were in favor of it. So that was 70 percent of those voting. But the 70 percent of those voting was only 14 percent of the woolgrowers of the country, so that this had the effect of imposing a mandatory tax on 100 percent of the woolgrowers, by 14 percent of the wool

growers.

It is our thought that the whole question of a voluntary or involuntary checkoff with respect to the promotion of agricultural commodities is a very serious question, and that if you are going to approach the problem from the standpoint of having a checkoff, that there should be at least a minimum requirement for participation in the referendum.

The board of directors of the American Farm Bureau Federation in considering this question thought that it would be fair to require at least 40 percent of the growers to vote in a referendum before a tax could be imposed on all growers. The requirement would be retained that at least 66% percent of those voting by number of growers or head of sheep favor it even though 40 percent of the growers would be required to participate. We think that would be healthy from the standpoint of stimulating interest in getting out the vote and being sure that people expressed their views on the subject. Mr. Chairman, that is basically and fundamentally our position. on the subject. I might point out one thing for the benefit of the committee, if you have not noticed it. I have here a copy of the release put out by the United States Department of Agriculture, dated August 26, 1955, on the referendum, and there were a number of States that did not vote 66% percent of the producers' vote in favor of the program, although there was 71 percent of them in total. Of those States, I think it is interesting that there was Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Öregon, Texas, and Wyoming that did not show the necessary percentage in favor. In the case of Texas, which is the largest woolgrowing State in the Union, only 49.4 percent of the growers indicated they were in favor of it, and only 51.1 percent of the number of the head of sheep in that State represented indicated they were in favor of it. This is one of the reasons, strong reasons, why we think there ought to be more people participate in the referendum before there is a mandatory checkoff. Mr. POAGE. Is that all you have to say, Mr. Woolley?

Mr. WOOLLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. POAGE. I understood you had another statement to make to this committee?

Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, I understood from the chairman yesterday that there was some question about the attitude of the witness toward the chairman of the committee, and also the attitude of the witness toward other members of the committee. I stated privately to the chairman yesterday, and I am happy to repeat again today, that at no time has the witness or anyone else connected with the organization of the American Farm Bureau Federation, indicated that they thought the chairman of this committee was a Communist, or had any leanings or sympathy toward them. I went back and Í checked up on the record of the hearing where the question came up, and, Mr. Chairman, on page 45 of that record there was a question raised by Mr. Jones of Missouri. Mr. Jones is not here--Oh, yes, he is here.

There was a question raised by Mr. Jones as to what transpired in his office and I think the record, of course, speaks for itself.

Mr. Jones first raised the question about Communists on page 46, and for the record, that reads as follows:

Mr. JONES. And since you have said you did not say what I have said, didn't you tell me then that the program we were suggesting of payments on cotton had been originally inspired by Communists and it was a Communist-type inspired program?

That is the first reference in the record to anything about communism. I answered that as follows:

No. What I said to you was that in 1955, and I am glad you asked that question, because

Mr. Jones interrupted and the report goes on. Then over on page 47 there was some indication there by you, Mr. Poage, that you felt like we were charging you with being a Communist. And the record shows on page 47 as follows:

Mr. WOOLLEY. Mr. Poage, you have given me an opportunity to say something I have been wanting to say in public for a long time. Anybody who takes the position that because someone points out that the Communists are working tooth and toenail to get something and thereby is characterized as saying that everybody that takes that position is a Communist is as unreasonable as anybody can possibly be. I told Mr. Jones unequivocably, and he knows it, that when I said that the Communists who were supporting the production payment thing, that this did not carry with it the idea that he or anybody else that was proposing production payments was a Communist or in sympathy with the Communists. The point I am trying to make and the record is abundantly clear, your record, because your own record started in 1947-is that the Communists are in favor of production payments, and it raises the question that if the Communists spent thousands of dollars propagandizing for a particular method, and we get documents coming out of the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D. Ć., advocating that, doesn't it cause somebody to raise a question as to whether or not it might or might not be against our interest. That is the question, and it is not that you are a Communist. I know you are not, at least I hope you are not.

Now with respect to that last phrase, I understand that that is the point that the chairman takes exception to. I think if you will recall the situation, Mr. Jones was talking, Mr. Poage was talking, I was talking, Mr. Fleming was trying to get the floor and I insist that I did not in any way intend to imply or say that you were a Communist. All I was trying to make clear was that the Communists were back of production payments, they have spent all kinds of energy promoting it. I have a file here that is at least a foot thick on the subject, showing that beginning in 1947 they have been working at it. As a matter of fact, I have in my briefcase right now the May 1958 issue of Political Affairs, which is a Communist publication, in which they come out and say that: "Later, Secretary of Agriculture Brannan borrowed the idea for his Brannan Plan but weakened it by raising to $25,000 the amount of production to be supported."

