Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

and we might get through early enough to have supper around 7:30 or 8.

Next is Mr. Collier.

STATEMENT OF J. F. COLLIER, GENERAL MANAGER, HOUSTON DIVISION, AMERICAN RICE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, HOUSTON, TEX.

Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I represent the rice group and I do not believe you have had a rice man as yet.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to hear from you.

Mr. COLLIER. I am J. F. Collier of Houston, Tex., and have farmed from 300 acres to 600 acres of rice annually, with tenants, for the past 13 years. In addition to my farming operations I am general manager of American Rice Growers Cooperative Association-Houston division which is owned by some 300 rice growers. I am director and member of the executive committee of American Rice Growers Cooperative Association of Lake Charles, La., and I am also a director of the Texas Federation of Cooperatives.

My appearance is in behalf of rice farmers who produce at least 50 percent of the rice produced in the State of Texas as well as for myself. Within the past 2 weeks I have met with a group of producers of cotton, wheat, rice, and other commodities in Austin, Tex., and also with a group of rice growers at Lake Charles, La., for the purpose of discussing agriculture problems at this Fort Worth meeting and with the exception of a very small proportion of the producers with whom I have discussed the various rice problems they are heartily in favor of what is commonly referred to as a "two-price system" that will guarantee a price support of at least 90 percent of parity on that portion of the crop which is allocated for the price market.

I have carefully reviewed the statements prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture and of individuals who have appeared before congressional committees and their remarks concerning the disadvantages of the two-price system are confined principally to (1) objection to the administrative procedures, and (2) objection to the fear that unrestricted acreage would result in excessive production for the secondary or export markets and that so-called "dumping" of rice would occur in the foreign markets. I will admit that the administration of the program would be an arduous task but I cannot visualize it being more so than administration of the present program. I speak as one who supervises a considerable amount of the administration of the present program and I feel that it contains entirely too many complicated regulations that could be simplified to a degree that considerable redtape could be eliminated. I also find that a considerable divergence of interpretation of present regulations occurs among the supervisors of the program in the various counties of our State.

With regard to objection No. 2 (excessive production for the secondary market) the simple law of economics will take care of that situation. And by the law of economics I refer to the manner in which rice production is financed. A large majority of the rice producers in the Southern States secure financing for production purposes from banks, production credit associations, and other financing institutions, including the Government agency, Farmers Home Administration.

Such funds are not advanced except to those producers who follow strict compliance with Federal regulations.

It is hardly conceivable that financing institutions would furnish funds for the farmer to gamble on the return he would receive at world market prices for rice, especially since it is well known that we now have such a large surplus of the commodity. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the producers who have prospects of exceptionally good yields will be expected to produce some rice for export but it is doubted that such production will exceed the United States quota for export rice, and it is felt that such producers will be among the minority who probably can afford to take such gambles.

In an address before the National Association of Commissioners, Secretaries, and Directors of Agriculture at the Roosevelt Hotel in New Orleans this week, O. V. Wells, Administrator of the marketing service of the United States Department of Agriculture, stated that farmers are not fully sharing in the prosperity which has brought current consumer and business incomes to an alltime high; that the inflexibility of price and cost rates paid by the farmers had caught him in a "cost-price squeeze" and that the farmer's share of the consumer's food dollar has dropped to about 40 percent. It is difficult for rice farmers to understand why their costs are constantly increasing as the result of a guaranteed fair return to labor, as well as a fair profit to industry, when a fair return to the farmer is supposed to be 100 percent of parity but by following full compliance with Federal regulations he is likely to receive 85 percent of parity at this time and beginning with 1956 he is faced with a possibility of receiving only 75 percent of parity. It is doubtful that the average rice farmer can support his family on the basis of a 25-percent reduction in the amount which would produce a fair price for his product. He is faced with the problem of reducing his unit cost, and since labor is either directly or indirectly the principal element in his present increased cost, there seems to be no solution to this problem in the foreseeable future. The cost of producing rice in Texas ranges from $85 to $100 per acre, depending upon the variation in cost of land, water, seed, and fertilizer, and therefore it is estimated the average cost is approximately $92.50 per acre.

