STATEMENT OF NORMAN W. BARLOW, CORA, WYO., PRESIDENT, WYOMING STOCK GROWERS ASSOCIATION, HEADQUARTERS, CHEYENNE, WYO. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am Norman W. Barlow, a rancher from northwestern Wyoming where I have been engaged in the production of cattle for the past 27 years. The outfit that I own has been producing cattle since 1873. I am proud to say that I have, as a rancher and as president of the oldest organization in the State of Wyoming, namely, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association which will hold its 85th annual convention in June, felt that our business should be able to stand on its own feet and survive We in the cattle industry have found that many of our allied agricultural friends are surviving through the help of many federally supported programs. We in Wyoming, associated with our industry, have hoped that we could maintain a healthy economy by using the old economic rule of supply and demand, and implementing this rule by making our product popular and increasing our consumption so that our prices for this product would enable us to continue in our chosen business. It has been the thinking of our industry in Wyoming that we are not getting our fair share of the consumer's dollar as reflected through the housewife's food basket, and we have thought that by advertising our product, by improving methods of use through research and other means of making the desirability for it more attractive, that we could figuratively eat ourselves out of our present low-price dilemma. Accordingly, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, by resolution, has supported the thinking of our national organization, namely, the American National Cattlemen's Association, in forming and developing the National Beef Council since its organiaztion 2 years ago. We heartily endorse in principle Senate bill 646 and accompanying House bills that are identical in principle with this proposed legislation. We have found in Wyoming that it is impossible to raise any considerable amounts of money by popular subscription unless such collections are centralized at points of sale. The principle inculcated in the proposed amendment to the Packers and Stockyards Act, as set forth in S. 646, certainly are democratic. It is voluntary on the part of any marketing agency that may handle the sale in requesting that deductions be made for purposes indicated. It is likewise voluntary on the part of the producer, who will be paying for this particular activity, when such merchandise is sold at point of sale, and it will provide the mechanics wherein the meat industry in general and the beef industry in particular can secure funds to promote better utilization and increased consumption of our product. The statistics that were released recently by the United States Department of Agriculture indicate that the per capita consumption so far in 1957 is running behind that of 1956. If this reduced consumption for meat should continue throughout the year, it would seem indicative of a trend that other goods are taking over more of the consumer dollar. Recognizing that this presents a very serious problem, we in Wyomnig connected with the meat industry want to be able to meet this increased competition by adopting a more progressive and up-to-date program. Only through increased advertising activities and larger research projects, and such other related studies can we hope to increase the consumption of meat. We must raise more money to implement such needed programs. I would like to emphasize that we are not asking for any tax money. We are only asking for the privilege of assessing our industry to supply ourselves with our own funds to improve our industry. While this approach may seem a bit old fashioned, we are still hoping that it has potency and that we can, by favorable action from this committee, successfully process through the Congress and obtain favorable consideration for this proposed legislation. Mr. BARLOW. Because we have had a lot of things happen in the last 2 days that it would seem affects us as producers and producer organizations, particularly in this proposed legislation, namely House bill 5244. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read, if you would permit, some reference has been made to memorandum that has come out of the Department since we arrived in Washington. I think the members of the committee have it, but it would seem that there has been considerable observations made that are conflicting. It is very simple, it is very short, it is very concise. It may or may not be part of the proposal that you and your committee may suggest when you get into the report of this particular legislation, but it would seem that a lot of the discussion we have had the last 2 days certainly has not, in my opinion, reacted according to the language of this memorandum. It has no official status, it may or may not be subject of discussion before your committee. But in reading this, Mr. Chairman, it is short and I would like to read it. It could be in some part of 5244 or any subsequent bill that will be considered by your committee and it says this: Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting a market agency, upon request of a livestock-producer-sponsored association or organization, from making deductions from the proceeds of sale of livestock, or any species thereof, to finance research or sales promotion programs, to increase the volume of sales and returns to producers with respect to such livestock or meat or meat-food product derived from livestock: Provided, That in accounting to the shipper of such livestock the shipper is advised that the amount of the deduction, the purpose thereof, the organization that it was made for and that upon the request of of the shipper, the amount deducted will be paid to the shipper: And provided further, That such funds due are deducted other than those returned on the request of the shipper are turned over to the association