beef industry. Relative price and market stability is advantageous to both beef producers and consumers!

The "Beef Research and Consumer Information Act" will not be an instant panacea, but it will be a giant step forward!

Senator LEAHY. George Doup.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE DOUP, PRESIDENT, INDIANA FARM BUREAU, INC., COLUMBUS, IND., AND MEMBER, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Mr. Doup. My name is George Doup. I am a farmer and cattle producer, feeder, living in Bartholemew County, Columbus, Ind. With ine today-I am also president of the Indiana Farm Bureau, and a member of the American Farm Bureau Board of Directors. With me is John Datt and C. H. Devaney, of our Washington staff.

We certainly appreciate the opportunity to present out views on the proposed Beef Research and Consumer Information Act, S. 772, and this afternoon we will be appearing before the House on H.R. 3718.

For the record, Farm Bureau is the largest general farm organization in the United States with a membership of 2,393,731 families in 49 States and Puerto Rico. It is a voluntary, nongovernmental organization, representing farmers who produce virtually every agricultural commodity that is produced on a commercial basis in this country. More than 800,000 of these members are beef producers, cattle feeders, or dairymen.

Farm Bureau policies are developed through study, discussion, and decision by majority vote at community, county, State, and national meetings. Our statement today is based on policies adopted by the voting delegates of the member State Farm Bureau at our 1975 annual meeting, which was held in New Orleans last January.

Programs for the promotion of agricultural commodities are a matter of great interest to Farm Bureau members. There probably is no subject-and I would stress this-that has been given more consideration by the delegates to our recent annual meetings. Our present policy on the "Promotion of Agricultural Commodities" reads as follows:

We recognize the right of producers to promote increased research, sales, and consumption of the commodities they produce.

We will oppose federal legislation providing for any new national commodity promotion which does not provide:

(1) Individual producers the right to vote in a referendum on initiation of any promotion program for a commodity which they produce;

(2) In order for a referendum to be valid, 50 percent of the registered-and the key word is "registered"-producers must have voted, with two-thirds casting an affirmative vote;

(3) Periodic review and referenda to determine continuing or termination of the program at intervals not to exceed five years or at any time upon petition of 10 percent of the registered producers in the area covered by the programin referenda dealing with continuation or termination the voting requirements for continuation shall be the same as those set out above for initiation of the program;

(4) Opportunity for producers who do not desire to participate to obtain refunds of their assessments without undue difficulty or delay; and

(5) That collected funds shall not be used for political or lobbying activities.

Following a meeting of its National Beef Cattle Advisory Committee, which is made up of beef producers from major producing States, the American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors expressed the following concerns with respect to this legislation:

Eligibility to vote.-Anyone who has sold cattle within the 12month period prior to the date of the referendum should be eligible

to vote.

Registration of voters.-The Agricultural Extension Service or Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service should conduct an advance registration of voters.

Advance registration.-Voters should be required to register at least 10 days prior to the date of a referendum.

Validity of referendum.-The enabling legislation should provide that, in order for a referendum to be valid 50 percent of the registered producers must have voted, with two-thirds casting an affirmative vote.

Value added concept.-The value added concept may have problems, but it is potentially workable and fair.

Sharing of contributions with State beef promotion groups. Some provision will be necessary to permit qualified State beef promotion groups to receive a share of producer contributions. Such contributions should be limited to not more than 10 percent of the contributions received from producers in a given State during the year.

State beef promotion groups should be required to submit requests for funds to the National Beef Board in advance.

No funds should be provided to State beef promotion groups on producer contributions from the previous year.

Status of general farm organizations.-It should be made clear that general farm organizations such as State Farm Bureaus would be eligible to be certified as beef producer organizations for the purpose of participating in the process through which nominees to the board are chosen.

Status of National Live Stock and Meat Board (N.L. & M.B.).— Methods of utilizing the N.L. & M.B. on a contract-for-services basis should be fully explored in the development of this beef promotion proposal.

The American Farm Bureau Federation Board agreed that if the proposed legislation is revised in conformance with Farm Bureau recommendations, we would support it, and, if not, we would oppose

it.

Fundamentally, the most important recommendations of the Farm Bureau relate to the procedures to be followed in determining whether producers subject to the "checkoff" favor the proposed programs. These recommendations could be incorporated in the bill by amending section 9 as follows:

"Section 9. The Secretary shall conduct a referendum among cattle producers who, [during a representative period determined by the Secretary] the 12-month period immediately preceding the date of the referendum, have been engaged in the production of cattle for the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance of an order is approved or favored by such producers."

This is new language.

The Secretary shall establish a procedure whereby qualified producers may register with the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service in person or by mail to vote in such a referendum. No order issued pursuant to this Act shall be effective unless the Secretary determines (1) that votes were cast by at least 50 percent of the registered producers, and (2) that the issuance of such order is approved or favored by not less than two thirds of the producers voting in such referendum, [er by a majority of the producers voting in such referendum if such majority produced not less than two-thirds of the cattle owned by producers voting in the referendum."]

Farm Bureau feels strongly about the procedures to be followed in conducting referenda for commodity checkoff programs. We want the decision on the proposed beef checkoff program to be made through a broadly based referendum. This is no minor, offhand type of decision. The proposed program involves hundreds of thousands of farm and ranch families and the deduction of millions of dollars from payments that otherwise would be made to them. As a consequence, Farm Bureau wants the maximum number of cattle producers to participate in the decisionmaking process.

Since the power of the Federal Government is to be used to deduct these funds, we believe the Congress has the responsibility to make certain that the referendum procedure is sound, and that it provides adequate safeguards to all who will have funds withheld. That is our overriding concern-and is the basis for our recommendation that, for a referendum to be valid, at least 50 percent of the registered voters must have voted, with two-thirds casting affirmative votes.

