tee, even to the extent of public hearing if necessary. Mr. Thigpen stated that there presently exists some interests in Congress who would expel peanuts from the price support program immediately if it were possible. Therefore, he felt that to be on guard by having a counter-attack ready to overcome criticism would be wise. Mr. R. Wilson said that the Southwest recognizes weaknesses of the present price support program and are ready and willing to work with the other two groups toward a solidified bill and that he was in favor of presenting such a bill to Congress so that it would be available if and when needed. Mr. Griffin stated that it is the thinking of the Alabama growers that they will be able to justify additional acreage in the future through their present promotional program which will create a greater potential market. Mr. Griffin stated again that his group would not want information concerning proposed peanut legislation aired in the press, that he would not want a proposed bill taken before the Agricultural Subcommittee for it to become a matter of public record and knowledge. Mr. Thigpen said that he had concluded from the morning discussion that the Southeast did not feel that the proposals are far enough along for public airing and that they would not reach this stage this spring or summer, but that if such a state was reached, the group would be in favor of presenting a proposed bill to Congress. Others said that they understood the Southeast was not in favor of public airing on the proposed bill under any circumstances this spring or summer. Thigpen stated that it is conceivable that national consumption might possibly outrun national yield in future years. If this should happen, the national allotment program would be in jeopardy. This is just one more reason in his opinion, for the group to plan ahead in an effort to overcome objections to the present peanut program.

It was agreed by the group to review and discuss the proposed bill resulting from the Atlanta meeting. Mr. Sugg read the bill proper point by point in its entirety.

(a) Discussion was held concerning paragraph (a) of the proposed bill which amends section 301, subsection (b) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, by striking out "15 per centum" and adding "27 per centum" in the case of peanuts. This change has the effect of reducing the supply percentage under any given situation of carryover and production. With the supply percentage reduced, the percent of parity support is increased up to 90 percent of parity. After discussion it was agreed that it would probably be better to stay on present 108 scale and place the carryover allowable at about 20 percent rather than shifting to 102 scale since confusion might result. It was the consensus of opinion of the group that the Department would work out the arithmetic necessary to leave the proposed bill on scale 108 yet bring about the percent of parity desired.

(b) Paragraph (b) of the proposed bill provides that in determining the supply percentage the CCC carryover shall not be included in the total supply. After discussion, the majority of the members present voiced agreement with this section as written but agreed with Mr. Thigpen's suggestion to attempt to temper the wording somewhat without changing the end result in any respect. However, Mr. Randolph desired to be recorded as not in favor of this section. (c) Section 2 of the proposed bill was discussed. Mr. Randolph registered opposition to section 2 of the proposed bill wherein certain acreage decreases are provided for under certain circumstances. Mr. R. Wilson voiced opposition to the abolishment of the minimum national acreage allotment of 1,610,000 acres. He stated that farmers in the Southwest in his opinion would not vote for such a provision. In intervening discussions it was pointed out that in farmer referendums the farmer only votes for title V of the proposed bill. He does vote on acreage reduction when he votes on marketing quotas. Mr. Randolph wished to be recorded in opposition to the provision in section 2 wherein type increases are possible in short-supply situations, saying that he felt it was beneficial to the Virginia-Carolina area only. It was his opinion that a decrease in the national acreage allotment from the present 1,610,000 acres would increase the chances of Virgina peanuts getting a type increase. Mr. Thigpen inserted the idea that the proposed bill made it no easier to designate and recognize a short supply by types but made it easier to determine the amount of short supply to be compensated for. Mr. Duncan voiced opposition to section 2 as did Mr. Boyd. Mr. White wished to be recorded in favor of section 2. Mr. Braswell is in favor of this self-supported type bill as well as being in favor of Public Law 17 allowing type increases. After all areas had voiced an opinion on this section it was decided to leave it for later discussion.

(d) Title V-Peanuts sold for publicity, promotion, and other purposes.

Mr. Randolph voiced opposition to the promotional aspects of title V. He felt that the present Alabama State promotional program, under auspices of growers rather than the Federal Government, would conflict with the proposed promotional section of title V. Mr. R. Wilson pointed out that the southwest area is opposed to that section of title V setting forth deductions for promotion at 14 percent. He wanted it made clear that the Southwest is in favor of such a promotional program at lower percentage deductions, possibly not to exceed 1 percent. After discussion, Alabama and Georgia wished to be recorded as opposed to the promotional aspects of title V as presented. Florida voted neutral on the matter. North Carolina and Virginia representatives were in favor of the provision as set forth.

