The other one is, of course, do you feel that the same type and grade of peanut should have the same support in various sections of the country? Mr. RAWLINGS. Yes, sir, on assignment to a kernel basis. Of course, in the Virginia type and Valencia, we understand there would be a reasonable premium for the extra large and extra premium for the Valencia type. Mr. POAGE. We agree with that completely. Mr. RAWLINGS. We are in complete agreement with the position of the Southwest, as we understand, on that matter. Mr. POAGE. Thank you. Mr. ABBITT. I would like to just ask this question, Mr. Rawlings. You have probably been in this game much longer than I have. Did that differential originate in the Department? It was not by legislation. Mr. RAWLINGS. I understand the legislation, it is permissive legislation which permits the Department to establish differentials, but it is not mandatory that we have to do it. Mr. ABBITT. How long have our boys been working on this, trying some way, somehow, to get some relief? Mr. RAWLINGS. Since approximately 1950. Mr. ABBITT. And so far we have gotten nowhere on administrative relief. Mr. RAWLINGS. That is right, sir. Mr. ABBITT. That is all. Mr. POAGE. Am I not correct in saying that the only explanation that has ever been offered for that differential was the one offered by Mr. Pace the other day, in which he said that a great many years ago that there was a substantial difference in the methods of harvesting, but that those differences no longer exist, and there was no physical difference between peanuts, but that the Department continued the differential in price support? Mr. RAWLINGS. Yes. That was is substance the explanation Mr. Pace made. As I gather the testimony by Mr. Pace and Mr. Turner on it, they had no objection to what they are talking about. Mr. POAGE. Mr. Turner said in so many words twice that he had no objection and felt it was perfectly proper that we do it. Mr. RAWLINGS. I think the record is very clear on that, sir. Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you, Mr. Rawlings. Mr. Marcus Braswell, do you care to make another statement? Mr. BRASWELL. No, sir; I am here today in the absence of Mr. Sugg who is ill in the hospital. We would concur in the statement which Mr. Rawlings is going to file to correct some of the misinterpretations which occurred. Mr. POAGE. Would you agree also with Mr. Rawlings in the matter of establishing one differential for foreign matter in all types of peanuts? Mr. BRASWELL. Basically, yes, sir. I would make the same reservation he made: that on the Valencias and the extra large Virginias, that we would have a premium. Mr. POAGE. Thank you; we agree with you. Well, that goes to the price support. I was talking primarily on the matter of how much foreign matter you could put in peanuts and call them No. 1's? Mr. BRASWELL. I am with Mr. Rawlings on that. Mr. Barton Scott, would you care to make a statement at this time? Mr. Scott, will you give the reporter your name and capacity. STATEMENT OF BARTON SCOTT, PRESIDENT, CADDO COUNTY PEANUT GROWERS ASSOCIATION Mr. SCOTT. I represent myself and an organization. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Congress, I am Barton Scott, farmer. The only occupation I have is a farmer and peanut grower of Caddo County, Okla. I am also the president of the Caddo County Peanut Growers Association. In that area we have some 1,638 members at the present time. These members produce about 25,000 tons of peanuts. I am also a member of the board of directors of the Southwestern Peanut Growers Association, serving the entire southwest area. We would like to go on record as supporting H. R. 12545, known as the Burleson bill to us in that southwest area. There are certain phases of that particular bill that we are particularly interested in. First is the self-help phase of this peanut bill, which would place peanuts, in our opinion, on firm ground against opponents of the present price-support program. Second is the promotion angle of this bill which would help promote and expand the markets for all peanuts, including our Southwest Spanish. And third and most important, correct parity aspects of the present peanut program on this price differential, and other tolerances. And four, the provision for acreage increase for underharvesting of peanuts due to weather conditions in our Southwest area. Due to this particular thing on this No. 4, the weather conditions, underharvested acreage, for the past 5-year average, our area has harvested only 79 percent of their allocated acreage or allotment. This was in comparison with the other two areas-the southeast area at 94.3, and Virginia-Carolina at 101.9. We feel that we are entitled to plant sufficient acreage there until we can harvest an allotment which will place our peanut growers in a better economic and financial situation up there. I might say, getting back to this price differential thing, that 2 years ago I was asked by our growers in that area and came up here at our expense to work on this thing. We made some contacts on it, and at that time we were assured that progress was being made to eliminate this situation. This is the third time I have been in Washington on this as an individual and representative of growers, and we certainly believe that this bill, H. R. 2541, the Burleson bill, would certainly help alleviate this situation. I thank you very much. Mr. MCMILLAN. Do you have any questions? Mr. ALBERT. I do not believe I have any questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MCMILLAN. I think the committee is at this time a little disturbed as to whether to bring this bill up now in connection with the overall farm bill, or deal with it as a private bill. And I wonder if you would like to express your opinion on that question? Mr. SCOTT. Well, I am not an expert on legislation at all. I certainly would go along with the thinking of this committee as to when would be the proper time to bring this bill out. But we are looking forward to legislation soon to alleviate part of these unfair conditions, as we see them, in that area. Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Grant, do you care to ask any questions? Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you. Mr. Sydney Reagan, do you care to make an additional statement today? STATEMENT OF SYDNEY REAGAN, GENERAL COUNSEL, SOUTHWEST PEANUT SHELLERS ASSOCIATION Mr. REAGAN. Yes, sir; I would appreciate an opportunity to make an additional statement, sir. I am Sydney Reagan, general counsel of the Southwest Peanut Shellers Association. I would like to take this opportunity to comment on statements- reintroduce this gentleman? Mr. Burleson, would you care to Mr. BURLESON. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. He is well known here. Mr. REGAN. I wish to take this opportunity to comment on statements that were made before this committee at the hearing on May 27. These specific statements that I refer to were made by Mr. Luther Turner representing the southeast area where runner peanuts are produced. Mr. Turner, at least on three different times in his statement, stated that the differences in the support price between runner peanuts produced in the Southeast and Spanish peanuts produced in the Southwest was only 50 cents a ton on the same grade of farmer stock peanuts. In other words, Mr. Turner was arguing that runner peanuts produced in the Southeast had little advantage in being marketed, since they were supported at only 50 cents a ton less than Spanish peanuts produced in the Southwest. I would like to set the record straight as to the actual advantage that Southeast runner peanuts enjoy over Southwest Spanish peanuts as a result of price support differentials. The price support on a ton of Southeast runner peanuts is between $5 and $6 below the price support on a ton of Southwest Spanish peanuts of the identical grade-not 50 cents a ton, as testified by Mr. Turner. The support program for last year, which is the last year for which we have the details of the support program, provided for a support of $3.06 per each 1 percent sound, mature kernels, in a ton of farmers stock runner peanuts, compared with a support of $3.14 per each 1 percent sound mature kernels in a ton of farmers stock Southwest Spanish peanuts. Now, if we assume that a typical ton of peanuts contains 65 percent sound mature kernels, we have a difference in support price between the 2 types of peanuts of $5.20. This figure is obtained by multiplying the difference of 8 cents per each 1 percent sound mature kernels by the 65 percent of sound mature kernels in the ton of peanuts. of unemployed in such year will be not greater than 3 per centum of the total civilian labor force. (2) The Secretary shall conduct a referendum of farmers to determine whether they favor or oppose the national farmwide all-commodity marketing quota proclaimed under this subsection not later than thirty days after issuance of the proclamation. Persons eligible to vote in the referendum shall be persons engaged in the production of farm commodities for sale in the year in which the referendum is held, or the next preceding year. If more than one-half of the farmers voting in the referendum oppose the quota, such quota shall become ineffective upon proclamation of the results of the referendum held hereunder within fifteen days after the date of such referendum. (b) The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, reenacting, amending, and supplementing the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended, is amended as follows: (1) Subsection 2 (1) is amended by striking the words "parity prices" and substituting in lieu thereof the words "parity-income equivalent prices". (2) Subsection 8 (c) (2) is amended by inserting after the word “soybeans" the following: "other field crops, Irish potatoes, farm forestry products, cattle, hogs, lambs, milk for manufacturing, buterfat in cream, eggs, and poultry". (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary and the Federal Farm Income Improvement Board are authorized and directed, whenever neither a marketing agreement nor order under provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Agreements Act of 1937 is in effect for such commodity to proclaim a national individual-commodity marketing quota for such commodity and a commoditygroup marketing quota for economically related groups of such commodities, for any of the following commodities: (i) field crops (other than tobacco), including corn, both inside and outside the commercial corn producing area, barley, oats, rye, grain sorghum, flaxseed, soybeans, dry edible beans, and grass seeds; (ii) vegetables, including potatoes, cabbage, and tomatoes; (iii) fruits, including citrus fruits, dried fruits, and deciduous fruits; (iv) tree nuts, including English walnuts and pecans, (v) livestock, including hogs, cattle, and lambs; (vi) poultry, including chickens and turkeys; (vii) whole milk, butterfat, eggs, hops, honey, honeybees, and gum naval stores or any regional or market classification of such commodities. (1) The national commodity-group or individual-commodity marketing quota shall be in the case of the individual-commodity quota the volume of the commodity, and in the case of a commodity-group marketing quota, the total value of all such commodities calculated at parity-income equivalent prices, that the Secretary determines, upon recommendation by two-thirds vote of the Federal Farm Income Improvement Board, is the volume of such commodities that can be sold by farmers through normal channels of trade during such marketing year, with such calculations based upon the assumption that the number of unemployed will not exceed 3 per centum of the civilian labor force, at prices not less than 80 per centum nor more than 100 per centum of the parity-income equivalent price for such commodities. (2) The proclamation