Mr. DEVANEY. Well, Senator, I have heard that ever since we have had a cotton program, ever since we have been putting cotton into the CCC stocks. But we have run some checks on it, and our information is, two or three times in the past 10 years that we have actually run checks on it, it was what we would call a better grade of cotton than we produce out in our country, and a longer staple, that a majority of the stock, the CCC stock would be that type of cotton.

The council boys could give you a better answer maybe.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you.

Mr. DEVANEY. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SHUMAN. Next we have Mr. Clyde M. York, president of the Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation.

STATEMENT OF CLYDE M. YORK, PRESIDENT, TENNESSEE FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, COLUMBIA, TENN.

Mr. YORK. Mr. Chairman, I am Clyde York, president of the Tennessee Farm Bureau. I have a very brief statement, three short paragraphs which I would like to make a part of the record in general support of the statement which President Shuman gave. And then if I may, I would like to comment briefly on just two points that have been brought out here in the discussions up to this point.

Senator HOLLAND. Do you want to put your three-paragraph statement in the record without reading it?

Mr. YORK. That will be fine.

Senator HOLLAND. You may make such comment as you wish. (Mr. York's prepared statement follows:)

For 40 years the Tennessee Farm Bureau has given its full support to all efforts in behalf of research and promotion for cotton that were conducted on a voluntary basis as it relates to the choice of the individual farmer and where funds collected for this purpose have been administered by an organization of producers. Likewise we have supported appropiration of public funds for these purposes and have recognized that expenditure of public funds so appropriated must be supervised by appropriate agencies of Government responsible for them. There is every indication that members of the organization will continue their support along these lines.

However, our membership opposes the collection of private funds from individual growers to be administered or supervised by public agencies as provided for in H.R. 12322. Even if they were not opposed in principle to this approach, they would object to a legislated approach to this matter which provides for growers to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of a research and promotion program which, if it has value, will benefit all segments of the cotton industry. We, therefore, pledge our continued support of worthwhile and acceptable efforts at wholly voluntary financing of research and promotion for cotton. We oppose the enactment of H.R. 12322 and will appreciate the committee giving consideration to these, our, views. This position has been arrived at by the cottongrowing members of our organization after widespread and extensive discussion in cotton-growing counties and communities in our State, and after proponents of this legislation have presented the case for it to representative leaders from cotton-growing counties in the State.

Mr. YORK. You asked President Shuman if he were prepared to throw the full resources of the farm bureau behind the voluntary effort in this field, and I think I can assure you that as far as Tennessee is concerned, this would be done. There is about one-third of our State that produces cotton really. I can assure you that for whatever

62-444-66- -11

we can contribute that would be done. That is definitely the feeling of our people.

The second thing I do want to assure you that the position of the Tennessee Farm Bureau was arrived at after a widespread discussion in communities and counties across our State, and so far as I know at the present time within our organization, the cotton growers within our organization, it approaches a unanimous position.

I would like to comment briefly on what has been said about the promotion of synthetics and the effect that has played in the great growth in the market for synthetic yarns that has taken place.

To my knowledge all of that promotion has been done by people who have processed these goods and marketed them, and they have done the promotion by advertising to the consumer the qualities of the finished product that appeal to him. No producer of raw materials such as pulpwood, and there is a lot of them in our State, have been called upon to make any contribution to this, and the advertising that has been done has been all together advertising of the finished product.

The other point it seems to me, and we are getting an example of it in our State now, Senator Mondale perhaps facetiously said to someone here, that they are taxing oleo now to promote butter in Minnesota, and while he was joking, in all seriousness I wonder if the time isn't just around the corner, if we start with various commodities, with a legislative assessment for promotion purposes, if the same individual farmers won't begin to be assessed for promoting different products, maybe even ones that he grows on his own farm. At the present time now we have a good many cotton farmers who are going into soybeans pretty extensively and we are beginning the development of soybeans in our State, and there has been statements to the effect that such a thing would need to be done with soybeans when they come along.

