Business meetings of legislation resulting in public laws

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Business meetings of legislation resulting in public laws
Physical Description:
Book
Creator:
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on Agriculture
Publisher:
U.S. Govt. Print. Off. ( Washington )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 25877214
oclc - 2375991
System ID:
AA00022126:00001

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Control and eradicate plant pests
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Peanut allotment transfer
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Title V extension, rural development act of 1872
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Beef research and information act
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
    Wool act payments
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
    African honeybee control
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
    Emergency food stamp vendor accountability act of 1976
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
    Cotton research and promotion act amendment
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
    Land acquisition funds for boundary waters canoe area, Minnesota
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
    Emergency lease and transfer of tobacco allotments
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
    Orientation of dependents of USDA employees in foreign assignments
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
    Farmer-to-consumer direct marketing act of 1976
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
    Emergency livestock credit act extension
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
    Upgrade top-level USDA positions
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
    REA technical amendments
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
    Back Cover
        Page 267
        Page 268
Full Text





94th Congress COMMITTEE PRINT
2d Sessions











BUSINESS MEETINGS OF LEGISLATION

RESULTING IN PUBLIC LAWS






COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION















DECEMBER 1976








rinted for the use of the Committee on Agriculture


"OVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
SHINGTON 1976
















COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE


THOMAS S. FOLEY,
W. It. I'()AG', Texas, Vice Cht lman
E I)E LA GARZA. Texas
JOSEPH P. VIGORITO, Pennsylvania
WAL.TER B. JONES, North Carolina
E:D JONES, Tennessee
J(HtN MELCItER, Montana
DAWSON MATHIS, Georgia
BOB BEIGLANL), Minnesota
(;EOI(;E E. BROWN, JR., California
I)AVIDI R. BOWEN, Mississippi
Cl IARJ.ES 1(O$E, North Carolina
JIRY ITTON, Missouri 1
JOHN BIRECKINRIDGE, Kentucky
'RIKI)EIIK W. RICIMOND, New York
RICIIARD NOLAN, Minnesota
JAMES WEAVER, Oregon
ALVIN BALDUS, Wisconsin
JOIN KREBS, California
TOM ItARKIN, Iowa
JACK tIIGHTOWER, Texas
BERKLEY BEDELL, Iowa
MATTIEW F. MchIUGH, New York
GLENN ENGiLISH, Oklahoma
FLOYD J. FITHIAN, Indiana
JOHN W. JENRETTE, JR., South Carolina
NORMAN E. D'AMOURS, New Hampshire 2
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas 3


Washington, Chairman
WILLIAM C. WAMPLER, Virginia,
Ranking Minority Member
KEITH G. SEBELIUS, Kansas
PAUL FINDLEY, Illinois
CIARLES THONE, Nebraska
STEVEN D. SYMMS, Idaho
JAMES P. JOHNSON, Colorado
EDWARD R. MADIGAN, Illinois
I'l"ERl A. PEYSER, New York
MARh;ARET M. HECKLER, Massachusetts
JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
RICIARD KELLY, Florida
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
TOM IIAGEDORN. Minnesota
W. IENSON MOORE, Louisiana


Professional Staff
FOWLER C. WEST, Staff Director
ROBERT M. BOR, Counsel
HIYDE H. MuRfAY, Counsel
JOHN R. KRAMER, Special Counsel
L. T. EASLEY, Press Assistant

De( edse August 3. 1976.
Resigned from Committee April 8, 1976.
Assigned December 17. 1975.
(II)













CONTENTS


S. 1617


Control and Eradicate Plant Pests
Public Law 94-231, March 15, 1976

S. 1545
Peanut All)tIeilt Transfer--
Public Law 94-247, March 25, 1976


H.R. 6346


Title V Extension. Rural Development Act of 1972-_
Public Law 94-259, April 5, 1976


H.R. 7656


Beef Research and Information Act
Public Law 94-294, May 28, 1976


S. 532


Wool Act Payments ....
Public Law 94-312, June 21, 1976

S. 18
African Honeybee Control-
Public Law 94-319, June 25, 1976


S. 2853


Emergency Food Stanm Vendor Akccountability Act of 1976 --------------
Public Law 94-339, July 5, 1976

H.R. 10930
Cotton RPIesearchi and Promnotin Act Alen(lment ------------------------
Public Law 94-366, July 14, 1976

S. 1526
Land Acquisitiom Funds for Boundary Waters ('anoe Area. .\i+iIcs)ta .....
Public Law 94-384, August 13, 1976

H.R. 15068
Emergency Lease an(d Transfer )f T- --a---co Allotte-s ..-.
Public Law 94-445, October 1, 1976

S. 3052
Oriental tion of Delpnlents, of IUS1)A Employees in Foreign Assignmient s
Public Law 94-449, October 1., 1976

H.R. 10339
Farmer-to-Consumer )irect Iarheting Act of 1 ) ------------
Public Law 94-463, October 8, 1976


(IIIi)


107


1 1


12:1







Iv

H.R. 15059
Page

IPuldic L~aw !il d, ct-ilier 15. 117C6

H.R. 10133

I'ildit 1I~w 1 5(;10 Octouer 1), 1976

H.R. 12207

PiIiiI IlAwI, 5 3711. 1 )ctt#4 7,r 21, 1 (;












CONTROL AND ERADICATE PLANT PESTS


MONDAY, JULY 28, 1975
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS,
INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHT
OF THE CO3MITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Vashington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 2:10 p.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1302,
Longworth House Office Building, lion. E. de h Garza (chairnian of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Brown, Breckinridge, Richmond, Weaver,
Harkin, McHugh, D'Amours, Thone, and Grassley.
Staff present: Robert M. Bor, counsel; John E. Hogan, associate
counsel; Robert Palmer and Jerry Jorgensen, staff consultants, Sub-
committee on Department Operations, Investigations and Oversight;
Norman Gay, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice;
Perry Shaw, staff assistant.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. We will begin action on H.R. 6403. It covers a long
list of pests.
The emergency nature now is the Mediterranean fruit fly coming
toward the border. It is disastrous to the citrus industry.
Heretofore, the legislation covered Mexico, but now they have found
infestations of this Mediterranean fruit flv in El Salvador amnd Costa
Rica, coming toward Mexico. That is the reason for the legislation, to
enlarge the authority of the Department to go into other countries.
They have suggested amendments which are all technical in nature.
[The bill H.R. 6403 and the U.S. Department of Agriculture re-
port follow:]
[H.R. 6403, 94th Cong., 1st Sess.]
A BILL To clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to control and eradicate
plant pests
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congrcss as semnbled, That section 102 of the Act of September 21,
1944 (58 Stat. i35, 7 U.S.C. 147a), as amended, is further amended to read as
follows:
"SEC. 102. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture either independently or in coopera-
tion with States or political subdivisions thereof, farmers' associations, and sim-
ilar organizations, and individuals, is authorized to carry out operations or
measures to detect, eradicate, suppress, control, or to prevent or retard the spread
of plant pests, meaning any living stage of any insects, mites, nematodes, slugs,
snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bacteria, fungi, other parasitic
plantss or reproductive parts thereof, viruses, or any organisms similar to or
allied with any of the foregoing, or any infectious substances, which can directly
or indirectly injure or cause disease or danlage in any plants or parts thereof,
or any processed, manufactured, or other products of plants.
"(b) The Secretary of Agriculture is further authorized to cooperate vith
the Governments of Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Ionduras, El Salvador,
(1)









Nicaragua, Costa Rir, Panama, (olombia, or tie local authorities thereof, in
carrying out necessary surveys and control operations in those countries in con-
inection with the eradication, suppression, control and prevention or retardation
of the sprt,(d of plant lpsts. In perfmirming the operations or measures herein
auilorized, the coi))peratiing foreign country, State, or local agency shall be
respIonsible for the authority necessary to carry out the operation or measures
on all lands and properties within the foreign country or State other than those
ovned or controlled by the Federal Government and for such other facilities
and means as in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture are necessary.
As used in this section, the term 'State' includes the District of Columbia and
the territories and possessions of the United States.
"() The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate such rules
arid regulations and use such means as he may deem necessary to provide for
the inspection of plants and plant products offered for export or transiting the
United States and to certify to shippers and interested parties as to the freedom
of such products from plant pests according to the sanitary requirements of the
foreign countries to which such products may be exported, or to the freedom
from exposure to plant pests while in transit through the United States.
i( d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as the Congress
may annually determine to be necessary to enable the Secretary of Agriculture
to carry out the provisions of this section. Unless otherwise specifically author-
ized, or provided for in appropriations, no part of such sums shall be used to pay
the cost or value of property injured or destroyed.".
SEC. 2. Section 1 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 374; 7 U.S.C. 145)
is hereby repealed.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., July 18, 1975.
lion. THoMfAS S. FOLEY,
Chairman, Comm ittee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives.
I)EAR. MR. CHAIRMAN : This is in response to your request for a report on H.R.
6403, a bill "To clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to control
and eradicate plant pests."
This )epartment recommends that the bill be enacted, if amended as suggested
in the attachment to this report. These amendments are technical changes de-
signed to clarify the intent of the bill.
The bill would amend provisions in the Organic Act of the Department of
Agriculture approved September 21, 1944, as amended (7 U.S.C. 147a), to substi-
tute for the reference to "insect pests, plant diseases, and nematodes" in section
102 (a) a broader list of general classes of pests, which conforms to the definition
of "plant pest" in section 102(c) of the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa
(c) ). This change will permit the Secretary to deal with threats to American
agriculture which may be posed by pests not now covered by the Organic Act.
They include, among other pests, spider mites, slugs, and snails that can injure
or cause disease or damage in plants, plant parts, and plant products. Specific
authority would be provided by section 102(a) of the bill for detection of plant
pests in the United States.
The bill would als,) extend the Secretary's present authority under the Act to
cooperate with foreign authorities, to permit cooperation with authorities of
Canada, (Colombia, and the Central American count'i-is, and to "plant pests" gen-
erally. The Organic Act now auhorizes such cooperation only with respect to
Mexico and only for specified pests.
The bill would also make discretionary the Secretary's authority to provide
phytosanitary inspection and (.ertificatic.n service for domestic plants and plant
products for export, and would extend such authority to inspection and certifica-
tion of any plants or plant products offered for export or transiting the United
States.
The bill would repeal provisions in the Act of October 6, 1917 (7 U.S.C. 145)
for cooperation with Mexico and adjacent States in extermination of pink boll-
worm infestations in MeNxico, and related operations. This provision would no
longer be needed if the bill is enacted because the provisions of the Organic Act
as amended 1iy the bill would include authority for the activities provided for
in the repealed i)rovisions of the 1917 Act.
The I)epartmcnt supports the )roaden(ed authority permitting the Secretary to
cooperate with neighboring nations in detecting, controlling, or eradicating plant
pests. Implementation of specific programs, however, will depend upon unknown









events and upon the (leveloplent of criteria to define the appropriate Federal
role and for assess hg the absolute and relative worthiniess of pIssible Federal
undertakings iii terms of their (o.st a(d associated results (bth level awl distri-
bution). The I)epart iient presently has a study un(lerway to systematically
evaluate the inlplications ot' a iternative Federal roles in cooperative insect co 0-
trol activities, to select the no)St appropriate alternative and to (levelop pro-
ct'dures and criteria for assessing the benetit/cost reiati ,nships. This study is
expected to be very useful in deciding what, where, and how nmuch control should
he undecitaki. n by the k edtlral Govec-inent in this country and caln I)e expected
to guide similar activities that might be undertaken in association with neigh-
boring nations.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to the
presentation of this report from thc standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
EARL L. BUTZ, Secretary.
Attachment.
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 6403
On page 1, at line 11, insert a period after "pests" and delete all of subsection
(a) thereafter.
On page 2, at line 14, before the word "eradication" insert "detection,".
On page 2, at line 19, delete "operation" and insert "operations".
On page 2, at line 16, designate the second sentence of subsection (b) as
(c), and delete the last sentence of subsection (b).
Insert a new subsection (d) as follows:
"'(d) As used in this section-
'(1) "Plant pest" means any living stage of: Any insects, mites,
nematodes, slugs, snails, protozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bac-
teria, fungi, other parasitic plants or reproductive parts thereof, viruses,
or any organisms similar to or allied with any of the foregoing, or any
infectious substances, which can directly or indirectly injure or cause
disease or damage in any plants or parts thereof, or any processed,
manufactured, or other products of plants.
'(2) "Living stage" includes the egg, pupal, and larval stages as well
as any other living stage.
'(3) "State" includes the District of Columbia and the territories
and possessions of the United States."
On page 3, at line 1, change "(c)" to "(e)"; and at line 11, change "(d)" to
,(f),,9.
On page 3, at line 7, delete "sanitary" and insert in lieu thereof
"phytosanitary".

Mr. DE LA GARZA. I might explain the major one, which would be
in the copy that you have; about half-way down the page where it
has small "d" in parentheses.
This enlarges now to cover items that were not covered in the orig-
inal legislation.
A further definition of plant pests is what it says.
It adds a new section 3 at the bottom of the page. It covers in differ-
ent wording an amendment which was attached to the Senate bill by
Senator Tower from Texas. He was concerned that an animal tick or
a fever tick was not covered. So, he added "and animals." The word-
ing which the Department now recommends is "any communicable
diseases of animals". They say that this will cover the problem that
Senator Tower had.
[The section 3 to wlich Mr. de la Garza refers follows :]
Sec. 3. Section 1 of the Act of February 28, 1947, as amended (61 Stat. 7, ,O
Stat. 330, 85 Stat. 418; U.S.C. 114b), is further amended by (1) inserting in the
first sentence after the words "any communicate disease of anini als' the words
"or vectors thereof", and (2) inserting after "Canada" a comma and "the
Bahama Islands, the Greater Antilles, and the Lesser Antilles. and with inter-
national organizations or associations", and (3) by deleting "British Honduras"
and inserting in lieu thereof "Belize".








Mr. DE LA GARZA. The bill, by the way, is approved by OMB and by
the Department.
The other question is that, by specifying Mexico, it adds Nicaragua,
Panama, El Salvador. and so forth. The Senate amended it to sy
"Western Hemisphere."
You heard the explanation of Dr. Mulhern. (Committee hearing,
Serial No. 94-DD.) He put it in the perspective of dealing with OMB
and that, if you put in "Western IemnisIphere," then OMB would be
concerned with enlarged coverage. le suggested that they might add
figures for each country and, if they do that, this balloons any prospec-
tive expenditure way up. The Department is very concerned and is
ready to work on this problem.
They have funds previously authorized and appropriated to combat
this problem to the extent that they already have. They just need
legislation to enlarge the scope of their operation so that they could
go into Costa Rica and El Salvador.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, is there any reason for not including
insect pests along with plant pests in this legislation?
I am thinking particularly of the potential of an invasion which
I have noted in the press recently of the African bee which seems
to come in from Brazil and which seems to be a violent type of honey-
bee which has an aggressive nature. It threatens our own domestic bees
which are peaceful.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. What does this bee attack?
Mr. BROW It threatens the domestic bee in this country because
it is apparently more aggressive.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. There is more legislation which covers animal
diseases and pests. I am not sure now about whether the bee would fit
or not.
We would have to have counsel speak to this. Where would this fit?
It would not fit as an animal pest.
Mr. BOR. Are we talking about the killer bee?
Mr. HOGA.N. Yes.
Mr. BOR. The matter of the killer bee would fall into the jurisdiction
of the full committee.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I don't know where it fits.
Mr. BOR. I think there is some separate legislation which has been
introduced and deals with the killer bee.
Mr. HOGAN. The chairman has introduced a separate bill covering
the killer bee.
Mr. BoR. I think I have heard there were some hearings which were
intended to deal with the killer bee legislation.
Mr. BRoW-N. I was unaware of that. I am sorry I brought it up.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I am glad of it. I would certainly have no objec-
tion to covering it, but if there is legislation before the full committee
and if it has been introduced by the chairman, then I guess it is being
taken care of.
Would there be any objection from the members of the subcom-
mittee to consider these amendments en bloc as they appear on this
page?
They are technical in nature with the exception of section 3, which
adds "communicable diseases of animals."' This is an addition. The
others are technical in nature.






5

If there is no objection then, we will consider the suggested amend-
ments approved to the bill.
Mr. RICtiMOND. I move that we report the bill to the full committee
with the amendments approved en bloc.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. It will so be done.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]



















Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013













http://archive.org/detaiIs/Iawings0Ou nit










CONTROL AND ERADICATE PLANT PESTS


WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1975
HOUSE OF R PRESENTATIVES,
CO-1-IITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
11'astli nton, D.C.
The committee met at 10:25 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301,
Longworth House Office Building, lion. Thomas S. Foley (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Poage, de ]a Garza. Vigorito. Jones of
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Mathis. Bergland, Brown, Bowen,
Litton, Breckinridge, Richmond. Nolan. Weaver. Baldus. Krebs.
Harkin, Hightower, Bedell, Mc-Iugh, English, Jenrette. D'Amiours.
Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Thone. Symms, Madigran. Pevser. fleck-
ler, Kelly, Grassley Ilagedorn, and Moore.
Staff present: Robert. M. Bor and Hyde H. Murray, counsels; John
E. Hogan, associate counsel: Steve Allen. staff assistant: Norman Gay
and Roxie Burris, staff consultants, Subcommittee on Oilseeds and
Rice; L. T. Easley, press assistant,- Glenda Temple and Mary Jarratt,
staff assistants.
Mr. POAGE. We will consider H.R. 6403. the control of the Mediter-
ranean fruit fly. This was reported by Mr. de la Garza's subcommittee.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. The legislation now names the country with which
we can now enter into agreements.
There has been an extension of the area where the fly is now found
in Central America. This legislation extends it now without namie
to Central America. The USDA can enter into cooperative agreements
for the control or eradication of this Mediterranean fruit fly.
It doesn't do anything to the present law, except that it extends the
territory where they may make agreements with other countries.
Mr. POAGE. Is there any discussion ?
AIR. DE LA GARZA. There was no objection from any source. including
the administration.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. "e Ia (arza, what section in here provides that the
countries can make a reemnents? The bill as it now stands on line 9.
page 2, provides for Canada. Iton(hras, and so forth
Mr. DE LAi GARZA. Right.
They add the Bahama Islands, the Greater Antilles. and the Lesser
Antilles.
Mr. KELLY. Wmoild you have objection to amending that to provide
"governments of the Western Heiisphere. without lallliug the -i )-
cific countries, so that if the fly should make an ,Wpetrflice Ll another
country, then it wouldn't e necessary to change the law ?
I see no merit in linmiting the negotiation to a particular country in
the Western Hemisphere.
(7)








Mr. POAGE. The Chair is roinz to hold that if there is question about
any of these bills that we hope can go on the suspension calendar, then
we will pass theiin over until the end and take up those about which
there is no debate.
_N[r. TDE i_ GA.RiZA. The reason that we are not doing that was because
the Senate bill had already been passed. We have had a recent infesta-
tion in California. The funds are already appropriated, and the ur-
gency to gret on with it was that the Senate had already- passed the bill.
Mr. KI:Llx. Do vou object-
Mr. POAG. I will lay this aside, if there is a question about it, until
we have acted on those about which there may not be questions.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to get an answer to the
question.
Mr. POAGE. We are trying to pass as many of these as we can. We will
come back to this bill. but the Chair is not going to entertain any
further discussion of any of these bills where there is objection to
them-until we have completed those on which there may not be dis-
cussion or objection.
We want to get some of these on the calendar, and we are going to
spend the rest of the afternoon here, if we don't watch out.
[At this point the committee discussed other business.]
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Kelly. you are recognized.
Mr. DE LA_ GARZA. 'Why don't we take the arboretum first?
Mr. KREBs. I object to the present procedure.
Mir. POAGE. There has been a question to discuss every one of the
bills.
Mr. KREBS. May I be heard on this matter?
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Kelly is recognized.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. de la Garza, I do recognize that the Senate has
passed a bill.
Is it your opinion that we should alter the bill so that it would cover
all of the countries of the Western Hemisphere? If it did, would it
cause any unreasonable delay?
M\r. DE LA GARZA. I have been informed that the Senate wording was
what the gentleman suggests. It was our hope to pick up the Senate
bill which if we do will satisfy what you are suggesting.
Mr. KELLY. And you think that you will wind up with that? If we
pass it as it is then we will wind up with the result that my amendment
suggests?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Yes.
Where is the Senate bill?
Mr. BoR. The Senate bill has been referred to this committee for
consilderation. The Senate bill is S. 1617. It has three differences as
compared with the provisions in the bill that was reported by the
subcommittee.
[The bill S. 1617 follows:]
[S. 1617, 94th Cong., 1st sess.]
A BILL To clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to control and
eradicate plant pests
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Reprccntatives of the Un ited States
of A4 rica in Coygrcst asfm blcd, Th:at section 102 of the Act of September 21,
1944 (58 Stat. 737 7 U.S.C. 147a), as amended, is further amended to read as
follows:









