft of the bill. The group voted that Mr. Rawlings and Mr. Sugg be appointed to work out a redraft of the bill in conformance with the wishes as expressed by the group in this meeting, and working with Mr. Thigpen, Mr. Mace, and the lawyers of the Department of Agriculture. The group in appointing Sugg and Rawlings to this job recognized the closeness and their geographical location, making it more simple for them to work with Washington representatives.

The following actions with respect to the draft were taken:

First page, section 301, subsection (b), Agriculture Adjustment Act 1938, approved with the exception that the words "or held for" be added following the words "acquired by" on line 5 of paragraph b of the draft.

Also add to this paragraph the following wording: “In addition, any peanuts that are held by the owner under a loan arrangement with the Commodity Credit Corporation will be excluded. Furthermore, inedible shelled oil stock will be excluded from the carryover."

Section 2 was approved as drafted with the exception: on page 2, line 4, the figure "90" would be changed to "95" and that the figures in line 5 on page 2 be changed to read "1,529,500" and that the section be worded so that such acreage allotments if granted under the section 358-C2 on page 2 not count in the history used in determining future peanut allotments.

Section 395, beginning on page 3, was reviewed with the following change: On page 4, delete the words in line 8 "and pursuant to section 359F of this". On page 5, under paragraph (b), line 7, insert the word "average" between the words of “of” and “price” and delete on the same line following the word "support" the words "by types".

In this same section reword so that the payment made into the fund will be 14 percent of the per ton level of the national average support for eligible peanuts and that the funds developed by this 14 percent payment would be earmarked and designated for publicity, sales promotion, and other programs. That paragraph (d) on page 5, line 2, delete the words "not less than". Lines 4 and 5, amend to show 3 sheller representatives 1 from each area and to show 3 manufacturing representatives.

On page 6, under paragraph (d), the portion in quotes starting at "provided" be rewritten so as to show that 14 percent of the payment to the fund as previously set forth in section (b) on page 5.

Paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) were approved as written.

That the words on page 8, under (h), “and pursuant to section 359F of this Act" be deleted and the proviso in section 8, beginning with the word “provided" on the fourth line from the bottom of the page and continuing on page 9 to section 6, be omitted.

Sections 6, 7, 8 on page 9 were approved as written.

Those delegates present approved the entire draft as changed and amended, as indicated in the above notes, with the exception that the Alabama Farm Bureau asked for the privilege to consult their representatives upon their return home and indicate their action at the earliest possible date with respect to the seciton dealing with promotional funds, and the delegates from the Southwest also requested the privilege of further discussing with their representatives at home and indicating their position at the earliest possible opportunity on the portion of section 395 which deals with the payment into the fund for diversion of surplus peanuts during seasons when their crop is in short supply. It was further agreed that should legislation based on this bill be enacted in 1958 that it would not be made effective until the crop year 1959.

Upon the completion of the discussions on the bill, Chairman Wingate took the opportunity, along with other representatives present, to express his appreciation to those who were active in formulating plans and instigating this meeting. and a number of those present expressed their opinion that this meeting was the most harmonious meeting of peanut producers relative to legislative matters that they had ever experienced.

The group was assured by Acting Secretary Sugg that copies of the minutes and of the redraft of the bill based on the actions of this meeting would be forwarded to each of those present as soon as possible.

There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted.

JOE S. SUGG, Acting Secretary.

MINUTES OF PEANUT MEETING IN RADIUM SPRINGS, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1957

H. B. Wilson, chairman, GFBF Peanut Commodity Committee, called the meeting to order at 10 a. m. and H. H. Knowles of Alabama gave the invocation. Chairman Wilson asked J. H. Wyatt, secretary, GRBF Peanut Committee, to read the minutes of the peanut commodity meeting held November 11 in connection with the GFBF annual meeting and also the minutes of the Atlanta meeting where proposed legislation was discussed.

Mr. Wilson explained the purpose of this meeting was to further discuss this proposed legislation and that the results would be sent to W. V. Rawlings, executive secretary, Virginia Peanut and Hog Association, who had worked with USDA officials in drawing up this proposed legislation. It was announced that Mr. Rawlings would be attending a meeting in Kansas City of National Commodity Committeemen, Monday, December 9, and would need farmers' opinion on legislation at that time.

Mr. Wilson explained that John P. Duncan, Jr., president, Georgia Farm Bureau, had called this meeting of the GFBF Peanut Committee and that Alabama and Florida had been invited.

Everyone in attendance was asked to stand and give their name, position, and from which State. Each State was well represented and enclosed is a list of persons in attendance.

