In the 90th Session of Congress, I introduced essentially the same bill, but it was never enacted. I am hopeful that this time, however, H.R. 9736 will receive favorable action. In its present form, the Agriculture Marketing Act contains the authority to permit paid advertising under marketing orders for several commodities, and has been incorporated into some of the fruit marketing orders. Advertising projects have been carried out under it for such fruit commodities as Texas grapefruits and oranges, and California nectarines. In fact, some 15 fruit and vegetable commodities fall into this category. The trend now is toward more and more commodity advertising and promotion in agriculture, and the Agriculture Department anticipates increased efforts by fruit and vegetable industries to obtain the means of financing the advertising and promotion of these commodities so as to maintain, or in some cases, advance their position in the marketplace. The apple industry, of course, faces these same pressures of other industries, and the Agriculture Department believes that the Agriculture Marketing Act could assist the industry for this purpose, including apples, if amended by H.R. 9736. J. Phil Campbell, Under Secretary, has stated that the Department favors enactment of H.R. 9736, and said: ". we believe any fruit or vegetable commodity group which actively supports the development of a promotion by this means should be given the opportunity to do so." Section 602 of the Act sets forth the policy of Congress to establish and maintain orderly marketing conditions, and to acheive parity price levels to farmers. Presently, the statute authorizes certain types of regulation when the prices are aboveparity, and the amendment to the Act which I have co-sponsored would insure that this authority is applicable to the initiation or continuation of marketing research and development projects, including any form of marketing promotion and paid advertising. The Agriculture Department has indicated marketing research and development activities must continue on an uninterrupted basis if they are to acheive the desired objectives. These projects are aimed at making improvements in marketing and distribution, which the Agriculture Department called "worthwhile at any price level." There is no reason for discontinuation of such projects when prices are above-parity. The apple industry has not previously used federal marketing orders to establish marketing research or development projects, including paid advertising. the larger apple-producing states, and a sprinkling of smaller ones, have apparently solved their problems partially through state orders, agreements, and regulations. The two largest apple-producing states, New York and Washington, have apple promotion programs which are supported by grower assessments established by state-enabling legislation. These two states alone account for about half of the apple crop in a given year, but they represent about three-quarters of the marketing development projects, including paid advertising in the industry. Other smaller apple-producing states, my home state of Massachusetts included, find it difficult to justify a state marketing order, for economic reasons. The administrative costs to operate such an order on a State-by-state basis would, in many cases, be too great, as it would consume such a large proportion of the possible collections. The legislation I have introduced would enable the six New England states to band together, under one central administration, and develop a marketing program with a minimum of administrative costs, in which the growers could all share more equitably, for example. In turn the support of these growers would complement the projects of the larger apple-producing states, in this instance, our neighbor, New York State. This concept can only be envisioned under the authority of the Act, as amended, provided this bill is enacted. For about 30 years, New England apple producers have participated in a voluntary organization for the purpose of promoting apples, and have carried on limited research projects. These programs have been somewhat beneficial to the growers, but only six of every ten growers contribute financial support, and the inequities of voluntary support probably cannot endure. Under the amended Act, if the industry programs were supported by a two-thirds majority of the growers in an established geographical area, the promotion could be supported by everyone. The inclusion of market development and paid advertising in the Act for other commodities should be extended to cover apples. Industry spokesmen tell me that sufficient production capabilities exist, but sufficient markets are lacking, since the apple industry is unable to join forces to the extent necessary. Not only will the apple industry benefit from the amended Act, but the consumer also stands to gain. The industry will be bettered by the added effort contributed by those states electing to improve its own markets with promotion and paid advertising. The consumer benefits from the industry efforts to improve its own markets, by providing consumers with a barrage of helpful information about apples and about apple products. For the approximately 500 New England apple growers (who together produce about 8.5 million bushels of apples each year), as well as the growers from the 29 other apple-producing states in this nation, and for the consumer who stands to reap additional benefits from the domestic apple industry, I respectfully urge that H.R. 9736 receive favorable action. Thank you. Congressman W. R. POAGE, FARMINGTON, N. MEX., June 11, 1970. Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: Unable to have representative at hearing on H.R. 9736 and 9737 but strongly urge approval of this legislation for our apple industry. ROBERT G. WHITE, Chairman, New Mexico Apple Council. YAKIMA, WASH., June 11, 1970. THOMAS S. FOLEY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and Consumer Relations Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: Washington and Oregon apple growers endorse efforts of National Apple Institute and support H.R. 9736 and H.R. 9737 amending Marketing Agreement Act. We urge earliest possible favorable action and enactment into law. ERNEST FALK, Northwest Horticultural Council. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, June 12, 1970. Congressman THOMAS FOLEY, ROCHESTER, N. Y., June 11, 1970. Hon. THOMAS FOLEY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and Consumers Relations of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: New York growers strongly support H.R. 9736 and H.R. 9737 while New York has State legislation some reason need the Federal legislation to more efficiently accomplish the same end, e.g., six New England States. We are unable to attend the June 15th hearing but do want to register our support. L. A. PUTNAM, President, Western New York Apple Growers Association. FARMINGTON, N. MEX., June 11, 1970. Congressman THOMAS FOLEY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and Consumer Relations, House ROBERT G. WHITE, Chairman, New Mexico Apple Council. NEW PHILADELPHIA, OHIO, Congressman THOMAS FOLEY, Chairman, Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and Consumer Relations, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: We are unable to attend hearings on House of Representatives bills 9736 and 9737 on Monday, June 15, but Ohio growers strongly endorse and urge approval of both bills. NORMAN WITHERSPOON, Manager, Ohio Apple Institute, Inc. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AGREEMENT ACT OF 1937 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 1970 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC MARKETING AND CONSUMER RELATIONS OF THE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Foley, Vigorito, Sisk, Jones of Tennessee, and Myers. Also present: Martha Hannah, subcommittee clerk; Hyde H. Murray, associate counsel; and John Knebel, assistant counsel. Mr. FOLEY. The Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing and Consumer Relations will come to order. The subcommittee meets this morning for the consideration of H.R. 682, introduced by Mr. Teague of California, which provides for the extension of restrictions on imported commodities, in this case, olives. Also under consideration this morning is H.R. 2387, introduced by Mr. Sisk of California, which provides for the extension of restrictions on imported raisins. The last bill to be considered will be H.R. 11531, introduced by Mr. Gubser of California, which provides for the extension of the restrictions on imported raisins and prunes. (H.R. 682, introduced by Teague of California for himself, Mr. Sisk, Mr. Johnson of California, and Mr. Mathias; H.R. 2387 introduced by Mr. Sisk for himself and Mr. Johnson of California; and H.R. 11531 introduced by Mr. Gubser, follow:) [H.R. 682, 91st Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as amended, as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, and as amended by the Agricultural Act of 1961, so as to provide for the extension of the restrictions on imported commodities imposed by such section to imported olives Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as amended, as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, and as amended by the Agricultural Act of 1961, is amended by inserting in the first sentence thereof between "tomatoes” and "avocados," the following: "olives". [H.R. 2387, 91st Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, as amended, as reenacted and amended by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, and as amended by the Agricultural Act of 1961, so as to provide for the extension of the restrictions on imported commodities imposed by such section to imported raisins Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 8e of the Agricultural Adjustment (27) 48-940-70- -3 |