"SEC. 102. (a) The Secretary of Agriculture, either independently or in co-
operation with States or political subdivisions thereof, farmers' asswiatih ns,
and similar organizations and individuals, is authorized to carry out (pertioII
or measures to detect, eradicate, suI)l)ress, control, or to prevent or retard the
spread of plant pests, meaning any living stage of any insects, mites, nenatdes,
slugs, snails, pr(;tozoa, or other invertebrate animals, bacteria, fungi, other para-
sitic plants or reproductive parts thereof, viruses, or any organisins similar to or
allied with any of the foregoing, or any infectious substances, which cai dire(.tly
or indirectly injure or cause diseasee or damage in any plants or parts thereof,
or any processed, manufactured, or other products of plants.
"(b) The Secretary of Agriculture is further authorized to cooperate withI
the Governments of Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El St-l-
vador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, or the local authorities thereof,
in carrying out necessary surveys and control operations in those countries in
connection with the eradication, suppression, control, and prevention or retarda-
tion of the spread of plant pests. In performing the operations or measures herein
authorized, the cooperating foreign country, State, or local agency shall be
responsible for the authority necessary to carry out the operation or measures
on all lands and properties within the foreign country or State other than
those owned or controlled by the Federal Government and for such other
facilities and means as in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture are
necessary. As used in this section, the term 'State' include the District of
Columbia and the territories and possessions of the United States.
"(c) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate such rules
and regulations and use such means as lie may deem necessary to provide for
the inspection of plants and plant products offered for export or transiting the
United States and to certify to shippers and interested parties as to the free-
dom of such products from plant pests according to the sanitary requirements
of the foreign countries to which such products may be exported, or to the
freedom from exposure to plant pests while in transit through the United
States.
"(d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as the
Congress may annually determine to be necessary to enable the Secretary of
Agriculture to carry out the )rovisions of this section. Unless otherwise sl)e(,ificilly
authorized, or provided for in appropriations, no part of such sums shall be
used to pay the cost or value of property injured or destroyed."
SEC. 2. Section 1 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 374: 7 U.S.C. 145)
is hereby repealed.
Mr. Bon. One of the differences is that the Senate bill would apply
the provisions relating to controls on plant pests to all Western lienii-
sphere countries, whereas the bill that was reported out by the sub-
committee would cover the areas tlat ae ilicatel on paire of the
bill, namely the areas in the Caribbean and Central America.
Mr. KELx. ~r. de ]a Garza, would you have objection-in the inter-
est of saving time-to an amendment that would include the Western
Hemisphere?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I have no objection, but if I recall the objection.
it was from the Department. They wanted to specify these specihiC
names of the countries.
Mr. KELLY. The Senate does not?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. That is correct.
In the interest of time I would prefer to pass the Senate bill, that is,
in lieu of ours: but I don't know what the DI)epartment's stand would
now be, inasmuch as the Senate bill has passed.
Mr. KELLY. I did not know about the other differences.
This one difference is certainly acceptable.
Mr. BOR. The second difference is that the Senate bill (leted a pro-
vision in the current act which is unnecessary as a r-esilt of somie of the
provisions in this act. It makes only a technical clitaue. This was
brought about by what has happened to the other amenitments.






10


The third difference deals with the very last provision in the House
bill. It relates to vectors that transmit communicable diseases of
animals.
The bill that was reported by the subcommittee would expand the
controls so that it would apply not merely to Canada but to the
Bahamas, the Greater and Lesser Antilles, and certain international
organizations.
The Senate bill did not expand the area of coverage to the extent
that was provided in the bill that was adopted by the subcommittee.
-Ali. Po~x(m. I thought that you told usc that the Senate bill covered
every thing.
Mr. Boit. There are two different issues addressed by the bill: one
relates to insects, which in the Senate bill is enlarged to cover all of
the XVestern H-emisphere, and in the House bill we had a lesser cover-
age, the other area relates to vectors of animal diseases, that is, dis-
eases communicated by animals. In that case the Senate bill did not
enlarge the area of coverage, whereas the House bill did.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. de la Garza intends to withdraw
his bill and substitute the Senate bill, then I would like to know.
Is that your intention?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. The only problem is that the vector part which we
have in the House bill is not in the Senate bill, is that right, counsel?
Mr. BOR. That is correct.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. We are going to have to make a decision. I am
sorry that the gentleman is inclined to delay the bill.
Mr. POAGE. We will pass it over and go to the next bill.
[Whereupon the committee proceeded to other business.]












CONTROL AND ERADICATE PLANT PESTS


THURSDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1975
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
CO--MITTEE ON AkGRICULTURE.
Wvn.shinyto)), D.C.
The committee met at 10:25 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301,
Longworth House Office Building, Ion. Tlom'as S. Foley (chai rn ian)
presiding.
Present: Representatives de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of North
Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Mathis, Bergland. Bowen, Rose. Litton.
Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan, Weaver, Baldiis, Krebs, Ilig htower,
Bedell, McHugh, English, Fithian, DAmours, Sebelius. Findley.
Thone, Syinms, Madigan, feffords., Kelly, Grassley. I Ligedorn, and
Moore.
Staff present: Robert M. Bor and Hyde 1-. Murray. counsels: John
E. Hog-an, associate counsel; Steve Allen. staff assistant; Glenda leli-
ple and Mary Jarratt, staff assistants.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order.
The committee meets this morning for further consideration of the
calendar.
The first item on the agenda, is H.R. 6403, having to do with agri-
cu'lture pest control of the Mediterranean fruit fly. It is reported
from the Department o.f O1)eratiolls. Investigations and ( )veisi,'lit
Subcommittee.
Without objection, H.R. 6403 will be considered by tie conimiittec
and open for amendment at any point.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, this is the bill that we discussed
yesterday. There is a Senate bill S. 1617. There are three differences
between the two bills.
I would like to do this as expeditiously as possil)le. Tlerefore, I
think the best course under the ciremnstances would be, if the colinmit-
tee would allow us to do so, to pass tle Htouse bill as reported I)y tle
subcommittee so that we might try to get it on tlie sus)ension1 calendar
next Monday. Then we can ask the Senate for a conference and ask for
adjustments there.
This would be better than going through the amndling process her,.
and then have to wait for the possibility that the Senate mtay want a
conference anyway.
If there are no questions or objections to it, I iove that we report
out this bill favorably with instructions to the staff which would be al,-
propriate.
The CrAIRn-fA.xN. Is there any discussion?
Mr. MATIIS. Was this amendment ado)te(d al ready
(11)







Mr. Dr LA GARZA. That amendment is one that we would have to
amend for the Senate bill.
Mr. MNATIIIS. We are not considering that, are we ?
Mr. DE LA GARZA. No. Either it is in the House bill or the Senate bill.
Rather than get involved with that, we will pass the House bill as
is and then reconcile the differences in conference.
Mr. MAThNS. If it is in order, Mr. Chairman, I move the previous
question.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would hold off just a moment. Are
there any members who wish to further discuss this bill?
Does counsel see any technical problems?
Mr. 'MURRAY. You mean procedurally or substantively?
I confess I do not understand why you want to go with the House
number when you have a Senate bill before us, because the Senate bill
has been referred to the Committee on Agriculture. Once the House bill
passes, then the only way we can get it back out of the Agriculture
Committee is by unanimous consent to reconcile the language of the
House-passed version with the Senate version.
Otherwise what will happen is that the House number will end up
in the Senate and the Senate number will be over here in the Agricul-
ture Committee. The Senate then will have to amend the House bill
and ask for a conference. They have passed that once. Or they will have
to accept the House bill.
The CHAMMANV. The alternative would be to take up the Senate bill.
Is that correct?
Mr. MIURRAY. And put the language of the House bill in it.
Then, when it goes to the Senate, the Senate will have a choice of
accepting the House amendment or asking for a conference; or, if you
think the Senate will want a conference anyway, we can expedite it
and ask for a conference in the House when the Senate bill as amended
is passed.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. I appreciate the advice of counsel. It will do what
we want to do, but we need to do it with the Senate bill, correct?
Mr. MURRAY. Correct.
All you are doing is taking the Senate number as a vehicle and strik-
ing out all after the enacting clause which is in the Senate version and
putting in whatever your subcommittee has decided to do.
That will then go to the Senate in that form, and they will have a
choice of accepting it or not.
The CHAIRMAN. The Senate bill is S. 1617?
Mr. MURRAY. Yes.
Mr. POAGE. I move that we vote the Senate bill and reconcile the
language with H.R. 6403.
The ChAIRMANN. Is there any objection to the motion of the gentle-
man from Texas to strike the enacting clause of the bill S. 1617 and to
substitute thereafter the language of the bill H.R. 6403, as reported
by the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Investigations and
Oversight?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The committee now, without
objection, will have before it the bill S. 1617, which is open for amend-
ment at any point.
Are there any amendments? If not, the Chair recognizes the gentle-
man from Georgia.








Mr. MNATIITS. I move the question.
The CHA IR3MAN. The question has been iilove(1, and without objec-
tion the question is ordered.
All those in favor of the motion from the gentleman from Texas,
Garza, to report S. 1617. as anended, signify by saying
Mr. dle la Gaza
"aye."
Those opposed?
The ayes have it. The motion is adopted, and the bill will be
reported.
Without objection we will request its consieration on the sispen-
sion calendar.
Does any member wish to file additional or dissenting views on this
bill?
If not, the staff will see what must be done and proceed as promptly
as possible.
[The committee proceeded to consider other business.]
















PEANUT ALLOTMENT TRANSFER


THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 1976

HOUSE OF REPRESENTAT-VES,
SUBCO-MII-rEE ON OILSEEDS AND RICE
OF THE COMMIIrEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Wfashingto, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 2:10 p.m., pursuant to call, in room 1302,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ed Jones of Tennessee (act-
ing chairman) presiding.
Present: Representatives Jenrette. Bowen, Thornton, and Moore.
Staff present: John E. Hogan. associate counsel; Leighton Lang
and Roxie Burris, staff consultants, Subcommittee on Oilseeds and
Rice; James Culver, staff consultant. Subcommittee on Dairy and
Poultry; and Anita Brown, staff assistant.
Mr. JONES of Tennessee. The Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice
will come to order.
We are meeting here today for the purpose of hearing Mr. William
L. Lanier, Director of the Tobacco and Peanut Division of the Agricul-
tural Stabilization and Conservation Service here in Washington, D.C.
Along with Mr. Lanier is Mr. Verlon Welch, Assistant to the
Administrator of ASCS.
We will have a public hearing in regard to the consideration of the
bill S. 1545.
[The bill S. 15-15 follows:]
[S. 1545, 94th Cong., 1st sess.]
AN ACT To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 with respect to peanuts
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled, That section 358 of the Agricultural Adjust-
ment Act of 1938 be amended by adding a new subsection (j) to read as follows:
"(j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if the Secretary deter-
mines for 1975 or a subsequent year that because of a natural disaster a portion
of the farm peanut acreage allotments in a county cannot be timely planted or
replanted in such year, he may authorize for such year the transfer of all or a
part of the peanut acreage allotments for any farm in the county so affected to
another farm in the county or in an adjoining county in the same or an adjoining
State on which one or more of the producers on the farm from which the transfer
is to be made will be engaged in the production of peanuts and will share in the
proceeds thereof, in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may Ire-
scribe. Any farm allotment transferred under this subsection shall be deemed to'
be released acreage for the purpose of acreage history credits under subsecti,n
(g) of this section and section 377 of this Act: Provided, That notwithistandiur
the provisions of subsection (g) of this section, the transfer of any farm allot-
ment under this subsection shall operate to make the farm from which the allot-
ment was transferred eligible for an allotment as having peanuts planted thereon
during the three-year base period.".
Passed the Senate November 12, 1975.
Attest: FRAN-CiS R. VALEO,
Secretary.
(15)






16


Mr. JoNEs of Tennessee. Mr. Lanier, we don't have a quorum present,
but for the sake of time we will go ahead and let you be heard.
Mr. Jenrette, do you have anything to say?
Mr. JENRErTE. N 'othing except that we are glad to see Mr. Lanier
up and around again.
Mr. LANIER. I am happy to be back.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. LANIER, DIRECTOR, TOBACCO AND
PEANUT DIVISION, AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION AND CON-
SERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. LANIER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you to dis-
cuss the transfer of peanut allotments because of disasters.
My name is William L. Lanier. I am director of the Tobacco and
Peanut Division, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Serv-
ice, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The bill before you for consideration, S. 1545, would amend the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 to authorize the transfer of pea-
nut allotments to farms in the same county or an adjoining county in
the same or adjoining State, provided the Secretary determines that
because of natural disaster, some peanut allotments could not be timely
planted.
The provision to permit allotment transfers to another county, even
though the county into which the allotment is being transferred is in
another State. is intended to make sure that all farmers have equal
opportunity for such transfers regardless of the geographical location
of the county within which the farm is located.
It is estimated that the enactment of this bill would result in nominal
administrative costs at the county level.
The Department has no objection to the proposed legislation.
Mr. JONES of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Lanier.
I see that we now have Mr. Thornton from the State of Arkansas
with us. We also have Mr. Moore from the State of Louisiana with us.
Gentlemen, what we did was to go ahead with the testimony of
Mr. Lanier because of the time element.
Are there questions for Mr. Lanier?
Mr. Jenrette?
Mr. JENRE-rE. Mr. Lanier, are there any other programs adminis-
tered by ASCS that allow the transfer of commodities across the State
line?
Mr. LANIER. No; not across the State line; but we do have one that
will permit it across the county line. In the last couple of years we had
some counties that suffered from too much water. This was in South
Carolina and Georgia.
A law was passed to permit the transfer across county lines.
To my knowledge this is the first one, that is the one we are con-
sidering today, that is going across State lines.
I might add this, Mr. Jenrette. The county in which the allotment
originated will be credited with planting. It will be given history
credit for the planting.
M[r. ,JENREYFE. If this disaster occurred in 1976 and if I transferred
it, for instance, into North Carolina under this provision o~f this legis-








lation, then next year it would still be my allotment and would revert
to me in South Carolina?
Mr. LANIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. JENRETTE. Do you contemplate that the Secretary would say
that it could be across State lines or county lines?
As I understand it, it is in the same county or adjoining county even
though it may cross State lines. Do you propose that the Secretary
will declare a natural disaster and leave it to the farmers? How do
you propose that that be done?
Mr. LANIER. If a county is declared to be a disaster county, then
it would be up to the allotment holder to find land in an adjacent
county within his State or within a county in another State. So it
would be up to you as an allotment holder to find a suitable site for
the production of peanuts for that given year.
Mr. JENRETTE. The Secretary's determination is based solely on there
being a natural disaster, and then it is up to the market to trade in
such way as they would see fit.
Mr. LANIER. That is correct.
Mr. JENRETTE. I don't think that I have any more questions, Mr.
Jones.
Mr. JONES of Tennessee. Mr. Moore?
Mr. MOORE. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. JoNEs of Tennessee. Mr. Thornton?
Excuse me, Mr. Lanier, go ahead.
Mr. LANIER. Mr. Jenrette asked me a question which has prompted
me to say that there may be a possibility that rice could be transferred
across State lines. I know that years ago this was the case. We used to
joke about it in Georgia as being a "hip-pocket allotment.
But whether or not this is true with rice today, I don't know.
Therefore, there may well be a precedent for this.
Mr. JENRETTE. But the tobacco disaster which you talked about was
solely within the State, is that true?
Mr. LANIER. Yes.
Mr. THORN TON. It is my understanding that the purpose for that
is to allow a county, which happens to border on another State. to
have the same opportunity for making a change in the event of dis-
aster as the county which is surrounded entirely within a State, is
that correct.
MNr. LANIER. That is correct.
Mr. THORNTON. I have no further questions.
Mr. Jo.N-ES of Tennessee. Mr. Lanier, let me give you a hypothetical
example of a problem that exists in my district and also in the State
of Arkansas.
Of course, the States of Arkansas and Tennessee are divided by the
Mississippi River. There have been times when it would be feasible.
if we could have done so, to transfer peanut allotments from the State
of Arkansas into the State of Tennessee on higher ground.
We would be covered in this provision, am I not correct ?
Mr. LANIER. Yes.
Mr. JONES of Tennessee. Mr. Thornton, I don't know whether you
were aware of Bill Alexander's difficulties in his district.
Mr. THORNTON. Yes, I am aware of that. I knew that our colleague
had introduced similar legislation.








Mr. JoNEs of Tennessee. That is exactly right.
Mr. JENRETTE. What is the difference in this and Mr. Alexander's
bill? Are you familiar with that?
Mr. TiORNTON. I would like to ask for staff comment.
I think the two bills are identical, or nearly so.
I am advised by staff that they are identical.
Mr. JONES of Tennessee. Are there any other questions from the
members of the subonlnittee ?
There is not a quorum present.
In order to mark this bill up there must be a change in the bill,
am I not correct, Mr. Hogan? We would have to change a date, I
think.
Mr. HOGAN. Yes, I am sure that you might want to get a response
from the departmental officials.
In line seven of the act there is a provision for 1975. I assume that
you may want to change that, possibly not.
Mr. LANIER. I looked at that but it said "1975 or subsequent year."
So you could or could not change it according to what you want to do.
Mr. HOGAN. That is the case, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is up to
your discretion, Mr. Chairman whether or not you change it. You
can leave it as it is.
Mr. JONES of Tennessee. In your opinion it is alright?
Mr. HOGAN. Yes, I do believe so.
Mf r. J,,vs of Tennessee. Is there -any objection to the marking up
of this bill?
Mr. Moore?
Mr. MfOORE. I have no objection.
I just want to say that I am coming to the rescue of the peanut
farmers even after they severely messed up the rice-farming industry.
I don't bear any grudges.
Mr. JONES of Tennessee. But you must remember that the dairy
people took real good care of you.
Mr. MOORE. Yes.
Mr. JONES of Tennessee. We should move, should we not, to mark
this up ?
Mr. MOORE. I SO move, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. JENRETrE. I second the motion.
Mr. JONES of Tennessee. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Op-
posed, no.
The ayes have it and it is so adopted.
The bill then is recommended to the full committee for its favor-
able action.
We thank you. Afr. Lanier and Mr. Welch. for your )resence today.
We invite you both to come bak at iny time.
I am sorry that Chairman Mathis Is not here. I know that he would
have liked to have seen you, but we did the best we could in his
absence.
The subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]













PEANUT ALLOTMENT TRANSFER


THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1976
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COM-MITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Vashington, D.C.
The committee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 1301,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chair-
man) presiding.
Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Melcher, Mathis, Bergland,
Bowen, Rose, Litton, Richmond, Nolan, Weaver, Baldus, Krebs,
Harkin, Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, English, Fithian, Thornton,
Wampler, Sebelius, Thone, Symms, Johnson, Peyser, Jeffords, Kelly,
Grassley, Hagedorn, and Moore.
Staff present: Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor and
Hyde H. Murray, counsels; William A. linhof and John E. Hogan,
associate counsels; John Baize and Alan Gray, staff consultants, Sub-
committee on Livestock and Grains; Jerry Jorgensen, staff consult-
ant, Subcommittee on Department Operations, Investigations and
Oversight; L. T. Easley, press assistant; Glenda Temple and Susan
Bell, staff assistants.
The CHAIRAMAN. The Committee on Agriculture will conie to order.
The committee meets this morning for consideration of two bills.
the first of which cones from the Subcommittee oin Oilseeds and Rice.
This is S. 1545.
The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Mathis,
to report the subcommittee action on the bill.
Mlr. MIATIIIS. Thank you.
This does nothing but to provide that in the case of natural disaster
the Secretary might have the authority to allow peanuts to be trans-
ferred across county lines and State lines.
Mr. Chairman, this bill was prompted by a problem that our friend
Mr. Alexander has in Arkansas where the channel of the Mississippi
River has changed and has left the farm in such a position that the
particular farmer who holds the peanut allotment in Arkansas cannot
grow those peanuts in Arkansas but must grow their, in Tennessee.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Jones, actually handled t e
subcommittee. He may very well have some comments.
It is a harmless bill. It does nothing in terms of cost to the reasury.
Quite frankly. it helps ease the problemm for our friend Bill Alexander
in Arkansas.
(19)






20


Mr. JONES of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that
where these peanut allotments are involved the holder of the allotment
holds land in Tennessee as well as in Arkansas. It has been a problem
that we have been tolerating for a good many years. Usually at the
time of the year when peanuts are to be planted there is a flood on his
side of the river and on my side of the river it is high land.
The CJ,.x1IxN. Mr. Jones, this bill would provide authority for the
Secretary to permit the transfer of these allotments in the event of a
natural disaster. Is that correct?
Mr. JONES of Tennessee. Yes.
Mr. IATIS. That is correct.
I understand that this bill is identical language to legislation we
passed in 1972 that would allow the same thing to happen. So what we
are really doing is continuing the language which had an expiration
date on it. Except you will note in the bill that it gives the Secretary
this authority for 1975 or a subsequent year so that we will not have to
bring- this before the committee in 2 or 3 years again.
This situation obviously will not correct itself unless the river
changes channels.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should move to strike the numerals
"1975" and insert "1976." The bill passed the Senate in 1975. This
would make the bill applicable to 1976.
I would so move.
The CHAIR.MAN. I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Peyser.
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my good friend from
Georgia that obviously I have no objection to the bill. But I want it
understood that I think that the very concept of the allocation and
the allotment program is still something very much in need of revi-
sion. I know we are waiting for legislation from the gentleman's
committee.
While I do not oppose this kind of change, I do think it is simply a
small item in the total problem of the program. Hopefully, we will be
able to address that problem before the year is out.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The ChAIR'AN. Mr. Grassley?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Because of some embarrassment we had on another
bill last year, is there any cost to the Federal Treasury involved in this
bill?
Mr. MATINis. There is no cost to the Treasury here.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Thank you.
Mr. MATIlS. Let me respond to my friend from New York. He has
long been concerned about the welfare of my peanut farmers.
We would like to have legislation. I suspect it will be introduced
and, barring some hitches with our good friends in the Department
of Agriculture, there is a great possibility that we will give the gentle-
man an opportunity to vote to improve this program in the very near
future.
The CHAIRIAN. Without objection, the bill S. 1545 will be con-
sidered as read and open to amendment at any point.
The gentleman from Georgia moves that in line 7 the date "1975"
be striken and that in lieu thereof "1976" be inserted.
Is there any discussion?






