Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, based on all the considerations hereby expressed, the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, respectfully express its firm opposition to title III of H.R. 7097, now under your consideration. PONCE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Hon. SANTIAGO POLANCO-ABREU, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, DEAR RESIDENT COMMISSIONER POLANCO-ABREU: The Ponce Chamber of Commerce wishes to submit to you our views regarding the dispositions covered by title III of bill of H.R. 7097 dated April 5, 1965, now under consideration by Congress. Puerto Rico, with a population of over 2,300,000 inhabitants which consume over 300 million pounds of rice yearly, stands to receive a serious setback in its economy and a tremendous harm to its people if the subsidy for this staple is eliminated, which will result in an increase of 25 percent per pound of rice. Rice constitutes the basic food article of the poor people of Puerto Rico, and is consumed more frequently than any other food because of the nutritional value it affords and the fact that it costs cheaper than any other foodstuff. We respectfully appeal to Congress to consider the dispositions as covered by title III in the aforesaid bill of H.R. 7097, now under discussion. If the war on poverty is to be successful, this is an instance where it can render the most good. Puerto Rico depends on the mainland for most of the foodstuffs, rice constituting its mainstay. Cordially yours, PONCE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. PAUL C. JONES, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice, House Agriculture Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR COLLEAGUE: I have been furnished with copies of telegrams sent to Governor Sánchez Vilella, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, expressing objection to the provisions of title III of H.R. 7097 pertaining to rice subsidies. These translations appear on the attached sheet and I should appreciate it if they could be made part of the record of title III. Sincerely, SANTIAGO POLANCO-ABREU. COROZAL, April 22, 1965. Hon. ROBERTO SÁNCHEZ VILELLA, La Fortaleza, San Juan, P.R.: Request drastic opposition title III of H.R. 7097 of the U.S. House of Representatives. Hon. ROBERTO SÁNCHEZ VILELLA, Governor of Puerto Rico, RAMON RAMOS SUCRS. NARANJITO, April 22, 1965. San Juan, P.R.: Request most drastic opposition to title III of H.R. 7097 of the U.S. House of Representatives. 49-012-65 -12 GASPAR RODRIGUEZ, Businessman. NARANJITO, April 22, 1965. Hon. ROBERTO SÁNCHEZ VILELLA, La Fortaleza, San Juan, P.R.: Request Honorable Governor your drastic opposition to title III of H.R. 7097 of the U.S. House of Representatives. Hon. ROBERTO SÁNCHEZ VILELLA, La Fortaleza, JESUS MORALES. SANTURCE, April 23, 1965. San Juan, P.R.: Request your drastic opposition to title III of H.R. 7097 of the U.S. House of Representatives. HONORABLE GOVERNOR, OBDULIO MATIAS HERNANDEZ, Haydee Rexach 412—VP. Request your drastic opposition to title III of H.R. 7097 of the U.S. House of Representatives. Hon. ROBERTO SANCHEZ VILELLA, JUAN DIAZ ÁLFARO, Wholesale Distributor of Foodstuffs. CAGUAS, April 28, 1965. Request your assistance in opposing title III of H.R. 7097 of the U.S. House of Representatives, which provisions would cost the people of Puerto Rico $15 million per year. GUMERSINDO VIERA. MOROVIS, May 1, 1965. Hon. ROBERTO SANCHEZ VILELLA, Governor of Puerto Rico, La Forteleza, San Juna, P.R.: Urgently request drastic opposition to title III of H.R. 7097 of the U.S. House of Representatives. FELIPE MALDONADO, Businessman, TOA BAJA, April 27, 1965. Hon. ROBERTO SANCHEZ VILELLA, San Juan, P.A.: Request most drastic opposition to title III of H.R. 7097 of the U.S. House of Representatives. CARMELO RIOS. Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Cranek, will you give the reporter your name and address, please? STATEMENT OF LESTER CRANEK, GARWOOD, TEX. Mr. CRANEK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I don't have a statement to hand out, but I will read the statement that I have. I am Lester J. Cranek, of Garwood, Colorado County, Tex., and a rice farmer who is strictly a producer trying to make a living for a wife, four sons, and four daughters from 296 acres of rice as my total operational income. I am not a spokesman for any particular group except for a number of rice farmers like myself, who are interested in trying to see that a way is continued by which they can continue to make a living for themselves and their families. The committee has heard reams of testimony, and will probably hear and receive additional reams relative to the rice situation. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like at this point to present the views of farmers in my area with respect to the proposed plan for rice. The vast majority of the farmers in my area would like to see the rice program stay just as it is, the present program that we have, provided that Congress and the administration see fit to do so. However, I am positive that they do not want to lose another 10 percent in price and an additional 10 percent in acreage for 1966, which appears to be imminent if some other alternative is not tried for rice. The small community in which I live will experience a quarter million dollar loss of net profit this year from the rice crop, due to a lowering of the 1965 support price. This loss is off the top. Most farmers can't do anything to offset this loss managerialwise. Consequently there will be $250,000 less in the Garwood community spent for new cars, household goods, skipped payments on mortgages, and so forth. This reduction in 1965 of the support price for the entire United States will amount to somewhere around $17 to $18 million for the farmers. Now using the economist figure of seven times any one given dollar to get the gross total national product of what a dollar of farm inconie will mean, that is somewhere around reducing the gross national product $119 to $126 million lost in total economic product. If we continue in 1966 and take $50 million out of the farmer's hip pocket, which we would do if we had the basic alternative that appears like the two questions may be, then we can multiply that figure by an additional seven, and you can see the tremendous impact that it would have on the total economy. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if Congress determines that they must take costs out of the farm program for rice, I implore that it not be done at the cost of returns to the producer. When the true picture of what a bargain food and fiber is in the United States, as reflected to both consumer and producer, is shown, there is no doubt in my mind that the consumer can bear, and willingly so, the costs necessary to keep up farm income. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to say that I think the great majority of rice farmers in America today have confidence that the administration and Congress can solve this problem without taking the small margins of profit away from rice farming that is now left there. The administration has come forth with its plan to do this job of Government subsidy reduction by a method of letting the consumer absorb the cost. It is my opinion that this plan can be a workable one if safeguards are placed therein to assure the rice farmer some means of protection. These safeguards must be there for him to be able to make long-range plans for financing, land leasing, equipment buying, and so forth. It is iny opinion that many of the objections to the present plan advanced would not be nearly as voluminous if safeguards will be placed at strategic places. However, it appears that the alternative of keeping the present program would reduce income to the 14,500 rice farmers or farms with allotments some $400 to $500 per acre, necessarily more for the large farms and less for the small farms to have this average of four to five hundred loss of income. I am satisfied that we should take an alternative plan when this occurs. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that a plan can be worked out by the Congress, the administration, and members of the rice industry, whereby costs can be removed from the present program with safeguards placed in such a plan to insure protection of the rice farmer income. In the last 10 years, the price per hundredweight of rice to the producer has dropped about 30 percent, while items of production which he has no control over, such as labor, machinery, land rent, water price, and so forth, have increased 15 to 20 percent, and in some items considerably more. At this point I would like to point out what has happened to consumer prices. During this period milled rice shipped to food markets in my community-and I took the trouble of going back to the local grocery store, and we have one in the Garwood area, and had them go back through their 10-year records, and got the wholesale price of rice that they paid for milled rice of various brands, and I am not going to call any mills by name, that was placed on the market. Rice has increased in price about 25 percent in the last 10 years to the consumer. In the meanwhile consumption by this consumer has continued to increase. I would like to point out that we have had this thing happen in the last 10 years. Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to say that my sole purpose in appearing before this committee is to emphasize that the rice farmer cannot and must not be forced to take a loss in income. It has certainly been a privilege to appear and testify on what I can honestly defend and also feel confident that the majority of the producers in my area feel the same way, provided they know the facts involved. I thank you. Are there any questions, Mr. Chairman? Mr. GATHINGS. Texas is a big State, Mr. Cranek. Mr. CRANEK. Yes, sir. Mr. GATHINGS. It is quite a big State. With regard to the geography of Texas, where is your hometown? Mr. CRANEK. Ninety miles west of Houston. Mr. GATHINGS. Ninety miles west of Houston? Mr. CRANEK. Yes, sir. Mr. GATHINGS. That is pretty close to-Galveston would be south of Houston. Mr. CRANEK. It is between Houston and San Antonio. Mr. GATHINGS. You are west? Mr. CRANEK. Yes. Mr. GATHINGS. I see. I would just like to ask you, who is your Representative in the House? Mr. CRANEK. Clark W. Thompson. Mr. CRANEK. Yes. Mr. GATHINGS. He was on this committee for a long, long number of years. Mr. CRANEK. Yes, sir. Mr. GATHINGS. He was the chairman of a subcommittee here for years and years on rice. Mr. CRANEK. Right, sir. Mr. GATHINGS. He appeared before the committee yesterday. Mr. CRANEK. Yes, sir. Mr. GATHINGS. And told us that his people were unable to live with this new title III suggestion that was sent down to us. Mr. CRANEK. Right, sir. And my testimony states that the majority of the farmers in my area do not accept title III. Mr. GATHINGS. I don't understand you. Mr. CRANEK. The majority does not accept title III. Mr. GATHINGS. Do not accept it? Mr. CRANEK. That is right, sir. That was my statement. Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Stalbaum. Mr. STALBAUM. Mr. Cranek, along that line, you did, however, indicate that you felt that with some safeguards and some modifications, that a program could be worked out whereby at least a portion of this cost could be transferred to the consumer; is that not correct? Mr. CRANEK. Yes, sir. It is my opinion that if we are to protect the income of the producer, that there is only one place that this can be done, and this is for the consumer to bear an additional cost of the product item of production. Mr. STALBAUM. Did you hear the testimony yesterday? Mr. CRANEK. Right, sir. Mr. STALBAUM. And you heard our chairman indicate the possibility of there being time for groups to sit down with the Department and perhaps representatives of this committee, to try to work out some satisfactory proposal? Mr. CRANEK. Yes, sir. Mr. STALBAUM. And you are in full accord, from your testimony, with that suggestion? Mr. CRANEK. Right, sir. Mr. STALBAUM. Thank you. Mr. JONES of Missouri. Thank you very much, Mr. Cranek. Mr. David Winterman did you testify yesterday? STATEMENT OF DAVID WINTERMAN, EAGLE LAKE, TEX. Mr. WINTERMAN. No, sir; I did not. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is David Winterman, president of the American Rice Growers Association. I did not appear with them yesterday because I thought any testimony that I gave would be repetitious. I did want to come and just make two statements, mainly in answer to Congressman Stalbaum's questions. One was that rice in Texas and in the greater part of Louisiana is a one-crop area or a one-crop economy, and that does not hold true, as far as I can find out, in California and Arkansas, but it does hold true for Texas. Any disruption in our income would be disastrous to our farming communities. The other question that has been posed by him a number of times is what alternative do we have to offer. We have no alternative on this program, and the people to whom I have talked in my own district, and members at our meetings, have all said that if there is no alternative |