these crops.

So there is a limit as to how we can grow Sure enough, they say you can do it cheaper, but again there is a limit for the prices I have to pay for what I buy.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you be able to tell us the average cost of picking cotton in California, a pound?

Mr. SMITH. Well, there is some little difference in pickers, I think. But, of course, you can take your hand-picking right now, I think most of the prevailing price is $3. In fact, I am not too sure about that. I am only saying that I see it on signs because I do not pick cotton by hand, only around the end of the row, and we always have to pay 50 cents a hundred for picking that at the end.

But your 1,500 and 1,400 pounds a bale at $3, is $42 to $45, and the man to weigh it, and then haul it to the gin, it is going to take you about $55, pretty close to that.

The CHAIRMAN. For what?

Mr. SMITH. By hand, to pick that bale of cotton, haul it to the gin. The CHAIRMAN. $55?

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. How much would it cost you if you had mechanization, the average through mechanization, machine picking?

Mr. SMITH. Well, I still say I can pick the cotton for $20 a bale. The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. SMITH. Maintain my machine from year to year.

The CHAIRMAN. $20 a bale as against $55 by hand?

Mr. SMITH. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. What would become, under those conditions, of the little fellow who cannot buy a machine?

Mr. SMITH. He can rent one. There are plenty of them around doing custom work.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, there may be some areas in the country where they cannot even rent them, and they are too poor to even buy them. Mr. SMITH. Of course, I do not know that in our area. You can rent plenty of them.

The CHAIRMAN. You folks in California do things in a big way. We do not do it the same way in Georgia or Alabama or other parts of the country. [Laughter.]

But don't you think that the cost to the small farmers of $55 as against $20 for mechanization would be such a vast difference that it might put the little fellow out of business?

Mr. SMITH. Of course, this being in California, as you speak about now, all I think of-I say all I think of, I realize there are other small growers but even the little small grower, we have a few of them with 5 or 10 acres, not too many, why, he can get a machine, too, and pick

it.

So I do not know. I would not want to answer that from a national standpoint.

The CHAIRMAN. You would not know that?

Mr. SMITH. No, I would not know that.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Is there anything else you would like to say?

Mr. SMITH. No, I think that is all.

I want to thank you for the opportunity of testifying.

The CHAIRMAN. You are welcome, Mr. Smith; we are glad to have you, sir.

All right, let us see if we can get a little testimony from rice growers now. Mr. George Lodi, and then Mr. Alioto.

Will you step forward, please and come to the front seat so that we can call you and when we call you you will be close by.

All right, sir. Will you give your name in full for the record and your occupation?

STATEMENT OF GEORGE LODI, PRESIDENT, RICE GROWERS COOPERATIVE, ARBUCKLE, CALIF.

Mr. LODI. Yes, sir.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, my name is George Lodi. I am a rice farmer operating a rice farm in the northern part of California.

I operate a ranch that I own of my own; and in addition I farm some acreage that I rent.

I am also president of the Rice Growers Cooperative, an organization that is interested in and owned by growers themselves, and interested in the processing and the distribution of rice, and have been & rice grower for approximately 30 years.

I welcome the opportunity of presenting to you distinguished gentlemen this morning-I am very happy to see our own Senator Tom Kuchel with us, and greetings to you, Senator Kuchel, and our neighboring Senator from our neighboring State, Senator Bible, to our Congressmen Hagen and Sisk, I am very happy to see you gentlemen here participating in the discussion, because you have been the recipients of some correspondence that has been brought before you showing the attitude and feelings of rice growers.

It is my understanding, Senator, that it was your desire to have presented to you this morning the feelings of growers themselves. I might say to you that though I may be interested in a marketing organization, that it was agreed by all assembled rice growers that I present the views of these assembled rice growers.

It was quite flattering to me to have them exhibit their confidence in me; they felt that I would express an unbiased point of view, and give to you the benefit of their deliberations and their discussions. The CHAIRMAN. Now, for the record, would you be able to tell us what percentage of the rice production of California you represent? Mr. LODI. This was a selected group that assembled at a meeting at West Sacramento on the 28th of last month, representing the riceproducing area from Kern County in the south to Butte County on the north, and in that group there were approximately 40 growers.

Now, these gentlemen were selected by local groups to speak for the local areas, and I think that I can honestly say that practically a hundred percent of the rice industry was represented.

Now, there may be as you understand, Senator, there are certain personal differences of opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I understand.

Mr. LODI. Which have come out of these discussions and deliberations, and many phases, but all phases of the distribution of rice were discussed at this meeting, and statistics were scanned to some extent, some of the reports that were given to the congressional committees in the past, and some of the conditions and situations that existed in our distributing areas were also discussed.

Now, the recommendations were probably broken down into possibly two phases of suggested recommendations to overcome our problems.

The first one was thinking of the immediate problem that we have, and they felt very definitely that the mechanics of the Agricultural Act do not spell out fully the requirements that are needed in the distribution of rice.

They feel very definitely that these allotments and quotas should be based on a variety basis.

Senator KUCHEL. On a what basis?

Mr. LODI. On a variety basis, Senator.

As you know, we do have different varieties of the commodity, and they are quite distinct and quite different in their own brands.

The CHAIRMAN. When you speak of a variety basis, do you mean rice that is readily salable, more so than others, or just exactly what do you have in mind?

Mr. LODI. Senator, I am not speaking of it in that particular tone. I am speaking of designating it, short grain or japonica type rice as compared to our long grains, your Texas patna, your mediums, and such as that.

The CHAIRMAN. What would the salability of the basis that you are talking about now have?