Mr. R. Wilson stated that the Southwest desired that all remaining deductions provided for in title V, except promotion, be made strictly on an area basis. Mr. Duncan disagreed with this theory saying that he felt that all areas should assist each other in paying the costs of price support program on peanuts. Mr. Thigpen agreed with Mr. Wilson's suggestions in part but suggested that possibly it might be better to base deductions not only on areas but by types. He stated that past history has shown a tendency for Runner peanuts to produce over and above demand while Spanish has failed to produce sufficient quantity to meet demands. Mr. Randolph stated that Alabama is opposed to deductions by areas for two reasons: (1) Such a program could not be sold to the growers. (2) Although some economic justice is presented in the plan, in Mr. Randolph's opinion the fact that many Runner peanuts are crushed is a main factor in preventing the necessity of crushing other types. Mr. Thigpen presented for discussion his tentative thinking on a two-price system on peanuts. differing somewhat from a similar plan used several years ago. Such a plan might possibly provide for a farmer to grow a certain number of quota acres peanuts, plus a certain number of additional acres to be sold at an oil stock price. Since this plan would increase the possible surplus tonnage in any given year, some additional deduction would of necessity be taken from the amount the farmers received to finance the cost of such diversion.

Mr. Rawlings pointed out that if the national acreage allotment should remain at 1,610,000 acres the proposed 5 percent deduction would not be sufficient to finance the program. He added that additional arithmetic computations would be necessary to determine the percentage of increase necessary but that he estimated it would likely be in the vicinity of 10 percent.

Mr. Braswell stated that it is necessary to have legislative authority for the reductions of acres in order that supply may be brought in line with demand. If this is not done, the farmer will, of necessity, suffer in the long run. It is for this reason that he has advocated and still advocates a reduction in acres as proposed in section 2 of the bill under discussion.

A general discussion was held concerning the slight increase in producer advance value per ton of peanuts at set forth in the bill. Mr. Randolph's opinion was that any substantial increase in prices will affect adversely the consumption of peanuts at the commercial level. Mr. Braswell pointed out that history has proven that although price supports were lowered on wheat, the cost to the consumer has continued to rise.

Mr. Thigpen commended the group on the discussions for the day and opinioned that the group had reached a greater degree of agreement than possibly realized. He said that he felt the group agreed that eventually some sort of self-financing plan would be essential to the peanut industry and that such a plan might necessitate higher dollar value deductions or fewer acres allotted. He said that he felt that consensus of opinion of the group was that promotion is important although perhaps to a lesser degree than presently proposed percentagewise. He thought that further study might be given to the deduction by areas and/or type plan as he felt a plan of this sort had considerable merit.

Mr. Randolph stated that in his opinion the people of Alabama are not presently ready to accept a self-financing plan. Mr. Wilson, of Georgia, stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Wingate's earlier statements to the effect that any acreage or type increase should be made across the board for all areas.

(e) Section 6 of the proposed bill was briefly discussed. It had earlier been tentatively decided that the proposed bill would be based on scale 108 and, in line with that thinking, sections 6 and 7 of the proposed bill would be eliminated. (f) Section 8 of the proposed bill was reviewed briefly. Mr. R. Wilson posed the following question concerning section 8: "What is the opinion of the group as to the effect the ad-on provision will have on the chances of the proposed bill

to pass Congress?" Mr. Rawlings replied that the add-on provision can be solidly defended since the resulting total would only be up to a maximum of 90 percent of parity, as compared to up to a maximum of 100 percent of parity in the case of certain other commodities. Mr. Rawlings and Mr. Griffin both stated that they felt this type provision is essential to secure grower votes for the bill. Discussion brought out that in the final analysis the cost of this proposed program is shifted from the Federal Government to the ultimate consumer.

Mr. Boyd suggested that each delegation go back home and sell the entire program as it presently stands in total. Mr. Braswell suggested that more work should be done by the group individually and possibly at a later meeting toward compromising points of disagreement.

