Mr. GOODLING. Do you happen to know if Florida has the same replant problem that they do in Hawaii? Mr. NICHOLSON. I am not sure, Mr. Goodling. They certainly have this replant problem in Hawaii. I have not read about this problem in Florida. It is true that in Florida the trees don't last long, but it's mostly because they get too tall and they don't produce as much after they get older. They are grown from a seed. Their peak of production starts about 10 months after they are planted. Then they have a year where their peak of production continues and then another year with some production. Commercially, trees are replanted about every 3 years. Mr. GOODLING. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Nicholson. We appreciate your testimony and appearance before the subcommittee. Mr. NICHOLSON. Thank you. Mr. FOLEY. That concludes the scheduled testimony this morning on pending legislation, H.R. 11089, sponsored by Mr. Matsunaga, and H.R. 11200, sponsored by Mrs. Mink, and consideration by the subcommittee of S. 2484 as passed by the Senate. Accordingly, the subcommittee will stand adjourned to meet at the call of the chairman. The Chair wishes to thank the witnesses who have appeared here this morning. (Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.) AMENDMENTS TO THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 MONDAY, JULY 27, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND CONSUMER RELATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Members present: Representatives Foley, Vigorito, Sisk, and Jones of Tennessee. Also present: Lacey C. Sharp, general counsel; Hyde H. Murray, associate counsel; and Mrs. Christine S. Gallagher, chief clerk. Mr. FOLEY. The committee will come to order. The subcommittee meets this morning for the consideration of H.R. 15842 by Mr. Rogers of Florida. This bill is identical to S. 1862 as originally introduced. This bill amends section 8c (6) (I) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1937 to add tomatoes to the list of commodities for which paid advertising can be provided in promotional programs under marketing orders. Promotional programs under marketing orders are already authorized, but paid advertising can be included in them only if specifically authorized. At present, paid advertising is authorized for cherries, carrots, citrus fruits, onions, Tokay grapes, fresh pears, dates, plums, nectarines, celery, sweet corn, limes, olives, pecans, and avocados. This bill would add tomatoes to the list. (H.R. 15842, introduced by Mr. Rogers of Florida and the Department's report follow:) [H.R. 15842, 91st Cong., second sess.] A BILL To amend section 8c (6) (I) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to permit projects for paid advertising under marketing orders applicable to tomatoes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 8c (6) (I) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as amended, and as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, is amended by striking out 'or avocados" in the proviso, and inserting in lieu thereof "avocados, or tomatoes". 46 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Hon. W. R. POAGE, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to the request of your Committee for a report on H.R. 15842, a bill to amend Section 8c(6) (I) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. This proposal would authorize marketing promotion including paid advertising under marketing orders applicable to tomatoes. The Department recommends that this bill be passed. Many fruit and vegetable industry groups believe that market promotion including advertising will increase the demand for their commodity, and that promotion and advertising are essential to maintain or improve their position in the marketplace. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act currently authorizes marketing promotion as well as advertising projects for a number of commodities. The Department supports the extension of the promotion and advertising authority to tomatoes as contemplated by H.R. 15842. There are two Federal marketing agreement and order programs now in effect for tomatoes, one for tomatoes grown in Florida and the other for tomatoes grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. If this bill were enacted into law, these groups would be able to take advantage of advertising programs for tomatoes. The expense of any advertising program would be paid from funds collected pursuant to the marketing order. It is expected that there would be few, if any, additional costs to the Department except those for marketing order amendment proceedings which amount to about $7,500 for each proceeding. Any such additional administrative costs would be absorbed within existing appropriations with respect to these programs. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely, J. PHIL CAMPBELL, Acting Secretary. Mr. FOLEY. We are very pleased this morning to welcome before the subcommittee the distinguished gentleman from Florida, the author of the legislation, Mr. Rogers, to hear your testimony. We will be happy to hear from you at this time because I know you have another commitment in one of your committees. STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL G. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall take just a moment. I am grateful to you for scheduling these hearings because it is important to the producers of tomatoes. There is unanimous agreement really for this provision in our area. and, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, in Texas, too. It does have to have a two-thirds vote, as this committee knows, to be activated, and the Secretary must approve. He can include tomatoes with other products and this committee already is authorized to do this. With the permission of the Chair I would like to file a statement. I believe the committee already has received a statement from the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association in support of the legislation. Mr. FOLEY. Yes, we have the statement of Mr. Joffre C. David, secretary-treasurer of the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association. It will be included in the record and your statement will also be received for the record. (The statements referred to follow:) STATEMENT OF Hon. Paul G. Rogers, a REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS From THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much having the opportunity to appear before the Committee to present my views in support of H.R. 15842, a bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to permit projects for paid advertising under marketing orders applicable to tomatoes. This bill is identical to S. 1862, introduced in the Senate by the Honorable Spessard Holland and which passed that body on January 30, 1970. The Senate had passed this legislation as Title II of S. 1811 in October, 