I certainly do not want the record to leave the impression that I think because the Communists are pushing production payments that anyone in the Congress is connected with the Communist Party in any way, or is necessarily sympathetic to their ideas. I have never intended that, and I have denied it to everyone at every time, and anything that anyone says to the contrary is a complete misunderstanding.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you, Mr. Woolley.
Are there any questions of Mr. Woolley?

Mr. HILL. I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman. What can this committee do, or the farm organization, to bring about a wider representation in the minds of the farmers when we offer a vote on what type and kind of program they wish? In other words, what educational program can we carry out, the farm organization and members of this agriculture committee, to get a larger percentage of participation in the vote? What are we going to do about it?

Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, I assume that your question is in connection with the wool program?

Mr. HILL. No, it is not, it is in connection with all the programs where we give a farmer a chance to make a selection. Now if he is not going to make that selection, in percentage enough to represent the thinking of the farmers that grow that crop, what is the use of putting out a questionnaire asking his position-when you are not going to get many replies?

Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, we take the position in the American Farm Bureau Federation, Mr. Hill, that it is our responsibility to present as many facts as we can through all of our various media to the farmers as to what the pros and cons are with respect to any referendum that is put to them for a vote. We do not take the point of view that it is our responsibility, we think it is improper on our part, to tell them how they are to vote. We just merely do everything we can to see that they understand that a vote is being taken, and that it is in the interest of everyone to know the issues on both sides, and we do everything we can to urge that they vote with respect to the subject. Mr. HILL. Have you any indications that would convince you that any of these questionnaires sent to the farmers are receiving more support, or more of the farmers are participating today than there were 5 years ago, or are we making any headway?

Mr. WOOLLEY. I have no evidence that indicates to me that more farmers participate now than did at any time. As a matter of fact, I think that in the thirties there was a higher percentage of participation in the referendum at that time than there is now. Of course, I think it should be recognized that there are provisions in the procedures and in the law which exclude from voting a number of producers with respect to many of these commodities, and most of those exclusions we find ourselves out of sympathy with. I have particular reference to the 15-acre provision in the case of wheat. We do not think it is wise to exclude the farmers from voting in that particular instance; we would eliminate that sort of an exception. We also have the feeling in the Farm Bureau that any of these referendums are not adequate from the standpoint of allowing everyone to participate in the vote who is affected thereby. We have the feeling that whenever you take acreage out of wheat or cotton and that acreage can then be devoted to other crops, that farmers who are producing other crops also have an interest in it, and that by limiting the vote to just the immediate producers affected, that you thereby do not get a representative vote.

Mr. HILL. One other question, an idea of my own: Why should a sheep producer and a wool grower of a little flock of 10 sheep on his farm have exactly the same power in voting on a referendum as the grower in the West with a flock, we will say, of 5,000?

Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, that question

Mr. HILL. He has little or no effect on the market if he only has a flock of 7 or 8 head. That would be just the opposite of what you. are saying about the corn and wheat.

Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, that of course, involves a very deep-seated question of your philosophy as to qualifications of voters. Our basic philosophy is that everyone who has an interest ought to be permitted to vote, and the fact that that interest is a small interest should not be weighed against someone who has a larger financial interest. It may be that this small interest that the person has is all the interest that he has in any commodity, and it may be very important to him although it is very small in terms of dollars and cents.

Mr. HILL. Well, doesn't your reasoning come from the idea that you are letting political issues affect your thinking on agriculture? Now certainly the people who produced the wool ought to set or influence the type of legislation.

Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, of course, Mr. Hill, when we

Mr. HILL. Now they do that politically, but certainly not in wool production because I can take 10 States, maybe not quite 10 States, and find 75 to 90 percent of your wool production.

Mr. WOOLLEY. We are not adverse to a requirement that is based on the number of head of sheep. We are not opposed to that. We think that that could be worked in.

Mr. HILL. That is probably the way it ought to be.

Mr. WOOLLEY. We are not opposed to that. We think it ought to be in conjunction with all growers, too. We think you could sayMr. HILL. The thing that is causing my thinking, I will give you an illustration: The State of New York has four hundred thousand some acres of wheat, but they grow most of it for what? Feed. Then when it comes to a vote to control the price of wheat, which they do not put in the market at all, very little, then you say to our growers in the High Plains and the western section of the United States, "Well, here these little folks with 15 to 20 acres of wheat have just as much power at the ballot as the man with a thousand acres in Colorado or Kansas." Now, just tell me a more unfair way of voting you could have than that?

Mr. WOOLLEY. We think it is an inevitable consequence of mixing up economic problems with political problems. We think that when an economic problem gets tossed into the political arena farmers must stand on the political effects as well as economic effects. This is a part of the problem on the whole farm program. How to reconcile political and economic considerations when they both come together the way they do in the farm program. This is one of our real problems.

Mr. POAGE. Thank you, Mr. Woolley, we are glad to receive your

statement.

Mr. WOOLLEY. Thank you.

Mr. POAGE. Congressman Fisher must go to his own committee so we will hear from him now.