We very soon could find ourselves with the same individual farmers being assessed for different commodities which he grows some of which are in competition one with the other.

I believe that, with the brief statement which I have filed, constitutes the comments that I would like to make, Senator, and I thank you, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. What is the size of the Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation, sir?

Mr. YORK. 76,000 families are members.

Senator HOLLAND. Has this matter been considered by any of the county farm bureaus as far as you know?

Mr. YORK. As far as I know it has been considered by all the county farm bureaus, Senator Holland.

Senator HOLLAND. Have they taken an affirmative position with reference to this particular bill pending here now in your county farm bureau?

Mr. YORK. If I might briefly explain to you the procedure that has been followed, prior to the time-we usually go through a 5- or 6-week period of discussion with representatives of the county farm bureaus at area meetings. Those are well attended by representatives of our county farm bureaus. They take the subjects which come up for dis

cussion at those meetings, and take them back home, and discuss them with others in their county concerned for a period of 3 or 4 weeks, and then submit their recommendations to the State resolutions committee, which in turn submits those recommendations, then summarizes them and submits the majority recommendations to our delegate body at our convention.

This starts about August or September and continues and climaxes with the delegate body at our State convention in November.

This was done and a little more than that was done this time in our State. We had representative leaders from our county farm bureaus in the cotton-growing area in which some of the well informed proponents of this legislation came and visited with them and made an explanation. They are here today, some of the folks who did this. They took this and the other information they had about it back to the county farm bureaus, and we could never claim that we have unanimous expression from all individual members, but this expression has been unanimous from our county farm bureau units.

Senator HOLLAND. In all cotton counties?

Mr. YORK. In all cotton counties to this extent. That they have par ticipated in the discussions. There was no affirmative action taken, and most farm county bureaus have been very active in opposition. We have many, many counties that have expressed themselves through signatures on petitions to our own Senators to the extent of 300 or 400 signatures per county.

Senator HOLLAND. Senator Jordan.

Senator JORDAN. No questions.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much.

Mr. SHUMAN. Next we have Mr. Lewis Munn, president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau.

STATEMENT OF LEWIS MUNN, PRESIDENT, OKLAHOMA FARM BUREAU, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

Mr. MUNN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is Lewis Mann. I am president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. We currently have a membership of 42,750.

Our delegate body for at least 10 or 12 years has consistently op posed any type of a promotion program through Federal legislation. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the reasons why they have so consistently opposed this type of program is that they recognize the answer to the question you asked a while ago that you can't go this route and retain the control in the hands of the people who pay the bill. At least I have never seen a piece of legislation that provided for this, and I presume that perhaps it cannot be done either at the State or National levels. We have had quite a long controversy in our State over the wheat commission, which was finally passed as a result of a trade out with some other groups.

One of the things upon which our people oppose this was that the producers would not have absolute control over the program, and I think another reason why they have opposed this is because of the precedent that such legislation would set for other commodity groups

to come in, once there is a piece of legislation like this enacted and placed on the statute books.

It would seem very difficult for the Congress or the State legislature to deny some other commodity group the same privilege.

Now, all of the proponents of this proposed legislation that we are discussing that have talked to me on behalf of it have been people who are not purely producers. They have been folk who had some interest other than production. I don't say that none of them had production, but all of them had some other interest.

So far as the producers of cotton in the State of Oklahoma being for or against this particular piece of legislation, the rank and file producer does not actually know what is contained in the legislation. At least this is what I am told by some reliable people, and this is exemplified by one gentleman who wrote me a rather caustic letter following the hearing in the House on this bill wanting me to explain why I was up here opposing such legislation, and I invited him to get a copy of the bill and thoroughly study it, which he did, and later notified me and made a statement in a meeting I happened to be in that he was just as opposed to it as I was when he once found out that the control was vested in the hands of the Secretary rather than in the hands of the producer as he understood it to be. So really about all I guess that our producers know of this legislation is what was given them in the early stages of this proposal when it was presented to them as being a program that would remain in the control of the producers.

