Mr. ROSEFIELD. Well, I am glad to have made that kind of statement. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for a very interesting statement. You do know something about peanuts.

Mr. ROSEFIELD. Well, Senator, Harold Clay claims I am fairly well informed. He is from the Department of Agriculture and he, too, knows something about peanuts.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. T. Earle Bourne, secretary of the Peanut and Nut Salters Association.

STATEMENT OF T. EARLE BOURNE, PRESIDENT, SCHINDLER'S PEANUT PRODUCTS, INC., AND SECRETARY, PEANUT AND NUT SALTERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. Where are you from, Mr. Bourne?

Mr. BOURNE. I live in University Park, Md., which is over in Prince. Georges County, just over the line.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is Schindler's Peanut Products, Inc., located?

Mr. BOURNE. They have plants in Baltimore and Washington, D. C. The CHAIRMAN. They are wholesalers?

Mr. BOURNE. Manufacturers.

The CHAIRMAN. What do they manufacture?

Mr. BOURNE. Peanut butter, salted peanuts, peanut butter sandwiches; no candy.

The CHAIRMAN. Have they been in business quite a while?

Mr. BOURNE. I have been the head of this business for the past 25 years.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your interest in this legislation?

Mr. BOURNE. I am secretary of the Peanut and Nut Salters Association, and as such we are represented on the end users committee. I am also one of the members of the end users committee. You will recall that you asked for a definition of end users. Mr. Rosefield, I think, or Mr. Fischer, gave you that definition at that time.

There was some doubt in your mind as to just what "end users” meant.

The CHAIRMAN. What provisions do you think need amending?

Mr. BOURNE. We claim insofar as the price of peanuts is concerned, that the price has gotten too high and that it is affecting consumption. The CHAIRMAN. Have you ever appeared before a congressional committee previously?

Mr. BOURNE. I have never, although I have lived in this area all my life. Incidentally, I have seen you many times at the Building Association affairs. I think you are interested in the Building Association in Washington, or at least you show interest.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed with your statement.

Mr. BOURNE. Thank you, sir.

I am T. Earle Bourne, president of the Schindler's Peanut Products, Inc., and I am appearing today as secretary of the Peanut and Nut Salters Association, a trade association whose members process over 75 percent of the salted nuts and peanuts produced in the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you pretty sure about that?

Mr. BOURNE. Yes, sir; we are. If you would like to have a list of our membership, I have that with me, if the committee would like to see it. We have taken a survey of that and I have the list here.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you interested mainly in the retailing?

Mr. BOURNE. No, sir; we are interested in the manufacturing end because we in turn sell to the wholesaler trade. We do not sell to the retail trade.

Shall I proceed?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BOURNE. It is my purpose, first, to indicate the endorsement by our association, in principle, of the brief filed with you by Mr. William Fette, Jr., of the National Confectioners Association and, second, to submit our views on a few specific points. In so doing. I am confining myself to aspects relating to the general welfare of all segments involved in the peanut problem-from grower to consumer.

Peanuts exemplify, in the extreme, the inadequacy or, better yet, the inaccuracy of the 1909-14 base period and the calculation of parity prices in a rigid fashion from that base, as provided under the present law.

We fear that the "modernized" parity feature of this proposed legislation fails utterly to correct the evils of the 1909-14 base. It would be a one-way street-correcting only such inequities as tended to set parity too low for some commodities and leaving unchanged the inequities which have set parity prices too high.

Peanuts are, we believe, the prime example of the latter.

The fallacy of the 1909-14 base as applied to peanuts arises from the almost total absence of a peanut-growing industry during those base years, in the geographical areas which today produce the bulk of the peanut crop-the southeastern and southwestern areas. In those areas, the production during 1909-14 was less than 7 percent of current production. Thus, all variables such as yield per acre, fertility, and advance of agricultural science are ignored. The yardstick is therefore no more than a mathematical combination of assumptions.

