In a referendum where 1 man with 1,000 bales would have 100 times more votes than 1 man with 10 bales, would this be proper? Also, where two or more persons own a bale of cotton and the proceeds are divided, would the vote on that bale be divided? I am thinking of a bale where the tenant receives one-half, the renter or operator one-fourth, and the landowner one-fourth. This complication could also arise where one of these owners wanted to participate in the checkoff program and the other two did not wish to participate. There is the matter of the extra paperwork that would be imposed upon a collector or handler of these funds if there is widespread opposition and numerous requests for refunds are made. I predict that in my county there would be 80 to 90 percent of the farmers who would ask for refunds under the provisions of this act should it become effective. Now in regard to the question of the amount of authority given to the Secretary of Agriculture, regardless of who he might be. Those who contend that he is not given too much authority either did not read the same bill that I did or their interpretation of authority is quite different from mine. By my count (and I could have made a mistake) the Secretary is referred to no less than 65 times in this bill by either the noun, "Secretary," or the pronoun, "he," "his," or "him." He has final approval of who will be appointed to the Board. He has to approve all advertising, promotion, research, and development projects. In other words, every cent that is collected in the program. Another objection is that the bill provides that the $1 per bale assessment is the initial rate and can be changed by amendment in the same manner as prescribed in approving the original order. Therefore, if an order was later proposed carrying a contribution of several dollars per bale, Tennessee cotton producers might conceivably be outvoted by a few extremely large growers who could approve the order. This also raises the proposition that a large producer could vote for the bill and then ask for a refund, whereas the small producer might be reluctant to ask for it. Another concern of the cotton producers in my county is why they alone are being asked to contribute to this fund when other segments of the industry would also benefit by any increased use of cotton. The requirements to be met by an organization to be certified as eligible for nominations are too complicated. There are seven provisions in section 14. As I interpret paragraph (b) of section 16, it takes away a basic right which citizens of this country have always enjoyed-that is the right to decline testimony where one's self-interest might be jeopardized. This language in this paragraph has caused concern among many persons. The farmers of my community are inclined to agree with Congressman Jamie Whitten of Mississippi that Congress has done a good job of providing public funds for research and promotion of cotton, and we urge more competent use of these funds. I sincerely request that you not act favorably on this bill. Mr. Chairman, if I might inject one observation, I would like to do so at this time. In the questions asked by the chairman and the answers given of a great many of the people who have appeared here, you have been interested in knowing how many farmers the organizations repre sented. I personally took it upon myself to hold a meeting of cotton producers in my county, and asked the editor of the local paper to run a notice in the paper that the meeting was to be held, and we had representatives from practically every district in the county, at which time I read to them the bill that was before the House, and they voted there to have a petition sent to the Congress at that time. And so I dictated a petition of about 4 sentences, and we got over 300 names signed to those petitions in a few days, and Senator Bass has that original petition on file, if you are interested in it. But this is done as individuals and not as members of any organization. Senator HOLLAND. Thank you, sir. You mentioned the names of two gentlemen, other cotton farmers in your area, who you say are here and subscribe to your statement. Would you ask them to stand? Mr. STUART. Yes. Senator HOLLAND. What are their names, please? Mr. STUART. Mr. Sweat and Mr. Putman. Senator HOLLAND. Do you gentlemen agree with the statements just made by the witness now on the stand? STATEMENT OF CLIFFORD SWEAT, RIPLEY, TENN. Mr. SWEAT. Yes, sir. There is certain confusion on voting on these bales. As I stated, I am a cotton farmer and I am involved in several farms. One farm I get all the bales. Another farm I get three-fourths, and then I get one-half. On another one I get one-half of three-fourths. There are 10 people involved in these bales, and Senator, someone is going to have a job explaining to us farmers just how we are going to vote if we have the opportunity to. Senator HOLLAND. What is your understanding from the bill? Would you be allowed to vote? Mr. SWEAT. I would be allowed to vote by being a cotton farmer but voting on my bales, mine is only 815 pounds average on about 160 acres. Senator HOLLAND. 