Mr. Rawlings suggested that each area solidify a proposed bill encompassing the aspects desired; then present such a plan to the appropriate Congressmen for their study but not to be presented for a public hearing before a subcommittee. Mr. R. Wilson voiced agreement with Mr. Rawlings' suggested plan. Mr. Braswell stated that he again felt that any peanut bill must be a part of an overall farm plan. He is opposed, however, to agreeing that the bill not be introduced this season. He suggests, alternately, that the bill which each area comes up with, or an overall compromise for all areas, be put before an Agricultural Subcommittee with the definite understanding that it is not to be pushed out alone but is only to be a part of an overall farm bill.

Mr. Griffin again stated that he is definitely opposed to introducing any peanut bill this season for any public hearing.

It was agreed that representatives from each area would continue to work toward a desired proposed bill. If a meeting with the other two areas is desired in order to facilitate compromises, Mr. Rawlings is to be contacted relative to setting up a meeting. It was further suggested that insofar as possible the same personnel should attend each meeting so that all will be familiar with background discussions and provisions. It was lastly agreed that Mr. Rawlings, if and when a later meeting of all three areas is desired, will contact one person in each area relative to the meeting.

ROSS WILSON, Acting Secretary.

1958 Letter No. 33

GEORGIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION,

Macon, Ga., March 13, 1958.

To: County officers in peanut producing counties and GFBF commodity committee.

From: Troy Barton, legislative director.

Subject: Results of Peanut Meeting, Monday, March 10.

Upon call of the Georgia Farm Bureau, peanut producers from all over Georgia, with producer representatives from Florida and Alabama, met at Radium Springs to decide and chart a course of action on peanut legislation that may be introduced in this session of the Congress.

The GFBF has not proposed any legislation for this session but has had to give considerable thought and time to a proposed bill by the peanut and hog associations of Virginia and North Carolina. These two organizations have worked on a bill for the past 3 or 4 years which, from all study, seems to benefit their States more than other areas.

President Duncan presided at this meeting and opened by giving a brief report on meetings held recently and especially a meeting held in Washington relating to peanut legislation. He stated that everyone in attendance at the Washington meeting intimated that they could not go along with the Virginia and North Carolina proposal and everyone agreed it would be wise to call meetings by States of producers to make final decision.

Mr. Duncan asked Steve Pace; Walter Randolph, president, Alabama Farm Bureau; Cyril Boyd, representing Florida Farm Bureau; H. B. Wilson, chairman, GFBF peanut commodity committee; J. H. Wyatt, secretary, GFBF peanut commodity committee; and D. W. Brooks, general manager, CPA, to discuss their opinions of any legislation or the proposed bill subject to be introduced anytime.

A through discussion and question period followed and the group voted unanimously the following resolution:

RESOLUTION PASSED BY PEANUT PRODUCERS IN SESSION MONDAY, MARCH 10, RADIUM SPRINGS, GA., CALLED INTO SESSION BY THE GFBF

Whereas the peanut producers of Georgia, with producer representatives from Florida and Alabama, in a meeting at Radium Springs, Ga., March 10, called by the Georgia Farm Bureau believe, after thorough discussion and study, that the proposed legislation on peanuts by the Virginia and North Carolina peanut associations appears to be most untimely ; and

Whereas the peanut problems of all areas are more or less the same and these problems should be thoroughly studied and discussed before any changes are made in the now existing law and in this proposed legislation we find many areas of disagreement and because of the many uncertainties involved: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the opinion of this group of producers, representing the growers of Georgia and neighboring States, that no legislation of any kind should be introduced in the Congress at this time; and be in further

Resolved, That attempts be made to work our differences and if any effort is made to present any bill to the Congress on peanuts at this time the Southeast area would be compelled to vigorously oppose such legislation.

Keaton Cox. of Mitchell County, moved the adoption of the above resolution, seconded by II. B. Wilson and carried unanimously.

Below are some reasons, voiced by producers, why no legislation should be introduced in the Congress at this time.

(1) Farm leaders believe it to be the thinking of many Congressmen and Senators that if a peanut bill were to be introduced this year that the entire peanut program may be killed.

(2) National administration leaders have been quoted as saying the peanut program has cost the Government more money than was spent on missiles during the entire period of the last Democratic administration.

(3) Too much disagreement between peanut producing areas on proposals such as

(a) Lowering of the national allotment below the 1,610,000 acres. (GFBF opposes any reduction while Virginia and North Carolina hog and peanut associations favor.)

