תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

farm rice, soybeans and maize. My farm is my life, as it is my children's. All of my children have been actively participating in the business since they were big enough to sit on a tractor and their feet touch the floor-about 8-years old.

Both my sons are looking forward to the day they can fit in the groove they have been molding for themselves all these past years. My wife and I have worked hard and long hours side by side and we feel as other farmers and ranchers, their wives and families do that we need a better farm bill.

In the eyes of the American family farmer and rancher the new farm bill, H.R. 7171, created by the 95th Congress in the first session spells complete bankruptcy. According to statewide statistics in Texas alone, over 2,000 farmers and ranchers a year are going broke and leaving the farm. Every week I receive a notice of another farm auction, another farmer going broke, selling out. This is very disturbing to other farmers and ranchers because we believe in the effectivenes of family owned and operated farms and ranches.

I want to advise you of the facts that concern every rice producer in this continental United States. The 1977 rice crop sold at a fairly good price. The Washington Riceletter, Washington, D.C. predicts that close to 3 million acres of rice will be planted in the crop year 1978. This is considerably more acres than USDA predictions of planting intentions of 2,482,000 acres. The 1977 production yield was 10 percent below normal crop yield and there was still sufficient rice produced. We are concerned about the 1975 rice in Government storage, 19 million hundredweights that is hanging over today's market. If the sale of this rice depresses our market at harvest time, we will be in deep trouble. Our cost of production per hundredweight should be put into the farm bill in the form of a Government loan through Commodity Credit Corporation. All these factors alarm and concern all the 1978 producers.

You need to take a closer look at the voting results on marketing quotas in previous years. These results were 90 to 95 percent in favor of marketing quotas. Every grassroots rice producer I have talked to is 100 percent for making the rice acreage planted in 1977 by a rice producer to be made compulsory for 1978. This would be a total acreage nationwide of 2,261,000 acres, according to USDA report of acreage planted in crop year 1977. This would possibly save the American taxpayers a huge sum of money, which could equal the 1976 deficiency payments on rice of $128.2 million. This payment should never have had to be made. The urban consumer and taxpayer doesn't like the Government paying these deficiency payments to the farmer. They call it a giveaway. The urban consumer and the farmers are both going to relate their feelings at the polls. The American Agriculture Movement is going to vote for and elect Senators and Representatives and other public officials that vote favorably on a farm bill this year that will benefit the farmer. The officials that publicly and actively back the farmer will have the farmers' support at reclection time. Nationwide, according to the Harris survey, the urban consumer is sympathetic to the farmer and is willing to pay more for his food. Voluntary set-aside will not work. It has got to be made mandatory nationwide. We cannot live with overproduction, high expenses, and low prices for our products.

According to Washington Riceletter, Public Law 480 rice sales to Indonesia have been held up 5 months because of Carter's human rights issue. We stand to lose this market and others if we keep holding back on rice sales because of human rights issues. There are other willing suppliers for Indonesia and other countries to turn to for this food source that they need now. Indonesia is a prime buyer at present and in future years. We cannot stand to lose these valuable markets.

Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland said in his report to the Senate that farm assets rose to $731 billion in 1977, a $60 billion gain in 1 year. The purported gain is affected by inflation and makes the paper value of farmland greater than actual value.

Secretary of Interior Cecil Andrus proposed a vast land reform plan. The big farms running into thousands of acres would be broken up by the Government and sold off in 160-acre parcels to deserving applicants. The plan is startling, even shocking. For half a century the Department of Agriculture has been telling us that small family farms are no longer practical, that the bigger the farm the greater its efficiency in producing food, grain, and cattle. Secretary of Agriculture Bergland wrote Andrus that larger operating units may be necessary to provide a return to management and operator labor sufficient to maintain a viable farming operation. That is a fine line of gobbledegook.

It means that a farm has to be bigger than 160 acres to pay off. But even Bergland seems quite willing to limit the size on any one family's holdings and he suggested that farm size could be held down by limiting leasing privileges to some specific number of acres. By what right does the Federal Government force American landowners to sell their productive land?

In conclusion I want to present some concepts that should be made and enacted into a farm bill immediately. They are the following: 1. Freeze or control rice acreage at 1977 acreage of 2,261,000 acres. Make this compulsory to every rice producer.

