Page images

We have searched for some other way. We have found none. The proposal before this committee is the only answer we have found. It has a tremendous base for CPI leadership from producer organizations and from the rest of the cotton industry. Last week the council at its annual meeting, the producer delegates voted 43 to 7 to endorse this proposal. Support from various other branches of the industry was unanimous.

Now it is strange to me that you all support the CPI and the Cotton Council, and are opposing the very thing that they advocate. They are the ones that have been running this promotion and research show, and they know that the job hasn't been done, and they said this is the only answer. You all come in here on some kind of emotional principle or something and say you are opposed to it, and offer no solution at all. You don't even offer amendments to the bill. Mr. Shuman said the only thing he would do is vote to strike out the enacting clause in the whole thing. I don't think the Farm Bureau has much to be proud of in dealing with cotton, if you come here and oppose everything and offer nothing. That is all. Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Hays, was I correct in the impression that I got from your statement that you are opposed to any program either voluntary or compulsory which would provide for a contribution from each producer to carry on and expand this research, advertising and promotion program which is designed to increase the use of cotton?

Are you opposed to the collection of any money, either voluntary or compulsory for that purpose ?

Mr. Hays. No, sir. I am participating in the collection right now. Mr. Jones. You are participating in the Cotton Producers Institute ?

Mr. Hays. Not in the Cotton Producers Institute. It is not in my area of production. But I am and have been for a great long number of years participating in the cotton council's program.

Mr. JONES. I got the impression from your statement that the farmers with whom you talked, that they were not satisfied with the job that was being done by the Cotton Producers Institute, the National Cotton Council, and for that reason they didn't want to put any of their money into it.

Is that correct?

Mr. Hays. I did make in general such a statement, and it was predicated on the fact that apparently he was dissatisfied with what he was buying with his money.

Mr. JONES. Well now let me ask you this. Do you think that if a program such as the gentleman who just preceded you stated, that if that was sold to these people and they thought that there was an opportunity to actually do something productive to increase the use of cotton, do you think that would make any change in the attitude of these small producers say, and that they would be willing to contribute to a fund to do that or not?

Mr. Hays. People in my experience generally respond to this kind of incentive, sir.

Mr. Jones. Yes.

Mr. Hays. And if he felt he was getting something for his money I have no doubt that he would join in.

Mr. Jones. Don't you think that the referendum that would be provided by this bill is about the only way that we can have of determining whether there was support for it.

Mr. Hays. No, sir; I don't.

Mr. JONES. How would you go about determining whether or not the people wanted a program like this?

Mr. Hays. I think the mere fact that the council's collections increased rapidly over a number of years is proof that the people want it.

The CHAIRMAN. You just admitted that they decreased.
Mr. HAYS. I did; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But for the $800 that somebody gave you one year that they won't give next year, there would have been a very substantial decrease? Mr. Hays. He thought he was getting $800 worth in the year

he contributed.

The CHAIRMAN. Why wouldn't he give that amount next year?

Mr. Hays. He may have a various number of reasons. These are individual reasons.

The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me.

Mr. Jones. I was just having difficulty of reconciling your statement saying that you had participated, and evidently you thought that you were getting value received, or that the industry was securing some results from this program, or I presume that you would have cut your payments off.

Mr. HAYS. I do. I concur.
Mr. JONES. Yes.
Mr. Hays. And am still contributing right now.

Mr. JONES. Well, the thing that I can't understand then is why, if you feel that it is doing the job, why do you feel that the other people that you have talked to in your office as president of the association feel that they are not getting their money's worth? Are they stopping their payments, or have there been others in your community that have contributed to the CPI ?

Mr. Hays. Well, I didn't try to specify any particular incident, Congressman. But the fact that collections were reducing seemed to me to be conclusive evidence that there was some reason for it, and generally if you spend a sum of money, it is on the basis of making a purchase. This is true when this committee reviews a program and you decide that it is valid, you recommend that it be enacted and the Appropriations Committees supply the money for it. If it isn't a sound buy as far as legislation is concerned, of course, then you don't approve it.

Mr. Jones. I still have a little difficulty. I can't get the feeling that you have about this program, and I want to ask this question to see if this would make it any more palatable or if you think it would be more equitable if this referendum would be based not on the volume of cotton as is provided in the bill, but would be based on a majority of the producers, if a majority of the producers voted and said "we think that a program that would require a dollar a bale payment,” if a majority of the producers, regardless of the size, would indicate that,



would you think then that that would get more support for this program and probably get more cooperation and more confidence in the program.

Mr. Hays. Well, the bill doesn't say it would be $1.

Mr. JONES. I understand it doesn't. As I understand it, that was the basis, and I think it is generally understood that that is what is contemplated, although it doesn't set forth $1 a bale. Of course, that could be established. But I think we have been proceeding on the premise that it would be $1 a bale. What I am trying to get at, there seems to be some objection that by using the volume approach rather than the individual majority approach, that we are trying to force something on a majority of the people, because of the votes of the acreage rather than individuals. Do you think it would be more palatable to have it on the vote of the individual farmer?

Mr. Hays. Well, your bill provides—and again referring to page 4, paragraph 2, of the original testimony this morning—the bill provides that the money shall be collected by the Cotton Board, and this still mon't meet our requirement "collected by the voluntary action of market agencies," and it would not to this extent leave the producer free for a refund. In the matter of the individual voters, I would say,

Mr. Congressman, that I don't see how you ever got in this bill, anyway, this matter of volume.

Voters are not asked to approve tax assessments or anything else on the basis of volume. You don't have an opportunity to vote on these matters except as an individual.

