Now, with regard to clause 3, I don't believe it was ever used except in the one instance for cranberries. Is that correct?

Mr. LENNARTSON. That would be under production payments.
Mr. WHITTEN. May I quote clause 3 for the record:

Reestablish farmers purchasing power for making payments in connection with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption. Determination by the Secretary as to what constitutes diversion. what constitutes normal channels of trade and commerce and what constitutes normal consumption of domestic production shall be final.

Now, is the first part of that section used in connection with cranberries?

Mr. LENNARTSON. That is correct.

Mr. WHITTEN. What was the date and how much was spent there, and have there been any other instances where this section was used? Mr. LENNARTSON. It was used on cotton at one time.

Mr. HOLMAAS. There have been production payments on cotton and flax fiber. I think that was back during World War II, and I don't recall whether this was under this clause or the last phrase of clause 1. We would have to check that for the record.

SECTION 32-PRODUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. WHITTEN. It is my recollection in World War II that section 32 was used where the Government was trying to promote increased production.

Mr. HOLMAAS. That is correct.

Mr. WHITTEN. Which would be opposite to efforts to improve purchasing power or maintain it.

(The material requested follows:)

Detail on section 32-Production program payments

The clause in the section 32 law under which these programs were carried out was as follows:

NOTE. An additional $34,500,000 for incentive payments under clause 3 was transferred in 1943 to AAA for potatoes and truck crops for which a commodity breakdown among these crops is not available.

SECTION 32 FUNDS AVAILABLE ANNUALLY

Mr. WHITTEN. What is the average amount available from section 32 each year? You might give the actual amount for the record for the past number of years.

Mr. LENNARTSON. We have a table on that here, showing the increment, annual increments, since 1936.

Mr. WHITTEN. We will be glad to include that in the record also at this point.

(The table requested follows:)

Mr. WHITTEN. I pointed out the other day that several of us, Mr. Horan and I, were on the subcommittee several years ago when, in order to keep section 32 funds available for its purposes, we proposed in the committee report that preference be given to supporting perishable commodities. Subsequently this was written into the act. Has the Department ever made a determination as to what the meaning of that language was, or what percentage it takes to meet the requirements of the language?

Mr. SMITH. Yes. The Department has made the determination that at least 51 percent must be devoted to perishables.

Mr. WHITTEN. Now, turning to clause No. 2, I quote:

Encourage the domestic consumption of such commodities or products by diverting them, by the payment of benefits or indemnities or by other means from the normal channels of trade and commerce, or by increasing their utilization through benefits, indemnities, donations, or by other means among persons in low-income groups as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Now, in the recent discussions in connection with cotton, and the textile mills' insistence that some relief be given to them from the present support price level, it was my belief, and I believe so now, that clause No. 2 is broad enough to cover that, in the event there is a proper determination made. That is something that we can discuss with the Solicitor. But I will ask you if you have also a compilation of the use of this section by commodities, through the years, as to what has been used?

Mr. SMITH. We have a compilation.

Mr. LENNARTSON. It appears on the table I just handed you, but we have it in other detail here.

(The material referred to is as follows:)