2. Corn, wheat, milo, soybeans, and all small grain, cut 20 percent off the national acreage based on each farm number in the ASCS office files. If this fails to achieve 100-percent parity, cut production accordingly.

3. Decreases in crop acreages for following crop year be announced by June 1 of current crop year.

4. Increases in crop acreages announced by March 1 of current crop

year.

5. Discontinue crop reporting service.

6. Say no to futures market on rice.

I close with these remarks: My income this year was far below what it should have been for the long hours, sweat, laying my life's work on the line, trusting in good weather conditions to see me clear for another year.

Thank you.

Senator HODGES. Thank you.

We go now to the next witness.

Mr. DUKE. They are just friends with me. You go ahead and question them.

This is Mr. Hahn from Port Lavaca, Tex., and Mr. Jurek from Bay City, Tex.

Mr. HAHN. We are rice and grain farmers.

Mr. JUREK. I would like to state one thing. In 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973 my wife and I purchased, through the Department of Agriculture, which is the only way we could purchase, a piece of paper that we paid $250 to $300 an acre for the right to grow rice. In 1975 we came out with the program of freedom to produce. The Department of Agriculture came in and took away 122 of my acres-took it. Then they took the farmer who had not been producing rice and gave them that allotment. You now have what they call wild rice, wild production. Anyone can farm under the 1978 farm bill. We are not asking for a Government handout, we are not asking for subsidies; we are asking right now for controls which we do not have.

Senator HODGES. Myself and four other Senators introduced bill 2626. I don't know whether you are familiar with it or not. Mr. DUKE. In a limited way.

Senator HODGES. It does some of the exact things you are talking about, and someone that represented, I would say, the processor part of the rice industry, as well as the producer, indicated a lot of farmers were not willing to take set-asides. Do you agree that the rice farmer is willing to take set-asides and is not happy with the present situation?

They are not in my area, in my opinion. One of our rice farmers is going to testify next. Would you speak to the Houston area, as to whether or not the average producer down there is satisfied with what is happening in rice; that is, we are going to have probably 2.8 or 3 million acres of rice?

Mr. DUKE. Louisiana goes along with Texas and so does California. We want our controls brought back on as of 1977 production. We don't want it put on an allotment basis per farmer, except what we farmed in 1977. If we can hold it at 1977, we will get above 100 percent parity on our rice, but we stand to get about 40 percent of parity on my prediction. I predict USDA will pay the figure $128.2 million this year, in 1978. It wouldn't happen if we would bring controls in, and this would be a selling point to the Congressmen and Senators that go back home to get reelected, if they save their taxpayers that money.

Senator HODGES. My point is that the bill that I have introduced is one that looks at all products. The problem that is happening to rice is the direct result of people in Mississippi being unable to make money in cotton, and from people in Arkansas moving from one commodity to another and we come up and patch up one commodity in Washington because they have a good lobbying group and therefore it spills over to another. Wheat has problems and therefore it pours over into soybeans; soybeans have problems and it pours over into rice. Cotton has problems and they are putting it into rice production, and now we are going to have problems in rice. So that is why our bill is trying to look at all commodities.

You might not need a set-aside in rice if the production was such that it has a good price, and the loan approach over the long period of time is to put a floor under it at cost of production. I think it is horrible to expect the farmer who is at the mercy of everyone from the Federal Government to EPA to HEW to have to think that he is in a free market. You are not ever going to be in a free market in this country again. It is an impossibility.

Our time is up. I am sorry. I have to go to Senator Lugar.
Senator LUGAR. No questions.

Mr. DUKE. Thank you for your time.

Senator HODGES. Thank you all very much. I am sorry we didn't have enough time.

Is Mr. Hoffman here from Indiana? We are going to take him out of line because Senator Lugar has to go and we will go ahead and take these witnesses while you are here.

Mr. Hoffman, you have a statement, but it might be of some benefit if you and the other witnesses would just simply tell your name and address and perhaps something about your operation, what you farm, so I would have a better idea.