815 pounds production to the acre? Mr. SWEAT. Yes, sir; that is the last 3-year average. Senator HOLLAND. That means if you were allowed to vote on 100 percent of the production on all five of your farms, you would be voting on the 815 pounds to the acre for all the acres in those five farms? Mr. SWEAT. If I could vote the total. Senator HOLLAND. How do you think under the wording of this bill the number of bales or the poundage on those farms should be distributed? Mr. SWEAT. I have no idea on the poundage. In my years voting on farm programs it has been one farmer has a right to vote. Senator HOLLAND. All 10 of you, as I understand your statement, that are involved in the ownership of part of the product of 1 or all of these 5 farms, all 10 of you are farmers; is that right? Mr. SWEAT. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. And your question is a practical one as to how that poundage in that number of bales should be voted, by whom? Mr. SWEAT. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. And how much to each? Mr. SWEAT. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. That is an interesting question. Mr. SWEAT. It would be back to Baker and Cobb, Supreme Court decision, one vote, one person. Senator HOLLAND. That is an interesting question and we will ask the officer of the Department of Agriculture who described the bill to come back and explain that. Now will you please state rather definitely the data with reference to those five farms, leave out the acreage. Farm No. 1, who owns that? Mr. SWEAT. I do. Senator HOLLAND. You own it 100 percent ? Mr. SWEAT. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. You undoubtedly have the right to vote the number of bales, the poundage from that farm. All right, farm No. 2. Mr. SWEAT. I rent it. I pay a fourth of the rent. I get threefourths and the landowner gets one-fourth. Senator HOLLAND. You are not the owner of the land? Mr. SWEAT. No, sir. Senator HOLLAND. You rent the land and you pay one-fourth of the crop? Mr. SWEAT. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. All right, what is farm No. 3? Mr. SWEAT. I own it, but I have tenant farmers. They get one-half. Senator HOLLAND. You are the owner of the land. farmer produces the cotton, and then the crop is divided? Mr. SWEAT. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. 50-50? Mr. SWEAT. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. All right, farm No. 4. The tenant Mr. SWEAT. This is complicated. It is a partnership farm which we rent. I get one-half of three-fourths. We pay one-fourth in rent. I get a half of three-fourths. It is a partnership. Senator HOLLAND. In other words, there are two partners who are renters of somebody else's land? Mr. SWEAT. That is right. Senator HOLLAND. You produce a cotton crop and the landlord gets one-fourth of that crop? Mr. SWEAT. Right. Senator HOLLAND. And the two partners who are renters get half each of the three-fourths. Mr. SWEAT. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. All right, farm No. 5. Mr. SWEAT. That was the fifth farm. Senator HOLLAND. That was the fifth? Mr. SWEAT. Yes, sir. Senator HOLLAND. I lost count of them. It was a little complicated. We will ask the gentleman from the Department of Agriculture to comment for the record on how this would be done. (The information is as follows:) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Hon. SPESSARD L. HOLLAND, Chairman, Agricultural Production, Marketing, and Stabilization of Prices Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, U.S. Senate DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request on page 294 of the transcript of the hearing on the cotton research and promotion bill, H.R. 12322, that I present my views concerning how farmers may vote in a referendum where different persons have varying interests in the cotton produced on the same farm. I do not anticipate any serious problem or complication in complying with the referendum provisions of the bill. The procedure governing referendums under the bill would be contained in regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. I cannot, of course, commit the Secretary concerning what he may include in his regulations. I would assume, however, that since the term "cotton producer" is not defined in the bill the Secretary would define a cotton producer as any person who as landlord, tenant, or sharecropper, is entitled to share in the cotton produced on a farm or in the proceeds thereof. Each of these persons would be entitled to one vote only irrespective of the number of farms in which he has an interest. This is the method followed with respect to referendums on quota programs which, as you know, must be approved by two-thirds by number of