21


[No response.]
Tile CILAI-MAN. All in favor will signify by saying aye.
Are there ot her aimem e flnts to the bill '
Is there filrtler discIssion ?
I reeognize the genitleman from Georgia, Mr. Mathis.
Mr. MATIS. I move that the committee report the bill with the
recominendatioi "that it do pass."
The CHAIrINAIN. The gentleimn from (eorgia moves that the bill
reported to the House with the reconmen(lat ion that it pass.
All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye, those
opposed, nay.
[No response.]
The CHAIRM.A. The motion is approved, and the bill will be re-
ported favorably to the House.
The Chair will consult with the chairman of the subcommittee con-
cerning the possibility of presenting the bill on the suspension calen-
dar, if there is no objection.
Members will have 3 legislative days to submit additional views
on the bill just reported.
With respect to the previous action by the subcommittee on S. 1545,
let the record show that at the time the bill was reported a quorum
was present.
[The committee proceeded to other business.]














TITLE V EXTENSION, RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF
1972


WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 1975
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOI TNIITTEE ON FAMILY FARMS
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m.., pursuant to call, in room 1302,
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles Rose (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Breckinridge, Bedell, Melcher, Litton,
Nolan, Baldus, Sebelius, and Grassley.
Also present: John E. Hogan, associate counsel; L. T. Easley, press
assistant; Margo Shildkret, Perry Shaw, and Wanda Worsham, staff
assistants; Carol Forbes, legal counsel to Mr. Rose.
Mr. RosE. The subcommittee will come to order.
We will begin, gentlemen, our markup of several matters which we
have before the subcommittee.
You will recall that on Monday of last week, and also Tuesday of
last week, we heard testimony concerning several bills which are now
before us.
The first one I would like to call up for your consideration and your
wishes is H.R. 6346. It is a bill which I introduced., at the request of
Chairman Foley, to make permanent the authorization of appropri-
ations for carrying out title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972.
[The bill H.R. 6346 and the report from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture follow:]
[H.R. 6346, 94th Cong., 1st sess.]
A BILL To make permanent the authorization of appropriations for carrying out title V
of the Rural Development Act of 1972
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Reprcsentatives of the united
States of America in Congre.s assembled, That subsection (a) of section 50:
of the Rurql Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 2663(a) ) is amended by striking
the word "and", and changing the period at the end thereof to a comnina, and
adding the following: "not to exceed $5,000,000 for the period July 1. 1976,
through September 30, 1976, and not to exceed $20,000,000 for each fiscal year
thereafter.".
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., June 7, 1975.
Hon. THOMAS S. FOLEY,
Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MIR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of April 30. 1975 for a
report on H.R. 6346, a bill "To make permanent the authorization uf oitroprii-
tions for carrying out Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972."
(23)






24


The Department recommends that the bill not be enacted.
The bill would amend Section 503(a) of the Rural Development Act of 1972
(7 U.S.C. 2663(a)) to authorize appropriations of not to exceed $5,000,000 for
the period July 1, 1976 through September 30, 1976, and not to exceed $20,000,000
for each fiscal year thereafter to carry out the purposes of Title V of the Rural
Development Act of 1972. Section 503(a) currently provides funding authoriza-
tion only through June 30, 1976.
Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972 authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to conduct, in cooperation and coordination with colleges and uni-
versities, rural development and small farm research and extension programs.
The Department believes that funds to carry out work provided for under Title
V beyond fiscal year 1076 could be provided under other existing authorizations
such as the Smith-Lever Act and the Hatch Act. Therefore, the Department does
not recommend enactment of H.R. 6346.
The estimated cost of enacting this legislation will not result in additional
cost in fiscal year 1975. However, if the legislation is fully funded it will cost
$5,000,000 during the period July 1, 1976 through September 30, 1976 and
$20,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no objection to
the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's
program.
Sincerely,
J. PHIL CAMPBELL,
Under Secretary.
Mr. ROSE. As you will recall the testimony from the Department of
Agriculture, the Department's position on this bill is that the mandate
of title V for research and development in rural areas in their opinion
can best be carried out under the Smith, Lever, and Hatch Act pro-
grams and, therefore, they would recommend against the passage of
H.R. 6346.
You will also recall that, on Tuesday of last week, we had seven or
eight witnesses from across the country who testified as to the work
that they had been able to do under title V's research and develop-
ment programs and they recommended it in the hope that we would
continue this authorization.
Are there any questions or discussions on H.R. 6346.
Mr. BALDUS. Mr. Chairman, the $5 million, I presume, has some
reasoning behind it. I wonder what that is.
Would you be interested in giving us the logic for that figure?
Mr. RosE. The act, as it was originally drafted, authorized $5 mil-
lion in 1974, $15 million in 1975, and $20 million in 1976.
In other words, initially the authorization for the first year was
$5 million, the authorization for the second year was $15 million, and
the authorization for the third year, which is fiscal year 1976, is $20
million.
What we are asking here is not to exceed $5 million for the period
of July 1, 1976, through September 30, 1976, which is the intermediate
budget period; and not to exceed $20 million for each fiscal year
thereafter.
So, what we are doing is keeping the authorization level at the
last level of the bill, which was for 1976.
Mr. BALDUS. So, it is a substantial increase?
Mr. ROSE. Right.
Mr. BALDUS. I understand now.
Mr. ROSE. The authorization is going from $5 to $15 to $20 million
in the old bill. What we are seeking to do is to make that authoriza-
tion perilanent at the $20-million level.






25

Of course, what the Appropriations Committee will choose to do is
something else.
Are there other questions?
Mr. JALDUS. Would the Chair entertain a motion?
Mr. ROSE. Yes.
Mr. BALDUS. I move that it be recommended for passage.
Mr. ROSE. The motion has been made that IL.R. 6346 be passed.
All in favor raise their right hand.
All opposed?
The vote is unanimous that we pass H.R. 6346.














TITLE V EXTENSION, RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF
1972


TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1975
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
CO3MS3ITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Vashington, D.C.
The committee met at 2:15 p.m., pursuant to call, in room 1301.
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito, Jones of
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Bergland, Rose, Litton, Rich-
mond, Nolan, Baldus, Krebs, Hightower, Bedell, McHugh, English,
Fithian, D'Amours, Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Thone, Symms,
Peyser, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn, and Moore.
Staff present: Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor and
Hyde H. Murray, counsels; John E. Hogan, associate counsel; John
R. Kramer, special counsel; Steve Allen and Steve Pringle, staff as-
sistants; John Baize, staff consultant, Subcommittee on Livestock and
Grains; L. T. Easley, press assistant; Glenda Temple and Mary
Jarratt, staff assistants.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order.
The clerk informs me that a quorum is present.
The committee meets today to continue consideration of pending
business and to report bills from the Subcommittee on Family Farms
and Rural Development.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Rose.
Mr. ROSE. The item that we have is H.R. 6346. It is a bill to make
permanent the authorization of appropriations for carrying out title V
of the Rural Development Act of 1972.
Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972 provides for research
and education in the area of rural development. The funds, which have
been authorized and appropriated under title V of the Rural Develop-
ment Act of 1972, have been used to establish regional rural develop-
ment centers in this Nation.
Also, colleges and universities have been able to establish programs
under title V of the act in order to carry out research and education
projects in the area of rural development.
The testimony we received in the subcommittee indicated that this
is a very popular program among the colleges and universities which
have made use of it. H.R. 6346 seeks to make permanent the authoriza-
tion of appropriations for carrying out title V because the present
authorization extends only through the current fiscal year.
I will be happy to answer any questions that anyone might have oil
this. We would urge the adoption of it by the full committee.
(27)






28

Mr. DE IZx GAizA. ,As the gentleman knows, I have been offering a
little amendment to bills whicht authorize funds for more than 1 year.
The purpose of this is to carry a continuous oversight of the func-
tions of the ap)roI)riated funds from the Congress to the differentt
departments and agencies witlbin the I)epartnient of Agriculture.
The gentleman, by this legislation, seeks to destroy the thrust of
that amendment. I wonder how he would feel if we were to offer an
amendment to strike out the "in perpetuity" authorization and only
make it an annual authorization; and then we could come back and
take another look at it.
Mr. ROSE. I would be happy to agree to that amendment.
Mr. ICELLY. Aks I understand it, the purpose of it is to increase the
amount of money that is authorized, is that correct?
Mr. RosE. The purpose of what we are doing is to extend the au-
thorization of appropriations to title V of the Rural Development Act
of 1972. The authorization expires at the end of this fiscal year for
title V research and development programs. H.R. 6346 attempts to
accomplish to make those aut horizat ions permanent.
Mr. de la Garza wishes to make it for a period of 1 year, and I have
no objection to that.
MJr. KELLY. Does it increase the amount?
Mr. ROSE. No. With his amendment, it does not increase the amount
of authorization.
Mr. POAGE. In other words, this is just to carry it on for another
year?
Mr. ROSE. Exactly.
Mr. BOR. Section 503 of the Rural Development Act now provides
an authorization which terminates with an authorization for appro-
priations of not to exceed $20 million for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1976.
The way that this would be changed would be that this would add
$5 million for the July 1 period through September 1976 and $20
million for the next subsequent fiscal year?
The CIIAIR-MAN. Although the precise formula has not been decided,
counsel raises an excellent point. The fiscal year will be changed next
year to October 1.
Mr. de la Garza, do you want to speak ?
Mrl'. DE LA GARZA. My purpose is to strike out the "not to exceed $20
million for each fiscal year thereafter."
Mr. BoR. The authorization, which is now contained in the act, is
for $20 million for the fiscal year that ends June 30, 1976 so that if
we are going to extend it, then you may wish to extend it through
September 30, 1977.
The uIIRAN. That would provide for the 3-month changeover
Periods and would allow $20 million for the fiscal year ending on
September 30, 1977.
Mr. BoR. Yes.
Mr. DE LA GARZA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is prepared to
strike out the words "not to exceed $20 million for each fiscal year
thereafter." But, in view of what counsel has said, I wonder if I might
impose on the committee to either dispose favorably or unfavorably
with the intent of my amendment and lve counsel draft it with the
appropriate figure as to the year.






29


I ask unanimous consent that that be done.
The CILAIRIIAN. I think we ought to decide how long we intend that
period to be. Would it be $5 million for the 3-Imonth period between
July 1, 1976, and October 1, 1976; and then $20 million for the fiscal
year 1977 which would begin October 1, 1976, and end on Septem-
ber 30, 1977 ?
Mr. DE LA GARZ*. Mr. Chairman, I have no intent to involve myself

with the amounts recommended by the committee.
All I am interested in is that it not be authorized beyond 1 year.
Therefore, it would probably read $5 million for the period July 1,
1976, to September 30, 1976, and not to exceed $20 million for pe-
riod ending September 30, 1977.
Mr. BOR. You could say $20 million for the fiscal year ending Sep-
tember 30, 1977.
The CHAIRMIAN. The precise language can be taken care of later.
The committee understands the intention of the gentleman's amend-
ment and what it would involve.
Is there any objection to the precise language being prepared by
counsel?
Mr. SEBELIUS. I want to speak in opposition.
The purpose is good, but if we are going to do our oversight duties
every year, then we have a new ballgame. It seems as though many of
our new Members want to speak on every subject, whether they are on
the committee or not.
If it is going to be like this, we will be in session 24 months out of
the year. I just think that we are going to be stuffing ourselves with
things which are good, but because of the need for oversight, we might
not be able to do it. There is enough work as it is.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SEBELIUS. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. I think you make a point that we have too many
authorizations expiring at times which place pressure on the com-
mittee. and, accordingly, on the House.
In this case, however, the problem, as I gather from talking to the
gentleman from North Carolina. is that the Department has not been
too anxious to proceed with this program anyway.
The original intention. I think, of the subcommittee's action was
to prod the Department into taking steps with regard to this particu-
lar title of the Rural Development Act.
In any event, we would be working 2 years ahea( of when they
would be permitted to move, and this would put us into October 1977.
Though I agree with my respected friend from Texas. that we
should have oversight responsibility; occasionally we may nee( to
have longer than 1-year authorizations. Perhaps. we could also stair~er
those 1-year authorizations so that all of the basic programs which vwe
oversee, do not come up for extension during one particular legislative
session.
Mr. SEiBLTUS. I have one other point.
Some of these bills, which go to the floor, can meet an unfavorable
climate and may wind up with no substance at all. We minigt not. then,
be able to extend them at all.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CAIRMNAT. Mr. Poage.


77-139 0 77 3






30


Mr. POAGE. I think what we are deciding now is the question of
whether we are going to adopt the philosophy which Mr. de la Garza
has sought. I think it is a good philosophy.
I am sure that this committee and other committees of the Congress
have lost influence with departments because we have no way of hold-
ing back on anything that they want.
Once we pass the legislation, we have, in the past, been following
the policy of letting the1 n go. And, it is a virtue.
But, we have gone too far with this. Departments feel that they
don't have any more responsibility toward their committees than they
do for anvbody else. In particular, the Department of Agriculture
doesn't feel that they have to watch out for the Committee of
Agriculture.
We can't deny anything because we have already authorized it in
perpetuity. We cannot stop the appropriations.
The idea that Mr. Sebelius has brought up, that we can't do it every
year, doesn't appeal to me. Mr. Written's committee does do it every
year. He has a great deal of influence down there at the Department.
When they get word that Mr. Whitten has interest in a certain pro-
cedure, then they seek to do something about it.
I am just worried that the Agriculture Committee will not be
reckoned with. As far as they are concerned, they are not interested.
I think if we are ever going to have the cooperation, which I think
we ought to have, then we are going to have to do what Mr. de la Garza
is seeking to try to get us to do.
Of course, it is going to require a little more activity on the part of
us. That activity won't hurt us any. I hope that we will keep these
things in the control of the committee rather than just turning them
over and saying: "Well, we have passed it over to you; you are the
trustee, so go ahead."
That doesn't appeal to me.
The ChiAIRMIAN. If the gentleman will yield, I agree wholeheartedly
on the principle. The only thing that concerns me is that the new
budizet act requires us to have our authorization process completed
early in the spring of each year so the Appropriations Committee can
act with respect to those authorizations.
I am only ca utioning that we will have to be careful not to crowd so
much of our legislative responsibility into the first couple of months
of the year that it becomes burdensome.
I support Mr. de la Garza's amendment, just as I strongly support
the argument advanced by Mr. Poage.
We have a, responsibility. We are the authorizing committee who
looks into the validity of these programs through the continual ex-
amination of how they are actually being carried out. I think that
perhaps all of us in the Congress have been negligent in this area of
responsibility. Furthermore. I hope that we will be more conscientious
and diligent in this aspect of our work.
Is there any further discussion?
If not, without objection the previous question is ordered.
All in favor of the amendment by the Member from Texas, say
"ave." and all opposed. "no."
The "ayes" appear to have it. The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. KREBS. I have a question to address to Mr. Rose.








Mr. Rose, did I understand correctly that this act, which we are
presently discussing, would in effect deal with agricultural research
and training?
Mr. ROSE. Title V of the Rural Development Act is for small farm
research and education. What it does is to mandate the Secretary to
appropriate, through the land-grant colleges and universities
throughout the Nation, money for research and for setting educa-
tional program addressed at the specific problems faced by rural
small towns and communities.
In our subcommittee hearings the president of Oregon State Uni-
versity came and testified that with knowledge, which waq- developed
as a result of these programs, lie has seen many small towns and com-
munities, helped in his State to regenerate themselves when, without
help, he felt that they would have been doomed to a kind of self-
destruction.
These have provided great self-help programs for rural communi-
ties. The funds have been limited, and the appropriations have been
only $3 million, that is, which has actually been applied to these.
Mr. KREBS. In my district we have a college knowui as Fresno State
University. It is extremely agriculturally oriented and we feel it is as
qualified as any other agricultural institution to engage in this type
of research.
I know that there are other districts concerned about this matter in
connection with other bills which are now pending.
I was wondering whether you would accept an amendment which
would insert after "land-grant universities" the words "and other
qualified institutions of higher education."
Mr. ROSE. I thought that the next bill, which we were to take up
today covered that problem, but I am told that it does not.
In answer to the gentleman's question, I would certainly have no
objection to the amendment.
Mr. KREBS. Do you still have it in mind or would you like me to
repeat the language?
Mr. ROSE. Would you repeat the language, please?
Mr. KREBS. After the phrase "land-grant universities" it would
read "and other qualified institutions of higher education."
In other words, it would also cover non-land-arant universities and
colleges. They would have to be qualified. o)viously. in the field.
Mr. ROSE. I have no objection to that.
Exactly where we would add that and what language it would be. I
am not so sure at this point.
Mr. SYM-Ns. Itow many institutions are we talking about ?
Mr. KREBs. I am not sure. Obviously. it would involve a number
of them.
There are a couple of bills pending which include that phrase on
simiilar proposals involving research.
Vir. Pox(uE. On that question, although sone of is felt at the time
that what you are surestun is (rood. we didn't do it. T was one of
them. I felt that we should not try to say that nobody could do tli
work except the land-crrant colleges anid universities, but we ae
faced with a number of teClhnical coll(,), throughout the couItrvN-
most of them are junior colleces-,ome of which are 4-year technical








schools. In some cases, some of them are probably perfectly well quali-
fied to do this.
Fraikly, we could not come up with a practical way of drafting the
expansion of this without making it too wide. So, we did not attempt
to expand on it for that reason.
The committee, at that time, had no basic objection, as I recall it,
to what you are suggesting; but it did not have very good draftsman-
ship.
Mr. BoR. The language in title V is very broad as to the types of
educational institutions with which these cooperative agreements may
be carried out. It says in section 502:
The Secretary of Agriculture is directed and authorized to conduct in co-
operation and coordination with colleges and universities the following programs
to carry out the purposes of this title.
So, it is not limited to land-grant universities. It uses the broad
term "colleges and universities."
The CHAIRMA N. Mr. Krebs, does that take care of your concern?
Mr. ROSE. I apologize to Mr. Krebs for misleading him. I was of
the opinion that the language read differently, but even reading as
Counsel has read, section 504 (c) of this bill says:
All private and publicly supported colleges and universities in a state includ-
ing the land-grant colleges of 1890 shall be eligible to conduct and participate
in conducting programs authorized under this title.
Mr. KREBS. That takes care of my objection.
Mr. PEYSER. It seems to me that we-need clarification.
On page 2, section 2:
The Secretary shall provide that the sum of the payments to any State under
this title shall not be less than $50,000 per year.
I think under the present formulas, some States only get between
$10,000 and $14,000 a year, the way it is right now.
I guess the point is that if you have this kind of a floor and you
are not, guaranteed a larger appropriation, then this is going to hurt
a number of States which have been getting more money. They will
now have to be reduced in order to provide to every State this amount
of money.
Mr. SEBELIUS. There are 50 States and $50,000 makes it $2,500,000.
That is about as much as they spent, wasn't it?
Mr. RosE. Yes.
The ChAIRMAN. The problem is that the authorization is substan-
tiallv irreater than the actual appropriation which was made.
Mr. PEYSER. What I am getting at, however, is that I recognize that
we should not legislate based on what is appropriated, but if you pass
this section of the bill and then if appropriations should appropriate
the same level for give and take, then you would be creating a harmful
situation for the States. That could be a problem.
The CHAIRMAN. We would hope that the Appropriations Committee
would take that into consideration.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman. my friend from New York may be talking
about the formula for H.R. 6678 which is the next bill that we will be
taking tip.
Mr. PEYSER. Yes, I am; I beg your pardon. I recognize that I am on
that bill.