(b) Allotting peanut acres by types. (GFBF opposes while Virginia and North Carolina hog and peanut associations favor.)

(c) Raising of a national fund of 5 percent of price per ton to promote. advertise, provide research, and help pay CCC losses. (GFBF opposes on grounds that the State can do a better job of this than the Federal Government.)

(d) Redefining "carryover" in the definition of normal supply to provide that the carryover be increased from 15 to 27 percent. (GFBF opposes this feature, at this time, even though by doing this would increase the support price by about 2 percent-by agreeing to this, at this time, would no doubt encourage a bill to also include points (a), (b), and (c) above which would harm the producers of Georgia.)

(e) Lowering from 108 to 102 percent the supply percentage in figuring support prices. As you know when supply exceeds 108 percent of a normal supply the flexible price support program goes into effect. The lowering to 102 percent would do nothing but reduce the level of support. (GFBF opposed this proposal while Virginia and North Carolina hog and peanut associations favor.)

The Southwestern Peanut Shellers Association have requested the USDA to grant an increase in Spanish peanuts for 1958. The USDA is holding a hearing on this request March 14. Copy of a telegram your GFBF sent Mr. Jim Thigpen in opposition to this request is reproduced below:

J. E. THIGPEN,

Director, Oils & Peanut Division, Commodity Stabilization Service, USDA, Washington, D. C.:

Permit the GFBF to oppose vigorously the application set for hearing Friday. March 14, on application requested by Southwestern Peanut Shellers Association for increase in acreage allotment of Spanish peanuts.

First our organization is opposed to any increase in acreage on a type basis. Secondly, the Southwest now has acreage allotments equal to almost one

third of the national acreage allotment, which should be ample for the production of all Spanish needed during 1958-59 marketing year.

Increased allotments would result only in the production of a surplus of Spanish peanuts, which would depress the market for growers and substantially increase the losses of CCC.

Their request is fantastic, unreasonable, and wholly without justification. JOHN P. DUNCAN, Jr.,

President, Georgia Farm Bureau Federation.

Mr. RAWLINGS. I would like to say that apparently the bill hadn't been studied too closely, and in the first year definitely the growers will make a very definite contribution toward paying the cost of the program.

I would like to state, too, that I did not state this morning that increasing the allowance for carryover in computing normal supply would raise the support price to 90 percent of parity.

Mr. PACE. I certainly want to withdraw that statement.
Mr. MCMILLAN. Without objection-

Mr. PACE. Bill is an honorable man.

Mr. RAWLINGS. I think the arithmetic we have will have about a 2percent effect on it, and I am a little taken back that the friends who have stood before for a 90-percent price support program on peanuts now stand up against every feature of the bill which will help achieve a 90-percent program.

Also we were encouraged to do like the growers were doing in the Southeast, in having their own deduction. I feel that our friends are a little thoughtless there because I believe they know that for approximately 10 years growers in Virginia have been doing that very same thing and for an appreciable number of years the growers of North Carolina have. In fact, we spent many hours with the grower groups in the Southeast, Steve, helping them with the bylaws, furnishing them material, copies of our State legislation, and being any assistance we could. So we have been at that about 10 years in our area and I think the record should show that.

of

I thank you.

Mr. ABBITT. Let me ask you just this question, if I may. Approximately what has been the percentage of reduction in price to the peanut producers in the last 2 years, reduction from 90 percent?

Mr. RAWLINGS. We have gone from 90 to 82 percent of parity and we have had a 10-percent bite already on modernized parity and we will take more.

Mr. ABBITT. Who has taken that reduction?

Mr. RAWLINGS. The growers. And if we get everything we have talked about in the bill as you introduced it, we won't be back with the return to growers of what it was before those two things started working on us, and in the next place, all during those years, the type of things farmers have to back to produce peanuts continues to go up. Mr. ABBITT. Do you know of any reflection of that reduction to the ultimate consumer of the peanut product?

Mr. RAWLINGS. I do not. We were encouraged about the modest increase in consumption, but it wasn't mentioned that in the last 2 or 3 years we have had 2 or 3 very big operators come into the peanut business, particularly in peanut butter. Procter & Gamble and Best Foods. There has been an advertising program carried on on those brand names. The only study we have authoritative at all on the

23887-58- -7