The rigidity of the present parity concept which we are now trying to improve or modernize is its greatest fault. A sound parity plan must include some means by which in establishing the parity price for any one given commodity specific variables from the general pattern can be compensated for as well as current intercrop price relationships. Only thus can we have true equity as between the producers of the various crops and assurance against unsound production trends as between two or more crops which are competitive in production. Price ratios between such competing crops must conform with productioncost ratios.

Senator THYE. Mr. Bourne and Mr. Chairman, we have two more witnesses besides Mr. Bourne and we have legislation that will require roll calls this afternoon and it will not be possible for the committee to meet this afternoon. I am wondering if it would be possible for you, Mr. Bourne, to more or less summarize your statement and then your complete satement will be inserted in the record, and the other two gentlemen would be permitted to summarize their statements. If we can do that, we might be able to finish by 12: 30.

They have a full calendar scheduled tomorrow and therefore we will not be able to continue with the other two gentlemen who are listed to appear here this morning.

I just wondered, with the permission of the chairman and with your consent, sir, if we could proceed to have you just summarize your statement in a general manner and then have the statement printed in the record as it actually is. In that way we might be able to expedite the session here this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Your motion would make it possible for his statement to be accepted?

Senator THYE. His statement would be accepted and printed in the record, Mr. Chairman, and he could more or less summarize what he would like to emphasize.

Mr. BOURNE. This is a very short statement and unless there are some questions I can get over it in 2 or 3 minutes.

Senator THYE. My reason was to try to hear the other two gentlemen this morning before we go into session. If the other two gentlemen could summarize their statements and emphasize what they think is most pertinent in their statement and then have the record show the entire statement, we might be able to get through with these two gentlemen before the Senate is called into session.

Mr. BOURNE. All right, if I may proceed.

Peanuts, except during the war years, have been a surplus problem and, we believe, are again already a surplus problem today. This fact is momentarily obscured by the sale to foreign countries of vast quantities of peanuts for crushing into oil, abroad, during the current and last previous crop year.

History shows clearly that, as we look to the future, peanuts should not be classified as a surplus-exportable commodity; at least, they cannot be so classified in a sound economic manner.

There is positive evidence that peanut products are today already priced out of the market, to a degree. The consumption of salted peanuts for the current crop year, according to the latest report of the Department of Agriculture, is 31 percent below the corresponding period of last year and 472 percent below the previous year.

The volume of demand for salted peanuts and peanut butter is always directly affected by the level of farm prices—for a very simple reason. Both products are purely peanuts—there are no means of cushioning or modernizing high parity prices by making combinations with lower cost ingredients. This factor, I believe, is of great significance since roughly 75 percent of all shelled peanuts are ultimately distributed to the American public as peanut butter or salted peanuts. During the past 30 years we have witnessed the development of the peanut-growing industry from something of only minor significance and substantially confined to a small area bordering the States of Virginia and North Carolina to an industry of such magnitude that peanuts are recognized as one of the six basic crops of this country. It is a major crop of the Southern States and has played a significant role in contributing to the solution of the "cotton problem."

Paralleling this has been the development of the peanut-butter and salted-peanut industries and the expansion in distribution of peanut confections. While throughout the rest of the world peanuts are merely an oilseed, in this country a market has been made for them in the form of peanut butter, salted peanuts, and peanut confections, enabling levels of farm prices for above the competitive oilseed levels. These products which have made the market must compete with many other products to gain and keep the favor of the American con

suming public. If these products are priced up out of favor, farm production and farm prices can be sustained only by Government subsidy-diversion of peanuts to oil.

We are confident that a sound plan of calculating parity for peanuts can and will be found. We are just as confident that with peanut prices at sound levels-in true proportion to the general level of American agricultural prices-the demand for peanut products in the three major forms can be sustained at sufficiently high levels to that peanuts can continue their part in the agricultural welfare of the South, and without an undue or discriminatory subsidy burden on the Federal Government.

We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you and sincerely hope that some of the points I have tried to bring out today will be helpful to you in the drafting of good sound legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bourne.

Mr. BOURNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Rev. William J. Gibbons, S. J., member of the board of directors, National Catholic Rural Life Conference.