Mr. Jones. That is what I am asking you.
Mr. Hays. I should think this should be true of this here, too.

Mr. Jones. That is what I was asking you if you thought it would be more palatable if you just had the one vote, in other words by the number of cotton producers, whether a fellow produced 1 bale or 100 bales, that he would have the same vote. Would that make it more acceptable in your opinion?

Mr. Hays. Well, I am reasonably sure that this would be an objection that some folks would put a great deal of stress on, and if this were done I am sure this would be the case.

Mr. Jones. I am asking you as the president of the Alabama Farm Bureau how do you think your organization would react to that?

Mr. Hays. Under the present authority that the delegates have given me, we would be opposed to the bill.

Mr. Jones. I am not asking about what the American Farm Bureau Federation has done. I am asking about the farmers in Alabama.

How do you think they would react?

Mr. Hays. Well, I don't know that I am qualified to answer that, Congressman.

Mr. Jones. Well, if the president of the association wouldn't be qualified, I don't know of anyone that would be.

Mr. Hays. No, sir; you don't understand my job assignment.

Mr. Jones. In other words, you feel a greater responsibility to the American Farm Bureau Federation than you feel to the farmers of Alabama ?

Mr. Hays. No, sir; but my policy in my work orders are written by the delegates in the form of the appropriate resolutions, and these I

adhere to religiously and strictly. I don't tell them what to write nor what to say. I do what they say.

Mr. JONES. What percentage of the cotton farmers in Alabama are members of the Alabama Farm Bureau ?

Mr. Hays. Repeat the question.

Mr. Jones. What percentage of the cotton farmers in Alabama are members of the Alabama Farm Bureau Federation?

Mr. HAYS. I have no statistics on it.

Mr. JONES. How many members do you have in the Alabama Farm Bureau ?

Mr. Hays. 98,000.
Mr. JONES. 98,000? That is individual members?
Mr. Hays. Yes.
Mr. JONES. Individual dues-paying members?
Mr. Hays. Yes; individual dues-paying members.

Mr. JoNEs. That is a pretty good percentage of all the cotton farmers in Alabama, isn't it?

Mr. Hays. Right. That is correct.
Mr. JONES. Thank you.
I don't have any further questions.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement by Mr. Grant and one by Mr. Munn, that they asked me to read with your permission.

Mr. McLain. Mr. Cooley, the Tennessee statement was given to the reporter this morning just as we adjourned.

The CHAIRMAN. How about Mr. Allan Grant, president of the California Farm Bureau? Is he here?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I am here in his behalf and would like to read his statement.

The CHAIRMAN. How long is it going to be?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is about 70 words.

The CHAIRMAN. That is good. Go ahead and read that and then we have another from Mr. Munn.



Mr. RANDOLPH. This is Mr. Allen Grant, president of the California Farm Bureau Federation, who had to catch a plane.

This is not the bill that was being circulated at the time the California Farm Bureau Federation and AFBF policies were being formulated. The original bill was not a program completely dominated by the Department of Agriculture. The idea of referendum has merit except that with this kind of Governmentdominated program, if passed it would open the door to a rash of such programs with various agricultural commodities in competition and conflict requiring further regulation.

That is the end of Mr. Grant's statement. I would like to read Mr. Munn's.

Mr. Munn's is a little longer, about 125 words. I would like to read it.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.



Mr. RANDOLPH (reading):

I am Lewis Munn, president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. The Oklahoma Farm Bureau has been a strong supporter of the National Cotton Council and Cotton Producers Institute as they have been operated in the past. We have consistently pointed out these organizations as being an example of how producer groups should operate. The Oklahoma Farm Bureau has opposed governmental checkoff programs for many years. Producers in our State generally have no knowledge of the content of this proposed legislation, a condition which seemed to be prevalent at the National Cotton Council meeting in Jacksonville, Fla. Much discussion has been centered around the need for additional research. I would point out that producers have no assurance that a substantial amount of the funds would be used for research under the proposed legislation. The point was made this morning that manmade fibers are spending $200 million per year. If the proponents of this legislation are attempting to match dollars with manmade fibers, the additional amount realized will be rather inadequate unless the checkoff per bale is greatly increased.

That is Mr. Munn's statement.
Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, sir.

You say those gentlemen, one came from Oklahoma and one from California ?

Mr. RANDOLPH. They were here.

The CHAIRMAN. They were here and they heard the testimony of the proponents, and they decided to go back home and let you present it for them?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I don't think they heard the testimony of the proponents, but they were here today.

The CHAIRMAN. Those are all the statements you have?

Mr. RANDOLPH. I would like to express appreciation for the time that the committee has given to us.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement at this point ? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEIL. In view of the testimony of Mr. Shuman earlier today, this morning, with reference to the resolution passed by the Farm Bureau in Chicago in December 1965, I would like to say at this point that I have talked to Mr. W. L. Lanier, president of the Georgia Farm Bureau, a few moments ago, and that he reported to me that the Georgia Farm Bureau has filed an exception to this resolution concerning its voluntary promotion program. The statement was made by Mr. Shuman this morning that only New Mexico had filed exception, and Mr. Lanier tells me now that Georgia did file an exception last Thursday, which, of course, might not have come to or undoubtedly has not come to Mr. Shuman's attention at this time.

(The following letters were submitted by the Georgia Farm Bureau Federation and the Johnson Cotton Co.:)


Macon, Ga., February 23, 1966. Hon. HAROLD COOLEY, Chairman, House Agriculture Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.O.

DEAR MR. COOLEY: In order to clear the record concerning testimony of Mr. Charles B. Shuman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, with

« PreviousContinue »