33


Mr. RosE. I am aware of his arguments. However, that is not the bill
that we are discussing at the moment.
The CHAIRMAN. I would like to make note of the fact that the com-
mittee is honored today by the presence of a very special griest. As you
may know, several members of the Congress have been in Norway
recently to conimemorate the. 150th anniversary of the departure of
Norwegian immigrants for the United States.
With us today is the distinguished member of the Norwegian Parlia-
ment and chairman of its committee on education and church affairs.
I know that the committee will want to join with me in greeting Mrs.
Gaeljhun and her husband who are in this country on official business.
Mr. BERGLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to
speak out of order.
My maternal grandparents were on that departure.
The CI A i-I IN. That is another thing for which we can thank
Norway.
Senator Humphrey, Senator Mondale, and Senator Magnuson from
my State as well as a number of others of Norwegian descent were
along on that trip.
It is always interesting to reflect on the courage of people who made
the decision to emigrate across a difficult ocean to a new country with-
out knowing quite what might await them.
These immigrants have played a major part in all aspects of our
national life. I think there are about half again as many Norwegians
in the United States as there are in Norway.
Mr. KELLY. I would like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee
something.
This law has been in effect since August of 1972, as I understand it.
What has been going on ? Why should we perpetuate what has been
happening? What did the subcommittee find that has been good? It
sounds great.
Mr. RosE. I thank the gentleman for his question. It not only sounds
great, but the results of this program have been great.
The Department of Agriculture, although the Department itself
has not been in favor of continuing the title V program as such. but
does admit that the results of the pilot project, which was permitted
by title V, were very rewarding and very useful.
The authorization for the first year was $10 million. For the second
fiscal year it was $15 million. For the third fiscal year-and we pro-
pose in this bill-the authorization is $20 million.
Even in face of that, the Agriculture Department has requested
very small amounts to implement the program, and, in fact, only $3
million for the first 2 years of this Rural Development Act were
actually appropriated and expended for the title V program.
The Department has made no requests for funds in the upcoming
fiscal year for the title V program.
You asked what has been accomplished by these programs. I would
direct you to the hearings which were conducted several weeks ago on
this subject.
The directors of the regional centers for" rural development, which
are mechanisms which have been set up by the States for carrying out
these programs, came before us and testified that their work had been






34


very rewarding. As I told earlier, the president of Oregon State Uni-
versity testified that the self-help programs that his regional center
had been able to develop had been a source of stimulation for dying
small cities and towns in his part of the country.
Mr. KE-:mLLY. Did he specify what towns and in what ways this pro-
gram had been specifically helpful ? Did you have testimony from
the beneficiaries other than the admnimistrators?
Mr. ROsE. We took the word of the president of Oregon State Uni-
versity as to that particular instance. le did not give us specific towns.
I am sure that we could find that out from him.
I would say to the gentleman from Florida that the problems of
rural development and of rural America multiply today much faster
than we are applying solutions for them. If more and more people
move into rural America, we need the kinds of programs that are
envisioned by title V of the Rural Development Act in order to plan
and to help the people in rural America solve the real problems which
they are faced with.
That is the purpose of helping rural America to research and to
develop into the problem solving of the problems which they are faced
with.
This means everything from better hospitals, better roads, water
and sewage assistance, how to get ready to take an influx of new indus-
try, how to set up municipal services generally, and so on.
Mr. PEYSER. The Agriculture Department in testifying on this bill
indicated that many of the programs which the chairman has just
mentioned have been carried out in other sections and in other areas
by other legislations.
This is one of the reasons why they have used such little money.
They have been implementing programs under other pieces of legis-
lation rather than this piece of legislation.
I made a pointed question of that during the hearings to make it
very plain that they were carrying out these programs but that, legis-
latively, they were carrying them out under other programs. So, I
would mention that.
Mr. KELLY. Thank you.
There is adequate money available from other sources. And, with
the deficit the country is faced with, why are we authorizing addi-
tional money which apparently is not needed?
The Department of Agriculture indicates that it does not favor the
continuation of this act. Is that not so?
Mr. ROSE. That is the response we received fr3m the Department of
Agriculture, but it has not been my intention to lay down and roll
over feet first and play dead to that kind of logic.
I am just not convinced, for example, that the Department of Hous-
ing and Urban Development is well equipped to address itself to the
housing needs of rural America. HUD has absolutely no knowledge
about the housing problems which exist in rural America today, yet
the Department of Agriculture came to us and said that they had not
been as vigorous in rural housing programs in some areas because
HUD had a program to do things like that.
I told the gentleman what I was glad they were not around here
when we were drafting the Bill of Rights because they might have








told us we did not need it as it had already been covered by tie Ten
Con-iinaidi emits.
I tell the gentleiian from Florida that the congresss in the Rullral
Ievelopinent Act of 1972 nmaii(lated to the I)epartInent of Agricultll're
that they would do specific things to help stIengtheit life it rural
America.
One of those things was to provide a system for research and devel-
opment in problem solving to help people living in rural America.
It has not been done and we want to attempt to continue that effort
by at least providing the legislative mechanisms in the hope that some
time lightning might strike and more work may be done in this area.
Mr. KELLY. Is there time for more questions, Mr. Chairman?
The ChAIRMAN. Yes.
Mr. KELLY. It certainly would be reasonable to hope that the De-
partment of Agriculture would have some knowledge of the needs of
rural America. If they have placed their confidence in HUD and if
they have found adequate funds elsewhere, in light of the need for
economy and in light of the need for lightening the burden of the
taxpayers, then would it not be well for us to rely on the Department
of Agriculture inasmuch as they are associated in some ways with
rural America?
Mr. ROSE. If the gentleman will yield, I will admit that they are
associated in some ways with the problems of rural America.
However, as to whether or not their efforts in promoting the Rural
Development Act of 1972 have been all that Congress intended that
they do, I must say that leaves in my opinion much to be desired.
I do not think, Mr. Kelly, that we can afford to cut very far into
the already short supply of funds that we are spending to help solve
the problems of rural America.
However, as to whether or not their efforts in promoting the Rural
Development Act of 1972 have been all that Congress intended that
they do, I must say that leaves in my opinion much to be desired.
I do not think, Mr. Kelly, that we can afford to cut very far into
the already short supply of funds that we are spending to help solve
the problems of rural America.
The migration now is moving from the larger metropolitan areas
back into the countryside. The people who are going there are creating
new problems for rural America which did not exist before.
I think that this continuation of this research and development effort
is but a modest attempt to better the quality of life in rural America.
I certainly respect your opinion and your right to express it the
way you have. I can understand your position but, at this particular
juncture, I don't happen to agree with you.
Mr. KR:Bs. Will the gentleman from Florida yield?
Mr. KELILY. Yes.
Mr. KREiS. I would like to point out to the gentleman from Florida
that, if Mr. Butz and company were so concerned about. lightening
the burden of the American taxpayer, maybe they would have tholuglt
twice before they constructed a $150,000 dining room at the Depart-
ment of Agriculture.
Mr. KELLY. I would like to respond to that.
I have just come back from all extensive tonir of the Fifth )istilct
of Florida and I found that the rural people are coniplainiing about






36


the taxes, the threat to our survival from a huge deficit, and they are
not really crying out for rural development.
They are wondering whether they are going to get the money for
the development we already have.
It may be that we are more fortunate in the rural areas of Florida,
but I have every reason to doubt that in light of the welfare rolls
and the outreach program which is attempting to expand on that.
Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the
subcommittee a few questions on this matter, if I may?
Mr. Rose, does this appropriation cover efforts at reducing rural
crime? That is, programs to combat crime?
Mr. RosE. It very definitely could. This title V requires that each
State has its own program and that those programs be approved State
by State or region by region by the Department of Agriculture.
It very definitely could include such a program as that, if the State
coordinating committee and colleges and universities involved felt that
that was a priority.
I cannot give you specifics, but I recall testimony which was sub-
mitted at our hearings where some regional groups had, in fact, used
the funds for a type of crime prevention or citizen awareness program
in the area of law and order.
Mr. FITHIAN. Did you have any testimony before your subcommittee
which attested to the rising crime rate in rural areas?
Mr. ROSE. We did not as such, that is, not as you have expressed it.
Mr. FITHIAN. Other programs would include the attempt, as I un-
derstand it, to entice small industry into rural areas in order to keep
the availability of jobs up in the rural area. Is that the kind of pro-
gram that is envisioned?
Mr. ROSE. Yes. It would allow a university or college to show local
communitiess how to solve those kinds of problems.
The regional directors of this program found that there were a great
many small cities and towns in rural communities which did not know
where to start in attacking some of their municipal type problems and
that the education and the research programs which this title estab-
lished in the local colleges and universities, enabled them to pull them-
selves up by their own bootstraps, as it were.
Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the com-
mittee that there is such a program at Purdue University in my dis-
trict, and there is a vigorous effort to try to bring this kind of
program across the board to rural areas.
In addition to that, it has been my observation in traveling about
a very rural district in Indiana that these values which rural America
treasures most-for example, efforts to keep and to pass on to the youth
of their area some of the values which have always characterized rural
America, these have been the very thing that they have missed most
in this reat urbanization sprawl that we have been in for the last 50
years.
I am wholly in sympathy with the concepts behind this bill. I regret
that the Department of Agriculture has not seen fit to do its job. I
think it is clear-it ought to be clear to everybody who represents a
rural district in the United States of America-that the Department
of Agriculture in the past period of time since this act has been enacted
has utterly failed in their responsibilities to the Congress of the United
States.






37


Anyone who is unable to see that is unable to see the very concept
upon which this bill is founded, whether it is for the modest industrial
expansion to keep young people oil the farms or near the farms for a
part-time employment, whether it is to combat crime, or whether it is
to improve the quality of rural life.
The biggest problem we face right now in the rural Second )istrict
of Indiana is the improvement of sewage treatment facilities.
I find it totally incomprehensible that we have a situation in which
we are fighting and battling for funds from EPA contested by every
urban center in America and in the State of Indiana. I find it incom-
prehensible that the Department of Agriculture, dealing with this
matter and dealing with these problems and with the kind of assistance
that they have in our district, has not seen fit to act.
I compliment the chairman of the subcommittee in the fine work
that he is doing.
I am certainly going to support his bill, but I would appreciate any
additional comment you have as to, whether in your testimony in your
hearings, you gleaned any reasonable reason for the abdication of
responsibility on the part of the Department of Agriculture and the
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development.
Mr. ROSE. The only reason given by the Department for a desire to
reduce title V programs was that they felt that the Smith, Lever, and
Hatch act for agriculture research and agriculture extension could
carry on these types of programs just as well.
I am sure that the gentlemnan has a knowledge of the programs
carried on by the Smith, Lever, and Hatch Act.
I for one feel that those programs already overtaxed and overbur-
dened, are doing a very definitely important job which I think they
are doing well; but they are doing it in another area.
The title V type of program is something different and apart from
what the Smith, Lever, and Hatch Act envisioned.
Mr. K ELLY. Inasmuch as we already have spent millions of dollars
On this program even though the Department of Agriculture is not
performing to the satisfaction of everyone, do we have a list of specific
things that we have purchased with these millions of dollars?
In other words, it would seem like a wise shopper would know what
he is getting for his money and that, if we are going to go forward
with the spirit of Congressman de ]a Garza's amendment and oversee,
then we must examine the list of what we paid for to know whether
we want to continue the purchase.
Do you have such a list ?
Mr. FrITIAN. I do not, Mr. Chairman, but I would say in reply
that, during the Fourth of July break, I visited the town of [Monticello
in our district.
We have a)propriated $2 million for the courthouse there as a
result of the Federal )isaster Assistance Act as a result of the tornado.
I walked around where the courthouse is going to be built. Thetr
is no building there. I suppose I could have raised the (tiestion that
the gentleman from Florida is raising now: Where is the buildilg.
I will point out what must be obvious and that is, that it takes some
planning and it takes some time to implement this.
My concern is whether or not they mna(le the conlnitient to (go for-
ward with the program at this point. I think that the planniing, at






38


least the one I am familiar with, has been very good. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. BALDUS. I think it would be useful and I am sure that Mr. Rose
would agree that much of the motivation for the recommendation for
discontinuing the Rural Development Act comes more from the Office
of Management and Budget than from the Administrator of this
Rural Development Act or even from the Department of Agriculture.
It was a dictated policy to them.
In their testimony they were very clear that there was a need there.
It was clear that the methods of solving that need was available
through this, but the recommendation for the proper amount of money
would even be much greater than this. They would like to make that
recommendation, but the Office of Management and Budget did not
feel they ought to.
Mr. FITIIIA.N. This was used as the rationale?
.M r. BALDUS. Yes; I think all of us on the subcommittee felt that
the Department did not make the recommendation because they did
not dare.
Mr. FITIAN. Are you saying that an Administrator in the Depart-
mnent of Agriculture dared not carry out the will of Congress when
money was already appropriated to that fund?
Mr. BALDUS. I yield to the chairman on that.
Mr. ROSE. They had not pushed for an adequate appropriation and
they did not request but a meager sum in my opinion, that is, a meager
percentage of what was authorized to be appropriated for these
programs.
As I have seen time and time again, the argument is made that,
when a program has been funded at a low level, then the low level
of its funding by a back door reasoning somehow becomes a reason
for its discontinuance.
The regional centers, which have been funded by title V, have all
submitted annual reports of their activities, and those reports are
available for all of us to see as a shopping list of what they have done.
With some States such as Nevada, having received only $7,000 for
the whole State program, you can see that we are talking about-
in those types of instances-a very small effort for that particular
State.
In the next bill, which we will discuss in a minute, we attempt to
readjust that allocation so that every State will have a minimum of
$50.000.
They have done a lot with what they have had.
Mr. FITLIAN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN.. Is there any further discussion?
Are there auy further amendments?
Mr. RosE. If there are no further comments, I urge my colleagues
to support this bill and I move the previous question.
The CHAIIf,.,N-. The gentleman moves that the bill H.R. 6346, as
amended, be reported to the House with a recommendation that it
be passed.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered.
All those of favor of this bill say aye; those opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it.
Mr. PEYSER. Mr. Chairman, I take it a quorum is present?






39

The CHAIRM.AN. Yes; a quorum is present.
The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. The bill will be re-
ported to the House as amended with the record showing that a
quorum was present.
[The committee proceeded to other business.]














BEEF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ACT


THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1975

IOUS E ()1" 1EPT(ESENT'ATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK ANDo GRAIV, OF THE
COMIMITTLE ON A IT1,icvJ:'HI-tE,

The sul)committee mio at 10 a.m.., pursiiant to call, in r ,oii .,_,
I 4onoworth ill ouse Office Biihtino', lon. W. R. Poa'e (cairil "ll of
the subcoi ilnittee) presi(ino.
Pre-ent" Representaitives Poage, Nolan, Fithian, Sebelti---, alid

Stalf l)reen :Robert M. Bor. cotinzel S teve Allen, 1.taft (on~siilt
[ohn Baize, -,taft coiis~itaut, Sill oliillinttee On I lvc>1etock amI. Grain, :
af1d Gl. enda Tein)le, tff a-.sl-ant.
Mr. PO-\GE. The sibcoiiiittee will come to order. We are meeting
this morning, to c(1i,.lter ]egidti(',l o1 which we live learl tesiionv
id which we hope to mark up or agree upon. I think, it is clear tlat,
lhe developments and questions here need furtbvr stlld- and further
development. We are not pm, to pass this bill unless we have a
pretty good consensus of opinion on it.
Apparently we do not have it. We thought we had it at one time
but I think it is clear that now that we do not have it.
There are a good many differences between the Department and
tlie legislation as it is drawn. I do not think that any of them are of
urich significance that they cannot be worked out or resolved, but I
think probably we had better get them resolved.
Then there is a problem with the Farm Bureau which is not satisfied
with this bill. It has proposed some changes which I am afraid will
)e completely unworkable. Some of the chances are good and some
Of them are necessary. However, I have been in politics for a good
many years and I think I know that you are not going to get 50 percent
of the qualified voters to come out and vote in these elections.
It is not that we should not have a consensus of opinion among
producers. I think clearly that we must have that or else the program
will not work. The program will not work if 49 percent of the producers
are against it. You will not make it work in that (ase. You have t o
have a substantial percentage of your producers in favor of it.
So I find no question about requiring that it be submitted to the
producers. We have those who say that we have those who do not
come in to vote. I do not think that they ought to be allowed to be
considered for a no or a yes. The effect of requiring 50 percent of them
to take part actually means that you count them as no vote if they do
not come in. That would immediately kill the bill. I hope things c11 be
worked out with a little thought and a little work between the parties,


(41)






