do not want to endanger the gentleman's bill. I wanted clear exactly what the Senate had done because we have two Senate bills.

Counsel has explained what actually happened in connection with this S. 1181.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. I have no questions.

Mr. FOLEY. I might mention that the committee has been advised. that a bill to include lettuce was introduced last week by Mr. Talcott, of California. I believe there is another one pending for peaches. Mr. MURRAY. That is right.

Mr. FOLEY. I will say to the gentleman from Florida that the subcommittee will have to consider what action to take with respect to these other commodities at the time it brings up the tomato legislation. I do not want to delay the gentleman's pending engagement before his other committee. We deeply appreciate his appearance and statement today.

Mr. ROGERS. I am grateful to the subcommittee for considering this legislation.

Thank you.

Mr. FOLEY. The next witness will be Floyd F. Hedlund, Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Consumer and Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

STATEMENT OF FLOYD F. HEDLUND, DIRECTOR, FRUIT AND VEGETABLE DIVISION, CONSUMER AND MARKETING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. HEDLUND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

H.R. 15842 would amend section 608c (6) (I) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to permit a marketing order on tomatoes to include any form of marketing promotion including paid advertising.

The Department supports H.R. 15842 and recommends enactment. Agricultural producers have shown an increasing interest in the use of trade promotion and advertising in the marketing of their crops. They believe such activities are essential if they are to maintain or improve their position in the marketplace. Commodity groups are searching for ways of financing these promotional efforts. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act could provide the facilities for this purpose. We believe that any fruit or vegetable group that actively supports the development of a promotion program by this means should be given the opportunity to do so.

The act currently authorizes paid advertising under marketing orders for several commodities. This authority has been incorporated into several existing marketing orders. Advertising projects have been undertaken for a number of commodities.

A marketing order program is currently in effect for tomatoes grown in Florida, and another for tomatoes produced in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. If H.R. 15842 is enacted into law, either or both of these marketing orders could be amended to take advantage of the authority to advertise tomatoes. The cost of the advertising program would be assessed on handlers under the order.

It is estimated that the cost to the Department for amending an existing marketing order is approximately $7,500. Any other costs

to the Department would be absorbed within existing appropriations with respect to such programs.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this statement from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Hedlund.

Mr. VIGORITO. I have no questions.

Mr. SISK. I would like to explore with Mr. Hedlund the idea which has been raised by our chairman this morning in regard to the fact there are several bills.

As the gentleman knows, we have had a number of bills passed and authority for this granted.

What do you see is the problem in connection with general legislation in this area? Are there basically problems if, for example, Congress saw fit to pass general legislation which would permit promotion and advertising in connection with any commodity operating under a marketing order?

Mr. HEDLUND. This question of advertising of agricultural commodities has been discussed and considered for many years. May I say that there is not unanimous agreement that advertising is necessarily the answer to some of our marketing problems. I think that is the reason these are taken commodity by commodity, in order to get through a program to advertise a particular commodity without opening up the thing to all commodities. I do not think I am prepared to say what the answer of the Department would be as to whether we would favor this for all commodities.

The Department's position has been to favor it for those commodities which have come along item by item.

Mr. SISK. In fairness to the witness let me say that I did not mean to put you on the spot in connection with the position of the Department. I recognize there has been no other request or pending legislation in this direction. Some of us have discussed it and felt that in view of the fact it is only permissive and has to be adopted by two-thirds of a given commodity group; is that right?

Mr. HEDLUND. Absolutely.

Mr. SISK. Therefore, even general legislation which would be permissive would not be imposing it upon any commodity or any group or any other marketing group which did not desire to have this.

Again I am not attempting to argue with the witness. I thought there might be some problems in connection with general legislation which had not occurred to me and perhaps you might be aware of those as to the reasons why we should not even consider that as a proposal. That is the reason I raised the question.

Mr. HEDLUND. I don't know of any specific problem that would bar consideration of the whole thing on a permissive basis.

Mr. SISK. We are faced with that situation in one of the basics today, and I refer to cotton which is involved in a bill which we are hoping to work on shortly. To me this is the only answer unless the cotton people themselves in some way can bring about a manner to raise substantial promotion research funds, to get out and prove that economically they can beat competition in the world market as well as in the domestic market, in competition with other kinds of fibers. I think we are seeing the end of cotton as a basic American commodity.

Again that is not exactly on this subject but I wanted to raise it. Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Jones?

Mr. JONES. I have no questions.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Hedlund, to amplify the question of Mr. Sisk more directly, is it not true that we have had two somewhat different types of legislation presented in the advertising field-the first are the amendments to the 1937 act which authorized paid advertising for existing marketing orders and somewhat separate proposals, as the one enacted for cotton and the other proposed for potatoes, which do not rely on marketing arders as a base but would provide a mechanism for advertising through national referendum of producers?

Mr. HEDLUND. Yes, Mr. Chairman; that is true. What we are discussing here today is an amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act to authorize advertising. That is quite a different piece of legislation from the potato bill. The potato bill proposes a separate statute to set up a marketing order for the specific purpose of promotion of potatoes. It does nothing else and it has some different terms in it from the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.

Mr. FOLEY. I wanted the record to show I am strongly in favor of potato legislation. I was when it was before the House and I still am. There is one other major difference which I recall in the two specific approaches, and that is that under the potato legislation proposed and under the existing public law affecting cotton, the producers have an option to obtain the refund of their contribution, which is not true under the marketing order legislation such as we have today. Is that correct?

Mr. HEDLUND. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Under the potato proposal the assessment is on the producer, and the producer has an opportunity to get his money back. However, under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 the assessment is on the handler, and the handler does not have an opportunity to get his money back. Mr. FOLEY. Nor has the producer any way of getting contributions back or have it adjusted into the price.

