The only difference between those bills and the bill introduced by Mr. Sisk is that they have added to them the word "shelled walnuts." And I would like to support the testimony already given by Mr. McFall that this simply would state that the same standards that are already in effect domestically apply to imported walnuts. The walnut producers domestically are now functioning under a market order, in answer to the question of Mr. McIntire, that applies to all domestic shelled walnuts. And this would simply mean that any walnuts coming in from overseas, shelled walnuts, would meet the same standards. The facts are very clear in this case. Two years ago in the walnutmarketing season of 1955-56 there was a great deluge of walnuts that came into this country from overseas because they had the largest crop overseas since the thirties. In that were many substandard walnuts walnuts that had very high rancidity-walnuts that were moldy. There were walnuts that had a high insect count. There were other poor quality walnuts, particularly discolored walnuts. The effect of having that kind of substandard walnuts come into the market literally broke the entire market because the buyer, as he went into the market and bought a substandard supply of walnuts, just thought, "Well, this is typical of the walnut market-I won't buy any more at all." So the effect of that was not only to break down the market as far as to the substandard walnuts that came in were concerned, but to break down the entire market because all it takes is about one purchase of a substandard product to break down the demand completely. All this does, as I say, is that we shall apply the same standards to the imported walnuts as we already have put into effect for the domestic produced walnuts which is perfectly fair. It is protection to the consumer nationally. And it seems to me that anyone interested in protecting the consumers would be very happy to have a standard as in this bill apply to all walnuts both imported and domestic. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to advocate that this committee act favorably upon the bill introduced by the chairman, H. R. 9056, or the comparable bill, H. R. 8845, by Mr. McFall. Mr. HAGEN. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Mr. TEAGUE. No. Mr. McINTIRE. No. Mr. HAGEN. The next witness is Mr. Saund, Congressman from California. STATEMENT OF HON. D. S. SAUND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 29TH DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. SAUND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to take the time of the committee. There are many witnesses waiting. My bill is a similar bill presented by Mr. Sisk, except that it includes dates with pits removed and date hulls. I concur with the statement of my colleague here this morning. And in the case of dates, I know that the guarding of the health of the American people, as to dates that do not come up to specifications that the local producers observe, is most important. I know from my own personal experience, before I came to this country-and I am quite familiar with the dates grown in Arabia, as well as in India. And I know the same situation applies now, even the best dates, they are not protected so far as the high standards of the United States are concerned. I know these products are handled in a very crude, primitive manner-flies and insects and everything are in there. It is only fair for the protection of the American consumer that these foreign imports comply with the same standards that the local producers do. Mr. HAGEN. I understand, dates are under a Federal marketing order. Mr. SAUND. Yes. Mr. HAGEN. Are there any further questions? Mr. TEAGUE. No. Mr. McINTIRE. No questions. Mr. HAGEN. Do you have a report from the Department on your proposal? Mr. SAUND. I do not have any report, but I understand that the Department will not have an objection. When their witnesses appear, they will not have any objection. Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Saund, in the language of the bill which you introduced, you use the words "and date products." Is there any definition for guidance of the administration of this act, if it were enacted, which you would refer to for just what is meant by "date products,' or do you have in mind what you think that ought to cover? Mr. SAUND. I could present to the committee the exact definition of that. I just cannot give it to you now. It includes many products. There are so many uses of dates in different ways in which they are handled. I can give you a definition of that. Mr. HAGEN. Would you make that part of the record? Mr. SAUND. I will make that as part of the record in my supplemental statement. Mr. HAGEN. Thank you very much. The next witness that I have listed here is the Honorable Marguerite Stitt Church, Congresswoman from Illinois. Is she present? (Not present.) Mr. HAGEN. We will leave the record open for submission of any material that she might want to give us. We also have present Congressman Haley, who is the author of a bill similar to the ones discussed, H. R. 7832. We are glad to have you here. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. HALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. HALEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the bill introduced by myself is a similar bill to the bill introduced by the gentleman from California, Mr. Sisk. It must be a good bill when California and Florida can get together. I think it certainly must be a good bill. I am not going to take up the time of the committee, because I know Mr. Sisk has covered the bill very well, I think. And I would like to offer for the record a telegram from Mr. J. Hardin Peterson, the attorney for the Florida Citrus Mutual, if I may. Mr. HAGEN. That may be done. It will be included. (The telegram referred to is as follows:) Hon. JAMES A. HALEY, Member of Congress, LAKELAND, FLA., February 24, 1958. House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Florida Citrus Mutual, representing approximately 9,000 growers, appreciates your work in securing amendment to Agricultural Marketing Act including all citrus fruits. We authorize you to state to the committee that we are solidly back of such bill. We have developed high market standards, and the importing of inferior citrus would tear down these standards and ofttimes react unfavorably because in fresh fruit the customer does not know whether he is getting foreign or domestic fruits. Many thanks. J. HARDIN PETERSON, Attorney for Florida Citrus Mutual. Mr. HALEY. Mr. Dickson Loos will represent later on, it is my understanding, the views of the growers of the citrus industry of Florida. I would like, also, if I may have permission, to file a brief statement. Mr. HAGEN. Permission is granted. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES A. HALEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, the bill I introduced, H. R. 7832, would amend section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (of 1933), as amended, and as reenacted by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, to provide for the extension of the restrictions on imported commodities imposed by section 8e to all imported citrus fruits, and to sliced figs, dried figs, and fig paste. The purpose of the bill is to provide for the regulation of the grade, size, and quality of foreign citrus and foreign figs imported into this country in an identical manner to those regulations set by the Federal marketing agreement which are enforced on the domestically produced varieties. It is important to consider the reasons for the bill and why it should be enacted. Therefore, I call your attention to the fact that many fruit industries in the United States have resorted to Federal marketing agreements to insure orderly marketing of their commodities. These marketing agreements control, among other requirements, standards of grade, size, pack, internal quality, and external appearance. Such marketing agreements have proved to be very effective as a regulatory measure wherever enforced. On the other hand, certain produce industries, such as citrus and figs, are faced with the constant threat of foreign competitive imports, and unless such imports are regulated in an identical manner to the requirements imposed on the domestic commodity, any marketing agreement is virtually valueless because it means that, while the domestic product is disciplining itself by orderly marketing arrangements, a flood of low-grade, poor-quality, inferior-standard foreign fruit can undermine the entire price structure as well as undermining the efforts of the domestic producers to protect their industry and the interests of the public. This bill under consideration would forestall such practices as I have mentioned by providing that foreign products imported into the United States must meet the identical standards as are imposed upon domestic produce under current marketing agreements. In other words, this bill would not impose upon foreign products any limitation or restriction which is not imposed upon our domestic products. Therefore, this bill cannot be considered to be in discrimination against imports of foreign products. It does not set a quota for imports, does not limit the quantity, but, rather, it simply requires that such imports must meet the same standards of quality as the domestic product. Mr. Chairman, I urge this committee to report favorably on H. R. 7832, together with the recommendation that it be enacted by the House. Mr. HAGEN. Does that conclude your remarks? Are there any questions of the witness? We certainly appreciate your appearance here. And I would like at this point to insert in the record a telegram addressed to Congressman Grant, who is chairman of this subcommittee, from J. Hardin Peterson, attorney for the Florida Citrus Mutual, supporting the position which you have on this legislation. (The telegram referred to is as follows:) Hon. GEORGE GRANT, Member of Congress, LAKELAND, FLA., February 24, 1958. House Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Understand hearings proposed amendment Agricultural Marketing Act are before you as chairman of subcommittee. We urge that present act be amended to give full coverage to all citrus fruit instead of just grapefruit and limes. Will greatly appreciate the committee reporting out proposed amendments. Many thanks. J. HARDIN PETERSON, Attorney for Florida Citrus Mutual. Mr. HAGEN. The next witness I have listed is Mr. A. L. Kock, vice president of Bordo Products Co., of Chicago, Ill. Is Mr. Koch