42


because I believe, it is possible to get, people to come in and register
an(l let themi Vote at the same tillie and( place.
We caiz develop die list of qualified voters. But if they can vote at
the same time as they come and register, then you will not have this
problem of coming back and you will get almost every one of them who
re(q ers to vote under those circumstances.
I t think that if you get some, program like that going you can make
it work. Also you will have solved at least one half of the problem that
tie Bureau of the Budget raises. It is opposed to this bill because tht y
say it is going to cost V million to conduct the referendum.
The proponents of the bill say that they will pay for the referendum
out of the checkoff, but if the referendum were to fail there would not
be anything there to pay it out with.
If you had your registration and vote at the same time and the same
place you would have taken care of half of that expense. If you have
the registration 1 week and the vote the next you have doubled your
expenses. You have to consider that expense. Mr. Sebelius, I do not
want to assume that I am speaking for everybody. I wonder whdt
your views are?
Mr. SEBELIUS. I had a long discussion yesterday with the Farm
Bureau representative on the subject of the referendum and registra-
tion. It looked to me as though the requirement of 50 percent of the
registered oave us a parting of the ways. As to the matter of the Bureau
of the Budget in cost and so forth, I would think that, with ample con-
versation in the farm magazines and so forth, we could designate a speci-
fic date. That would save money and tUme. I would like to add the
Farm Bureau support because, in many of these States, they are very
persuasive. I feel with you that if we do not have it I do not think there
is much chance of getting this thing out of here. I do not know what the
mechanics would be but if 50 percent of those registered, by registering
are not voting you do the same thing as voting no.
I do not know, Mr. Chairman, I was looking at some of the amend-
ments. I think we ought to get those who are interested in this bill and
get their head together and see if we can do some negotiating where
we can get to a formal markup.
Mr. POAGE. I am inclined to feel the same way. I think the very fact
that we have vacant seats here this morning would attest to that and
indicate something about what we are talking about. If you cannot
get but three members out of 20 the Subcommittee on Livestock and
Grains out of 20 to be present, then you have a problem. Obviously
the subcommittee cannot act this morning.
Mr. SEBEFLIUS. If we had to have two-thirds of 50 percent, we would
not be doing very well.
M11r. PONGE. That is true. It seems to me that we have reached a
point where the most expeditious procedure might be to ask those
wo are interested in the legislation to try to get together again,
t Thto wol ret toether againm
first among themselves I am sure. That would be the cattle associa-
tion an(l the Bureau. They are on record in favor of this type of
legislation, but we have got to have these matters worked out before
we bring it out. It seems to me 1hat if they can work together for a
W.vlile then they can go over the whole thing with the Department. I
ul'idersitan(t that wit hin the last few days you have gone over this with
the Dep.artment, and you do have a number of changes-many of









them mechanicAl-that, need to be made and ought to be made. TI is
ought to be done before the subconmit tee attempts to try to semi
this bill up to the full committee. I would be terribly enibarrassed
to send this thing out to the full committee as it now stands with the
obvious difference of opinion that we have.
I think that we could work these things out.
There are two major stumbling blocks as I see it. One is the matter
of registration and voting whirh involves the views of the Farml
Bureatt i particular, but not simply the Farm Bureau. I certainly
agree that we need the registration program, so it is not simply a
< Iuetion of a conflict, between the Farm Bureau and the ( at tIemen'.
Association. It is a conflict of philosophy as to how we should handle
this thing' betweQn groups, all of whom are recognizing that we have
a problem that should be handled.
If those groups that are specially interested can work out language
there that they agYree on then we can go to the Department of Agri-
culture and the Bureau of th Budget. I do not know if we can ever
get the Bureau of the Budget with us, but we can work out most of
the mechanics with the Department of Agriculture so that we do not
get on the floor and have someebody rise andl say that, the Departnmeiit
cannot support this and that. We (10 not want that opposition. We.
cannot afford to have that. The Department of Agriculture's views are
close enough t o the general idea that they can be resolved but, they
have not, been resolved.
I think what we need to do is to get it worked out now and bring it
back to tho subcommittee and let us go through the thing again, as
I see it. Several of tle members have now corlie in. Does anybody
have any comments?
.Mr. PITIAN. That seems like an effective and orderly way to
proceed.
Mlr. POAGE. We are 20 members in the subcommittee and we only
have 5 here now. We obviously cannot proeed this way.
Mr. FTHIAN. If you like I can call for a quorum call just before
you turn to vote.
Xr. POAGE. I see that we have representatives of the Department,
of the cattle raisers., and of the Farm Bureau. Do any of you all feel
that this is uhlresoable?,
M\I r. DEVANEY. I think that is reasonable, MIr. Chairman. I think
we caln gel together and try to work out our differences. We would be
glad to do it.
Mr. BAR roN. Mr. Chai,,'man, we have approached the Farm Bureau.
I do not know wfiether we can do any gool or not. We d10 feel tlat as
far z- t!i U1-;DA is ,(eri (11,(" d that we l ave worked out our differences.
Al'. POAGE. YoU have ironed out the (iffiren have got to bring in a whole new bill here a 1ee it. If we keep
puttilo. patclies onls linlg we are g'aiug to have a tou1gh timle. )-mt
reliemlber putting patches (Mi tl1e old tire tul)e? You aire in bald >liap
and I tiink we better get a new tuabe il here.
Nlr. B.iBoN. The bill is pretty marked upt) tie way it i now.VQ' [
a.,,r... We will continue to make every effort to reconcile our"
difle 'm c.
Ai1. PC iE. I want lhe interested parties to umlder I anld that this
subcommittee lias no intention to try to und1uly dclay this.








We will hold further hearings any time when they become appro-
priate. It is not our disposition to try to refuse to act on it, but I
think we will save time and probably get much better legislation if
we can now just ask the interested parties to try to go back and
bring in something completely-complete the legislation to the sub-
committee and hear it at a later date.
Is there any objection?, If not, that is what we will do.
Gentlemen, we will be glad to have you work on it. We would be
glad to have you talk with us at any time. The subcommittee will be
glad to meet again at an appropriate date when we think we can
bring something out that we can all support.
Does anyone have any more comments?
If there is nothing further, the subcommittee will stand at recess
subject to the call of the Chair. We will call it back.
[Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m. the subcommittee recessed.]












BEEF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ACT


MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1975

IOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK AN ) GRAINS
OF THtE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURET,
11 tsh;n tton, D.C.
The commit tee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 1302,
Longworth House Office Building, tton. W. R. Poage (chairman,
Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains) presiding.
Present: Representatives Poage, Melcher, Bergl an(, Litton,
Weaver, Hightower, Be(tell, Se)elius, Ilhone, Johnson, an(l lfage(lorn.
Also present: Robert, iM. Bor, counsel ; Steve Allen, staff consult ant.;
John Baize, staff consultant, Subcomnmittee on Livestock and Grains;
and Glendla Temple, staff assistant.
Mr. POAGE. The committee will please come to or(ler.
We are meeting here this morning in order to consi(ler a new bill,
I1.R. 7656, which attempts to take care of various clianges in the
Beef Research an( Information Act. We have a letter from tie
Department of Agriculture which I shall read into the record.
This letter is date-oI June 16 and it is addressed to Mr. Foleyj
chairmann of the conmi ittee.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is in response to the request of June 13 from the
Committee's staff for the department's position on IIH.R. 7656, a bill "to efnat)le
cattle producers to estn:llish, inance, and carry out a coordinated program of
research, producer and c()nsumer information, and to improve, maintain, and
develop markets for cattle, be(f pr ducts."
J)epartment personnel h-ave worked closely with the Beef Devel()pment Task
Force in redrafting H.R. 3718, which was introduced on June 5 1 7656.
The administrati ve and legal l)roblen's referred to in tih ret) )rt (,f April 11 n II. It.
3718 have been largely overcome. However, the I)epartmient's concern with the
'value added"' features have not been fully (limina ted. 1I.IR. 765(6 requires each
producer-buyVr and slaughterer to c(olect from the producer-seller an :v'e-s-mnt
based on the value of the cattle involved in a transaction. But oilv slt:udlht'rcrs
are required to maintain and make avaih l1e for inspection rec()rds (if suchi tra i,-
actions. The departmentt recognizes that I )eatuse, of the size of ile cattle ii(lhitry
and the coml)lexity of cattle marketing, tie assessinent method cont gained in the
bill provide., for tin equitable and j)ractica he collect ion system.
The I )epartmnert also agrees with the Beef 1)evelpnet Task F rce that the
collection svs.4m will be largely self-policing and that adequatee ecfforeenwleii
arnong producers can be acconhl)ishe(d on a complaint iasis as nicessarv. If the
Committee concurs with this view of enforcement requirements, :u(d so id(ic:-tes
in its report on the hill, the )epartment has no legal or administrative objections
to the enactment of l.11. 7656.
The Adui"inistraion's position with respect, to new Federal spending programs
and the objections of the Omice of Manatgement and Budget to 1)rouiotioiu pro-
granis for agricultural commodities remain as stated in the April 11 report on
11.1t. 3718.

(45)


77-139 0- 77 4






46


I think now it might be i order to aik the representatives of the
Beef l)evelopuient Task Force to explain time new bill And the various
chiang(Ies ill it.
iNlr. Barron, would! vou and your group please do this?
[The bill H.R. 7656 appear "on p.52.]

STATEMENT OF 0. 3. BARRON, JR., CHAIRMAY-I, BEEF
DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE
Mr. BARRON. Would you like a little summary?
I~. POAGE. It would be helpful, yes.
MIr. BAHuoN. What we are aiming at is enabling legislation for
cattlemen to conduct a referendum on whether a two-thirds majority
favors a uniform collection for research, consumer information, pro-
motion, a(l market development. While it is not spelled out in the bill,
in thle tentative order that we prepared and are working on, the De-
partmownt of Agricl (tire people, we visualize the amount of collection
will be three-tenths of 1 percent, or 30 cents on $100 value of the ani-
mal. We also visualize that this can range, the amount of the collec-
tion, from one tenth of 1 percent to five-tenths of 1 percent. If it were
any greater than that it would have to go back to the producers for a
referendui and further approval.
11 program is voluntary in that a producer may, upon request, get
a referendum.
Ihe administration of the fund will be by a 68 member Beef Board
comprised of cattlemen nominated by existing cattlemen's organiza-
tions and appointed by the Secretary of Ariculture.
Tie Beef Board will contract with other organizations or insti-
tutions, such a> the National Livestock and Meat Board, State beef
coiliV, mlniversities, private agencies for special programs on research
and all of the things enumerated in the bill.
Ihe opportunities which we see can come into the industry through
this effort woul(l be consumer education on purchasing power, nu-
trition, beef economics, research on nutrition, health, marketing, pro-
duction, new beef products, improved merchandising methods, re-
duced cost of prodldlction, and so forth.
The (.o-,t to the Government will be nothing inasmuch as the Gd-
eminent will be reimbursed for all administrative and auditing ex-
penses, and the cost of the referendum, assuming, of course, that the
referendtmin pas--es.
Ouir latest estimate on the cost of the referendum is $319,000. We
have gotten that down from, I believe, $750,000. This estimate was
male by tie AS(,'S part of the USDA.
The substantive changes we have made in the bill, the last time we
met, Mr. Poage, you instnicte(t us to get with the USDA attorneys
and work out our differences. We have (hanged the title from 'Beef
Resear'ih and (onsumer Information Act" to "Beef Research and
Information Act." This was at the suggestion of Representative
Foley.
We also inlclide a new definition of "consumer information" to
replace ''consu1er. edlu~lctioi. This is all spelled out in the bill.
h'llen, working with the ULDA attorneys, the definition of "trans-
action" on page 5, line 9, basing assessment on the value of trans-






47


action rather than on value of cattle. Problems regarding death loss
and loss in value were eliminated by doing this.
The definition of "slaughterer" on page 12, line 5, was added in
place of "handler." We felt this clarified exactly what we meant by
f'slaughterer."
Page 7, line 11, "only slaughterers shall maintain and make aviil-
able books and records for inspection." Prior to that any buyer or
seller would have been included. This will simplify enforcemienit while
having no effect on collections. This was at the suggestion of USDA
and other parts of the beef industry.
On page 14, line 22, "The Secretary shall be reimbursed for the
cost of the referendum." This was sitggested by the USDA at the
insistence of ONIB. Originally, following the other cotnmodity bills,
we had expected that the Government would pay for the referendum,
but this does change it and the producers will pay for it from funds col-
lected by the program.
On page 16, line 7, "refund must be requested within 60 days instead
of 30 (lays." Tins was another change suggested by the USDA.
Mr. Chairman, those aresubstantially the changes which were made,
the substantive chdilg-s. There were some word changes for clari-
fication but those weretlre--i-iiain sul)stantive changes in the bill.
Mr. POAGE. With those changes I understand the Department is
willing to accept the bill and the industry feels the bill is acceptable.
The cattle representatives, I understand, want to go ahead with
this bill.
Mr. BARRON. Yes, sir.
Mr. POAGE. A two-thirds majority appear to be for it. If it (oes-
go into effect it will cost the Government nothing.
Mr. BARRON. That is right, sir.
Mr. BERGLAND. If I may inquire of Mr. Barron-oWpage 10, line
12, you deal with the matter of selecting the tperson. to serve on the
Beef Board. It refers to the power of the Secretary:
(b) Providing that the Beef Board, and alternates therefore, shall be composed
of cattle producers alq1ointed by the Secretary from norninatho1s submitted by
eligible producer organizations, associations or coeratives, within the geographic
area, and certified pursuant to section 15, or, if the Secretary deterniines that a
substantial number of producers are n)t inenibers of or their interests are no t.
rcpresentcd by any sueh eligible, organizations, associations, or cooperative. from
nominations made by such )r(ducers in th- manner authorized by the Secretary
so tAat, the repr sentzltin (,f )r(ducers on the Board shall reflect, to the extent
practicable, the I)rcportion of cattle produced in each geographic area of the United
States as defined by the Secretary.
Does that in your view suggest that the traditional cattlemen's
association, including livestock, feeders, will submit nominations,
and would it be limited to those kinds dealing exclusively with beef?
What about the general farm organizations? Would they be invited?
Mr. BARRON. They also would be invited; yes, sir.
Further back in the bill there is an outline of the criteria which
the Secretary would use in determining the eligibility of organiza-
tions. We feel the general farm organizations would be included;
yes, sir.
Mr. BERGLAND. I think you are aware that another s"i1coilIllittee
of this Commnitte on Agriculture has reported out a bill dealing with
the leach industry.
Mr. BARRON. Yes, sir.






M1r. BFRGLAND. The subcommiftee in that instance recommended
that a third of the iielber- of tie Board be consumers. How that, is
defined I do not know. I imaginet( We are all con.suiiiel.s..
0s this a matter to wich you have given some consideration? The
reason I raise tle l)oinlt is that l cre is a goo(1 deal of consuiner interest
in Ihis (1onuress. 1 wondered whether you have thought about this and
wll.t are the problems, if any.
Mr. BARuO,. Cs, sir, we certainly realize the consumer is the
customer for beef, but we (10 not think that the consunier as such
should )e in a )osition of decisionmaking on this program. We certainly
woulh welcome the advice and counsel of consumers. We realize we
have to work with consumers.
A good deal of the bill and the purpose of the bill are for consumer
education, for instance. However, as far as the admnistration is
concerned, we thii-k that should be in the hands of the people putting
the money into the program.
_N[I'. BERGLAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Barron.
Thiat is all I have now, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. The consumer pays no part of the bill and therefore
should have no part in the running of the bill.
Mr. Sebelius?
M'.Nr. SE13ELIUS. We have gotten the cost down to $319,000. The
language in the referendum section has not been changed except in
the one item. How do we envision we will hold this referendum now
to 50 percent of the package of $319,000?
M r. BARRON. Tentatively, the election would be a walk-in election
as the ASCS county offices. The office will be open for 1 week for 5
working (lays and in addition have an absentee provision prior to the
week it is set up. This would be advertised at a local level, of course,
and all producers would certainly be apprised of the times, places,
and the purpose.
Mr1h'. SEBELIus. Do you envision some form of official notice in the
county, to general farm organizations and cattle organizations, so
they will be advling their membership when and where they can go
in or(ler to certify themselves in order to cast their ballots?
i'. BARRON. Yes. In fact, our plans include making a very thorough
campaign really to apprise and to tell the producer what the program
is all about, explain it to them thoroughly, and certify we would make
every effort to have the largest possible turnout.
Mr. SEBELIUS. Do you feel this is the most efficient way in order
to gel the coverage we need in order that everyone may express
himself on the sil)ject?
Mr. BARRON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I think you are right. It is better than getting a
ballot in the mail, filling it out, and getting it back. Far too many
farmers are bus-, but they know they have to go by the ASCS office
t(, get the envelope. I think more will cast their ballots this way rather
than if they had to mail in an envelope. They perhaps might have
que-tions.
We are certainly not risking too much in your effort to have a
referendum.
Mr. BARRON. That is right, sir.
Mr. >EBELIUS. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. I have been trying
to read ip on the changes.






49


Mr. POAGE. Aniyhing further gentlemen?
Mr. BERGLAND. Iy State of Miimesota has beef promotion activity
un(er way.
Mr. BARRON. Yes, sir.
Ir. BERGLAND. It is an in(lustry thing.
Mr. BARRON. Thiat is right, sir.
Mr. BFRGLAND. To what extent, would this complement or conflict
with any State plan? Do yon see any op)orti nity here for COOp)eration
in order to develop an& enhance the activity of the various State
efforts?
Mr. BAnON. "eS sir, we certainly hope so. We have worked closely
with the State beef councils. We hol)e that there will be a complemen-
tary program.
In fact, we have a provision in the tentative order to return 10 per-
cent of the funds collected through thiis program to bona fide State
programs, such as the one in Minnesota.
In States where the population warrants, it could even make a con-
tract with State organizations an(] go beyond the 10 percent.
Mr. BERGLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. Are there any other comments or questions?
I see section 16 handed out. I don't know anything about the pur-
pose of it.
Mr. BOR. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision which had been sug-
gested by the cattle industry and had been contained in a bill which
was introduced in theSenate. Originally it was not included in the bill
that was introduced heaxe. in the house because it would have raised
some questions of jurisdiction -as to which committee in the Houso.
would have jurisdiction over the matter.
It would seem appropriate to have it included in our bill in order to
help avoid some question which has arisen with respect to patents and.,
copyrights with regard to other marketing orders.
Mr. POAGE. You think, then, we should pit this in our bill?
Mr. Boa. This has been suggested by the cattle industry as a pro-
vision
Mr. POAGE. I understand the desirability of the provision. You well
pointed out it raises a Jurisdictional question.
Do you think we ought to pUt it into owir bill? If it is to be in tho
Senate bill, why should we put it in our bill"
Mr. Boa. I t ink you raise a good point. This perhaps can be take
care of in conference, or if we (10 include it in our bill, we 1)erhaps need
a waiver from the Rules Committee.
Mr. POAGE. I know that. If we put it in our bill, we run into juris-
dictional" questions. he question I ask i, why are we doing it? What
do we gain by putting it in our bill except getting ftirt her trouble before
the Rules Committee and on the floor? We will run into enough of it at,
without 1)utting in something else. Why (1o we need this in the lHouse
bill? If there is need, I want to know. Is there any real need for )utting
it in the House bill?
I think you are telling us the Senate will have it in their bill, and
it is perfectly in order in the Senate bill, as-I understand it. Is that
righ t?
Mr. Bo. That. is my understnding, sir. The only problem that one
might whisk away is the question of whether it will get through the









Senate. Auming it doe,, I think we can leave it-out of our bill, and
this (can be t taken care of later (n in conference.
.M!r. PoA(E. It would seem to Me thi is just going out hunting for
trO'll)le whi(1 we (10 not nIe(I to hunt. I think we have all the trouble
we want to (eal with riglit now.
Mr. B \Puo-. II.R. 7656, the companion bill, hns not been intro-
duce(l in the Sente as of now. Their intention is to wait and take the
ttouse bill at the time the House has acted on the bill.
Con-dera tin would be whether it would be best to add this now
with the wNaiver from the Ju(liciary Committee or put it in the Senate
version and have it go before the House twice. Tfhat is the reason we
gave it to you at this time.
Mr. POAGE. The whole question is whether it is advisable to put it
in the Hlouse bill. If anybody has any judgment on that let us express
it. I lhave expre, seCd-s myself. I think it is not.
I think it would be perfectly foolish to put it in the House bil
when it is something which may cause further questions.
\Ir. BERGLAND. If I may inquire of counsel: In the absence of
section 16 what would happen in the event the property has developed
some value? To whom would the royalties flow?
Mr. BOR. I would like to ask one of the attorneys from the Depart-
ment to respond. We had this same type of issue come ip in the mar-
keting orders, promotion and research orders with regard to other com-
modities such as eggs and cotton, particularly cotton.
Mr. CHERNAUSKAS. The )roblem with the patent is that it raises a
question as to who owns any patents which would emanate from re-
search under this bill. Will the industry, a nebulous creature for these
purposes, own the patents or will they be owned, in effect, 'by the
Government which is sul)ervising the entire program?
I gather that the intent of this amendment, section 16 is'to allow
the Government to hold any patents in trust for the industry and allow
it to be utilized in the pb1)ic interest.
This particular amendment would clarify that question as to who
owns the patent rights to any development.
It cduld very well be that the intent of the bill in tote is that
tentss emanating from any research supervised by the Government
under the contribution bv industry would be held by the Secretary
in trust for the industry. Unless that area is clarified the title qltestion
would remain in doubt. Perhaps one way to do this would be to put it
in the report, the intent of the committee in reporting the bill. The
intent sought, by section 16 can be accomplished in this way.
In other words, say something in the committee report that you
intend that the Secretary shall hold title to the patent for the benefit
of the industry.
Mr. POAGE. I think we understand that if we do not act, if nobody
acts, any patent would belong to the Government. If we do act it will
belong to the Board.
If we act we certainly raise the question of the Rules Committee.
I just (1o not like the idea of weighting this thing down with a lot of
extra weight unless we have to. I do not see that we have to because it
seems to me to be perfectly clear that the other body can and probably
will take care of the situation within the rules. We are not asking them