the cotton producers participating in the referendum. If determination is made on a production basis, it seems to me that a fair and equitable manner of treating this situation would be to permit each cotton producer to vote the aggregate of his shares of production on all farms in which he has an interest. For example, in the illustrations presented by Mr. Sweat on pages 294-295 of the transcript, and assuming that each of these farms produce 100 bales, we would have the following result if the vote were on a production basis: Farm No. 1: Mr. Sweat is sole owner and operator. As sole owner and operator, Mr. Sweat would vote 100 bales. Farm No. 2: Mr. Sweat rents farm from landlord. He receives three-fourths of the proceeds and the landlord one-fourth. Mr. Sweat would vote 75 bales and the landlord 25 bales. Farm No. 3: Mr. Sweat owns farm but has a tenant. Mr. Sweat receives onehalf of the proceeds and the tenant one-half. Mr. Sweat would vote 50 bales and the tenant would vote 50 bales. Farm No. 4: Mr. Sweat and a partner rent a farm from a landlord. The landlord receives one-fourth of the proceeds and Mr. Sweat and his partner split the remaining three-fourths on a 50-50 basis. The landlord would vote 25 bales, Mr. Sweat and his partner would each vote 371⁄2 bales. Mr. Sweat testified that he had an interest in five farms, but gave the details on only four of them. The aggregate volume that Mr. Sweat would be permitted to vote would be 2621⁄2 bales, whereas he would only be permitted to cast 1 vote if the determination were to be made on the basis of the number of producers voting. I further assume that refunds of assessments collected would be handled on a similar basis. That is, in a landlord-tenant relation either could apply for a refund of the share representing his contribution without both joining in the request. If I can supply any additional information by way of testimony or correspondence, please do not hesitate to call on me. I am returning herewith the pages of the transcript which were sent to my by Mr. Casso. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE H. GIRARD, Deputy Administrator, Regulatory Programs. Mr. SWEAT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question. I have worked with the cotton council this last year in my county. Senator HOLLAND. You mean you are going to put me on the stand? Mr. SWEAT. No, sir; but I would like to ask one question. Perhaps you can answer it or some gentleman in the back. We have a cotton council in Lauderdale County and last year I believe out of 16 gins all except 2 participated. But this CPI has never been taught in Lauderdale County, so if there is so great a need of funds, why have they not been up in west Tennessee doing some work on a voluntary basis? Senator HOLLAND. Well, I expect they just have not had time to get around. We will not require them to answer that. This cotton industry is a pretty big industry, you know. Mr. STUART. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator HOLLAND. Thank you. I see we have one more witness listed here, Mr. John A. Reynolds, executive vice president of the Western Cotton Growers Association of Fresno, Calif. STATEMENT OF JOHN A. REYNOLDS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, WESTERN COTTON GROWERS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO, CALIF. Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Jordan. My name is John Arthur Reynolds, of Fresno, Calif. I am executive vice president of the Western Cotton Growers Association of California. May I call attention to the New York Times magazine section for last Sunday, April 24, which I would like to leave with the committee. Senator HOLLAND. We would be glad to keep that in the committee files. This would not be published, you understand? Mr. REYNOLDS. That is right. There are 334 pages devoted to synthetic promotion and advertising. There are three pages which, by stretching, you can call devoted to cotton advertising. I also want to call attention to a Sunday supplement of the San Francisco Examiner-Chronicle, March 20, 1966, 12 pages, all of them devoted to synthetics advertising and not a single page devoted to cotton. This is the type of aggressive advertising which is capturing the market for synthetics. Product improvement through research, and advertising and promotion are the private enterprise ways of getting business. We simply need much more of both in the cotton industry if we are to survive. Without them our cotton markets and our acreage will erode. As the chairman pointed out yesterday, the increasing affluence of the American consumer who has more and more money to spend on clothes and other fabrics is making it increasingly easier for advertising and promotion to sell more of the higher priced synthetic fabrics. We ask that Congress, which has spent so many millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money on cotton, for which we are grateful, now |