or organization requesting the deduction. Mr. Chairman, that is language that may or may not get consideration but it has been given considerable discussion and I just would like to have it into the record for what it is worth. In Wyoming, we are a producer State. We have felt several years by resolution that we were not getting our fair share of the consumer dollar relative to the product that we are producing. And by resolution, Mr. Chairman, we have felt as an industry, a producing industry, that we should do something about it ourselves, and it has not been brought before this committee-it is before the committee in the Senate or this committee here as to the extent of what some State organizations are willing to do for themselves, and with your permission, I would like to read this resolution, Mr. Chairman. Mr. POAGE. Very well. Mr. BARLOW. Because we have gone, I think. possibly to a greater extent in trying to finance at the State level within our own industry things what we think are needed. Whereas we feel such need is increasingly apparent; and Whereas voluntary contribution programs previously proposed have not turned out too well; and Whereas we feel some definite steps must be taken at once to increase the consumption of beef as a means of avoiding an oversupply of our product: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That we suppport the National Livestock and Meat Board and the National Beef Concil and urge that the National Livestock and Meat Board and the National Beef Council make a study of the possible methods of collecting funds on a per-head basis at the market centers or on some other nationwide basis, such funds to be on all cattle marketed and to be of a sufficient amount to guarantee aggressive and adequate national beef promotion program; be it further Resolved, That this association go on record as favoring the collection of an ainount equal to 15 cents per head on all cattle marketed and herein declare its willingness to subscribe to a national program to that amount; be it further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the president of the National Livestock and Meat Board and to the president of the National Beef Council and to our congressional delegation in order that our representatives in Washington may know that if legislation is necessary to accomplish the collection of moneys herein mentioned that this organization is in support of such a program. In Wyoming, our industry is behind this proposed legislation, Mr. Chairman, to the extent that we feel in Wyoming that 15 cents per head for cattle is an eligible amount to do the things that we are anxious to have done for ourselves, and bear in mind that our industry, as I see it, possibly comes closer to trying to support itself and its own economy than any other branches of agriculture. We are down here asking for permissive legislation, to help ourselves out of what we find now is a dilemma that is most discouraging. It is further discouraging, Mr. Chairman, because in 1956, we had an alltime per capita consumption of meat. We have been told by the Department that in 1957, so far, projected, that instead of having in our particular species of meat 83 pounds that we may end up at the end of 1957 with 802 pounds per capita. This is very discouraging, Mr. Chairman, because it would seem that with an increased economy and further purchasing power that we are losing some of the advantages we had in our market. Now, whether it is going into other food products or whether it is being taken by other competition in the consumer dollar, those are things that can be determined but we are sure that we can only further our cause by increasing the desirability of it; advertising, research and promotional things are some of the things that are necessary, in our opinion. So in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would submit to you as chairman of the committee and to the committee in general, that what we have tried to do here the last 2 days probably represents the greatest accumulation of producers organizations that we have had in Washington for a long time. We have all three species of producer organizations here, asking for one thing and one thing only, permissive legislation to finance ourselves, to help ourselves with what we think is good for ourselves. It has been said here, and I honestly think so, that what we are asking isn't good for us. We won't be here today if we hadn't batted better than 50 percent average in our business and we are here now, cooperating with you, asking you as chairman and members of this committee and the Congress in general, to permit us to try to solve the things that we think are good for our industry. Thank you. Mr. POAGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Barlow. Mr. FULK. Sir, I would like to present Robert Munyon. He is No. 16 on that list. He is from San Francisco, Calif., and he has been sent here to represent the California Beef Industry Council, the California Cattlemen's Association, the California Cattle Feeders Association, the California Milk Producers Federation, Western Dairymen's Association, California Wool Growers Association, California Pork Producers Association, California Hereford Association, Pacific Coast Angus Association, and the Western States Meat Packers Association. STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. MUNYON, MANAGER, CALIFORNIA BEEF INDUSTRY COUNCIL Mr. MUNYON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee- Mr. MUNYON. As I appear before you today I am reminded of an experience I had in San Francisco a few days ago as I sat in my office on the fifth floor of the Flood Building during an earthquake. Today I feel a difference but similar feeling of discomfort in having to appear before you to present a viewpoint that differs from the viewpoint of the president of our California Farm Bureau Federation, whom I understand is not speaking on behalf of the California Farm Bureau but