51


to do anything outside the rules. Their rules are different from outrs
and it would be taken care of.
To me it (toes not make much sense to tie this on.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I think we might put in language in the record that
any regulations issued by the Secretary to implement this could well
take care of the problem.
Mr. POAGE. Is there legislation which exists at the present time
which would make these patents the property of the United States?
What do you lawyers say about that?
Ihr. (HERNAU KS. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that I believe
it should be construed that the Beef Board, ina"much as it is and will
be the agency of the Secretary, really is the Secretary for the purpose
of holding title to the patents-so, if that can be clear in the report
perhaps the problem can be obviated.
Mr. POAGE. Does anybody move to put this in the bill',
[No response.]
Mr. POAGE. If not, there is no point in it.
It occurs to me there are a couple of typographical errors here. In
the last 15 years there have not been 15 bills come from the Govern-
ment Printing Office which did not have errors in them. It used to bo
years ago we got correct bills but the Government Printing Office has
gotten woi'se fhan the Post Office.
Mr. THONE. No, it is not worse than the Post Office.
Mr. POAGE. Let's say it has fallen into the evil ways of the Post
Office. We always haye to make corrections. Again, merely as a inatter
of mechanics, as far as I am concerned, I will ask that we correct the
typographical errors rather than to go on the floor with a series, of
committee amendments. Tj he minute you go on the floor with a series
of committee amendments everyone wonders what they change. It
may not change anything, but it is an atiendient nevertleless.
I think we would be better off o ask to correct typographical errors
than to go on the floor with committee amendments if we can avoid it.
We want to avoid everything we can.
Do I get a motion?
Mr. BERGLAND. I move the staff be instructed to correct the tech-
nical and typographical errors contained in the printed copy of the bill
H.R. 7656.
Mr. POAGE. Without objection it is so ordered ,
Mr. BERGLAND. I move the bill be reported to the full committee.
Mr. POAGE. All those in favor? Opposed?
It is unanimous. The bill will be reported with the recommendation
that it be passed.
We thank our visitors and we thank the members who came in to
enable us to get a quorum.
The committee will stand in recess subject to call of the Chair.
[Whereupon, at 10:10 a.m., the committee recessed, to reconveile
at the call of the Chair.]
[H.R. 7656 follows:]









94Tl CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 7656




IN TILE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JuNE 5, 1975
Mr. FOLEY (for himself, Mr. PAGE, Mr. WAMSPLE Mr. SYeELrUs, Mr. ALEX-
ANDIEJ, Mr. BERGLAND, Mr. BOWEN, Mr. CEDERBERO, Mr. DE LA GARZ., Mr.
HiGHTOWER, Mr. JONFS of Tennessee, Mr. JoNEs of North Carolina, Mr.
Lrm'oN, Mr. MAHON, Mr. PATMAN, Mr. RAHLBACK, Mr. Smuvm, Mr.
SKuIITZ, Mr. THONE, Mr. TiioRNTOx, and Mr. TRAXLER) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture




A BILL
To enable cattle producers to establish, finance, and carry out a
coordinated program of research, producer and consumer
information, and promotion to improve, maintain, and
develop markets for cattle, beef, and beef products.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 ties of the United Stales of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act shall be known as the "Beef Research and
4 Infoirmation Act".
5 LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF POLICY
61 SEC. 2. Beef constitutes one of the basic, natural foods

7 in the diet. It is produced by many individual cattle pro-
/ *1-0






53


2

1 ducers throughout the United States. Cattle, beef, aind beef

2 products move in interstate and foreign commerce and those
3 which do not move in such channels of commerce directly

4 burden or affect interstate commerce of cattle, beef, and

5 beef products. The maintenance and expansion of existiing

6 markets and the development of new or improved nmrkets
7 and uses are vital to the welfare of cattle producer's and

8 those concerned with marketing, using, and processing beef
9 as well as the general economy of the Nation. The prodtc-

10 tion and marketing of cattle, beef, and beef products by
11 numerous individual persons in the cattle and beef industry

12 have prevented the development and carrying out of ade-

13 quate and coordinated programs of research, information.
14 and promotion necessary for the maintenance of inarkets

15 and the development of new products of, and market- for
16 cattle, beef, or beef products. Without an effective and co-

17 ordinated method for assuring cooperative and collective

18 action in providing for and financing sucl prtogran11, inldi-

19 v- ual cattle producers are unable to provide, o)tain. or

20 carry out the research, consumer and producer informationn.

21 and promotion necessary to maintain and improve nmarketV

22 for cattle, beef, and beef products.

23 It has long been recognized that it is in the public iii-
24 terest to provide an adequate, steady supply of high quality

25 beef and beef products readily av-ilal)le to the cotu)isunuer of






54


1 the 'N'ation. Maintenance of markets and the development
2 of new markets, both domestic and foreign, are essential .to
3 the cattle industry if the consumers of beef and beef products
4 are to be assured of an adequate, steady supply of such
5 products at reasonable price..

6 It is therefore declared to be the policy of ,the Congress
7 and the purpose of this Act that it is essential and in the

8 public interest, through the exercise of the powers provided
9 herein, to authorize and enable the establishment of an

10 orderly procedure for the development and the financing

11 through an adequate assessment of an effective and continuous
12 coordinated program of research consumer ,information,

13 producer information, and promotion designed to strengthen
14 the cattle and beef industry's position in the marketplace,

15 and maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and
16 uses for United States beef. Nothing in this Act shall be

17 construed to mean, or provide for, control of production or

18 otherwise limit the right of individual cattle producers to

19 produce cttle or beef.
20 DEFINITIONS

21 SEc. 3. As used in this Act-
22 (a) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of

23 Agriculture or any other officer or employee of the Depart-

24 ment of Agriculture to Wholm there has heretofore been dele-








4

1 gated, or to whom there may hereafter be delegated, the
2 authority to act in his stead.
3 (b) The term "person" means any individual, group of
4 individuals, partnership, corporation, association, cooperative,
5 or any other entity.
6 (c) The term "cattle" means live domesticated bovine
7 quadrupeds.
8 (d) The term "beef" means the flesh of cattle.
9 (e) The term "beef products" means products produced
10 in whole or in part from cattle, exclusive of milk and prod-
11 ucts made therefrom.
12 (f) The term "producer" means any person who owns
13 or acquires ownership of cattle: Provided, That a person
14 shall not be considered to be a producer if his only share

15 in the proceeds of a sale of cattle or beef is a sales commis-
16 sion, handling fee., or other service fee.
17 (g) The term "producer-buyer" means a producer who
18 buys cattle.

19 (h) The term "producer-seller" means a producer wbo
20 sells cattle.
21 (i) The term "United States" means the fifty States of
22 the United States of America and the District of Colunibia.
23 (j) The term "promotion" means any action to advance
24 the image or desirability of beef and beef products.
25 (k) The term "research" means any type of research






56


5
1 to advance the desirability, marketability, production, or
2 quality of cattle, beef, and beef products.
3 (1) The term "consumer information" means facts, data,
4 and other information that will assist consumers and other
5 persons in making evaluations and decisions regarding the
6 purchasing, preparation, and utilization of beef and beef
7 products.

8 (m) The term "producer information" means facts,
9 data, and other information that will assist producers in
10 making decisions that lead to increased efficiency, lower cost
11 of production, a stable supply of cattle, and the development
12 of new markets.
13 (n) The term "marketing" means the sale or other
14 disposition of cattle, beef, or beef products, in any channel
15 of commerce.
16 (o) The term "commerce" means interstate, foreign, or
17 intrastate commerce.
18 (p) The term "transaction" means the transfer of own,
19 ership of Cattle or beef through a sale, trade, or other meaiq
20 of exchange.
21 (q) The term "slaughterer" means any person, speci-
22 fled in the order or the rules and regulations issued there-
23 under, who slaughters cattle, including cattle of his own
24 production.






57


6

BEEF RESEARCH AND PROMOTION ORI)ER

2 Sc. 4. To effectuate the declared policy of this A-ct, the
3' Secretary shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, issuc
4 and from Iime to time amend an order a)plicable to pro-
5 ducers aid slaughterers. Such an order shall be al)plicalle
6 to al e.s in the United States.
7 NOTICE AND HEARING

8 S Fc. 5. Whenever the Secretary has reason to )elicve
9 that the issuance of an order will tend to effectuate the

10 declared policy of this Act., he shall give due notice and
11 bpportunityfor hearing upon a proposed order. Such hearing

12 may be requested and proposal for an order submitted by an

13 organization certified pursuant to section 15 of this Act,
14 or by any interested person affected by the provisions of
15 this Act, including the Secretary.
16 FINDING AND ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER
17 SEC. 6. After notice and opportiity for lrillerg as 1)ro-

18 vided i'l section 5, the Secretary shall issue a-in order if lie

19 finds, and sets forth in such order, upon the evidence intro-
20 duced at such bearing, that the issuance of such order and all
21 the terms and conditions thereof vill tend to effectuate the
22 declared policy'of this Act.

23 PERMISSIVE TERMS IN OII)EI?
24 SEC. 7. Any order issued pursuant to this Act shall con-






58


7

tain one or more of the following terms and conditions, and
2 except as provided in section 8, no others:
3 (a) Providing for the establishment, issuance, effectua-
4 tion, and administration of appropriate plans or projects for
5 advertising, promotion, producer information, and consumer

6 information with respect to the use of cattle, beef, or beef
7 products and for the disbursement of necessary funds for sueb

8 purposes: Provided, hoever, That any such plan or project
9 shall be directed toward increasing the general demand for

10 cattle, beef, or beef products. No reference to a private brand
11 or trade name shall be made if the Secretary determines that
12 such reference will result in undue discrimination against the

13 cattle, beef, or beef products of other persons.
14 (b) Providing for, establishing, and carrying on re-
15 search, market development projects, and studies with respect
16 to sale, distribution, marketing, utilization, or production of

17 cattle, beef, or beef products, and the creation of new prod-

18 ticts thereof, to the end that the production, marketing, and

19 utilization of cattle, beef, or beef products may be encour-
20 aged, expanded, improved, or made more acceptable, and.
21 the data collected by such activities may be disseminated,
22 and providing for the disbursement of necessary funds for
23 such purposes.

24 (c) Providing flat slaughterers shall maintain and make








8
.. available for the inspection such books and records as may be

2 required by any order or regulations issued pursuant to this
3 Act and for the filing of reports by such persons at the.time,
4 in the manner, and having content prescribed by the order or

5 regulations to the end that information and data shall be made

6 available to .the Beef Board and to the Secretary which is
7 appropriate or necessary to the effectuation, administration,
8 or enforcement of the Act, or of any order or regulation issued
9 pursuant to this Act: Provided, however, That all information
10 so obtained shall be kept confidential by all officers and
11 employees of the Department of Agriculture and of the Beef

12 Board, and by all officers and employees of contracting agen-
13 cies having access to such information, and only such infor-

14 mation so furnished or acquired as the Secretary deems
15 relevant shall be disclosed by them, and then only in a suit or
16 administrative hearing brought at the direction, or upon the
17 request, of the Secretary, or to which he or any officer of
18 the United States is a party, and involving the order with
19 reference to which the information so to be disclosed was

20 furnished or acquired. Nothing in this section shall be deemed
21 to prohibit (1) the issuance of general statements based upon
22 the reports of the number of persons subject to an order or
23 statistical data collected therefrom, which statements do
24 not identify the information furnished by any person, (2) the
25 publication of general statements relating to refunds made






60


9
1 by the Beef Board during any specific period, which state-
2 ments do not identify any person to whom refunds are made,
3 or (3) the publication by direction of the Secretary of the
4 name of any person violating any order, together with a
5 statement of the particular provisions of the order violated
6 by such person. Any such officer or employee violating the
7 provision of the subsection shall, upon conviction, be sub-
8 jected to a fine of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment
9 for not more than one year, or to both, and if an officer or
10 employee of the Beef Board or the Department of Agricul-
11 ture, he shall be removed from office.

12 (d) Terms and conditions incidental to and not incon-
13 sisteit with the terms and conditions specified in this Act
14 and necessary to effectuate the other provisions of such

15 order.
16 REQUIRED TERMS IN ORDER
17 Sc. 8. Any order issued pursuant to this Act slall

18 contain the following terms and conditions;

19 (a). Providing for the establishment and appointment,
20 by the Secretary, of a Beef Board which shall consist of not
21 i-uore than sixty-eight members, and alternates therefor, and
22 defining its powers and duties which shall include only the
23 powers (1) to administer such order in accordance with its
24 terms and provisions, (2) to make rules and regulations to
2- effectuate the terms and provisions of such order, (3) to









10

1 receive, investigate, and report to the Secretary complaints

2 of violations of such order, (4) to recommend to the Secre-
3 tary amendments to such order. The term of an appointment
4 to the Beef Board shall be for three years with no memtiber
5 serving more than six consecutive years, except that initial

6 appointment shall be proportionately for one, two, and thvc
7 years: Pirolided, That the Beef Board may appoint from its

8 members an executive committee, consisting of not less than
9 seven nor more than eleven members, with authority to

10 employ a staff and conduct routine l)usiness within the
11 policies determined by the Beef Board.
12 (b) Providing that the Beef Board, and alternates there-

13 for, shall be composed of cattle producers appointed by the
14 Secretary from nominations submitted -by eligible producer
15 organizations, associations, or cooperatives, within the geo-
16 graphic area, and certified pursuant to section 15, or, if the
17 Secretary determines that a substantial number of producers

18 are not members of or their -interests are not represented by

19 any such eligible organizations, associations, or cooperatives,
20 from nominations made by such producers in the manner

21 authorized by the Secretary so that the representation of
22 producers on the Board shall reflect, to the extent practicable,
23 the proportion of cattle produced in each geographic area of

24 the United States as defined by the Secretary: Provided,

25 That the Beef Board shall from time to time, with the ap-






62


11

1 proval of the Secretary, redesignate representation on the
2 Beef Board so as to reflect the proportion of cattle in each
3 geographic area: Provided, however, That each such desig-
4 nated geographic area shall be entitled to at least one rep-
5 resentative on the Beef Board.

6 (c) Providing that the Beef Board shall, subject to the
7 provisions of subsection (g) of this section, develop and
8 submit to the Secretary for his approval any advertising,

9 sales promotion, consumer information, producer information,
10 research, and development plans or projects, and that any
11 such plan or project must be approved by the Secretary
12 before becoming effective.

13 (d) Providing that the Beef Board shall, subject to the
14 provisions of subsection (g) of this section, submit to the
15 Secretary for his approval budgets on a fiscal period basis of
16 its anticipated expenses and disbursements in the adminis-
17 tration of the order, including probable costs of advertising,
18 promotion, producer information, consumer information, re-

19 search, dnd development projects.
20 (e) Providing, that-
21 (1) In each transaction where a producer sells or
22 otherwise transfers ownership of cattle to any other pro-

23 ducer, each such producer-seller shall pay to the pro-
24 ducer-buyer and each porducer-buyer shall collect from
25 the producer-seller an assessment based on the value of--






63


12

1 the cattle involved in the transation. Each producer
2 who sells to a slaughterer or otherwise arranges for the
3 slaughter of his cattle shall pay to the slaughterer and
4 the slaughterer shall collect from such producer an assess-
5 ment based on the value of the cattle involved. The

6 slaughterer shall remit assessment(s) collected to the
7 Beef Board in the manner prescribed by the order or
8 the regulations issued thereunder, including any assess-
9 ment (s) due at time of slaughter on cattle of his own

10 production. In the event no sales transaction occurs at
11 the point of slaughter, a fair value shall be attributed
12 to the cattle at the time of slaughter for the purposes of

13 determining the assessment: Provided, That the Beef
14 Board may exempt from or vary the assessment on trans-
15 actions of breeding animals or classes of breeding animals
16 until time of slaughter: Provided further, That the Beef
17 Board may collect directly from any producer any assess-
18 ments that he collected under the provisions of this Act,
19 %. which are not passed along in the usual manner due to
20 the loss in value of the cattle.
21 (2) The rate of assessment shall be as prescribed by
22 the order and shall provide for such expenses a id ex-
23 penditures, including provision for a reasonable reserve,
24 and any referendum and administrative costs incurred by

25 the Secretary under this Act, as the Secretary finds are






64


13

1 reasonable and likely to be incurred by the Beef Board
2 under the order durig any period specified by him.
3 (3) To facilitate the collection of assessments, the
4 Beef Board may specify different procedures for slaugh-
5 terers, or classes of slaughterers, to recognize differences

6 in marketing practices or procedures utilized in the
7 industry.
8 (4) The Secretary may maintain a suit against any
9 person subject to the order for the collection of such

10 assssment and the several district courts of the United
11 States are hereby vested with jurisdiction to entertain
12 such suits regardless of the amount in controversy.
13 (f) Providing that the Beef Board shall maintain such

14 books and records and prepare and submit such reports from

15 time to time to the Secretary as he may prescribe, and for
16 appropriate accounting by the Beef Board with respect to
17 the receipt and disbursement of all funds entrusted to it.
18 (g) Providing that the Beef Board, with the approve
19 of the Secretary, may enter into contracts or agreements for

20 development and carrying out the activities authorized under
21 the order pursuant to section 7 (a) and (b) and for the pay-
22 meit of the cost thereof with funds collected pursuant to the
23 order. Any such contract or agreement shall provide that

24 such contractors shall develop and submit to the Beef Board
25 a plan or project together with a budget or budgets which






65


14

1 shall show estimated costs to be incurred for such plan or

2 project, and that any such plan or project shall become cffec-
3 tive upon the approval of the Secretary, and further, shall
4 provide that the contracting parties shall keep accurate rec-

5 ords of all of their activities ,and make periodic reports to
6 the Beef Board of activities carried out and an accounting for

7 funds received and expended, and such other reports as the
8 Secretary may require.

9 (h) Providing that no funds collected by the Beef Board
10 under the order shall in any manner be used for the purpose

11 of influencing governmental policy or action, except as pro-
12 vided by subsection (a) (4) of this section.

13 (i) Providing the Beef Board members, and alternates
14 therefore, shall -serve without compensation, 'but shall be
15 reimbursed for their reasonable expenses incurred in per-
16 forming their duties as members of theBeef Board.
17 REQUIREMENT OF REFERENDUM AND CATTLE PRODUCER

18 APPROVAL

19 SEC. 9. The Secretary shall conduct a referendum as
20 soon as practicable among producers who at amiy time, dur-

21 ing a consecutive twelve-month representative period pre-
22 ceding the date of the referendum, as determined by the
23 Secretary, have been engaged in the production of cattle

24 for the purpose of ascertaining whether the issuance of an
25 order is approved or favored by such producers. No order




66


15
1 issued pursuant to this Act shall be effective unless the See-
2 retary determines that the issuance of such order is approved
3 or favored by not less than two-thirds of the producers vot-
4 ing in such referendum, or by a majority of the producers
5 voting in such referendum if such majority owned not less

6 than two-thirds of the cattle owned by producers voting in
7 the referendum. For purposes of determining the number
8 of cattle owned by producers voting, each producer shall
9 be credited with the largest number of cattle owned on any
10 one day during the representative period. The Secretary
11 shall be reimbursed from assessments collected by the Beef
12 Board for any expenses incurred for the conduct of the

13 referendum.
14 SUSPENSION AND TERMINATION OF ORDERS
15 SEC. 10. (a) The Secretary shall, whenever he finds
16 that any order issued under this Act, or any provision (s)

17 thereof, obstructs or does not tend to effectuate the declared
18 policy of this Act, terminate or suspend the operation of such

19 order or such provision (s) thereof.
20 (b) The Secretary may conduct a referendum at any
21 time, and shall hold a referendum on request of 10 per cen-
2 turn or more of the number of producers voting in the
23 referendum approving the order, to determine whether such
24 producers favor the termination or suspension of the order,
25 and he shall suspend or terminate such order six months after









16
I he determines that suspension or termination of the order is
2 i approved or favored by a majority of the producers
3 voting in such referendum who, during a representative
4 period determined by the Secretary, have been engaged in

5 the production of cattle, and who produced more than 50 per
6 centum of the volume of cattle produced by the producers

7 voting in the referendum.
8 (c) The termination or suspension of any order, or any
9 provision thereof, shall not be considered an order within the
10 meaning of this Act.

