cheller in the Southwest pays for a Spanish peanut. That is a matter of record.

Now, if you just look at the grade table that is provided by Commodity Credit, you will find that the base percentage of sound mature kernels is listed down under the base price of sound mature kernels of Spanish, Runners, and Spanish. Then you will find another section for Virginia. So you think, historically, they have used these figures over a period of years and adjusted for trends and higher percentage of sound mature kernels gradewise in the various types of peanuts like it happened to our friend in the Virginia-Carolina area. They have researched themselves into an awful predicament by producing a greater percentage of extra large peanuts that there isn't a market for, and today the Commodity Credit Corporation is outlawing it.

Now, back to your statement, sir. I feel sure that the people on the Southeast, No. 1, would not object to you growing all Runners in your area if you like. They don't want to. Then, neither will we object to you putting us or we putting you-and the shoe may fit the other way, Congressman--the same way we are with Spanish and Runners. I am sure that will be entirely satisfactory. I agreed with Mr. Moake. He called me a few weeks ago on the telephone_from Texas. He said, would you object to our putting our grades on Spanish peanuts up to 12 percent? I said, not 1 minute. There isn't anybody in the industry that would object to it.

Now, if Mr. Smith of the Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Branch will agree to it, certainly we will agree to it, and I will go out from house to house and plead your cause for you. So, sir, I still say that on this matter of differentials, between Southeast and Southwest Spanish, Southeast Runners and Southwest Spanish, I am sure that we can still sell that for you if that is what you want. Now, that is all I have to say about that.

Just one word, Mr. Chairman, and I will retire. There isn't a man in the world that would rather see a farmer make more money than I. I wonder if you can help the farmer make more money by eliminating his markets or pricing him out of the market. And I submit to you, gentlemen, and I want each of you to listen to this, the records in the Department of Agriculture today are that the biggest increase in consumption of peanuts is the Spanish, is for peanut butter. The next is for candy, and actually this is where the Spanish peanut and the Virginia peanut were hit the hardest. There is a consumption of salty peanuts this yaer where we have an 8 to 9 percent increase overall. In the salted trade that is a reduction in the consumption of peanuts. Now, gentlemen, there can be only two reasons for that. One of them is you have either priced yourselves out of the market or some cheaper thing has come in and taken your place. There is no other reason. So I submit to you, gentlemen, to let you all kiss us out of here and you all throw this thing in the wastebasket until we can get together and work out something that will do us all good. This is going to hurt all of us.

Thank you.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. D. H. Hardin, manager, Georgia-Florida Peanut Association. Mr. Hardin.

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 legis lative 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 MANUFACTURERS 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.

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.

H. B. Wilson, Georgia Farm Bureau, Peanut Committee Chairman, Abbeyville, Ga.

Bobby J. Locke, Georgia Farm Bureau, Dawson, Ga.

W. E. McDowell, Georgia Farm Bureau, Blakely, Ga.
Charles Shirley, Georgia Farm Bureau, Blakely, Ga.

D. H. Harden, manager, Georgia Farm Bureau, Camilla, Ga.

J. D. Gardner, Georgia Farm Bureau, Camilla, Ga.

R. L. Mauldin, Georgia Farm Bureau, Slyvester, Ga.
Elmer R. Faulk, Georgia Farm Bureau, Ocilla, Ga.

B. B. Saunders, Georgia Farm Bureau, O'Brien, Fla.

W. V. Rawlings, Association of Virginia Peanut & Hog Growers, Capron, Va.
C. R. Barlow, Association of Virginia Peanut & Hog Growers, Smithfield, Va.
A. L. Glasscock, Association of Virginia Peanut & Hog Growers, Chuckatuck, Va.
J. L. White, president, Association of Virginia Peanut & Hog Growers, Elberon,
Va.

H. H. Hudson, Southwestern Peanut Growers Association, Box 489, Holdenville,
Okla.

Ross Wilson, Southwestern Peanut Growers Association, Gorman, Tex.
Marcus B. Braswell, president, North Carolina Peanut Growers Association,
Whitakers, N. C.

Joe S. Sugg, North Carolina Peanut Growers Association, Rocky Mount, N. C.
R. Hunter Pope, North Carolina Peanut Growers Association, Enfield, N. C.
George P. Kittrell, North Carolina Peanut Growers Association, Corapeake,
N. C.

W. B. Anderson, Greenwood, Fla.

J. E. Thigpen, USDA, Washington, D. C.
C. T. Mace, USDA, Washington, D. C.

Following the listings of those in attendance, Chairman Wingate called on W. V. Rawlings, executive secretary of the Association of Virginia Peanut and Hog Growers of Virginia to relate the background leading up to this meeting. Mr. Rawlings gave a general outline, setting forth the developments which led up to this meeting, and in so doing pointed out the activities which had been carried out by Joe S. Sugg, executive secretary of the North Carolina Peanut Growers Association, and himself, working with the full cooperation of personnel in the Oils and Peanut Division of the United States Department of Agriculture and attorneys in the United States Department of Agriculture. He specifically pointed out that there was no intention on the part of the VirginiaCarolina area representatives to draft proposed legislation for any other area, but that this activity had been done in the interest of laying down some basic principles as a framework on which this group in the meeting here today could work toward arriving at legislation suitable to the three peanut-producing areas of the United States. He further pointed out that in order to have something with which to work that these principles had been drafted in bill form, along with laymen's explanations of each section, and statistical analysis that this material had been sent to all the people who had been designated as representatives to this meeting in each producing area prior to this meeting, in order that they might become familiar with the material. Mr. Rawlings stated further that he had additional copies for distribution to those present who had not previously received copies.

Mr. Wingate then called on Joe S. Sugg for any comments relative to the background for this meeting, and Mr. Sugg emphasized the necessity for the producers of peanuts in the United States designing and drafting a program of their own liking without outside influence. The need for a new program which would be equally beneficial to the growers and more acceptable to the public has been greatly demonstrated in the past by the continuous attack on the peanut program in the Congress. He further stated that it was the feeling of the designers of the guide material to be used in the meeting today that basically this draft would go a long way toward meeting these requirements. Mr. Sugg further pointed out the existence of and the activities of the Conference of Commodity Organizations which would lend strength to the peanut grower organizations in trying to get peanut legislation enacted through the Congress.

Mr. Ross Wilson, representing the Southwestern Peanut Growers Association, was called on and he concurred generally with the expressions of Mr. Rawlings and Mr. Sugg.

Following these general statements, Chairman Wingate suggested that we first have Mr. Rawlings go over in a general way enclosure No. 2 of the material, which is the laymen's description of the draft of the bill and that following this

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.