Now as I visualize this, the absolute control is in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture to whatever extent he wants to consider it his authority, and I would certainly view this as very definitely compulsory checkoff in that it provides for a fairly stiff penalty for any one who fails to make this checkoff.

The voluntary part in this program as I would see it would be strictly on the part of the producer, and it would be voluntary on his part as to whether he left the money with them once they had collected it, but there would be no question about the collection of it.

Now the Oklahoma Farm Bureau has consistently supported the efforts of the National Cotton Council, and we have offered our assistance to everyone who has come to us on this program. We have offered our assistance on behalf of the voluntary promotion program such as the CPI. And certainly we are ready and willing to do this on such a program. But our people have consistently as I stated previously, opposed the checkoff program, through legislation. Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, sir.

Senator Jordan.

Senator JORDAN. No questions.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, Mr. Munn.

Mr. SHUMAN. Next we have the vice president of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, Mr. Herbert Huddleston, and also with him is Mr. E. L. Boteler, Mr. Chairman, chairman of the resolutions committee, Mississippi Farm Bureau.

Senator HOLLAND. All right, gentlemen, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HERBERT HUDDLESTON, VICE PRESIDENT, MISSISSIPPI FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, LAMONT, MISS.

Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am H. H. Huddleston, vice president of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, and my colleague here is Mr. E. L. Boteler, chairman of our State resolutions committee. We are here at the request of Mr. Boswell Stevens, due to his inability

Senator HOLLAND. Right here may I place in the record a written statement received by the committee from the gentleman you have just mentioned, Mr. Boswell Stevens, who says he is president of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, is that correct?

Mr. HUDDLESTON. That is right; yes.

Senator HOLLAND. You are familiar with the contents of this? Mr. HUDDLESTON. Yes; I have a copy that I was prepared to offer in the event that you did not have a copy.

Senator HOLLAND. This statement will appear in the record.

(The document referred to follows:)

JACKSON, MISs., April 15, 1966.

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY COMMITTEE,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

GENLTEMEN: I am Boswell Stevens, president of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, with a membership of more than 61,000 farm families. I have been president since 1950, and have been associated with the Farm Bureau since 1923. We, in Mississippi, use the delegate system of representation from our 82 county farm bureaus. Our policy matters the county farm bureaus are represented in proportion to the membership within that county farm bureau. Each county farm bureau which meets the minimum requirement under the bylaws, is entitled to one vote, plus an additional vote for each 250 of its active members. We also use a 20-man resolution committee, which is selected from every section of the State, who meet for several days 6 weeks before the annual meeting to propose resolutions that will be sent to the delegate body. These proposals are sent to each county farm bureau for their study prior to the time they will be asked to vote for, against, amend, or delete any part or sections. At the business session of the annual meeting, the resolutions committee had proposed a vvoluntary approach to financing the National Cotton Council and Cotton Producers Institute. There were certain people who thought that this should be changed. There was a second meeting of the resolutions committee, at which time the staff of the council was allowed to present a program of the council and Cotton Producers Institute directer toward making a contribution of a mandatory nature. After the presentation, the resolutions committee members voted 17 to 2 to present to the 305 delegaes the following language:

NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL AND COTTON PRODUCERS INSTITUTE

"We commend the National Cotton Council of America for performing outstanding, unique service through cotton promotion, advertising, education, and utilization research. We urge further efforts in a combined industry program to increase cotton consumption and expand markets.

"We call attention to and support self-help opportunities offered cotton farmers through the Cotton Producers Institute's program to provide needed funds for cotton promotion and research. We recommend increased voluntary support for this program and urge participation by all State cottongrowers.

PROMOTION OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES

"The Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, through its county farm bureaus, should stimulate interest among farmers and urge increased support for sound, well-coordinated programs to promote the increased sale and consumption of farm products without duplication of effort.