on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation. I do not have a prepared statement. However, in order to get the deck cleared, I would like to read one letter and for the record file the balance of them because I think this one letter is germane to the point. The executive committee of the California Milk Producer's Federation in their meeting Tuesday at Modesto unanimously went on record in favor of S. 646 (Mundt and Eastland) and its companion bill, H. R. 5244 (Poage), which would legalize the making of deductions for voluntary promotional programs, by federally posted livestock markets when requested to do so by the livestock producer shipping stock through these markets. While this will have only a minor direct effect in California and I would like to elaborate on that at this precise moment, inasmuch as California has only three Federally posted markets, but there is a substantial feeling by producers in California that unless this legislation is enacted, and beef promotion is permitted to grow and develop in the other cattle-producing areas of the United States that we are wasting our time out in the West yet we are vitally aware of the great need for meat promotional work nationally, efforts which cannot but help the California livestock and dairy producers. We also have seen the effects in the dairy industry of the fine American Dairy Association program, which is supported entirely by voluntary contributions on a national level, and feel that any producer who desires to contribute to a similar program on livestock promotion should be entitled to do so through this livestock sales agency, instead of being prohibited from so doing by the laws which S. 646 and H. R. 5244 would correct. Incidentally, on the point of those two bills I have been in touch with not all but several of the organizations in California by telephone, attendant to the amendment that was discussed yesterday on the other side, and I find that there is complete concurrence in the provisions contained in that proposed amendment. We represent about 1,600 grade A dairy farmers in the 46 counties north of the Tehachapis which is the Mason-Dixon line in California, separating the north from the south and know that we speak for those farmers when we request favorable action on these bills to make such voluntary contributions possible and legal. Sincerely yours, LYNN BRAMKAMP, California Milk Producers' Federation. I will not read other letters, but I do have essentially the same kind of support around this point from the Western Dairymen's Association which is an association of almost equivalent size of the California Milk Producers Federation. I have a letter here from the president of the California Hereford Association. I have a letter from the secretary of the California Wool Growers Association, and incidentally, around this, if I may move away from the point for just a moment, during the last year we have had a modest but pretty aggressive promotion program in California and on many, many, many occasions we have joined with the California Wool Growers and their representatives in cooking schools and in demonstrations where we have cooperated in getting the beef story and the lamb story across to the consumers, and I recall, without shame, the many times that I have assisted the wool growers in distributing their material along with ours because I feel we do have an overriding interest in all of agriculture in addition to our selfish interest in our own commodity whichever it may be. I have a letter here from Jessie T. Bell, secretary, California Pork Producers Association. I have a letter here from E. Floyd Forbes, president and general manager of the Western State Meat Packers Association, although yesterday we did hear from their Washington representative, Blaine Liljenquist, and I don't know whether he is here today or not and will be speaking for them in their regard, also a letter from the California Cattlemen's Association, and a letter from the president of the California Cattle Feeders Association. To amplify the interest and sincere desire on the part of California Producers to effect some sort of a self-help program, I must allude to a little of California's history, because undoubtedly California has done more by way of self-help than any other State in the Union. Over the last 22 years, and incidentally California produces in the neighborhood of some 180 crops and, as you gentlemen might expect, we would experience some marketing difficulties with some of those crops some of the time; during the past 22 years we have had 28 of our crops that have voted compulsory checkoffs for market stabilization and promotion, varying in degrees whether it be stabilization and/or promotion. In addition to that many years ago the California Dairy Industry Advisory Board established legislation in our State legislature, supported aggressively by our Farm Bureau, and incidentally within the last 2 or 3 weeks that particular piece of legislation expired and Farm Bureau was aggressively active in having that renewed. Last year, over $6 million was raised in California on a compulsory checkoff system for not all but some of these 28 crops. I mentioned the dairy industry advisory board and I would like to elaborate on that for just a moment. There were references made here early today that the American Dairy Association had not done maybe the kind of job that needed to be done for the dairy industry. Five million dollars spread nationally, when you break that down on a State basis and on a county basis, is not really much money and originally when, of course, the budgets of ADA were much smaller, the California Dairy Producers enacted this law and now they raise on a compulsory checkoff in excess of $500,000. Last year it was about $425,000, and with that money, they augment the activities of the American Dairy Association. And I would like to submit, sir, that within the last 15-year period the per capita consumption of milk in the State of California has |