poses, or a tax per acre for the purpose of obtaining funds for research or for potato promotion. In my judgment about $3 to $4 million are spent to promote potatoes from these funds, and in addition the processing organizations or those selling processed potatoes spent an additional $15 to $20 million to promote the sale and consumption of processed potatoes.

There is a distinct need for growers to increase the per capita consumption of potatoes because of their wholesomeness as a food and to tell the consumer the truth as potatoes are a most valuable food. Although the growth, as outlined, as to per capita consumption and the total increase, has been very good, additional funds to promote potatoes are needed, not only to improve the consumers' diet but to hold the increase made and also to stimulate the further use of potatoes as well as to increase the income of the producers.

The accompanying table outlines the utilization of the designated potato crops.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for affording our organization the opportunity to be heard in support of this legislation.

Senator HOLLAND. Your table states data taken from what source? Mr. MERCKER. The various utilization reports released by the Department of Agriculture over the years.

Senator HOLLAND. All based on U.S.D.A. reports.

Mr. MERCKER. All based on U.S.D.A.

Senator HOLLAND. Thank you very much. The table will be copied into the record.

(The table referred to follows:)

POTATOES-PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION OF FOOD (EXCLUDING STARCH AND FLOUR)

Senator HOLLAND. Do you have any questions?

Mr. MERCKER. Mr. Chairman, maybe I have been a little stubborn on wishing to appear personally, but I want to answer the question that seemed to be uppermost in the people's mind as to the Secretary of Agriculture administering part of this program or giving the opinions and decisions. I have worked for many Secretaries of Agriculture, and I have been close to marketing agreements ever since they were provided for by legislation, and before that on voluntary clearinghouse programs. I will say, to my knowledge, in having observed all of the recommendations made under marketing agreements by the Marketing Agreements Committee, I have never known a Secretary to refuse to accept a recommendation made by those committees, and I think the same would hold here.

Even recently Secretary Hardin was under tremendous pressure with respect to a recommendation made by the tomato growers as to size. From all angles, terrific pressure from many segments of the industry and other segments of Government, but he stuck by the recommendation that was made by the tomato industry that was operating under a marketing agreement.

Senator HOLLAND. That is correct. I happen to know about it myself. Senator Young?

Senator YOUNG. I just want to thank you for your testimony, and it is good to see you again.

Mr. MERCKER. Thank you, sir.

Senator HOLLAND. We are glad to have you.

Unless there are further witnesses, the committee will rise, except I want to place in the record here several statements that have been left with the committee by others. One is by Mr. Clarence Parr of Idaho. His statement will be placed in the record unless there is objection. Another is by a Mr. Ted Jablonski of Phoenix, Ariz. That statement will be placed in the record unless there is objection.

Another is from Bakersfield, Calif., a wire signed by Francis P. Pusateri, executive manager of the Potato Growers Association of California. Without objection, that will be placed in the record.

And the last is a statement by Dalyle Esplin, executive secretary of the Potato Growers of Idaho. Without objection, that statement will be placed in the record.

(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF CLARENCE PARR, VICE PRESIDENT, POTATO Growers of

IDAHO, BURLEY, IDAHO

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: My name is Clarence Parr: my residence is 1900 Yale Avenue, Burley, Idaho 83318.

My farming enterprise is of the family corporation type and we produce, besides potatoes, sugar beets, alfalfa, wheat and beef cattle. In short, we are typical farmers, who along with thousands of others, proudly continue to meet the cost-price squeeze by improving efficiency and dipping into our farm equity so the consumers of this great nation can continue to enjoy the finest diet at the lowest percentage cost of disposable income than any place in the world.

I am immediate Past President and am presently serving as Vice President in charge of statewide bargaining of the Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., a nonprofit organization of producers of Idaho Potatoes, numbering 2,483 bona fide members of the state's approximately 4,400 potato growers. The Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., is organized under provisions of the Capper-Volstead Act, and is active in grower bargaining with processors, as well as dedicated to the advancement of the Idaho Potato Industry. I speak here today for these members and for myself as a producer of potatoes.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I would venture to say that it is the exception rather than the rule for you to engage in hearing procedures on legislation concerning agriculture, wherein unanimity prevails. This is not something that just happened. Many factors have motivated this request that we be allowed to launch this self-help program, not the least of which is a continual decline in per capita consumption of fresh, healthful potatoes, and a corresponding decrease in profit incentive in the production of this important segment of American agriculture.

It has become increasingly apparent that agriculture as a whole is looking toward Congress for assistance in attaining strength through bargaining power. There seems also to be a new development arising from this atmosphere, and that is complacency toward sound marketing principles. The potato industry cannot set aside the fundamentals of good marketing practices for very obvious reasons. S-1181 will allow us to attack our problem in the normal capitalistic fashion much more palatable to our nation's consumers.