Mr. LODI. The salability? Why, the reason that they came up with that conclusion is the salability is the Commodity Credit Corporation is not burdened with any of the short-grain varieties.

The short grained variety of rices have had and enjoyed a ready market, and they have-they are not in the surplus pool. The surplus pools are rices of other varieties, and we feel that the short grain variety market is being penalized, that it is being restricted from ging into not only the domestic movement, what its proportionate share is in the domestic market, but also the export market.

I want to say to you on that phase of the export market, Senator, that we feel that we can compete in the export field. It may be a little bit different than the cotton people field, but on price we are not expecting the high support price on the export market.

The CHAIRMAN. Could California grow the kind you say, the short grain, and dispose of all of it?

Mr. LODI. We have in the past.

As I say, up until the present time, there has not been a bag of the short-grained variety turned over to the Commodity Credit Corporation.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the present law is there any inhibition, are you planting the quota or whatever acreage allotment is made, either on a produce or acreage basis? Would there be anything in the way to prevent you from planting that which you can readily sell?

Mr. LODI. Well, Senator, they are very emphatic in recommending to you that the California acreage, at least, be not reduced any further, and they feel confident that that production on that acreage can be disposed of.

We feel very confident that this 1955 production, which is probably one of the largest of supplies that we have enjoyed for many years, we feel quite confident that if we are given at least the cooperation of the Government agencies in support, in southeast Asian markets we can dispose of it.

We dislike to hear statements from our attachés, and such other representatives that we may have in the Asiatic markets that they are recommending not only to the different nations in which they are serving, but also to even our own military personnel that they purchase their rices in the southeast Asian countries that have the surplus. The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, that is a position taken by the State Department, to a large extent.

It has been my judgment throughout that the State Department ought to try to take care of the domestic producers here rather than foreign producers.

Mr. LODI. I think we are quite in accord with that, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. I just returned from Southeast Asia; I was in Burma, I was in Thailand, and they have a tremendous surplus of rice, and they desire that we keep out of their markets. I presume that is what is causing the State Department to take the position that unless we leave that market to the Asiatic producers we may have to give them more money to keep them afloat, that is, economic aid money.

Mr. LODI. But, Senator, these ricegrowers here are rather realistic operators, to some extent rugged individualists, and they recognize that the total of the United States production is an insignificant percentage, of 2 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LODI. And there is a great feeling in their minds as to what effect that small percentage will have on the world market.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

You would be surprised to know what the State Department feels about it.

Mr. LODI. That is the disturbing part of it. But we wonder to what extent we are going to be subjected to the philosophy of the State Department.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LODI. Now, further, Senator, agricultural commodities, at least on the west coast here, have over the years, to my knowledge at least, enjoyed not only in the rice business but also commodities, have enjoyed an export market which is lost to them at the moment.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LODI. And which is necessary to California, at least.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and in connection with the quality or the variety basis you have been talking about, how much more production or less production per acre is there produced in the variety you speak of, that is, in the short grain in contrast with the production of the long grain, in the State of California?

Mr. Lopi. I did not quite understand your question, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. I say, how much more production is there when a farmer plants short grain in contrast to long grain?

Mr. LODI. Well, I think your greatest production is in the long grain varieties.

The CHAIRMAN. Long grain varieties?

Mr. LODI. That is quite right.

The short grain varieties are produced primarily, referring to a geographical area, in California. I think that Arkansas is attempting to produce some short grain varieties, but we must bear in mind, Senator, that rice has some ideas of its own.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LODI. We, in California, have not been able to produce your long grain rices from the South and, by the same token, I think you have some difficulty in producing short grain varieties in the southern areas. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LODI. Now, we want to be fair in this thing, and if these acreages are going to be frozen, we want them frozen on a variety basis of a minimum of the allotment for 1955.

The CHAIRMAN. In the meantime though you have been raising all along these varieties that you say ought to remain in production? Mr. LODI. That is quite right.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. Yes. And the South, where they have been raising rice for many, many years before you startedMr. LODI. That is quite right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN (continuing). They would be penalized somewhat, would they not?

Mr. LODI. Well, I do not think so, sir.

We have not-I do not recall of any markets that we have taken away from the southern rices on the basis of price differential. We must bear in mind there is also a taste differential.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

You would be surprised at the letters we get from home as to what California is doing to the Arkansas grower and the Louisiana grower; you would be surprised at that, I am sure, as well as the Texas grower. Mr. LODI. I can understand the letters that you will get, sir; that is quite right.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. LODI. But I do not attempt to speak for the southern rice-producing area. I am speaking for California, these ricegrowers that have, as other agricultural commodities have, a high investment not only in land-irrigation facilities, driers, and other equipment and what have you, but it is quite a sizable item in the agricultural economy of the State of California.

We feel that we might have crosswise over the South some preferences in transportation, lower transportation costs, and such things as that, but by the same token the South has that same benefit over us in markets that they may supply in Cuba and some of the other markets that may be more adjacent to the southern area.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, of course, you also realize that the Congress, in enacting any legislation for any particular commodity, must deal with the subject matter as to all States and not one particular locality?

Mr. LODI. Do you think that it should be done as was done in wheat where it was pointed out very definitely that there were some inequities insofar as varieties were concerned.

You had a lower producing variety of durum wheat, and we were importing that. The growers went out of the production of durum wheat, went into the production of high-yielding varieties that gave them more monetary return, but we lost the market for the quality wheat.

It just seems to me that it is inequitable to freeze these acreages on a commodity that has distinction between varieties.

Therein, I think the inequity should be resolved, and I think there should be put into operation-and there is also a feeling, Senator, in