Mr. HEDLUND. He does not have an opportunity to get his money back.

Mr. FOLEY. If there are no further questions we always appreciate your appearance and helpful testimony, Mr. Hedlund. If you would remain for just a few minutes the committee might have some additional questions.

Mr. HEDLUND. Thank you.

Mr. FOLEY. The last scheduled witness this morning is Mr. A. E. Mercker, the executive secretary, Vegetable Growers Association of America, Washington, D.C.

STATEMENT OF A. E. MERCKER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, VEGETABLE GROWERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Mr. MERCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H.R. 15842 would amend section 608c (6) (I) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act to permit a Federal marketing order on tomatoes to include any form of marketing promotion including paid advertising.

Many retail grocery stores now stock 7,000 to 8,000 items. Trade reports indicate that before long the number of items may increase to 10,000. Competition for the food dollar is increasingly intensive,

and more and more commodity advertising can be expected. The fresh-tomato industry will have to work diligently just to maintain its current position in the food market.

I believe that the objectives of H.R. 15842 would benefit the tomato industry. At the very least, this resolution would help to maintain if not advance the position of fresh tomatoes in food markets. Although directed at tomato-producing areas covered by a Federal marketing order, H. R. 15842 likely would benefit all of the Nation's tomato growers. Currently about a third of the U.S. fresh-tomato. crop is produced in Florida and south Texas, which are the only producing areas with a Federal marketing order.

In the 1959 census of agriculture, tomato production was reported on 67,262 farms. In the 1964 census there were 37,073 farms. I expect a sharp drop compared with 1964 in the number of tomato farms reporting in the 1969 census. Nevertheless, 28 States produce tomatoes for fresh marketing, according to reports of the Statistical Reporting Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In 1969 these States harvested 149,300 acres of fresh tomatoes. Average yield was 132 hundredweight, and the aggregate production was 19.6 million hundredweight. The average shipping-point price was $11.40 per hundredweight, and total crop value at shipping point was $223,719,000. The value of the fresh tomato crop exceeds that for all other fresh vegetables except lettuce.

The average annual retail price for fresh tomatoes in 1969 was 42.1 cents per pound, according to records maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS price per pound applied to the national fresh output indicates that retail sales of fresh tomatoes in 1969 amounted to approximately $825 million.

Florida and south Texas fresh-tomato crops, as mentioned heretofore, are now covered by a Federal marketing order. In 1969 freshtomato production in Florida was 6.2 million hundredweight, almost 32 percent of the U.S. total crop. The entire Texas production in 1969, including some production not covered under the marketing order, was 473,000 hundredweight, or 2.4 percent of the U.S. total crop. California and Florida, in that order, lead in fresh-tomato output. California produced about 35 percent of the 1969 U.S. total

crop.

Although H.R. 15842 would not affect tomatoes for processing, the committee may be interested in the magnitude of the tomato crop for processing. In 1969 tomato acreage harvested for processing amounted to 271,190 acres, total production was 98.6 million hundredweight, and raw-tomato value at the processing plant delivery door was $171 million.

Currently there are 1,500 acres of land in the United States covered with greenhouses for the production of tomatoes, bib and leaf lettuce, cucumbers, watercress, and radishes, producing 240 million pounds, which generate $60 million annually to our economy. Tomatoes are the leading crop and are generally grown to perfection. They are available almost the entire year. Any advertising would help these products.

The preservation of a viable fresh-tomato industry is of weighty consequence to our Nation's 205.4 million consumers. USDA estimates that per capita use of fresh tomatoes originating on commercial

farms is about 12 pounds. In addition, per capita consumption of home-produced or garden tomatoes runs about 16 pounds. Tomatoes, in processed forms, including tomatoes as tomato catsup, paste, sauce, and juices, amounts to another 20.3 pounds per capita.

We are all aware that the national interest is becoming increasingly focused on alleged nutritional deficiencies in the American diet. Å wider use of fresh tomatoes in our diets would be highly beneficial.

A report of the Agricultural Research Service shows that one pound of fresh tomatoes contains about 100 calories; preparation loss is minimal. Also, fresh tomatoes contain measurable amounts of protein, fat, carbohydrates, calcium, phosphorus, iron, sodium, potassium, vitamin A, thiamine, riboflavin, niacin, and ascorbic acid. In the scheme of human nutrition, tomatoes truly are a blessing.

H.R. 15842 provides a means by which tomato growers can help themselves. To permit the tomato marketing order to include any form of marketing promotion including paid advertising likely would enhance sales of tomatoes which contribute so importantly to the American diet.

On behalf of the Vegetable Growers Association of America, which was formed in 1908, we strongly endorse that the committee consider favorably this bill. I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to present this testimony and trust that our views will be given due consideration.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Mercker. We appreciate your testimony.

Mr. Vigorito?

Mr. VIGORITO. I have no questions.

Mr. SISK. I have no questions.

Mr. JONES. I have no questions.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. MERCKER. I thank you very much.

Mr. FOLEY. That concludes the scheduled witnesses for this morning's hearings.

The Chair, without objection, has included for the record a statement received from Joffre C. David, secretary-treasurer of the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, Orlando, Fla., in support of the legislation.

The Chair wishes to express its appreciation to the witnesses and others in attendance this morning. The Chair wants to recognize the presence of Doyle Burns, the executive secretary of the National Potato Council.

At this point the Chair would like to ask the members to remain briefly for a short executive hearing. Accordingly the Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and Consumer Relations will stand adjourned to meet at the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, 10:35 a.m., the hearing adjourned.)