This proposed legislation that is before you today is somewhat of a departure from the present order of the day concerning agriculture with complaints that no one does anything to help and very few constructive ideas are offered to assist Congress in their desire to help. This is our offering to you. It's constructive, straightforward and much-needed legislation.

If anyone doubts the advantages of promotion and advertising, they need only look to Idaho for the answer to what can be accomplished. Of course, if you will be so kind as to allow me to be a bit facetious. I might say it is not too difficult to show results when you have a high quality commodity to promote and advertise. However, the effectiveness of promotion can best be perceived when we realize that conservative estimates place the amount of potatoes sold to the consumer as Idaho potatoes at twice the amount that is actually shipped from the State of Idaho.

This industry has a story to tell that is important to the health of our nation's people; stories that are not being told by individual states in their respective advertising campaigns.

Idaho Statute at the present time requires payment of 24 cents at the handler level. Two cents are paid by the grower and 4 cent by the first handler. No other major potato-producing state has an assessment rate this high. Idaho growers do not complain; however, they do feel that the side effects have aided the entire potato industry.

Studies by our leading economists show that it takes a 5% decrease in the price of a specific commodity to induce a 1% increase in consumption. Obviously the potato industry could not possibly survive any further drop in prices in order to bring about an increase in per capita consumption. This proposed "Potato Research and Promotion Act" is the only alternative available to an industry united in its' desperate search for survival, and determined to pull itself up by the bootstraps.

I am particularly interested in Section 14 and 15 of the proposed legislation concerning referendum procedures. These sections contain the safeguard provisions in keeping with our country's sacred democratic processes that prevent forcible implementation of unwanted or undesirable practices.

I would like to call your attention to the language in Section 14, lines 16 through 20. I wondered if it would not sound better if the wording were changed to say: "For the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance of a Plan is approved or favored by producers, the Secretary shall conduct a referendum among producers who, during a representative period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in the production of potatoes."

As defined in this Act the term "producer" means any person engaged in the growing of five or more acres of potatoes. For the purpose of establishing "Legislative Intent" I would assume that this definition would include lessors or landowners whose percentage share equals 5 acres or more of potatoes; obviously it was not the intent to include a landowner's share under the assessment provisions of the Act, and exclude him from the right to vote in referendum. I should also be well to note here that there is no provision in the proposed legislation on the exact procedures to be followed insofar as disposition of accumulated funds. Should a Plan be terminated or suspended, naturally I would assume that these funds would be returned to their rightful owner, but I feel it should be spelled out in this proposed legislation.

Referring to Section 8B, beginning at line 13, we would like to recommend the following change be made: "Providing that the Board shall be composed of representatives of producers as provided in the Plan, and selected by the Secretary from nominations made by producers in such manner as prescribed in the Plan. In the event producers fail to select nominees for appointment to the Board. the Secretary shall appoint producers on the basis of representation provided for in such Plan."

We feel that it is not essential to the ultimate success of this program for the Secretary to assume the responsibility contained in the present wording, but it is essential that the industry itself agree on the basis for representation on the Board and manner of nomination if we are to achieve the desired goals.

In closing I would like to repeat the resolution that was passed unanimously at the annual meeting of the Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., at Pocatello, Idaho, December 10 and 11, 1968:

"Whereas, the National Promotions Act in enabling legislation that could result in a well financed national promotion of potatoes, Whereas, this legislation is in the best interests of the Idaho Potato Industry, be it Resolved, that

the Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., meeting in Pocatello on December 10, 1968, wholeheartedly give its' continued support to the National Promotion Act."

For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that this Committee rule favorably on S-1181 with a "Do pass" recommendation to the Congress of the United States.

STATEMENT OF TED JABLONSKI, VICE PRESIDENT, ARIZONA POTATO AND ONION GROWER-SHIPPER ASSOCIATION, PHOENIX, ARIZ.

My name is Ted Jablonski. I reside in Phoenix, Arizona, and I am a manager for John Jacobs Farms, an organization in the agri-business of growing fresh vegetables. I have been connected with this organization for over twenty years. The organization is a member of the American Farm Bureau.

I am a member of the Steering Committee and Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the National Potato Council and Vice-president of the Arizona Potato and Onion Grower-Shipper Association. John Jacobs Farms harvested 233 acres of red potatoes in 1968 and in June of this year will harvest 248 acres of potatoes.

Arizona is not a large producer of potatoes but we do grow in excess of 10,000 acres annually and we produce potatoes for both the fresh market and for processing. All of the potato growers of Arizona are in favor of this legislation. The Act, in its present form, has been carefully reviewed by us, word for word, paragraph by paragraph, and we heartily endorse it.