Average yields for the past several years have been approximately 1211⁄2 barrels per acre but it is now estimated the average yield for 1955 will be approximately 15 barrels or 24 hundredweight. The following table will demonstrate the average earnings, based upon such yields and costs, under the flexible support program:

[Texas parity, September 15, 1955, $5.35 per hundredweight]

[blocks in formation]

The CHAIRMAN. What do you include in costs--is labor included

in the costs you have just given?

Mr. COLLIER. Yes, sir. I have some costs figures with me if you would like to go into it.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to go into it. I just would like to have your solution to the problem. What would you suggest be done? Mr. COLLIER. That has been the concensus of the majority of the farmers

The CHAIRMAN. The two-price system?

Mr. COLLIER. The two-price system, yes, sir; at least 90 percent of parity under that two-price system.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean 90 percent of parity on that portion which is used domestically?

Mr. COLLIER. That is right. And no support on any additional that he might produce.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you handle the domestic consumption? Would you have that go into loans, or would you let the farmer hold it until the market takes it up?

Mr. COLLIER. I would follow the certificate plan that was suggested by the Department of Agriculture. There are two certificate plans, I believe either one of them would work. I believe, though, that a plan that is recommended more generally by the rice farmers. I believe you are going to find this same situation to exist in Louisiana and I am sure you will in Mississippi.

The CHAIRMAN. I am very much interested in any program. We have had a study by the Department of Agriculture. My understanding was at the time that the Department of Agriculture thought that the administration of this legislation would be so complicated that it could not easily be handled. It may be that in the light of the report, as I see it, that was made by the Department, that something will have to be worked out to ease the administrative features of the bill.

Mr. COLLIER. That is true. They pointed that out. They also pointed out a likelihood of a surplus which I do not believe they understood, the financing plan of farmers, or I do not see how they could have figured the farmers could have afforded it. They could not have gotten the financing to produce the rice on that basis.

The foregoing figures are based upon the highest average yield per acre in the history of rice production in Texas. The average rice farm in Texas consists of about 225 acres and it is my information that the average farm in Louisiana consists of less than 50 acres. Prosperous rice farmers in these areas are in the minority.

The United States Department of Agriculture has attempted to control production of rice and other commodities on the basis of controlled acreage and it has been proven that yields per acre can be increased by improved farming methods and the use of additional seed and fertilizer, therefore the control of acreage has not reduced the production proportionately. At recent meetings with farm groups, held for the purpose of discussing agricultural problems at this Fort Worth meeting, it was the majority opinion that allotments to farmers should be on a unit basis, such as a definite number of bales of cotton, a definite number of barrels or hundredweight of rice, et cetera, and that controlled production would result from such a basis.

There are a number of other problems in the rice industry, and although I cannot enumerate all of them I will try to remind your committee of a few. We have United States Government standards

which are based upon their own concepts, but it is my understanding that we in the United States have made little, if any, effort to join in the establishment of worldwide standards. United States quality is generally known to be higher than the grain qualities of other countries but we offer for sale principally upon price and not on quality. If the two were tied together we feel more United States rice could be sold in the foreign markets. In this connection it is also felt that more research should be conducted for the purpose of determining the need for definite calories, vitamins, et cetera, in the various foreign markets in order that the United States rice industry might be in a position to furnish the particular diet most helpful to the particular foreign market.

I am sure your committee is familiar with our sugar and rice agreements with Cuba. The United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of State have investigated the failure of Cuba to live up to its agreement to purchase United States rice, and the United States sugar producers have complained of the volume of sugar purchased from Cuba, but apparently no steps have been taken to enforce a reciprocal arrangement under which failure of compliance to purchase the quota of rice from the United States will result in a relative reduction in the United States obligation to purchase sugar. We think that would be helpful to our export.

The CHAIRMAN. You would be surprised how difficult it would be to do what you say there.

Mr. COLLIER. I understand that.