11 PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO AMENDMENTS
12 SEc. 11. The provisions of this Act applicable to orders
13 shll be applicable to amendments to orders.
14 PRODUCER REFUND

15 SEC. 12. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this

16 Act, any producer against whose cattle any assessment is
17 made and collected from him under authority of this Act
18 and who is not in favor of supporting the programs as

19 provided for herein shall have the right to demand and
20 receive from the Beef Board a refund of such assessment:
21 Provided, That such demand shall be made in accordance
22 with regulations on a form and within a time period pre-
23 scribed by the Board and approved by the Secretary but in

24 no event more than sixty days after the end of the month
25 in which the sale or slaughter of said cattle occurred and





68


17
1 upon submission of proof satisfactory to the Board that the
2 producer paid the assessment for which refund is sought,
3 and any such refund shall be made within sixty days after
4 demand is received therefor: Provided, however, That no
5 producer shall claim or receive a refund of any portion of an
6 assessment which he collected from other producers.
7 PETITION AND REVIEW

8 SEC. 13. (a) Any person subject to any order may file
9 a written petition with the Secretary, stating that any such
10 order or any provision of such order or any obligation
11 imposed in connection therewith is not in accordance with
12 law and praying for a modification thereof or to be exempted
13 therefrom. He shall thereupon be given an opportunity for a
14 hearing upon such petition, in accordance with regulations
15 made by the Secretary. After such hearing, the Secretary
16 shall make a ruling upon the prayer of such petition which
17 shall be final, if in accordance with law.
18 (d) The district courts of the United States in any dis-
19 trict in which such person is an inhabitant, or has his prin-
20 cipal place of business, are hereby vested with jurisdiction to
21 review such ruling, provided a. complaint for that purpose
22 is filed within twenty days from the date of the entry of such
23 ruling. Service of process in such proceedings may -be had
24 upon the Secretary by delivering to him a copy of the com-
25 plaint. If the court determines that such ruling is not in










1 ccordtncfe witl lal it shall renand such proceedings t"
2 th Secretary with directioiis ith( r (1) towinake such ruling
as the cniort shal ldeternin to be in accordance with the
4 law, or* (2) to take -such further proceedings as, in its
5 opinion;' the law 'requireA.' The :pendency- of proceedings in-

6 stituted pursuant"'to ubietfin'; (.)a f this section shall n6t
7 impede, hiiider,' ordelay the United: States or the Secretary
8 from obtaining relief pursuant to seciion 14 (a) of this Act.
9- ENFORCEMENT

10 SEC.' 14. (a') The several district courts '-of the United
11 States are vested with jurisdition specifically to enforce,

12 and to prevent and restrain any person-from violating any
13 order or regulation niide or issued pursuant to this Act. Any

14 civil action authorized to be brought Under this' Act shall be
15 referred to the Attorney 0eneirl for appropriate action:

16 Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as
17 requiring the Secre tary'to efer'to 'the Att6rney General

18 minor violations of this Act whenever lie believes that the
19 administration and -enfoicemen't'of the program would be
20 adIeqiately -served 'by suitable written notice or warning to

21 any person committing such violation. .
22 ('b) Any p~rmon who violates any provision of any
23 order issued 'by the ',Scretary under this Act, or who fails
24 -or refuses to oolleet r -reit tiany .asessmen-t duly required
25 of him ,thereunder, 'hall be liable to a penalty of not leA:s





70


19
1 than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 for each such viokition

2 which shall accrue to the United Stn tes *nd m.qy be recov-
3 ered in la civil suit 'brought by the United States: Provided,
4 That subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be in addi-
5 tion to, and not exclusive of, thi remedies provided now or
6 hereafter existing ut law or in equity.
7 CERTIFICATION OF ORGANIZATIONS
8 SEC. 15. The eligibility of any organization -to reresent
9 producers of any designated geographic nrea of the United
10 States to request the issuance of an order under section 5,
11 and 'to participate in the mking of nrominations under see-
12 tion 8 (b) shall be certified by the Secretary. Certification
13 shall be heased, in addition to other available information,

14 upon a factual report submitted 'by the organization which
15 shall contain information deemed relevant and specified by
16 the Secretary for 'the making of such determination, includ-
17 i g, but net limited to, the following:
18 (a) geographic territory covered by the organiza-

19 ,tion's active membership,
20 (b) nature and size of the organization's active
21 membership, proportion of total of such active member-
22 ship accounted for by producers of cattle, and the volume
23 of cattle produced by the organization's active member-
24 ship in each such State,
25 (c) the extent to which the cattle producer mere-








20

1 bership of such organization is represent e in setting the
2 organization's policies,
3 (d) evidence of stability and permanency of the

4 organization,
5 (e) sources from which the organization's operat-

6 ing funds are derived,
7 (f) functions of the organization, and

8 (g) the organization's ability and willingness to
9 further the aims and objectives of this Act:
10 Provided, however, That the primary consideration in deter-
11 mining the eligibility of an organization shall be whether its
12 producer membership consists of a substantial number of
13 producers who produce a substantial volume of cattle sub-
14 ject to the provisions of this Act. The Secretary shall certify

15 any organization which he finds to be eligible under this
16 section and his determination as to eligibility shall be final.
17 Where more than one organization is certified in any geo-

18 graphic area, such organizations may caucus to determtine

19 thc area's nominations under section 8 (b).
20 STATE BEEF BOARDS
21 SEc. 16. Nothing in this Act shall ue construed to
22 preempt or interfere with the workings of any beef board,
23 beef council, or other beef promotion entity organized and
24 operating within and by authority of any of the several
25 States.






72


21
1 RGULMATONS
2 SEC. 17. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations
3 with the force and effect of law as may be necessary
4 to carry out the provisions of this Act and the powers
5 vested in him by this Act.
6 INVFTIGATIONS: POWER TO SUBPENA AND TAKE OATHS
7 AND AFFIRMATIONS: AID OF COURTS
8 SEC. 18. The Secretary may make such investigation 'as
9 he deems necessary for the effective carrying out of his
10 responsibilities under this Act or to determine whether a
11 producer or slaughterer of cattle or any other person has en-
12 gaged or is about to engage in any acts or practice which
13 constitute or will constitute a violation of any provisions of
14 this Act, or of any order, or rule or regulation issued under
15 this Act. For the purpose of such investigation, the Secretary
16 is empowered to administer oaths and affirmations, subpoena
17 witnesses, compel their attendance, take evidence, and re-
18 quire the production of any books, papers, and documents
19 which &re relevant to the inquiry. Such attendance of wit-
20 nesses and the production of any such records may be
21 required from any place in the United States. In case of
22 contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena to, any person,
23 including a producer, the Secretary may invoke the aid of
24 any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of
25 which such investigation or proceeding is carried on, or where






73


22

1 such person resides or carries on business, in requirilig the

2 attendance and testiniony of witnesses and the production
3 of books, papers, and documents; and such court may is-sie

4 an order requiring such person to appear before the Sec'c-
5 tary, there to produce records, if so ordered, or to gi\C

6 testimony touching the matter under investigation. Any

7 failure to obey such order of the court. may he punished b)y
8 such court as a contempt thereof. All process in any such case
9 may b)e served in the judicial district whereof such person is

10 an inhabitant or wherever he may be found.

11 SE]AP ABI LITY
12 SEc. 19. If any provision of this Act 01 the application

13 thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, tle
14 validity of tie remainder of the Act and of the ,application
15 of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not
16 be affected thereby.

17 AUTHORIZATION

18 SEC. 20. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated
19 out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise al)propriated

20 such funds as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this
21 Act. The funds so appropriated shall not be available for

22 payment of the expenses or expenditures of the Beef Board

23 in administering any provisions of any order issued pturstiant
24 to the terms of this Act.
25 FF1(T IVE I)ATE
26 iE'. 2 1. This Act shall take effect 11pn 'mctinicut.














BEEF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ACT


THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1975
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COIIITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1301.
Lonrwortli House Office Building, Ion. W. R. Poage (vice chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Viagorito, Jones of
Tennessee, Melcher, Bergland, Brown, Nolan, Weaver. Baldus, Krebs.
Harkin, Hightower, English, D'Amours, Sebelius, Findley, Symms,
Johnson, Kelly, Grassley, Hagedorn.
Staff present: Robert M. Bor. counsel; John E. Hogan, associate
counsel; Glenda Temple and Mary Jarratt, staff assistants; L. T.
Easley, press assistant.
Mr. POAGE. The committee will come to order.
The Committee on Agriculture is meeting this morning for final
consideration of H.R. 7656, a bill to enable cattle producers to estab-
lish, finance, and carry out a coordinated program. of research, pro-
ducer and consumer information, and promotion to improve, main-
tain, and develop markets for cattle, beef, and beef products.
We are here to consider this program of research for cattle im-
provement. The program has been discussed. I know that we have
some who might want to consider offering some amendments.
Mr. JoHxsoN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGGE. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JoHNsoN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a Findley amend-
ment to offer.
Mr. MELCIIER. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Melcher.
Mr. MELCIIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment.
Mr. POAGE. I want to move this as rapidlv as possible because the
House is meeting at 11 o'clock.
Mr. MELCIIER. I have an aitiendment to section 9. The clerk has a
copy of that amendment.
Would you please pass it out?
Mr. POAGE. Where is it?
Mr. MELCHER. It is section 9. It, deals with how the referendum is
run, and with cattle producer approval.
As it now stands in the bill, in section 9, the bill says i~f a majority of
those who voted were in favor of the referendum anm owned two-third>
of the cattle, then it would carry.
This would be a weighted proposition.
(75)






76


Again, we have not identified how many people are eligible to vote,
or provided any safeguards on eligibility.
The amendment that I am offering here is known as a Farm Bureau
amendment. Quite often I disagree with the Farm Bureau.
I have votes on record that are absolutely contrary to the Farm
Bureau position. However, in this instance I think that they are
correct.
What they are seeking to do is something worthwhile. Perhaps my
office has rearranged this a little or polished off a point or two and
modified it, but what is sought in this amendment that I am offering
is to make a more democratic process and a more responsible process
out of this referendum.
In the amendment you have before you, we have underlined the
sentences and words which we would add. That which is struck
through are the words and sentences which would be eliminated.
I will first direct my attention to the underlined sentence which is
the key one. I will read it. "The Secretary shall establish a procedure
whereby all known cattle producers are notified of the referendum."
We know that this is difficult. It is very difficult to find everyone
who owns cattle: whether it be a milk cow or a 4-H calf or something
like that.
We know it is difficult. But we are sure that the Secretary can
establish some kind of procedure whereby the producers are notified.
Those producers are to be notified of the time and place of balloting
and that there is going to be a balloting, first of all. The producers
would register with the ASCS in person or by mail to vote in that
referendum, creating an opportunity to check the voter list.
Then we require of those who have registered for it to be a. good
and valid referendum that at least 50 percent of those registered have
to vote.
Otherwise you would not have found out by a fair sample what the
producers think about this subject.
I want to strike out the present provision that where a majority of
the producers voting in such referendum owning two-thirds of the
cattle, the referendum shall pass.
I like big feedlots, and I think that they are extremely important.
They are vital in our livestock industry. But I do not think it would
be fair for one company with 150,000 head to have a vote which would
be overwhelming in the referendum. That would place too much
emphasis merely on large cattle numbers. It does not comply with our
usual democratic procedures.
Mr. KELLY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MNELCIIER. Yes.
Mr. POAGE. I do not want to cut you off, but I believe that you have
had 5 minutes.
Mr. MELCHER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. PO(AGE. This can go on and on. If we do prolong this then I can
assure you that this will kill consideration of this bill this morning.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. Yes, sir.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Melcher a
question.








Mr. Melcher, I certainly recognize the inilportant improvement that
your amendment makes in the bill. Would tleie not, tlowever, be soine
merit in another proposition?
If we are doing something for the farmers and the ranchers. if we
really want to help them and not because we want to bir brother tl,
but rather because this is something that they need, then would it not
make more sense to make this provide for votes to be cast by ) 50 percent
of the qualified producers
I say this because if people do not have enough interest to vote or
to act as though they are interested in the prograni, then we are doing
them a favor that they really are not very interested in having done.
If we identified the qualified producers, then we should have 50
percent of them voting in favor, or two-thirds of them voting in favor
as opposed to those who merely go alnd register.
You will get activists registering as opposed to meat produlcers.
We are interested in meat producers. 'We should not try to impose our
judgment on them.
Although we may be knowledgeable in agriculture. they are the real
experts. They are tie people who have to fight the battles.
They are the ones who have to do this. If the program is for them
and it is a good one, then they ought to be the ones who indicate that
they want it, and have enough courage to vote for it.
Mr. MELCILER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KELLY. Yes.
Mr. HELCIER. That is exactly what we are trying to do. We are
trying to establish a system of registering voters that, in effect. makes
them qualified.
Mr. KELLY. Yes.
Mr. MTELCHIER. The second part of my amendment states that in
order for it to be a valid referendum, then at least 50 percent of those
registered as producers must have voted in the referendum.
Mr. KELLY. Right. but what I an sirgestinr is that it might be
more realistic to make it 50 percent of the (qualified producers, rather
than the registered producers as such.
I say this because if all of the qualified producers are notified and
they do not have enough interest in the program to even register, then
you see what I mean.
Mr. MELCHER. 'Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KELLY. Yes.
Mr. MELCHER. Now, I see your point. You are stating that there may
be some who are qualified producers. but who do not bother- to i-egister'.
Mr. KELLY. Right.
Mr. MELCHER. You would make it even tougher than I would.
This amendment does not make it that tough.
This merely says that if they are interested to register then they do
become the qualified voters. At least half of them would have to vote
to make it a valid referendum.
Mr. KELLY. If they do not register, then they are not qualified to vote.
but they are still the people whom we are trying to help.
They are still the meat producers. They still know how to run their
farms.






78


Mr. MFLCHER. I understand the gentleman's point, and I do not
argue the point.
I am trying to make this a bill which is modified enough to assure
a real representation of cattle producer's sentiment. It does not go quite
as far as your desire. I am going just part of the way on that.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, is an amendment to the amendment in
order?
Mr. POAGE. Yes; an amendment to the amendment is in order at this
time.
Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, at this time would like to
dinelid the amendment of Mr. Melcher by striking the word "regis-
tered" and insertin(r the word "qualified."
That would be in reference to line 15 and line 16.
Mr. KRBS. Will the gentleman yield ?
Mr. KELLY. Yes.
Mr. KREBS. Thank you.
It appears to me that it would be difficult for us to vote on this
amendment to the amendment at the present time without a definition
of the word "qualified" or "qualifying".
Mr. KELLY. It is my intention that the word qualified would have ap-
peared previously in the amendment.
It says here that the Secretary shall establish a procedure whereby
all known cattle producers are notified of the referendum, and the time
and place of balloting and qualified producers may register.
It would be the use of that same term. If that term needs a definition
where I have inserted it, then it would also need definition elsewhere.
Mr. KREBS. I agree.
I do, however, think that we should have some definition for the
word "qualified."
It may mean something to you but it may mean something else to me.
Mr. KELLY. The logic of that appeals to me, although it did not
occur to me.
Mr. POAGE. The Chair is going to ask if it would be agreeable that
we spend only 2 minutes discussing these amendments, rather than 5.
We only have 15 minutes left.
If we did not get through this in that time, then a great deal of
time would be lost. We would not like to have that. Nor would we like
to have this discussion go beyond what is reasonable.
If we do not get through this their that would have exactly the same
effect as just killing it without any vote.
We are here talking about democracy and we ought to have democ-
racy. We really ought to be able to get to a vote on it.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement to make and
then I would be glad to yield.
Mr. POAGE. Judge Kelly, you have already had 6 minutes for your
short statements.
Under any rules, you have had more than 5 minutes to this time.
Mr. KELLY. If I have had more than my share, Mr. Chairman, then
I certainly would say that I have had more than my share. I apologize.
Mr. POAGE. I recognize Ir. Sebelius.
Mr. SEBELIUS. I would like to oppose this amendment. Mr. Findley
has a very simple amendment to offer.
It sounds like this is going to cost millions and millions of dollars.






79

We have a very simple way for them to comie in and qualify and
certify what they produce.
After they have done this thent the referendum would be siliiple.
All that is neces-sary is for this to b done by mail.
It is all so simple.
Now, if you want to kill the bill, then just go out and play around
and tack on e{xj)elnes. I know that s(omiebodv is going to have to pic'k
up the tab.
Farm Bureau has not only a magazine, but also a national magLazine,
a newspaper. bullet ins, newsletters, and they Ca11 notify People very
fully and easily.
The Farm Bureau and NFO are fine organizations, but if they want
to include every 4-i1 mtiember in thai iiianner, then we will find the
whole system messed up.
We are trying to do something very important and very proper.
We are trying to help out this list of 75 people who are interested in
beef and want to do something about the way research is being
handled.
I guess my 2 minutes are up.
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Jones of Tennessee.
MNr. JONES of Tennessee. I would like to associate myself with the
thoughts of the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Sebelius.
If you look at this program, you find that in all of our previous
prorai. there is a checlkoff svstelll. I alu opposed to t his aiiendiiient.
Mr. POAGE. Will the gentleman yield ?
Mr. JONEs of Tennessee. Yes.
Mr. POAGE. I thank the gentleman.
The other day I was talking with a gentleman who told me that
there were 20,000 people eligible to vote in a bond election and they
had only 70.
Now in a bond election, if they vote the bond, then everybody had
to pay the tax.
Nobody has got to pay this checkoff unless they want to. All they
have to do is to object to it. and then they will get their money back.
You can make taxes or tax bonds for people all over the United
States without regard to how many or what percentage of the people
actually do vote on those.
If there is no further discussion. then we will have a vote.
All those in favor of this Kelly amendment to the amendment by
Mr. Melcher say aye.
Those opposed., say no.
In the opinion of the Chair. the no votes have it.
All those in favor of the Meleher amendment say aye.
Those opposed, say no.
In the opinion of the Chair. the ayes have it.
Mr. JOINSoNs. I call for a show of hands..
Mr. POAGE. A show of hands is asked for at this time.
All those in favor of the Melclier amendment, please bioll u) your
hand.
The CLERK. There are 11.
Mr. POAG\E. Now those opposed, please raise your hand.
The CLERK. There are 7.
Mr. PoAkW. So there are 11 aye votes and 7 no votes.
The amendment carries.






80


Mr. SEBELIUS. I would call for a rollcall vote, but I am afraid I
would get beaten worse than that.
Mr. DE LA 6A.R M. ilaiman, I have an amendment.
Mr. POAGE. Please go ahead.
Mr. DE LA GARzA. ()n page 11, Mr. Chairman, at line 15, the bill
provides that the boards submit their budgets to the Secretary.
It would be for his approval.
I would like to add "'and to the Agriculture Committees of the
I-louse and Senate."
This means that there would be no further burden except to make
two more copies.
Mr. POAGE. I think everyone here is familiar with the de la Garza
amendment requiring people who might not be governmental agencies
to report to this committee.
Is there any discussion?
If not, then we can vote.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Kelly.
Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to speak in opposition to that amendment.
Mr. POAGE. All right, you are recognized.
Mr. KELLY. The concept behind the amendment is sound I think,
however, that the observation or an observation of the hearing before
this committee pretty clearly indicates that whatever is indicated
here will get relatively short shrift.
For us to pile on more administrative duties of every agency and
board connected with agriculture which comes under the purview
of this committee is just not going to be practical down the road.
What we are going to do is to have more staff.
We are not going to have time to take care of the staff because we
seem to be handling everything that comes before us in a very
summary fashion.
I oppose the amendment for that reason.
Mr. POAGE. Are there any further comments? Is there any further
discussion of the amendment?
If not, all those in favor of the de la Garza amendment, please
signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, no.
The aye votes have it.
The de la Garza ainmndment is adopted.
Are there any further amendments?
[No response.]
Mr. POAGE. If not, then we can move on.
M r. DE LA (rw.\A. I move that the bill be reported with the recom-
mendation that it do pass.
MNr. POAGE. \fr. de la Garza moves that the bill be reported with
the recommendation that it do pass.
All those in favor of reporting the bill with the recommendation
that it pass, say aye.
Those opposed, no.
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
The committee reports the bill with the recommendation that it
do pass.