here? The witness, apparently, is not personally present. However, he has sent a telegram to the clerk of the House Committee on Agriculture, reading as follows: Reference H. R. 7937. Wish to register following statement with committee: Your attention is directed to Tariff Commission report to President on investigation No. 19 under section 22 of Agricultural Adjustment Act as amended. Four out of five Commissioners after due consideration of all facts ruled that importation of dates did not interfere with Federal date marketing program. As pointed out in hearing variation between domestic and imported dates would not permit establishing similar grade, size, and quality restrictions without resulting in undue hardship. Wish register protest against the inclusion of dates pitted or unpitted as provided by bill. BORDO PRODUCTS CO., Vice President. The next witness listed is Mr. Bryce, who is the general manager of the Diamond Walnut Growers of California. Mr. Bryce? STATEMENT OF JAMES R. BRYCE, JR., GENERAL MANAGER OF DIAMOND WALNUT GROWERS, INC., STOCKTON, CALIF. Mr. BRYCE. I am appearing here on behalf of the members of the Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc., who handle approximately 75 percent of all of the walnuts produced in California. I think that the subcommittee should note, Mr. Chairman, that the walnut industry ever since 1933 has been regulating the quality of merchandise that it ships to market. The first start on this was made with respect to inshell walnuts. And minimum standards were established after 1933 for the shipments of such walnuts. As the shelling part of the industry became more important it became apparent to us that we should do the same thing on shelled walnuts. And effective last year the marketing order regulating the handling of walnuts produced in California, Oregon, and Washington, 23201-58 was amended to establish a minimum standard on the shipment of shelled walnuts. This standard is the United States commercial grade with very slight modifications. This amendment to the order was made effective in order to do two things. In the first instance, to protect the interest of consumers by providing them with sound, edible walnut kernels. Second, to expand and improve the market for shelled walnuts by providing consumers with such a good product that they would be anxious to buy more and more, as time went on. As Mr. Baldwin so ably illustrated to the committee, our industry has had severe problems arise from the importation of walnuts that were excessive with respect to insect damaged kernels, the fact that they contained dust and shell, the fact that high proportions of them were rancid. We collected samples of these walnuts in the spring of 1956 and tested them in our own laboratory. I think that the subcommittee should note, Mr. Chairman, that this proposed amendment to section 8e, of the act, does not regulate volume per se. It would only affect volume with respect to prohibiting the importation of substandard shelled walnuts. Neither does it have anything to do with the fee or tariff that imported walnuts would stand when they entered the country. It is simply an effort to bring the quality of imported shelled walnuts into line with the quality that domestic producers and shellers have to operate under by Federal law. We feel in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that the enactment of this amendment to section 8e, forms a very basic part of our whole longterm marketing program. And we would most earnestly urge both this subcommittee and the entire committee on agriculture to give it favorable action. If you have no objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to file a written statement covering this matter from our point of view, together with certain other statictical data which we have compiled. Mr. HAGEN. It is so ordered. (The statement referred to is as follows:) STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BRYCE, JR., OF DIAMOND WALNUT GROWERS, INC., STOCKTON, CALIF. I am James H. Bryce, Jr,, general manager of Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc., with headquarters at 1050 South Diamond Street, Stockton, Calif. The cooperative which I represent was founded in 1912 by walnut producers in order to stabilize prices and growers' incomes, promote the distribution and sale of walnuts and otherwise advance the interests of walnut producers. At the present time, our cooperative handles walnuts for about 10,700 growers who produce 75 percent of the California crop. As background information, the subcommittee should note that the walnut industries of both California and the Northwest have long since proven their interest in maintaining high quality standards for their products. When marketing agreements and orders were first authorized by Federal law back in 1933 the walnut industry was the first agricultural group in the country to avail itself of this means of stabilizing its supply and pacing minimum standards on its shipments of in-shell walnuts. Except for the 1955-56 marketing year when average grower returns exceeded the parity level, minimum standards of quality and maturity have been in effect on in-shell walnut shipments for each season since 1933. The walnut marketing order is entitled "Order Regulating Handling |