STATEMENT OF REV. WILLIAM J. GIBBONS, S. J., BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL CATHOLIC RURAL LIFE CONFERENCE, NEW YORK, N. Y.

The CHAIRMAN. Father Gibbons, could you summarize your statement and then we can have your entire statement printed in the record. Father GIBBONS. Well, Senator, if I might, I would like to make a short summary of what I want to say.

Could I do that?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; then we will go ahead and print your statement in the record.

Father GIBBONS. I am speaking on behalf of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference. Its interest is not primarily in the economic aspect of title III of this bill, although we realize the difficulties concerned with the basic period and also the inclusion of wool as a basic commodity.

I have been advised that is a rather doubtful procedure. Apart from that and the need for considering international agricultural commitments, I would like to say nothing.

Our chief interest is that the arrangement of the points that deal with soil conservation in title I and to a certain extent in title II should be such that no harm would come to the soil-conservation districts. I understand the way the bill is drafted that actually will not happen.

However, it must be carefully seen to that representation on these county and State committees will be afforded to the soil conservation directors.

The second thing I should like to say is that these committees on the county and State levels sooner or later, it seems to me, are going to have to give consideration to agricultural labor. I realize at the present time this is looking way ahead but the setting of agricultural policy in certain counties and in some States, and I am thinking

specifically of California, can be very detrimental to the agricultural workers if there is no inclusion of some representation from the labor interest.

In conclusion, I merely would like to say that this recent soil-conservation survey which was made by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations pointed out that our soil-conservation position in the United States is extremely bad, much worse than we realize, and therefore a rather extended program is needed in the direction of soil conservation rather than any curtailment. I am thinking specifically of the bill before the House which was introduced March 30 by Congressman Hope that establishes a land policy. think that could very well be tied in with the economic aspect of this bill.

I

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for your appearance here, Father Gibbons.

Father GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Your entire statement, Father Gibbons, will appear in the record in addition to the summary which you have just given

us.

(The complete statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT FILED BY REV. WILLIAM J. GIBBONS, S. J., BOARD OF DIRECTORS, NATIONAL CATHOLIC RURAL LIFE CONFERENCE, NEW YORK, N. Y., APRIL 21, 1948

My name is William J. Gibbons. I am a member of the board of directors of the National Catholic Rural Life Conference and serve on its executive committee in a consultative capacity. The conference now has official representatives in 81 of the Catholic dioceses of the United States and has an active lay and clerical following in all regions of the country.

On behalf of the Rural Life Conference I wish to thank the Committee on Agriculture for this opportunity of expressing our views, and to add that we appreciate the work being done by the committee with a view to formulation of a coordinated agricultural program.

Economic stability of agriculture is a prime concern to us. We do not wish to see the farmer an underprivileged member of our economy or to witness a collapse in the farm structure such as followed World War I. For that reason members of the Rural Life Conference look with favor on most of the economic objectives set forth in legislation now before this committee. Except on relatively minor points, they would not be inclined to disagree with the amendments of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, contained in title III of S. 2318.

The sections on parity prices, carry-over, normal supply and total supply are indicative of progressive thinking in the field of agricultural economics. It seems to me, however, that some attention will have to be paid to international commodity agreements and to United States cooperation in international organizations concerned with food and farm products. On the details of the parity structure set forth in title III, I do not intend to comment except to say that should these provisions, or their equivalent, not be passed during the present session of Congress, then some extension of existing price-support legislation will be needed for the coming year.

DECLARATION OF POLICY

The general declaration of policy centers around obtaining for farmers a position as favorable, regarding essentials, as that enjoyed by management and labor in industry. As an economic objective this is most desirable.

No portion of our population should be underprivileged. However, the means by which this economic objective is obtained is all important. It would be shortsighted to place so much emphasis upon purely economic goals that social and cultural values receive insufficient attention. In this regard I would be reassured, were more safeguards provided for protection of the small and medium independent farmer and for encouraging family life upon the land.