of a national commodity-group or individual-commodity marketing quota for any agricultural commodity or group that includes any commodity that is planted annually shall be made not less than sixty days prior to the beginning of the marketing year. A national single-commodity or commodity-group marketing quota may be made applicable to a crop or to a marketing year. (3) The Secretary shall conduct a referendum of farmers to determine whether they favor or oppose the national commodity-group or individual-commodity marketing quota proclaimed under this subsection not later than thirty days after issuance of the proclamation. Persons eligible to vote in the referendum shall be farmers engaged in the production for sale of the commodity, in case of the individual-commodity marketing quota, or in production for sale of one or more of the commodities included, in case of a commodity-group marketing quota, in the year in which the referendum is held, or the next preceding year. If more than one-half of the farmers voting in the referendum oppose the quota, such quota shall become ineffective upon proclamation of the results of the referendum. The Secretary shall proclaim the results of any referendum held hereunder within fifteen days after the date of such referendum. (4) In the case of agricultural commodities, a significant proportion of the production of which are expected in the year to which the marketing quota pertains to be exported from the territorial limits of the United States, the Secreary and the Board shall proclaim a domestic marketing quota and an export marketing quota whose total shall equal the national marketing quota for such commodity. (d) The national farmwide all-commodity marketing quota and the commodity-group marketing quotas shall be allocated among the several commodities in a manner determined by the Secretary and the Board to keep supplies and prices of such commodities in appropriate balance with each other. The national farmwide all-commodity marketing quota and the several commodity-group and individual-commodity marketing quotas shall be allocated among the several farm operators, counties, and States such that the marketing quota of an individual farm operator, a county, or a State, shall bear the same ratio to its average annual sales of such commodities in the immediately preceding three years, as adjusted in accordance with provisions of the following subsections: (1) Adjustments in the allocation of national marketing quotas proclaimed under this section shall be made by the Federal Farm Income Improvement Board as required in its judgment to be necessary to provide equity among farmers in relation to abnormal production conditions, trends in production and marketing, relative dependence of the several areas upon one or a few crops or commodities, land, labor, and equipment available for the production and marketing of the commodity; rotation and fallow practices; good soil and water conservation practices; soil and other physical factors affecting the production of the commodity or commodities and shall be allocated and administered by the Board, and the State and county farmer committees in a manner reasonably calculated to achieve the purposes of this Act and give farm operators a fair and equitable opportunity to participate in the programs provided by this Act within the limitations provided in section 1, taking into consideration the commodity marketing quotas for different commodities of farm operators, the supply and demand conditions and characteristics of different classes, grades, and qualities of the different commodities, the relative dependence of the farmers of an area, county, or State upon one or a few crops or other specialization, and such other factors as the Board deems appropriate. (2) The Secretary and the Board shall arrange to adjust the farmwide allcommodity market quota and the several commodity-group and the individualcommodity marketing quotas allocated to each farm operator each year in accordance with the following schedule: If the ratio of the operator's marketing quota to the national per operator average of such quotas for any year is Not more than 20. More than 20 but not more than 40 The operator's quota for that year shall be increased by the corresponding following percentage: 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 In making the adjustments provided in this paragraph the national marketing quota shall be so reallocated that the total of adjusted quotas of individual operators shall equal the national marketing quota originally proclaimed. To the extent that any farm operator, county, or State does not utilize its total of any marketing quota such unused marketing quota shall be made available for that year only to other farm operators, other counties, and other States which have indicated a desire to obtain a larger quota. (e) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the Secretary shall determine for any farmwide all-commodity marketing quota a specified minimum individual quota below which no farm operator will be reduced from his historical marketings. In making this determination, the Secretary and the Board shall take into consideration amount of such commodities normally used for home consumption per family, the minimum volume of production required to operate a full-time efficient family unit, the proportion of total family income earned by the operator from nonfarm sources, the effect of such minimum upon the attainment of the purposes of this Act and the several marketing-quota programs, and such other factors as may be recommended by the Federal Farm Income Improvement Board. (f) The Federal Farm Income Improvement Board shall cause to be issued to the operator of each farm, a farm marketing quota certificate bearing on its face the volume of sales of all farm commodities, of each commodity-group, and of each individual commodity for which national marketing quotas have been |