Chairman Wilson called on Steve Pace, general counsel for Southeastern Peanut Shellers Association, to lead a thorough discussion on the proposed legislation. It was suggested that Mr. Pace discuss each proposed section of the bill and then after completion of the discussion that each section would be voted on separately. A lengthy discussion followed.

Below is the action taken by producers:

Bob Griffin moved the adoption of the section dealing with increasing the carryover, in the definition of normal supply, be increased from 15 to 25 percent. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.

Bob Griffin also moved that the section, lowering from 108 to 102 percent (the supply percentage in figuring support prices) be deleted. Motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.

Aubrey Hudson of Florida moved that the section dealing with total supply of peanuts and in determining total supply that peanuts acquired by or held by CCC be excluded in figuring total supply. H. L. Wingate of Georgia seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.

Bob Griffin of Alabama moved that the section dealing with the Secretary of Agriculture taking into consideration the carryover of peanuts in announcing national marketing quota, so as to provide for a normal supply of peanuts, be struck out for further study. Motion was seconded and unanimously carried.

H. L. Wingate moved that the section of the present law which prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture allotting less than 1,610,000 acres nationally be amended to provide that the national marketing quota for peanuts be not less than the smaller of 95 percent of the national acreage allotment for the preceding year or 1,529,500 acres. Motion was seconded by Mr. Cogburne of Florida and passed. C. W. White of Bainbridge requested that his vote be recorded as against this amendment.

C. W. White of Georgia moved that the section of the present law giving the Secretary authority to increase peanut acreage by types, be repealed. Motion seconded by Bob Griffin of Alabama and carried unanimously.

Grady Dunn of Alabama moved that the section dealing with setting up a promotional fund be amended by striking out wherever stated "10 percent for each succeeding year" and also the section "with respect to limitations upon the quantities of shelled peanuts, by types and grades below U. S. No. 1 grade, which may be marketed or otherwise disposed of for uses other than for feed or for rushing into oil or meal, or for export." Motion seconded by H. L. Wingate and carried unanimously.

H. L. Wingate moved that the section dealing with setting up of a fund of 5 percent above the announced support price of which one-fourth of the fund would go for promotion and the remainder of the fund to go for administration and any losses that may occur under the price-support program, be adopted. R. R. Donaldson of Alabama seconded motion and the motion carried.

C. G. Boyd of Florida moved that W. V. Rawlings be contacted and ask him to furnish persons in attendance at this meeting a copy of the final proposed peanut bill to be presented to the Congress in January. Motion seconded and carried. Meeting adjourned at 4: 30 p. m. Respectfully submitted.

Name, State and position:

W. L. Alford, Poulan, Ga., farmer.

J. H. WYATT,

Secretary, GF BF Peanut Committee.

G. L. Houston, Sylvester, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Association.

H. H. Conner, Jr., Eufaula, Ala., Southeastern Peanut Association.

S. R. Baxley, Tom Huston, Columbus, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Association. H. G. Richey, Southern Cotton Oil, Macon, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Association.

G. C. Davis, Arlington, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Association.

Rhett Bryson, Alabama, Southeastern Peanut Association.

H. M. Sessions, Enterprise, Ala., Southeastern Peanut Association.
E. J. Young, Dawson, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Association.

D. H. Harden, Camilla, Ga., GFA.

W. A. Cogburn, Florida, farmer.

Aubrey J. Hudson, Jackson County, Fla., Florida FB.

W. W. Glenn, Box 530, Marianna, Fla., Florida FB.

J. C. Cromley, Statesboro, Ga., farmer.

L. L. Mauldin, Georgia, GFA.

C. G. Fuqua, Georgia, GFA.

H. H. Knowles, Headland, Ala., GFA.

C. G. Boyd, Newberry, Fla., Florida FB.
Billy Newberry, Arlington, Ga., farmer.
R. R. Donaldson, Opalika, Ala., GFA.
Grady W. Dun, Samson, Ala., GFA.

B. B. Saunders, Jr., O'Brien, Fla., GFA.

W. C. Riverbark, Columbia, Ala., farmer.

Frank M. Stewart, Box 1631, Montgomery, Ala., Alabama FB.

Arlie Shultz, Route 2, Ocilla, Ga., farmer.

J. D. Gardner, Camilla, Ga., GFA.

G. C. Kearse, Leesburg, Ga., farmer.

R. L. Heath, Leesburg, Ga., farmer.

R. L. Griffin, Box 1631, Montgomery, Ala., Alabama FB.

H. L. Wingate, Box 7, Pelham, Ga., farmer.

Troy Barton, Macon, Ga., GFBF.

