Our industry has apples to sell-one of the best products known to manand we aren't telling the public about our product. Apples can be eaten, cooked, frozen, dried, and made into juice and concentrate. Apples will clean your teeth, help keep you regular, and improve your disposition. We have the facts to prove this; but we aren't telling the housewife about apples. For several years Illinois fruit growers have tried to get enabling legislation in their state without success. We in the Midwest have had the vision of several states-Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Michigan-as one operating unit. Our theme, "Johnny Appleseed Country"-something like "McIntosh Country" in New England-would be efficient and coordinated as a start. In 1967 Illinois, Indiana and Ohio tried to enter a joint effort for the Midwest area with the "Johnny Appleseed" theme. There was much interest in all states. However, since Illinois and Ohio had no enabling legislation, the people involved felt that they could not go through with the project. In an enabling act, all aspects of the industry can be involved, such as maturity, dates for harvest, quality control, orderly marketing, and stable prices. Everyone benefits including the consumer-with a mature product, marketed with quality controls involved. This month the merger of the National Apple Institute and the International Apple Association will be finalized. There will be one national organization for apple growers. These amendments would be another step towards an efficient national organization not only involving all states but also in selling their apples. Where there is unity, there is strength. The apple industry needs union. Passage of H.R. 9736 and H.R. 9737 would enable our industry to join together and do the marketing job we are capable of doing. AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Hon. THOMAS S. FOLEY, At our most recent annual meeting, in December, 1969, the official voting delegates of the member State Farm Bureaus adopted the following policy concerning the promotion of agricultural commodities: "It is important that farmers promote the increased sale and consumption of farm products without duplication of effort. We support—and will continue to seek improvement of sound, well coordinated promotion programs, including those on an industry-wide basis having adequate producer representation. "We oppose nationwide check-off programs for the promotion of agricultural commodities when the federal government administers, or has veto power over, the program. "In the area of promotion for commodities under federal orders we support an amendment to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, authorizing the collection of funds under individual federal marketing orders (not nationwide) provided the following criteria are included: "(1) The program must be initiated and developed only by producers. "(2) Funds collected must be used only for research and promotion, not for legislative and political activities or production research. "(3) The program must be approved or amended by two-thirds or more of the eligible producers voting individually in a referendum and these must represent two-thrids or more of the production. "(4) Continuation of the program after each three-year period shall require approval by two-thrids or more of the eligible producers voting in a referendum and these must represent two-thirds or more of the production. "(5) Funds collected should be administered by a producer board named by the Secretary of Agriculture from nominees elected by producers. "(6) Provision should be made for an annual certified audit. This will provide producers and the general public with an adequate accounting of expenditures. "(7) Disapproval or termination of such a program shall not be considered disapproval of the order or of other terms of the order. "(8) Collection of the check-off shall be voluntary with provision for return of funds on request. "Producers should recognize that funds "checked off" for promotion programs. are deductions from their incomes. Therefore, they should periodically review these programs to determine their effectiveness. Participating producers and their organizations should be encouraged to seek an evaluation of these programs and to recommend improvements.' You will note that the latter part of this policy deals with the question of promotion for commodities under federal marketing orders. We support legislation to amend the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 authorizing the collection of funds under individual federal marketing orders (not nationwide) provided the criteria listed in the policy statement are included. We would appreciate this letter being made a part of the hearing record on the various bills dealing with this particular matter. Sincerely yours, Hon. THOMAS S. FOLEY, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Chairman, Domestic Marketing and Consumer Relations Subcommittee, House Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN FOLEY: Regarding H.R. 9737 and S. 1455, legislation to amend the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 to include Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Illinois and Ohio among states eligible to participate in marketing agreement and order programs with respect to apples, the American Farm Bureau Federation supports this legislation. The official voting delegates of the member State Farm Bureaus at our last annual meeting adopted a policy on federal marketing orders which included the following statement: "We support an amendment to the Act to permit the development of orders for any agricultural commodity." Therefore, we urge the adoption of H.R. 9737 and S. 1455. We would appreciate this letter being made a part of the hearing record. MARVIN L. MCLAIN, Mr. FOLEY. The subcommittee will now consider H.R. 13978 and H.R. 14744. (H.R. 13978 introduced by Mr. Sisk for himself, Mr. Johnson of California, Mr. Leggett, Mr. McFall, Mr. Moss, Mr. Teague of California, and Mr. Waldie; and H.R. 14744, introduced by Mr. Mathias are similar bills, the text of which and the Department's. report, follows:) [H.R. 13978, 91st Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as amended, and reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937, as amended, to authorize marketing research and promotion projects including paid advertising for almonds Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section (8) (c) (6) (I) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as amended, and reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937, is further amended as follows by (1) inserting "almonds" before the word "cherries"; and (2) striking the period at the end of the proviso and inserting in lieu thereof: "and with respect to almonds may provide for crediting the pro rata expense assessment obligations of a handler with all or any portion of his direct expenditures for such marketing promotion including paid advertising as may be authorized by the order.' MARCH 2, 1970. Hon. W. R. POAGE, -Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of October 14, 1969, for a report on H.R. 13978, a bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, to permit the marketing order for almonds to provide for paid advertising and for crediting the assessment obligation of each handler with all or any portion of his direct expenditures for marketing promotion, including paid advertising, as may be authorized by the marketing order. The Department recommends that this bill be passed. Authority for advertising, under Federal marketing order programs, has been authorized for 14 fruit and vegetable commodities and the citrus fruits. In addition, many States have authorized the establishment of commissions or State marketing orders to promote commodities. Agricultural producers generally favor promotion programs, including advertising, as a means of maintaining or advancing their position in the market place. Under marketing orders, the promotion efforts are financed by assessments levied on handlers. Where a promotion program can improve the consumption of a commodity and is much favored by the commodity group, we believe the group should have an opportunity to develop a program appropriate for the commodity and its marketing structure. In the case of almonds, it is evident that the increasing production can be sold only by developing additional outlets and new consumers. This means educating more people about almonds and almond products and securing their consumption. The proposed amendment would encourage handlers to maintain or develop their own promotions by crediting a handler's assessment obligation with such of his direct promotion expenditures as are authorized in the marketing order. Direct expenditures under an advertising program are understood to mean the cost of the media used. Also, it would permit a restriction on such crediting so that all handlers, including those promoting their brand of almonds, would participate in financing other types of almond promotion-for instance, the preparation and distribution of recipe material to home economists and food page editors of newspapers. Thus, a handler with sufficient volume for his own promotion would receive some credit against his total assessment obligation but would still make a substantial dollar contribution to the industry-wide effort. The means of accomplishing this would be based on evidence presented at a public hearing and resolved by rule making (the normal marketing order procedure). Any projects carried out under the marketing order would be subject to the continuing review of the Secretary to insure compliance with the statute and to protect the public interest. Almonds are produced only in the State of California. Production is increasing as cultural practices and harvesting can be largely mechanized and, so far, returns to producers have been favorable. However, new, non-bearing acreage is presently estimated as exceeding 80,000 acres as compared with about 132,000 bearing acres. Although only 86.4 million pounds, kernel basis, are the record sales of any one year, the 1969 crop is indicated to be at least 119.0 million pounds and still larger crops in the offing. The additional activity caused this Department by enactment of the proposed legislation would be absorbed within existing expenditures for marketing order programs except that the order amendment cost, if separate from other amendments, could approximate $7,500. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection, from the standpoint of the administration's program, to the presentation of this report. Sincerely, J. PHIL CAMPBELL, Mr. FOLEY. At this point we will recall Mr. Hedlund to present his statement on these two bills. STATEMENT OF FLOYD F. HEDLUND, DIRECTOR, FRUIT AND VEGETABLE DIVISION, CONSUMER AND MARKETING SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. HEDLUND. H.R. 13978 would amend Section 608c (6) (I) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act to permit a marketing order for almonds to include any form of marketing promotion, including paid advertising, and to credit the assessment obligation of each handler with all or any portion of his direct expenditures for marketing promotion, including paid advertising, as may be authorized under an almond marketing order. The Department recommends that H.R. 13978 be passed. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 currently authorizes paid advertising under marketing orders for several commodities. This authority has been incorporated into some existing marketing orders. Advertising projects have been carried out for such commodities as Texas oranges and grapefruit, California olives and nectarines. The trend is toward more and more commodity advertising and promotion in the fruit and vegetable industry. Producers and others are searching for a means of financing advertising and promotion programs so as to maintain or advance their position in the marketplace. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act could provide the facility for this purpose. We believe any fruit or vegetable commodity group which actively supports the development of such a program should be given the opportunity to do so. Under this bill a marketing order might authorize almond handlers to develop and maintain their own promotion programs by crediting a handler's assessment obligation with such of his direct promotion expenditures as may be authorized in the marketing order. Any such program would be based upon evidence presented at a public hearing. There is a Federal marketing order currently in effect for almonds produced in California which production accounts for the total U.S. production of almonds. The production of almonds is expanding at a rapid rate. The additional costs to this Department by enactment of this bill would be absorbed within existing expenditures for marketing order programs except the costs of amending the order to incorporate the new authority would approximate $7,500. Mr. FOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Hedlund. Are there any questions of Mr. Hedlund? Mr. SISK. Just one, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Hedlund has checked with the Department on the exemption clause. We have the usual request that comes from California because of the fact that we have many State orders operating within the State and we have been requested to move an amendment in connection with preemption. Are you familiar with that? It's very brief. I might just read it. I want to be sure that I did understand that the Department would offer no objections to this. This is the same amendment we were requested to use, I believe, in connection with olives and some of the others. It says: "The inclusion in the Federal marketing order program for marketing research and development projects for almonds, including paid advertising, shall not be deemed to preclude or preempt research and development provisions in any State program covering almonds". This is the normal preemption language for exemptions. Mr. HEDLUND. What is your question now of me? Mr. FOLEY. Does the Department have any objection to the inclusion of that amendment? Mr. HEDLUND. I think on other occasions we have not objected to this kind of a proposal, in which such a program would not preempt the field and permit State programs to operate. Mr. SISK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FOLEY. Your position would be the same on this. Mr. HEDLUND. As far as I can speak, Mr. Chairman, I think our position would be the same. Mr. FOLEY. Putting it another way, you know as of this time, of no objection by the Department to the inclusion of this. Mr. HEDLUND. I know of no objection. Mr. SISK. I understood that this had been checked. I just wanted to be sure that you understood it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JONES. No questions. Mr. GOODLING. No questions. Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Myers? Mr. MYERS. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FOLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Hedlund. Mr. HEDLUND. Thank you. Mr. FOLEY. Could you remain a few minutes longer in case there are any technical questions that may arise? Mr. HEDLUND. Very well. Mr. FOLEY. At this time the Chair would like to recognize the sponsor of H.R. 13978, my colleague, Mr. Sisk, from California. Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, I will not impose on the time of the committee. We seem to be moving along very well this morning. I do not wish to delay it. I would express my appreciation to you as chairman of this committee and the full committee for arranging this hearing. Mr. FOLEY. The next scheduled witness is a cosponsor of legislation, Mr. Leggett of California. Mr. SISK. Mr. Chairman, if I could just again ask permission for my colleagues—if they desire to do so, and then probably will wish to have made part of the record their statement-to include Mr. Johnson and Mr. McFall, in fact all of the members who are cosponsors of this legislation. Mr. FOLEY. Without objection it is so ordered. The final scheduled witness is Mr. John Camou, assistant to the president of the California Almond Growers Exchange, Sacramento, Calif. Mr. Camou, having weighed your statement physically, if not mentally, I am going to suggest that it will be included without objection in full in the record, and you may summarize any part of it you wish at this time. Mr. CAMOU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize the committee's interest. I had not intended to impose on your time to the extent that it might appear. Many of the pages here are supporting documents |