We view the registration procedure as a means of encouraging a substantial number of producers to become eligible and, then, to vote in the referendum. We call your attention to the fact that currently there is no readily available list of those directly involved, and this is one of the reasons for our having the idea of the registration, that is, beef producers, cattle feeders, and dairymen. The registration procedure would provide for more orderly voting on referendum day by advance identification of producers eligible to vote.

If our recommendations designed to assure a valid referendum are adopted, we shall actively promote voter registration and voter participation in the referendum.

We would suggest that the legislation be revised to make it clear that there is no intent to authorize the Beef Board to engage in the actual marketing of cattle or beef. This would be done by deleting the definition of "marketing" in subsection 3(k) on page 5, and or page 7, line 16, deleting "marketing" and inserting "market" ahead. of "development." What this means would be instead of marketing! development, it would be market development.

We are also concerned that the National Beef Board may be tempted to ignore and duplicate the fine work that has been done for the livestock industry, including cattle producers, by the National Live Stock and Meat Board, an organization that is supported by voluntary contributions from all segments of the red meat industry The meat board has been in operation for more than 50 years and h developed valuable expertise which should be utilized on a contr tual basis by the National Beef Board.

Farm Bureau has a long history of support for sound promotion programs. We recognize the value of farmers and ranchers promoting their own products; however, we have conviction that the procedures for deciding methods of financing such programs are of crucial importance. Therefore, we urge your consideration of our suggested changes in S. 772. Senator, we appreciate the opportunity to present our views.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you.

Do you feel that the National Livestock and Meat Board, if it was given additional funding could make S. 772 unnecessary?

Mr. Doup. Well, the record, as I would view it of the Meat Board has been excellent, and I think they could use more funds.

Mr. LEAHY. If they were given more funds, would the National Beef Board be necessary?

Mr. Doup. Well, you don't answer the question with-the answerI would say that they could do the same thing if they had the additional funds. However, we don't have complete agreement among farmers, or cattlemen today, to a voluntary checkoff for the Livestock Meat Board, and so it does put a burden to some extent on those who contribute against those who do not choose to. But, yes, to answer your question, I think that the Meat Board could do it if they had sufficient funds.

Senator LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jones.

Mr. Jones is executive vice president of the National Livestock Feeders Association, of Omaha, Neb.

Go ahead, Mr. Jones. Your particular testimony is primarily technical in indicating almost line by line where you feel changes should be made in the language. We will have this as a part of the record, so if you would prefer summarizing what is there, that is fine. I will leave it to you.

STATEMENT OF B. H. (BILL) JONES, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL LIVESTOCK FEEDERS ASSOCIATION, OMAHA, NEBR.

Mr. JONES. Well, we would prefer that, Mr. Chairman, if that is satisfactory to you, and would emphasize answers to a few of the questions that you have raised.

Of course, this committee is very similar with the Feeders Association, so I won't go into any of the details with respect to the association either.

Let me just emphasize we do support the concept embodied in the bill, but we do have a few cleanup amendments in the language which we have outlined as you have noted, page and line by line.

You have raised a question with respect to control of the program, and we say that since really no one else's money except the cattlemen's is actually going to be in the till, they should not be required by legislative dictate to give up any degree of control of the program. However, we would say that the cattlemen will welcome and use the expertise of qualified persons, in related industries, and in the consumer field, and in the Government as well.

I think also with respect to costs, and passing on costs, that the point should be made that we do not operate under administrated prices, and therefore our costs are not automatically moved on as they would be with those industries that operates under administrated prices, where if they have a labor increase, or other cost increase, they merely add them on to the price. So really the cost will not automatically be passed on to the consumer in that vein.

We would have to conclude that the consumer benefits will be much greater than any final cost that she might bear, in the way of furnishing information programs, and particularly on nutrition, on cookery, and this kind of thing, and also greater because the research that will be done at the production level, and at the marketing level to improve the efficiency.

If the consumer is going to benefit any, she is going to do it from improved efficiency, particularly along in our marketing stream, and this is where we would look forward to actually benefiting that

segment.

Also, on the enforcement, we have been aware of the USDA's concern, but, again, we have to emphasize what has been said previously, that from the slaughter point on, this would be a self-policing enforcement program. If there is need to change the language in the bill to make this more clear, and to rule out some of the qualms that the Department has, we will be very glad to work with them in changing the legislation.

You have also asked the question about whether there could be any sanctions against someone who asked for refunds. This would not be the case because, as with the cotton program, for example, this information is completely confidential. It is kept within the administrative board, and that information is not made known, and so there would be no avenue whatsoever to sanction or take any action against a person who did ask for his money back. So he would be completely free in this.

We do have a few recommended changes in the bill's language, as we have said. I don't think it is necessary to go over those in detail. One thing that we might stress is that we have asked for some change in the language with respect to certification of organizations. We think this would strengthen it. Our main concern is that those organizations whose members will be making significant financial contributions to the program be the ones to be included in making the nominations, and we would anticipate in every State where there would be more than one organization that there would be a caucus of these organizations, and nominees would then be selected through that kind of procedure.

We also are very cognizant, of course, of the work of the National Livestock and Meat Board, and support that board's work. As Farm Bureau representatives have pointed out here, I think the answer to your question of whether that Board might replace the Beef Board's function is that it primarily will be one of enforcement and collections, and administration, not one of program implementation, so we would visualize the National Livestock and Meat Board as the implementing arm and to function in this respect rather than to function in the collection or administration of the refunds.