A. T. Mace, USDA.

J. E. Thigpen, USDA.

R. C. Singletary, Jr., Blakely, Ga., farmer.

Julian Maddox, Luverne, Ala., Luverne Peanut Co.

Elmer Paulk, Ocilla, Ga., GFA.

Billy Ewing, Georgia, farmer.

W. L. Paullin, Pelham, Ga., Columbian Peanut Co.

Mrs. Virginia Culpepper, Americus, Ga., Southeastern Peanut Association. A. J. Singletary, Blakely, Ga., farmer.

Roy E. Parrish, Moultrie, Ga., Goldkist.

Edward Jordan, Tifton, Ga., Farmers Gin & Peanut Association.

Yank Lamb, Omega, Ga., Farmers Gin & Peanut Association.

C. W. White, Bainbridge, Ga., farmer.

Pierce Christie, Dawson, Ga., GFBF.
H. B. Wilson, Abbeville, Ga., farmer.
J. H. Wyatt, Brooklet, Ga., farmer.

CONFERENCE RELATIVE TO PROPOSED PEANUT LEGISLATION, WASHINGTON, D. C. FEBRUARY 25, 1958

On February 25, 1958, a meeting was held in Washington, D. C., for the purpose of analyzing proposed peanut legislation as it affects the three major producing areas. The following persons attended representing organizations and/or areas as indicated:

M. B. Braswell, North Carolina Peanut Growers, Whitakers, N. C.

Joe Sugg, North Carolina Peanut Growers Association, Rocky Mount, N. C.
W. V. Rawlings, Association of Virginia Peanut and Hog Growers, Capron, Va.
J. L. White, Association of Virginia Peanut and Hog Growers, Capron, Va.
Walter L. Randolph, Alabama Farm Bureau, Montgomery, Ala.

R. L. Griffin, Alabama Farm Bureau, Montgomery, Ala.

J. H. Wyatt, Georgia Farm Bureau, Brooklet, Ga.

H. B. Wilson, Chairman Peanut Program of Georgia, Abbeville, Ga.
John P. Duncan, Jr., Georgia Farm Bureau, Macon, Ga.

Cyril G. Boyd, Florida Farm Bureau, Newberry, Fla.

R. Wilson, Southwestern Peanut Growers Association, Gorman, Tex.
B. D. Green, Southwestern Peanut Growers Association, Gorman, Tex.

Mr. J. E. Thigpen, Director, Oils and Peanut Division (USDA), Washington, D. C.
Mr. Turley Mace, Chief, Program Analysis Branch (USDA), Washington, D. C.
Mr. Dan Munson, Attorney, Oils and Peanut Division, Washington, D. C.

First order of business was the election of officers for the confernce. Mr. R. L. Griffin was elected chairman and Mr. Ross Wilson, secretary. The initial discussion concerned the manner of approach to be used in discussing and analyzing the proposed peanut legislation. Mr. Rawlings suggested that the group review the proposed bill resulting from the Atlanta meeting. Mr. Griffin stated that other meetings relative to the proposed bill had been held since the Atlanta meeting and that the group might review these findings. He further stated that represenatives from the Southeast were of the opinion that no peanut legislation would be passed by Congress this session since no bipartisan support would be possible. Mr. Duncan reiterated that it was also Steve Pace's opinion that this would be true.

It was mentioned that a movement was underway in Congress to freeze price support levels at the 1957 dollar value for all commodities. Several voiced the opinion that peanut legislation as presented to Congress must be part of an omnibus farm bill rather than standing on its own. Rawlings expressed the opinion that only stopgap legislation would be passed this year. However, he considered it essential that a valid bill be ready in case the present price support program is attacked and endangered this season. Mr. Braswell agreed on this point adding that he felt it impossible for any one man to gage congressional feeling. He stated that other commodities were presently working on proposed legislation. Mr. Griffin pointed out that Alabama has just begun a State promotional program and wanted at least 1 year's experience with this approach prior to entering a national promotional program. Mr. Duncan stated that Georgia has entered such a program also, whereby $1 per ton is deducted from all peanuts marketed to be used in promotion. Mr. Griffin further stated that they would not be a part of a national promotional program as it is presently proposed.

Representatives from the Virginia-Carolina area and the Southwest stated that they were ready at this time to begin work on an analysis of the proposed peanut legislation so that a sound bill would be ready if an overall farm program comes before Congress this season. Mr. Griffin stated that it was the feeling of his group that peanuts should not be the first commodity to move into the self-supporting field since peanuts represented a substantially small area in the overall commodity program. Rawlings and Sugg both felt that there seems to be a general movement toward the self-support approach to farm legislation.

A discussion was held concerning the feeling of sheller groups regarding the possible bill. Both the Southwest and the Virginia-Carolina areas have met with the respective sheller organizations and oriented them on the implications thereto. Mr. R. Wilson stated that the Southwest shellers are generally in agreement with the proposals which the Southwest is supporting. Mr. Rawlings stated that he received little or no cooperation from the sheller organizations in his area. Mr. Griffin expressed his opinion that the sheller organization in the

Southeast was not in favor of national peanut legislation at this time. Mr. Boyd said his opinion was that the proposed legislation would not favor the shellers in general as much as has the present legislation and that it seems the shellers have decided to "drag their feet" since they feel they cannot come out in open opposition. At this point Griffin stated that shellers in the Alabama area seemed quite interested in the promotional phase of the State bill.

Mr. Duncan voiced objection to the phase of the proposed bill wherein the Secretary of Agriculture is granted authority to increase acreage by types in years when a short supply of a certain type exists. He stated that his farmers are not in favor of this type provision and will not vote for it. He pointed out that the farmers in the State of Georgia are in the main, both peanut and tobacco farmers He further stated that Georgia farmers had in the recent past voted to pull out of the stabilization program on tobacco.

Mr. Rawlings cited Public Law No. 17 and said that the results of such law had been that the States of Alabama and Texas are getting more of the percentage of the national allotment each year. In contrast to this provision the law also made it possible for the Virginia-Carolina area to get an increase by types every 3 or 4 years. He stated Public Law No. 17 was a compromise or trading agreement between the three major producing areas.

At this point officials of the USDA Oils and Peanut Division joined the group. Mr. Griffin briefly summarized prior events of the conference. Mr. Thigpen was asked to compare Government loses on diversion after the $9 deduction went into effect to such losses prior to the $9 deduction. He stated that on peanuts which are diverted about half the loan value is lost and that such losses average approximately 10 to 12 million dollars each year. It was Mr. Thigpen's opinion that the group should recognize the vulnerability of present peanut legislation and work toward a sound and defensible alternate program in case the present one is attacked and/or thrown out. It was his opinion that no important overall peanut legislation would be passed by the Congress in 1958 but he foresaw no risk in proceding to produce a solid proposed program on which all three areas could agree. Mr. Griffin stated at this point that his group wanted to proceed along this line but with the definite understanding and agreement that such proposed bill would not be introduced in any manner for public hearing for at least 1 and possibly 2 years. Mr. Thigpen stated at this point that he felt there would be no risk involved in introducing a proposed bill to the Agricultural Committee or the subcommittee to show them that the major areas are working on a solid program. Mr. Braswell stated that he is in agreement with this thinking and that what risks might be involved would most certainly be overcome by the potential results.

Mr. Thigpen stated that he is generally in favor of promotion of peanuts; he felt that it should begin on a small basis and, after making a solid program at this level, proceed into a larger and more out-reaching phase. Mr. Sugg told of having met with the Southeast shellers on behalf of the National Peanut Council and that the shellers seemed very interested in promotion, even to the extent of contributing to such fund. Mr. Griffin said that in Alabama $75,000 has been allocated under their program for research and promotional purposes. He voiced objection again to the promotional phase of the proposed bill stating that he felt the Secretary of Agriculture would be given too much power or authority in saying how the money was to be spent. He therefore felt that the producers themselves would not have sufficient control of the money set aside in the proposed bill. A brief discussion was held again in reference to Public Law 17. Mr. Rawlings stated that in comparing cross-benefits from this past bill, it should be noted that Alabama and Texas have benefited over the past years approximately 152,592 acres while Virginia-Carolina increases for short supply total approximately 111,000 acres. Mr. Wyatt emphasized again, as had others, the cross current of feeling which had existed at the Radium Spring meeting (for the purpose of analyzing and changing, if necessary, proposed legislation). He stated it was the thinking of the group that it was premature at this time to attempt to resolve a definite legislative program.

Mr. Braswell said that he had considered the meeting of this date to be for the purpose of overcoming legitimate differences of opinion concerning proposed legislation even though he did not feel that a peanut bill would be passed in 1958. He said he felt the situation could be summed up by saying that the three groups either work for a compromise bill or eventually go before Congress as a house divided and thereby weaken the overall program. Rawlings stated that he is in favor of having a proposed bill before the Agricultural Subcommit