1969, but although there was no objection to the tomato provisions of that legislation, there was objection to the potato provisions of that bill and it was rejected by the House on November 12, 1969. This bill, H.R. 15842, would add tomatoes to the list of commodities for which paid advertising can be provided in promotional programs under marketing orders. Promotional programs under marketing orders are already authorized, but paid advertising can be included in them only if specifically authorized. At the present time, paid advertising is authorized for cherries, carrots, citrus fruits, onions, Tokay grapes, fresh pears, dates, plums, nectarines, celery, sweet corn, limes, olives, pecans and avocados. Before an order can be issued, hearings are held, and all its terms must be approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and by two-thirds in volume or number of the producers. The Department of Agriculture, in its departmental report to the Senate Committee, recommended that this legislation be enacted, and I understand that the Department's position has not changed. There are currently two Federal marketing agreement and order programs in effect for tomatoes, one for tomatoes grown in Florida and the other for tomatoes grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. If this legislation is enacted into law, these groups would be able to take advantage of advertising programs. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for providing this opportunity to appear before the Committee. STATEMENT OF JOFFRE C. DAVID, SECRETARY-TREASURER, THE FLORIDA FRUIT & VEGETABLE ASSOCIATION My name is Joffre C. David, Secretary-Treasurer and General Manager of this Association of Florida agricultural producers which comprises over 4,000 growers and shippers of fruits, vegetables and sugar cane who produce a majority of the volume of these crops of which tomatoes is one of the larger among the vegetables. My qualifications concerning the subject of this legislation date to the initial efforts of this Association which were made in obtaining this provision in the Marketing Agreements Act of 1937 (as amended) for many other commodities. In my present capacity with the Association, I have been vested with the responsibility of representing the interests of our membership in the Florida Tomato Industry in this matter. BASIS FOR SUPPORT OF H.R. 15842 At their meeting on March 18, 1969, it was the unanimous request of the Florida Tomato Committee that the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association be requested to work with the tomato industry in securing an amendment to Section 8(c) (6) (I) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (as amended) to include tomatoes among the already existing list of commodities which permits projects for paid advertising under marketing orders. On April 1, 1969, I conveyed this request to Senator Spessard L. Holland who introduced S. 1862 on April 18, 1969. On October 16, 1969, this amendatory provision passed the Senate as a rider on a bill which failed to pass the House. On January 20, 1970, I asked Congressman Paul G. Rogers to introduce H.R. 15842 which is identical to S. 1862 and supported my request with references to the enactment of similar legislation in the 89th Congress and the legislative history of these amendments which showed that this type of legislation had never been controversial and as such was not at the present time since we also had to support from tomato producers of Texas who endorsed our request and of which there are letters of record in the files of the House Committee on Agriculture. On January 30, 1970, Senator Holland brought forth S. 1862 before the Senate where it passed without being a part of any other bill. In view of the foregoing, we urge your Committee to favorably report the subject bill so that it may be adopted by the House and, therefore, be enacted as soon as possible since our tomato industry under their existing marketing agreement and order program may wish to consider the use of this provision during the coming Florida tomato season. Mr. FOLEY. Are you satisfied, Mr. Rogers, that the tomato-producing industry of your State is behind this legislation and there is no substantial opposition to it? Mr. ROGERS. Yes, I am very much assured of that. In fact, the statement of the fruit and vegetable people was unanimous, so they are very much in accord. They will be given the opportunity to express themselves if this bill passes. This bill has passed the Senate in January of this year. Mr. FOLEY. The legislation was introduced by Senator Holland. Mr. FOLEY. Questions? Mr. VIGORITO. No questions. Mr. SISK. In order to get straight what the other body has done in connection with this, I would like to ask my colleague from Florida one question. S.1862, which was Senator Holland's bill-did that pass the Senate in February of this year? Mr. ROGERS. January of this year, Mr. Sisk. Mr. SISK. Previous to that Mr. ROGERS. They had included a potato and tomato bill. That was rejected because of the potato provisions. There was some objection to potatoes at that time." Mr. SISK. This is why I was inquiring. We passed out of the committee a bill identical to that for potatoes. It went to the floor and it was defeated in the Rules Committee, and the bill was not taken up. Mr. MURRAY. It was rejected on the floor. It was considered under the regular order and it was defeated. Mr. SISK. I was under the impression it was on a procedural question rather than direct vote. Anyway, the question is this: At some point they did pass both tomatoes and potatoes together in a bill in the Senate. Is that right? Mr. ROGERS. S. 1181? Mr. SISK. Yes. Mr. ROGERS. This is possible. I am not sure of that. I know an identical bill to this one passed the Senate in January. They may also have passed another. I don't know. Mr. MURRAY. I think we can help clarify it, Mr. Chairman, with the fact that S. 1181, which sets up this potato marketing order system exclusively for research and promotion, is separate and apart from the 1937 act. It also contains a provision which is an amendment to the 1937 act dealing with tomatoes, adding them to the list of commodities which can have checkoffs for advertising and promotion activities in conjunction with regular marketing orders. Although both potatoes and tomatoes are included in the area of marketing order checkoff programs, they are under different statutes and bills. The tomato provision was passed as an amendment to the 1937 act and that is the same way that Mr. Rogers' bill is drafted, as an amendment to the 1937 act. Mr. ROGERS. Yes. Mr. SISK. I have no objection to the tomato bill. I am for it because, as you know, we have a number of these and they are excellent. Í believe we should have the same thing for potatoes. My question went only to the fact that I felt these two probably should be combined. I |