STATEMENT OF MARTIN J. HOFFMAN, REPRESENTING LAKE COUNTY FARMERS FOR ACTION, HEBRON, IND.*

Mr. HOFFMAN. I am from the great State of Indiana, Hebron, Ind., Senator Lugar's State. I am a cash grain farmer and farm 1,100 acres with my two sons and my wife.

Less than 60-days ago we came up with a proposal that I think every witness here has kind of put a little contribution toward. We are going to present this proposal to you in its entirety and we want you to consider it.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this privilege. Here is a proposal:

First. We are requesting the USDA conduct a nationwide referendum to give producers the privilege of voting on an option of a 15 or 20 percent reduction of all cropland acreage. This would bring production in line with demand.

Notice that is 15 or 20. That would be a choice.

Second. We propose that the ASCS conduct the referendum. It would give producers notice of eligibility requirements and voting procedures, handle challenges of eligibility, and publish the results of the referendum.

Third. We propose the program be regulated by the ASCS. They have the required maps, acreages, and the knowledge to implement the program once initiated.

Fourth. Eligibility: Voting would be in person at the county ASCS office. Landowners and operators on file at ASCS offices are eligible to vote, 51 percent of those voting would be needed to pass the referendum. Referendum would be mandatory on all cropland acres.

Fifth. We propose a premeasurement program to be used at producer expense. If an excess acreage is planted the producer would have 10 days to make corrections. If no correction is made, the producer would be liable for a fine of $300 for each acre in violation. The fines would be collected in county and placed in an escrow account. Funds would be used to help implement the program the following year.

This is simply a three-point program. No. 1, we are asking the people of our great Government to give us a privilege of voting on a reduction of all cropland acres.

No. 2, it has to be mandatory on all, as has been stated throughout this hearing.

See p. 300 for statistical material supplied by Mr. Hoffman.

No. 3, I have to have assurance that my neighbor is going to do the

same.

Now if you will turn the paper over, we will give the advantages. First. The nonagricultural segment of the economy is not taxed for subsidy payments to producers. The only cost to the Government is the administering of the program. Government is already bearing the majority of this cost by maintaining ASCS offices. This program would be politically palatable to the taxpayer. The program is much less inflationary than one that calls for direct payments to the producer from the USDA.

Second. Since the farmer has the opportunity to vote on the program, the fact that it is mandatory if passed should be acceptable. If farmers turn it down, they do not have a lot to complain about.

Third. With voluntary premeasurement combined with a 10-day period to correct any violation, there should not be any need to impose the $300-per-acre fine. Nevertheless, this is an important part of the program. All producers must be assured that everyone will comply. Fourth. The trimming of production rather than the setting of artificial prices or supports treats the cause of our problem rather than the symptoms.

Fifth. The reduction of acres planted will work equally on all phases of agricultural production. Historically, livestock producers have benefited when grain prices have been higher. Low grain prices encourage overproduction of beef, pork, and dairy products.

Sixth. Land withdrawn from production would be subject to conservation measures, thereby providing cover and reducing erosion. Seventh. More efficient use would be made of available fuel and fertilizers since more management time would be devoted to land actually planted.

Eighth. Consumers would benefit from a stronger, more stable agriculture. The economy would benefit from increased farmer spending, and the maintenance of the family farm would be assured. Dollars spent in agriculture are turned over seven times.

Ninth. The reduction of cropland acres applies only to cropland in total, not to individual crops. Each producer would be free to plant any crop he chooses after set-aside is made. Individual crop acreages would be determined by the producer.

Tenth. A workable reserve system is essential when production is controlled. However, reserve must not be used to control prices, unless disaster necessitates its use.

This program has been proposed by farmers as a positive step to help solve their own economic problem. It has been discussed with farmers from all over the country, numerous politicians and several knowledgeable USDA staff members, both in Washington and locally. It has been discussed with representatives of the major farm organizations, and almost without exception these people have felt it would work, and the majority have been enthusiastic in supporting it.

Our program is an alternative route to the goal which is common to all farmers: A fair price for our production. We are not at odds with other programs; we only seek to provide the Congress and the executive branch with the help of finding a solution to our problem.

Gentlemen, we are just asking for the privilege of voting on a referendum on a reduction that we are willing to impose upon ourselves. That is all we are asking to do, and we are begging for this privilege.

« הקודםהמשך »