The National Potato Council did not initiate this legislation on a whim. Many years of careful consideration and debate during the meetings of the Board of Directors and meetings of the Steering Committee of the National Potato Council, built the framework for this Act. Those spending countless hours of toil in the preparation of this Potato Research and Promotion Act agreed that, in the implementation of the Act, the potato would be promoted in all of its forms: fresh, frozen, dried, cooked and uncooked; in fact, in all forms now on the market or to be developed in the future.

There is no effective nationwide promotion program for potatoes now in existence. The United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, of which my organization is a member, has at times contracted with state organizations to promote that state's potato production but with a very limited budget. The Potato Council, with funds voluntarily contributed by potato growers, has started a very small program but this Act is needed to provide the amounts of money necessary to really do the job. When one considers the cost of just one full-page full-color advertisement in a publication such as the magazine, “Life” (costing in excess of $70,000), the necessity for this Act is brought into perspective.

It is interesting to note that each of the states which now have some sort of promotion program for their own potato production are unanimously in favor of passage of this Act. These groups can readily see how a national program, on a twelve-month basis, with a continuity of material, will be nothing but enhance their own programs. I doubt that any state would abandon its small program, but, rather, would tie its material to that of the national layouts.

I am sure others will detail for the members of this Committee the reasons this program is needed. Still others will provide you with the statistics. My testimony would not be complete without calling to your attention that such a promotion program will enable the potato people to also inform the public of the high nutritional qualities of the potato. In these days of deficiencies in the diets of a large portion of our population, and more so throughout the world, the telling of the true potato story can well be the beginning of the solution of this problem.

Gentlemen, the potato growers of Arizona are 100% behind this program. We need your cooperation and help. We respectfully request your favorable action in this Committee and in the Senate.

Thank you.

BAKERSFIELD, CALIF., May 6, 1969.

Senator SPESSARD L. HOLLAND,
Chairman, Subcommittee No. 3-Agricultural Production, Marketing and
Stabilization of Prices of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
Washington, D.C.

Reference S-1181, scheduled to be heard before your subcommittee on May 8, concerning proposed National Potato Research and Promotion Act, a self-help

plan to enable potato growers to finance a nationally coordinated research and promotion program to improve their competitive position and expand their markets for potatoes by increasing consumer acceptance of potatoes and potato products, and by improving the quality of potatoes and potato products that are made available to the consumer. This is to advise that this subject has the complete and unanimous support of the membership of the potato growers association of California, and to respectfully request that this communication be included as part of your subcommittee record on S-1181.

FRANCIS P. PUSATERI

Executive Manager,

Potato Growers Association of California.

STATEMENT OF DALYLE ESPLIN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, POTATO GROWERS OF IDAHO BLACKFOOT, IDAHO

My name is Dalyle Esplin and I am Executive Secretary of the Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc. I have held this position for five years and for twelve years prior to that time I raised potatoes in Idaho.

The Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., represents 2,483 potato growers and maintains a state office at 50 North Ash Street in Blackfoot, Idaho. The 2,483 members of the Potato Growers of Idaho, Inc., raise about 70% of the potatoes grown in Idaho. Idaho growers raised 294,000 acres of potatoes producing 59,505,000 cwt. during the 1968 season or % of all the potatoes produced in the United States during 1968.

I have attended several hundred meetings concerning potatoes in many different cities and town across the state during the time I have served as Executive Secretary. I have also attended many meetings in other states regarding potatoes.

The potato growers in many of these meetings have expressed the conviction that the potato industry must somehow educate the people of the United States and particularly the housewife concerning the high nutritional value and low caloric content of the potato. Growers have a strong desire to combat the idea that potatoes are fattening.

The potato grower is traditionally a proud individual who wishes to "stand on his own two feet" and as such is willing to promote his product.

Promotion of any product on a nationwide scale would take money that could and should come from the producers involved. S-1181 would provide the necesary means to enable the potato industry to tell its' story to all the people of the United States.

The potato farmers of the nation need a means to tell their story to the rest of the nation. They have shown their ability to produce but they have lacked the necessary tool to promote their product and thereby obtain a fair return for their labors.

Individual states have done a great deal. They have promoted potatoes grown in their individual states. National promotion of potatoes in general would not only aid the states who have tried to tell the potato story; but would also benefit smaller acreage potato states who have not been able to engage in extensive advertising campaigns. Consumers of the nation would also benefit from the knowledge that the potato has good nutritional value, is non-fattening and is a highly satisfying food.

While many of the people of the United States ask for financial help from the federal government; the potato growers of the nation and of Idaho are asking for the proper tools to help themselves. S-1181 would give them some of those essential tools.

Senator HOLLAND. Are there other statements for the record? If not, the committee will rise, and when the record is ready for printing or up to that time, please accept any written statements that come in unless they look irregular, in which case Senator Young and I will pass on them. But I do not know why we should exclude any statements up to that time, when the record is ready, otherwise the record will be closed.

Thank you, gentlemen.