I believe that Mr. Foley, the chairman, is tied up on the teleploloe
with the Secretary of Agricultuire.
I would like to ask the staff if ttere is aiiytlhing else tlat las to
come before the committee this morning for our atteiitioii?
Mr. Bor. No, sir, this is the only bill that has been schedUled at
this time.
Mr. PO AGE. All right, since there is no further business, then we
will move on.
Are there any motions to adjourn?
Mr. DEF LA ( Az A. I move that We a(ljoiirvi.
Mr. POAGE. We have a motion to adjourn.
The Commiittee will st-I a(I aljourn(1. s1iliJect to t le (cll1 of the ,
Chair.
[Whereupon, at 11 a.m. tile committee adjourned.]













BEEF RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ACT


THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1975
HO()USE OF 1I:BP1LSENTrATIVES,
Ci._1(I. ITT1'EE ON AGII(_1/UIUREI
W~asbi~nyton, D.C.
The committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1301, Long-
worth House Office Building, I[on. Thomas S. Foley (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Representatives Poage, Vigorito, Jones of Tennessee,
Melcher, Mathis, Bergland, Breckinridge, Richtiiond, Nolan, Krebs,
Iightower, English, Fithian, Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Thone,
Johnson, Madigan, ,JetIlords, Moore.
Staff present: Robert M. Bor and Hyde H. Murray, counsels; John
E. Hogan, associate counsel; Glenda Temple and lary Jarratt, stall
assistants.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee on Agriculture will come to order.
The committee meets today for consideration of the motion to recon-
sider the votes by which H.R. 7656 was reported by the committee.
The Chair notes that the rules provide that a person who voted on
the prevailing side must offer such a motion on the same day or on
the next day that a similar type of business is in order.
The Chair had indicated in advance that this matter would be taken
up today, since other matters had been scheduled until now.
In fairness to members, I wanted to be sure that this motion would
not come as a surprise.
The Chair intends to seize this opportunity to make a parenthetical
statement. It would appear to me that it is the committee's responsi-
bility to deal with all relevalit issues involved il- a particular piece
of legislation before that bill is sent to the floor. In that way, we will
be in a position to at least advise our colleagues as to how we reacted
to various proposals.
It does not seem to me that this bill could or would come up before
the August recess.
So, this does not constitute a delay, in my judgment.
I recognize the gentleman from Montana, Mr. Melcher.
Mr. MELCHER. Mr. Chairman, out of courtesy to one or more ineini-
hers of the committee who have a strong feeling about tlis bill. I niove
to reconsider the vote on H.R. 7656 and that the bill be opened for
aniendment, again.
Thjie CIHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Montana moves that the bill.
H.R. 7656, be reconsidered.
All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.
Mr. MOORE. I ask for a recorded vote.
The CIIIRxnAN. The gentleman from Louisiana asks for a recorded
vote.
(83)






84


All thole in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Montana to
reconsider the bill will, when their names are called, answer aye. Those
posedse, nay.
The clerk will call the roll.
(The rollcall vote follows :)
Ayes: Representatives Vigorito, Meleher, Bergland, Richmond, Nolan, Krebs,
Fithian, Wampler, Sebelius, Findley, Jeffords, and Foley.
Nays: Representatives Poage, Jones of North Carolina (by proxy), Jones of
T"leiussee. Mathis. lBreckinridge, ltitfhitower. English, Jenrette by proxy),
Thone, Johnson, Madigan, Moore, Kelly (by proxy), Baldus, and Hagedorn
(by proxy).
The (TIIx\neLxN. The clerk will report the result of the rollcall.
The CLERK. There are 12 ayes and 15 nays.
The CHAIRMAN. Since there are 12 ayes and 15 nays, the motion is
not agreed to.
Reconsideration is not ordered.
Is there any other business to come before the committee?
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Breckinridge.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I arrived at the morning meeting just prior to
adjournment and immediately after the rollcall on the food stamp
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to be recorded as voting
aye.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection since this will not change the
outcome of tie vote?
[No response.]
Having heard no response, it is so ordered.
I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Richmond.
Mr. RICILMOND. I thank the gentleman from Montana for his motion
to reconsider.
I will have to serve notice reluctantly on the committee that we will
have to take this matter to the floor.
Unfortunately, it will result in a long and possibly unpleasant
harangue.
I really think that this matter should have been settled in committee,
so we could keep all our problems in this room.
Mr. VIGORITO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RicIImoND. Yes.
Mr. VIGORio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to say that regardless of the motion, the likelihood is
that it will pass.
The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from California.
Mr. KREIBS. I apologize for interrupting the rollcall.
I want to say that my vote was a matter of courtesy and not on the
merits of this.
The CHAmI-1AN. If there is no other business to come before the
committee, then we will stand adjourned and meet tomorrow morning.
[No response.]
The CHAmx AN.- Having heard no response, this committee is now
adjourned and will meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock for a con-
tinuation of the hearings on sugar.
[Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 2:45 p.m.]













WOOL ACT PAYMENTS


THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1976
HOUE,0U1': FRPEETTVS
Coi i'JT'IEE ON AGRI( CULTURE,
lVa-shiugto'n, D.C.
The committee met at 10:20 a.m.. pursuant to notice, in room 1301,
Longworth House Office Building', Hon. Thomas S. Foley (chair-
man) presiding.
Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Vigorito. Jones of
North Carolina. Jones of Tennessee, Melcher, Bergland, Brown,
Bowen, Rose, Breckinridge. Richimond, Nolan, Baldus. Krebs. Harkin.
Hightower, Bedell, 1Mcl-ugh, Fithian. Jenrette, Thornton, WNampler,
Sebelius, Findley, Madigan, Kelly, Grassley, IIagedorn. andl Moore.
Staff present: Fowler C. West, staff director; Robert M. Bor, coun-
sel; John E. Hogan, associate counsel; John M. Lindley and
Nick Ashmore. staff assistants; Gene Moos, staff analyst; L. T. Easle.y,
press assistant: Glenda Temple. staff assistant; Veldon Barton and
Leon Geyer, staff consultants, Subcommittee on Domestic Marketing
and Consumer Affairs; James Culver and George Duinsmore, staff
consultants, Subcommittee on )airy and Poultry, Alan Gray, staff
consultant. Subcoiniiittee on Livestock and Grains : Gerry Jorgensen.
staff consultant, Subconmittee on Department Operations, Investiga-
tions and Oversight.
The CM AN. The Chair would like to bring up the bill. S. 532.
authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to amend retroactively
USDA regulations pertaining to the computation of price-support
)ayments under the National Wool Act of 1954 in order to insure
the equitable treatment of ranchers and farmers.
The Subconmnittee on Livestock and Grains inan imouslv reported
this bill to the full committee on May 3, 197'6. with the recoiiiinienda-
tion that it be passed. This action came at the conclusion of the sub-
committee hearing.
XWithout objection, this bill will be considered as being before the
committee, prilited in the record, and open for amendment at any
point.
[The bill, S. 532, follows:]
(85)






86


---S 532
04Trit (ON G '.S
1h r st:ssjo- S




IN TIE SE NATE OF THE U.NIT, STATES
F:nR.RY 3, 1975
Mr. I.s1 ASU.L (for himself. MI'. IT.\xNFr.,. Mr. GARY W. 1I.imrr,and Mr. MCGEE)
intr(oduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry

'ID


A BILL
To aullioivizm, t~lbc! c S
regulation is of thle departmentt of Agriculture pertaining to
the collj)utation of price Spl)ort pavlnts uerdr- the Na-,
tional Wool Act of 1954 in order to insure the equitable
treatment of raiiclirs and farners.

1 BC it Cact(d byi the 5enale and House. of Represenlta-

2 lires of the Ul(nited Sttes of .lmrica ill Congres.s assembled,
3 Tliat the Secretary of Agiculture is authorized to alicild
4 retroactively regulations of the ])cpartnent of Agriculture

5 pcitainilig to the comlutation of price support payments
6 under die National Wool Act of 1954 in order that the

7 amount of such payments may, in the case of any rancher
8 or farer, be coniPulcd o tfie basis of (1) thc net sales
I1






87

9

1 proceeds received, or (2) in the case of any rancher or

2 farlner who failed to realize the anouiit provided for iii the
3 sales document, the lesser of the following: (A) the net

4 sales proceeds based on the price the rancher or frl ler
5 would have received had there been no default of payment

6 under snch document, or (B) the fair market value of the
7 commodity concerned at the time of sale.

8 SEC. 2. The Secretary of Agriculture is further author-
9 ized to reconsider any application filed for the paymelnt of

10 price support under the National Wool Act of 1954 with
11 respect to any commodity marketed diriing the four nmarket-

12 ing years 1969 through 1972 and to make such 1)aynnt

13 adjustments as lie determines fair and equitable on the basis
14 of ainy amendment to regulations made under authority of
15 the first section of this Act.






88


Tie CHAIMAN. The Chair recognizes the chairman of the Sub-
comiittee on Live-,ock and Grains, the rentlemnan from Texas, Mr.
Poare.
Mr. POAGE. _iNr. Chairmiiin, this bill relates only to about 50 wool
pr(oducers in tie State of ioliorado. Some of thexi are over the line
in Utah and New Mexico, but basically they are in tie State of
Colorado.
In the wool Iliarketing years 1969-72, they sold their wool to a
cooperative that tley thourlt was perfectly sound. They were paid
a partial payment for their wool. The cooperativye went bankrupt and
they never received time balance of their payments.
The Department has held-and I think correctly, in view of the
law-that they could not receive the wool payments that are provided
for under the law because the promissory notes that they had received
are not to be considered-in the past they have not been considered-
to constitute payment within the meaning of the wool payment
program.
Therefore, they had not sold their wool, according to the technical
interpretation, and you do not get the wool payment until you have
sold your wool.
They were considered not to have sold their wool; therefore, they
were not eligible. Actually, they got only a small fraction of the value
of their wool from the co-op. They were not paid for their wool and
they could not get the Government payments.
This bill simply allows them to get the Government payments and
it will be computed on the basis, first, of the net sales proceeds received
or, in the case of any rancher or farmer who failed to realize the
amount provided for in the sales document, the lesser of the following.
It will really be one of these two. One, the net proceeds based on
the price the rancher or farmer would have received had there been
no default in the payment under the document ; or, two, the fair market
value of commodity concerned at the time of the sale.
He gets his Government paynlent based on the lesser of those. In
other words, if he made an especially advantageous sale of what he
had. he gets no advantage for that. le would only get payment on the
basis of a fair market value of the commodity at the time of the sale.
The Department of Agriculture recommends passage of the bill:
The Department recommends prompt passage of this bill and would like to
recommend to the chairman of the committee prompt consideration.
They have approved it. Of course. the parties involved have all ap-
proved it. We do not have the exaet amlount of what this will cost,
but it is a matter of less than $150,000 that would be required to pay
these people.
We think it is a matter of equity that they should be paid. They
would have been paid had the cooperative paid them what it owed
them.
They are being denied the Government payment because some-
body else did not pay them, which amravates this situation.
Mr. BRowN.,. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. POAGE. Yes.
Mr. BRowN. Thank you.
I am veory pleased to see that, tle Congress, if it enacts this, is in a
position to do equity to the small producers in this area and I am very
happy to support it.








I am, however, relidled of tl( fact thmat 11 a >imlli ar ase ilNvolv-
ing equity with regard to a disease i] i1' owNN State we were 1lot able
to act so promptly.
Mr. FI-NI)LEY. [I'. Ch~air-man l
The CHAIRMAN. Ali'. indley
Air. IFINDLEY. I have longr rewarded the Wool Act as one of the most
useless farm pI)ogrTanls we have. I (1o not see how there is any public
benefit in it at all. I am sure, however, t lat ttliS bill is not going to have
any effect upon the lifetime of the Vool Act.
I hope one of these days the COiiiiiiittee will take it up for review
I would like to ask the gent leinan fron Texas to exllpic LIII O.le banik-
ruptcy event. Will the payments here go to the creditors under the
bankruptcy?
Mr. POAGE. No. They will go to the wool prodtcers. They are not
going to the concern that owes the money at all.
Mr. FINDLEY. What went bankrupt
Mr. POAGE. The producers are entitled to the payments. Not at any
time, under this bill or under general law, would anybody be except
the producer and he is only entitled to those payments under general
law after he has sold his wool.
Mr. FINDLEY. Does this bill correct the basic law to take care of
similar incidents should they occur in the future ?
Mr. POAGE. No, sir, it does not. It only relates to these 50 producers.
Mr. FINDLEY. Thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMIAX. Is there any further discussion of the bill?
[No response.]
The CIAIRAA.N. Are there any amendments to the bill?
[No response.]
Mr. POAGE. I move we report the bill with a recommendation that it
be passed.
The CHAIRM[AN. If there are no further amendments, the gentlenian
from Texas moves that we report the bill, S. 532, with a recommenda-
tion to the House that it do pass.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
[Chorus of ayes.]
The CHAIRMAfAN. Those opposed will answer no.
[No response.]
The CIIAIRIAN. The ayes have it. and the motion is agreed to. Time
clerk will report that a, quorum is present.
The gentleiian from California.
Mr. BROWN of California. Is it possible to get tlis bill sent back,
The CIIAIRMAN. The Chair intends to ask for consent or 8lSl)(nsion
consideration of this bill since there appears to be no evident opposi-
tion to it an(d the chair is not aware of aily further amenen(lnent> to be
offered.
Mr. BIowN. Is the cotton bill not in the same cate(zoi'v?
The CIAIRMAFN. 'lel cotton bill mav or mlav not be in tlie same (a1te-
gory. I am reluctant to ask for suspension c( osideeirat 1o1 oil time cott(
bill. In the event tlat there is any opl)position on thle floor. I t limk it
would be preferable to have a rule anid to lhave a maiaj ritv vote
required.
[The committee proceeded to other biisiness.]














AFRICAN HONEYBEE CONTI OL


THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1976

HousE OF R1UII:NTATIVES,
CO-MITTEE ON XI1CUICULTURE
1Va-s',7?;,, on, D.C.
The committee met at 10:20 a.ni., ptinrtiant to notice. in room 1,301.
Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Thonilas S. Foley (chaIrman )
presiding.
Present: Representatives Poage, de la Garza, Viorit(). Jones of
North Carolina, Jones of Tennessee, Me-her, Bergiand, B rovn
Bowen, Rose, Breckinridge, Richmond, Nolan. Baldus. Krebs. IIarkin.
Hightower. Bedell. McIll ]lb. Fitlian. 1cmit t. 'll'iit on. Wantl)ler.
Sebelius, Findley, Madigan. Kelly, Grassle, I-Tagedorn. and -Mooie.
Staff present: Fowler C AVest, staff director; Robert M. Bor. coun-
sel; John E. Hogan, associate counsel; John M. Lindlev and Nick
Ashmore, staff assistants; Gene Moos, staff analyst; L. T. Easlev.
press assistant; Glenda Temple, staff assistant, Weldon Barton and
Leon Geyer, staff consultants, Su)committee on DIomestic Marketing
and Consumer Affairs; James Culver and George Dunsmore. staff
consultants. Subcommittee on Dairy and Poultry; Alan Gray, staff
consultant, Subcommittee on Livestock and Grains: Gerry ,orgensen.
staff consultant. Subcommittee on Department Operations. Investiga-
tions and Oversight.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to present to the committee
H.R. 5242, to prevent the introduction and spread of diseases and
parasites harmful to hon ,ylbes.
This bill and the bill S. 18 have been before the full committee for
hearing. Without objection, the Chair would like to ask unanimous
consent that both bills may be placed before the committee for con-
sideration at this time.
[The bills, H.R. 5242 and S. 18, and the report from the U,.S. De-
partment of Agriculture follow :]
(91)






92


94=u CONGRESSa
a R 5242




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MARAI 20, 1975
Mr. FoLEY (for himself, Mr. WN'AMPLER, and Mr. BERGLAND) introduced the
following bill; which was referre1 to the (omiittee on Agriculture




A BILL
To amend the Act of August 31, 1922, to prevent the intro-
duction and spread of diseases and parasites harmful to
honeybees, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate acnd House of Representa-
2 ties of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 1 of the Act of August 31, 1922, as amended
4 (42 Stat. 833; 76 Stat. 169; 7 U.S.C. 281), is amended

5 to read as follows:
6 "(a) In order to prevent the introduction and spread

7 of diseases and parasites harmful to honeybees, and the intro-
8 duction of genetically undesirable germ plasm of honeybees,

9 the importation into the United States of all honeybees is
I






93


2

1 prohibited, except that honeybees may be imported into the

2 United States-
3 "(1) by the United States Department of Agricul-

4 ture for ex "erinicital or scietific purposes, or
5 (2) from countiess determined by the Secretary

6 of Agriculture-
7 (A) to be free of diseases or parasites harm-

8 ful to honeybees, and undesirable species or su)-
9 species of honeybees; and
10 "(B) to have in operation precautions ade-

11 quate to prevent the importation of honeybees from

12 other countries where harmful diseases or parasites,

13 or undesirable species or subspecies, of honeybees

14 exist.
15 "(b) Honeybee semen may be imported into the United

16 States only from countries determined by the Secretary to

17 be free of undesirable species or subspecies of honeybees, and
18 which have in operation precautions adequate to prevent

19 the importation of such undesirable honeybees and their

20 semen.
21 (c) Honeybees and honeybee semen imported pur4u-
22 ant to subsections (a) and (b) off tlis section shall be
23 imported under such rules and regulations as the Secrca'vlry

24 of Agriculture and the Secretary of t Tlca-ur shll
25 prescribe.


77-139 0 77 7






94


3

1 "(d) EtVei'1t -vitli resl,.c! to h, iiy1)ct, atid lImevIcee
2 semen ii mlted puisuaint t,, su!s)'ti is ( a) and (b )t4

3 tliis i' ,etii -l. all lie(c or hoivlwc :eII-ci offered for
4 import 0r i1- i>,,p~ed citcrwlg 1i1' 11ii(i' Stlcs shl l he
5 destroyed or immediately exported.

6 (e) As used in this Act, the term 'honeybee' means
7 all life stages, and the gern plasm ()f lione!ces of lilic genus

8 Apis, except honeybee semen.".

9 SEC. 2. Section 2 of the Act of August 31, 1922 (42
10 Stat. 834; 7 U.S.C. 282), is amended fo read as follows:
11 "SEC. 2. Any person who violates any provision of sec-

12 tion 1 of this Act or any :egulation issued under it is guilty

13 of an offense against the I iited States, anld shall, upon c)n-
14 victioii, be fined not more than $11,000. or imprisoned for

15 not more than one year, or both.".
16 SEC. 3. The Act of August 31, 1922. is further amended

17 by adding the following new sections:

18 "SEc,. 3. The Secretary ()f Agriculture is authorized to

19 cooperate with the Governments of Canada. Mexico, Guate-
20 miala. Belize, Itonduras. El Salvador, Nicaragrua. Costa Rica,

21 Panama, and Colombia. or the local authorities thereof, in
22 caring out necessary research, .. 5ves. and control O)pera-

23 tions in those countries in connection witl the eradication,

24 suppression, control, and preventing or retardation of the
25 spread of undesirable species and subspecies of honeybees,






95


4
1 including but not liiited to Apis iillifern idausonii! c-.

2 monly known as the African or ir'ziliai hoiieyvbec. In per-
3 forming the operations or measures authorized in this Act,

4 the governments of sueh coiutries shall be r(,,,ponsible for
5 the authority necessary to carry out such operations or

6 measures on all lands and properties therein and for such
7 other facilities and means as in the discretion of the Sec-

8 retary of Agriculture are necessary. The measure and char-

9 acter of cooperation carried out under this Act on the part

10 of the United States and on the part of the governments of

11 such countries, including the expenditure or use of funds
12 appropriated pursuant to this Act, shall be such as may be

13 prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Arrangements
14 for the cooperation authorized by this Act shall be made
15 through and in consultation with the Secretary of State.
16 "SEC. 4. Funds appropriated to carry out the provisions

17 of this Act may also be used for printing and binding without
18 regard to section 501 of title 44, United States Code, for
19 employment, by contract or otherwise, of civilian nationals
20 of Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salva-
21 dor, Nicaragua, Costa, Rica, Panama, and Colombia for serv-

22 ices abroad, and for the construction and operation of researu-h






96


5
1 laboritories, quarantine stations, and other buildings and
2 facilities.
3 "41Sc. 5. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated
4 such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions
5 of this Act.".