The CHAIRMAN. Although you say Cuban sugar, let me say that 36 percent of the production is owned and controlled by Boston, New York, and Chicago capitalists and the Coca Cola Co. and other big companies that produce soft drinks. They have a lot of support in Congress, you know.

Mr. COLLIER. We have ricegrowers moving down there, too, just like they spoke of for the cottongrowers.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. COLLIER. Certain provisions of the wage and hour laws are needlessly costly to many ricegrowers. As you probably know, many rice farmers in their attempt to reduce costs have constructed their own facilities for drying, storing, and marketing their product, and some of them own and operate their own irrigation systems. Because of cooperative ownership or sale of irrigation water for a percentage of the crop such irrigation systems are exempt from the law, while other farmer-owned systems which sell irrigation water for a cash consideration are not exempt. It is felt that all such agricultural systems should be exempt. The location of the drying and storing facility governs the exemption, and it is recommended that the area of production which determines such location should be within a reasonable distance of the actual production rather than the city limits or the distance from the city limits of such facility.

Then we have many so-called rice farmers who produce rice as a hobby or supplement to their principal source of livelihood. In the four south Texas counties comprising my principal operation there are a number of doctors, several oil operators, as well as day laborers who depend entirely upon other sources of income for their principal livelihood but they farm from 200 to 500 acres of rice.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you correct that evil, if you call it that? Mr. COLLIER. It is rather difficult. That borders on socialism. But now I understand that this has been done, that you are taking cotton away from west Texas cotton growers in acreage, and you are giving it to east Texas. If that can be done, I do not see why you cannot take rice away from the doctor, and give it to this fellow who depends on his rice. I do not know that you can.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Texas is so big, you can do that in Texas. But don't you think the approach might be to deny those who are not actual farmers any support prices, whatever?

Mr. COLLIER. I think that would be a wonderful solution to it.
The CHAIRMAN. That may be one way out of it.

Mr. COLLIER. It would reduce a considerable acreage.

I have attached a copy of some administrative suggestions that I have made to the Department of Agriculture. I do not think we should go into that.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be placed in the record.

Mr. COLLIER. I certainly thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Collier.

(The document previously referred to follows:)

AMERICAN RICE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION,

HOUSTON DIVISION,
Pearland, Tex., September 27, 1955.

DEPARTMENT Of Agriculture, COMMODITY STABILIZATION SERVICE,
Agriculture Administration Building, Washington 25, D. C.

(Attention Mr. J. A. Satterfield.)

GENTLEMEN: We learn from the practical application of the various rules and regulations that certain changes should be made from time to time in order to make it possible to carry out such regulations, and with this thought in mind we have a few recommendations which we hope you will seriously consider before we enter into the next rice-producing year.

1. ADVICE OF PRICE SUPPORTS BEFORE PLANTING SEASON

As you know, the majority of the rice farmers are going to produce the variety that earns the largest net return to them, and as a result of this situation the price-support program will govern, to a large extent, the percentages by varieties that are planted in the Southern States. If the Department of Agriculture would announce a preliminary price-support schedule in January each year, the Department could, to some extent, control the varieties to be produced. The records will show that a very small percentage of some varieties are acquired by CCC and that a very large percentage of other varieties are acquired. If the farmer produced more of the varieties which are in heavy demand for consumption we feel that CCC would take over a much smaller percentage of the total rice crop. It seems to be a matter of economics with the farmer.

2. ALLOCATION TO A FARM

Instruction No. 1006-1 for determining what land should be included in a farm may be a workable plan in some States where the rice acreage is allotted to the land, and it may also work in the case of a farmer who owns considerable land in a State where the acreage is allotted to the farmer, but we believe it is not practical on at least 80 percent of the acreage where the allotment is made to the individual. This is particularly true in the four counties which comprise the area served by our association. The average farm in our area comprises approximately 300 acres and the average tract of land by ownership is approximately 30 acres. We have 1 section comprising 640 acres which is owned by 52 different individuals and the farmer who produces rice on this tract does not own any part of it. He has various types of land leases, ranging from 1 to 5 years and some of the consideration is cash while a portion of the consideration is a percentage of the crop. Many leases are secured by

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »