RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTSGoVERNMEN 

"43 WI?

36111%7 KSU LIBRARIES 

Storage

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OILSEEDS AND BICE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETIETH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.J. Res. 263

MARCH 7, 1967

Serial E

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

78 -013 WASHINGTON : 1967
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

W. R. POAGE, Texas, Chairman

E. C. GATHINGS, Arkansas,

Vice Chairman

JOHN L. McMILLAN, South Carolina

THOMAS G. ABERNETHY, Mississippi

WATKINS M. ABBITT, Virginia

PAUL C. JONES, Missouri

FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Kentucky

GRAHAM PURCELL, Texas

MASTON O'NEAL, Georgia

THOMAS S. FOLEY, Washington

JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, New York

ELIGIO DE LA GARZA, Texas

JOSEPH P. VIGORITO, Pennsylvania

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

JOHN G. DOW, New York

BILL NICHOLS, Alabama

G. V. MONTGOMERY, Mississippi

FRANK J. BRASCO, New York

W. S. STUCKEY, Georgia

JOHN R. RARICK, Louisiana

PAGE BELCHER, Oklahoma,

Ranking Minority Member

CHARLES M. TEAGUE, California

CATHERINE MAY, Washington

ROBERT DOLE, Kansas

GEORGE V. HANSEN, Idaho

WILLIAM C. WAMPLER, Virginia

GEORGE A. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

CLARENCE E. MILLER, Ohio

J. HERBERT BURKE, Florida

ROBERT B. MATHIAS, California

WILEY MAYNE, Iowa

JOHN M. ZWACH, Minnesota

THOMAS S. KLEPPE, North Dakota

ROBERT PRICE, Texas

JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana

RESIDENT COMMISSIONER

SANTIAGO POLANCO-ABREU, Puerto Rico

CHRISTINE S. GALLAGHER, Clerk

HYDE H. MURRAY, Assistant Counsel

FRANCIS M. LEMAY, Staff Consultant

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OILSEEDS AND RICE

MASTON O'NEAL, Georgia, Chairman

E. C. GATHINGS, Arkansas GEORGE V. HANSEN, Idaho

GRAHAM PURCELL, Texas WILLIAM C. WAMPLER, Virginia

JOHN R. RARICK, Louisiana ROBERT B. MATHIAS, California

II
CONTENTS

Page

Text of House Joint Resolution 263 1

Report from Agriculture Department with attachments 2

Statement of—

Greene C. E., Route 2, Brinkley, Ark 24 Satterfield, J. Alton, Deputy Director, Grain Policy Staff, ASCS, U.S. Department of Agriculture 19 Shofner, William 0., Deputy Director, Policy and Program Appraisal Division, ASCS, U.S. Department of Agriculture 4, 6

Correspondence submitted to the subcommittee:

Smart, R. C.

'

commanding officer, U.S.S. Dyson, letter dated August

7, 1946, to Lt. Comdr. E. Greene, USN 29

1I1
row
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OILSEEDS AND RICE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D .0 .

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m., in room 1302,

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Maston O'Neal (chairman of

the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives O'Neal, Gathings, Purcell, Rarick, Warnpier, and Mathias.

Also present: Representatives Mayne, Burke, and Myers. Christine

S. Gallagher, clerk; Hyde H. Murray, assistant counsel, and Fowler C.

West, assistant staff consultant.

Mr. O'NEAL. The Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice will come to

order.

The meeting this morning is scheduled to consider House Joint

Resolution 263 introduced by our own vice chairman of the full committee and a member of this subcommittee, Mr. E. C. Gathings, of

Arkansas.

Before we begin the business of the subcommittee, I would like to

say that we are privileged

i

to have with us this morning a very distinguished guest. He s Mr. Wallace Edward Rowling, a Member of

Parliament of New Zealand. Incidentally, he is a member of the

standing Committee on Land and Agriculture, and has been since 1962.

He is also a member of the Committee on Labor.

Mr. Rowling is in this country attending the Governmental Affairs

Institute and is accompanied this morning by Mr. Gene Harris of that

institute.

We are very delighted to have both of these gentlemen with us.

I note here that Mr. Rowling has done considerable travel in his time.

He was a Fulbright student in this country back in 1955-56. He

worked, I believe, in Singapore, Malaya, in 1959. He has done considerable traveling. We are very glad to have you with us. Will you

stand please, Mr. Rowling and Mr. Harris? [Applause.]

Without objection, House Joint Resolution 263 will be made a part

of the record at this point, along with any department reports.

(H.J. Res. 263 and report follow:)

[H.J. Res. 263, 90th Cong., first sess.]

JOINT RESOLUTION Relating to the establishment of 1967 farm rice acreage allotments

for certain producers and farms

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That for the crop year 1967, in each State in

which farm rice acreage allotments are determined on the basis of past produe•
2 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

lion of rice and past acreage allotments of producers on the farm there shall

be made available from the national acreage reserve for 1967 such acreage as

is required for producers who did not produce rice in any of the five years immediately preceding the crop year 1967 sufficient to apportion to each person

who prior to 1955 acquired in an established rice-producing area in fee simple

land suitable for the production of rice with the intention of producing rice on

such land, but did not produce rice on such land in any of the years 1950 to 1954,

inclusive, due to being in the military service during such period, a rice acreage

allotment of sufficient size to constitute an economic rice operation for the producer, taking into consideration the total acreage of land so acquired which is

classified as cropland, the suitability of such cropland for the production of

alternative crops, the source and availability of irrigation water, the producer's

farming background and dependence upon farming as a livelihood, and the

extent of ownership or interest in other lands devoted to the production of

agricultural commodities: Provided, That for the crop year 1967 the producer

rice allotment apportioned to such person shall, as a condition of the apportionment, be allocated to the land so acquired by him; and in States in which farm

rice acreage allotments are determined on the basis of past production of rice

and past acreage allotments on the farm there shall be made available from

the national acreage reserve for 1967 such acreage as is required for farms on

which rice was not produced in any of the five years immediately preceding the

crop year 1967 sufficient to apportion to each farm containing land suitable for

rice production which was acquired in an established rice-producing area in fee

simple prior to 1955 by a person with the intention of producing rice on such

farm but rice was not produced on the farm containing such land in any of the

years 1950 to 1954, inclusive, due to the owner thereof being in the military

service during such period, an acreage allotment for such farm of sufficient size

to constitute an economic rice operation, taking into consideration the total

acreage of land so acquired which is classified as cropland, the suitability of

such cropland for the production of alternative crops, the 'source and availability

of irrigation water, the owner's farming background and dependence upon

farming as a livelihood, and the extent of ownership or interest in other farms

devoted to the production of agricultural commodities.

SEc. 2. For the crop year 1967, in the case of any producer or any farm, as

the case may be, to which the provisions of section 1 of this resolution would

apply except for the fact that the producer or farm has since 1954 been apportioned a new producer or new farm allotment, there shall be made available

from the national acreage reserve for 1967 sufficient acreage to provide each such

producer or farm an increase in the producer or farm acreage allotment otherwise determined sufficient to establish an allotment for the producer or farm

of sufficient size to constitute an economic rice operation for the producer on

the farm, taking into consideration the total acreage of land acquired by the

producer which is classified as cropland, the suitability of such cropland for

the production of alternative crops, the source and availability of irrigation

water, the owner's farming background and dependence upon farming as a

livelihood, and the extent of ownership or interest in other lands devoted to the

production of agricultural commodities.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C., March 16, 1967.

Hon. W. R. POAGE,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On March 7, 1967, H.J. Res. 263, "relating to the establishment of farm rice acreage allotments for certain producers and farms," was

approved and reported with an amendment by the Oilseeds and Rice Subcommittee to the Full House Agriculture Committee.

Prior to this action, the Subcommittee held hearings on the measure at which

time, William 0. Shofner, the official spokesman for the Department, presented

a prepared statement pointing out the reasons why the Administration took an

adverse position on the legislation. Also in previous years when requested by

the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee to express our views on this

same legislation, the Administration took a negative position on it.

We would like to make it clear that the hearing record of March 7, 1967, contains conflicting testimony from Department officials as to the official position of

the Administration. Mr. Shofner was delegated by this Department to present
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 3

the official views on H.J. Res. 263. These views had been cleared with the

Bureau of the Budget from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Any

statement in the Subcommittee hearing record made by other Department

officials conflicting with the position stated by Mr. Shofner, whether general

information, statistics, or suggested amendment have no official status and are

contrary to the position of the Administration and the Department of Agriculture.

As stated in Mr. Shofner's testimony in his appearance before the Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice, April 7, 1965, and again on March 7, 1967, and in our

legislative report of July 20, 1965, to the Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, it was pointed out how this legislation would discriminate against

others who would like to grow rice, reduce the allotments of the traditional

grower, and could lead to requests for similar type legislation for growers of other commodities. In the view of this Department, each of these points continues to be valid notwithstanding the amendment to the resolution as reported by the Sub- committee.

We further pointed out eligibility of an allotment under the resolution would

depend, in part, on a person's intended actions during a period of from 12 to 17

years ago. We are more than a decade removed from the last year of the base period provided by law for establishing rice allotments. During the interim

most persons engaged in agriculture as a livelihood have developed their farm- ing operations in the context of legislation which has been in effect. In other words those producers who have made other farming arrangements, at consider- able expense to them, would not look with favor upon the legislation in view of the date of its consideration and enactment.

Whenever we undertake to solve the problem of one citizen by special legisla- tion—which we understand is the principal objective of H.J. Res. 263—it involves discriminatory action against many others who have observed the rules and regu- lations of the farm programs over the years, and undermines the concept of fair and equitable treatment that we continually seek to adhere to in all of our farm commodity programs and operations.

Enclosed is a copy of our report on H.J. Res. 305 (89th Congress), and the Department's statement of March 7, 1967 on H.J. Res. 263. The Department's

statement before the Subcommittee on Oilseeds and Rice of March 7, 1905, is contained in the Committee records. The hearing was not printed.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN A. SCHNITTKER,

Under Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Washington, D.C., July 20, 1965. Hon. HAROLD D. COOLEY,

Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,

House of Representatives.

DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: This responds to your request of April 8, 1965, for a re- port on H.J. Res. 305 "Relating to the establishment of 1965 farm rice acreage allotments for certain producers and farms."

This resolution would enable persons who acquired land suitable for the pro- duction of rice prior to 1955, but did not produce rice on such land in any of the

years 1950 through 1954, (the base period provided by law for establishing rice allotments), due to being in the military service during such period, to obtain a

producer rice allotment allocated to the farm, or farm rice acreage allotment, of sufficient size to constitute an economic rice operation. The allotment acreage required for this purpose would be allocated from the national reserve for 1965. Further, any producer or any farm to which the resolution would apply, and to which a new producer or new farm allotment has been apportioned since 1954, would receive an alldtment increase of sufficient size as to provide an allotment which would constitute an economic rice operation for the producer on the farm. The resolution, in effect, would set up a form of preference in the establishment

of rice acreage allotments to those persons in the military service during the period 1950 through 1954 (the base period used in establishing allotments for 1955), if such persons had acquired land suitable for the production of rice prior to 1955, and if they intended to produce rice during this period of years but were prevented because of military service. We are in complete agreement that veterans of the Armed Forces serving during the Korean period, and in other

emergency periods as well, are entitled to, and should, receive appropriate con- sideration as to rights and benefits commensurate with their service. Many
4 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

broad statutes have been enacted, and administrative regulations placed in effect,

aimed at these objectives.

However, H. J. Res. 305 would disadvantage established growers of rice because their acreage allotments would be reduced to the extent that a portion of

the allotment is withheld for issuance to veterans. Established rice producers—

those who have traditionally grown this crop—would not favor such a departure

from well established procedure heretofore followed.

Enactment of legislation for rice of the kind contemplated by the resolution

could lead to requests for similar treatment in respect to other allotment and

marketing quota crops. All such programs thus might be open to revision of

this kind.

Further, enactment of this legislation could lead to request for comparable

treatment for Armed Forces veterans serving during emergency periods other

than the Korean period. No such legislation was enacted on behalf of veterans

of World War II. Even today some members of our Armed Forces are serving in

various parts of the world under conditions somewhat akin to those existing during the Korean Emergency.

Eligibility for an allotment under the resolution would depend, in part, on a

person's intended actions during a period of from 10 to 15 years ago. We are a

decade removed from the last year of the base period provided by law for establishing rice allotments. During the interim most persons engaged in agriculture as a livelihood have developed their farming operations in the context of

legislation which has been in effect. In other words those producers who have

made other farming arrangements, at considerable expense to them, would not

look with favor upon the legislation in view of the date of its consideration and

enactment

Administration of the legislation would raise a number of problems such as. for

example, the determination of a person's intended actions more than a decade ago.

This was a time during which there were relatively large numbers of persons serving in the Armed Forces; while we have no basis for an estimate at this time,

it is likely that a number of these owned or acquired land during this emergency

period. Some of these people may. of course, be eligible for a rice allotment

under the provisions of this resolution; in this situation it would be necessary

to make a decision as to their intentions, based upon such information as could

be ascertained. Other complexities would arise in determining the size of allotment which constitutes an economic rice operation, taking aCcount of factors such

as the total acreage of cropland and sizes of rice allotments of other producers.

Based upon data for 1963, the U.S. average rice allotment was about 125 acres.

The average for the State of Arkansas was about 87 acres; however 47 percent

of the rice allotments in this State were under 51 acres. It seems apparent that

many of these allotment holders—who have obtained allotments based upon history in the manner now provided by law—would not view their allotment as

constituting "an economic rice operation," the standard provided by H.J. Res. 305.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely yours, ORVILLE L. FREEMAN.

secretaxy.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM 0. SHOFNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, POLICY AND PROGRAM

APPRAISAL DIVISION, ASCS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

H.J. Res. 263 "Relating to the establishment of 1967 farm rice acreage allotments for certain producers and farms" would enable persons who acquired land

suitable for the production of rice prior to 1955, but did not produce rice on such

land in any of the years 1950 throupsh 1954 (the base period provided by law

for establishnig rice allotments), due to being in the military service during such

period, to obtain a producer rice allotment allocated to the farm, or farm rice

acreaze allotment, of sufficient size to constitute an economic rice operation.

Phi' allotment acreage required for this purpose would be allocated from the

national reserve for 1967. Further, any producer or any farm to which the

resolution would apply, and to which a new producer or new farm allotment has

been ,apportioned since 1954, would receive an allotment increase of sufficient size

os to provide on allotment which would constitute an economic rice operation for

the producer on the farm.
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 5

In effect, the resolution would constitute a kind of preferential treatment in

the establishment of rice acreage allotments, favoring those persons in the

military service during the period 1950 through 1954 ( the base period used in

establishing allotments for 1955), if such persons had acquired land suitable

for the production of rice prior to 1955, and if they intended to produce rice during

this period of years but were prevented because of military service. We are in

complete agreement that veterans of the Armed Forces serving not only during

the Korean period but in other emergency periods as well, are entitled to, and

should, receive appropriate consideration as to rights and benefits commensurate

with their service. Many broad statutes have been enacted, and administrative

regulations placed in effect, aimed at these objectives.

But H.J. Res. 263 would disadvantage established growers of rice to the extent their acreage allotments would be smaller because a portion of the allotment is withheld for issuance to veterans. Established rice producers—those

who have traditionally grown this crop—would not favor such a departure from

established procedure followed in the past.

Enactment of legislation for rice of the kind contemplated by the resolution

could lead to requests for similar treatment in respect to other allotment, base

acreage, or marketing quota crops. All such programs thus might be open to

revision of this kind.

Enactment of this legislation could lead to requests for comparable treatment for Armed Forces veterans serving during emergency periods other than the

Korean period. No such legislation was enacted on behalf of veterans of World

War II. At this very time members of our Armed Forces are serving in various

parts of the world under conditions largely comparable to those existing during

the years of the Korean Emergency.

Eligibility for an allotment under the resolution would depend, in part, on

a person's intended actions during a period of from 12 to 17 years ago. We are

more than a decade removed from the last year of the base period provided by

law for establishing rice allotments. During the interim most persons engaged in

agriculture as a livelihood have developed their farming operations in the context of legislation which has been in effect in these years. In other words

those producers who have made other farming arrangements, at considerable

expense to them, would not look with favor upon the legislation in view of the

date of its consideration and enactment.

Administration of the legislation would raise a number of problems such as,

for example, the determination of a person's intended actions well over a decade

ago. This was a time during which there were relatively large numbers of

persons serving in the Armed Forces; while we have no precise basis for an estimate, it is possible that a number of these owned or acquired land during this

emergency period. Some of these people may, of course, be eligible for a rice allotment under the provisions of this resolution; in this situation it would be necessary to make a decision as to their intentions, based upon such information as

could be ascertained. Other complexities would arise in determining the size of

allotment which constitutes an economic rice operation, taking account of factors

such as the total acreage of cropland and sizes of rice allotments of other

producers.

Mr. O'NEAL. The first witness scheduled to be heard this morning

is Mr. J. Alton Satterfield, Deputy Director of the Grain Policy Staff,

ASCS, TJ.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Shofner; also from the Department, is here.

He has bee'i designated to present the Department's' position on this

resolution; so; if you do not mind, I would prefer to have Mr. Shofner

proceed me.

Mr. O'NEAL. I will change the order then and call Mr. Shofner in

accordance with your suggestion. Mr. Shofner is Deputy Director of

the Policy and Program AppraiSal Division of the ASCS, U.S. Departnient of Agriculture.

Will you dome forward and present your statement?

78-043-07 2
6 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM 0. ,SHOFNER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, POLICY

AND PROGRAM APPRAISAL DIVISION, ASCS, ACCOMPANIED BY

EDWIN F. ROLLINGS, FARMER PROGRAM DIVISION, ASCS, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. SHOFNER. This is a brief prepared statement which represents

the Department's views on House Joint Resolution 263. This is a

measure identical to a measure introduced in each of the two previous

Congresses. The statement that I am about to present is largely the

position of the Department in a report on a similar measure made in

the last Congress. When we understood you wanted someone to testify

on this matter, the Department undertook to get clearance on its position and it has gotten the approval of the Bureau of the Budget on

this particular statement. Although the Department has not been

asked to report on this particular bill, this does reflect the Department's views.

Mr. O'NEAL. Will you please proceed?

Mr. SHOFNER. H.J. Res. 263, 'Relating to the establishment of 1967

farm rice acreage allotments for certain producers and farms" would

enable persons who acquired land suitable for production of rice prior

to 1955, but did not produce rice on such land in any of the years 1950

through 1954 (the base period provided by law for establishing rice

allotments) due to being in the military service during such period,

to obtain a producer rice allotment allocated to the farm, or farm rice

acreage allotment, of sufficient size to constitute an economic rice operation. The allotment acreage required for this purpose would be allocated from the national reserve for 1967. Further, any producer or

any farm to which the resolution would apply, and to which a new producer or new farm allotment has been apportioned since 1954, would

receive an allotment increase of sufficient size as to provide an allotment

which would constitute an economic rice operation for the producer on

the farm.

In effect, the resolution would constitute a kind of preferential treatment in the establishment of rice acreage allotments, favoring those

persons in the military service during the period 1950 through 1954

(the base period used in establishing allotments for 1955), if such persons had acquired land suitable for the production of rice prior to 1955

and if they intended to produce rice 

durina'-'

this period of years but

were prevented because of military service. We are in complete agreement that veterans of the Armed Forces serving not only during the

Korean period but in other emergency periods as well, are entitled to,

and should receive appropriate consideration as to rights and benefits

commensurate with their service. Many broad statutes have been enacted, and administrative regulations placed in effect, aimed at these

objectives.

But House Joint Resolution 263 would disadvantage established

growers of rice, to the extent their acreage allotments would be smaller

because a portion of the allotment is withheld for issuance to veterans.

Established rice producers—those who have traditionally grown this

crop—would not favor such a departure from established procedure

followed in the past.

Enactment of legislation for rice of the kind contemplated by the

resolution could lead to requests for similar treatment in respect to
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 7

other allotment, base acreage, or marketing quota crops. All such

programs thus might be open to revision of this kind.

Enactment of this legislation could lead to requests for comparable

treatment for Armed Forces veterans serving during emergency

periods other than the Korean period. No such legislation was enacted on behalf of veterans of World War II. At this very time

members of our Armed Forces are serving in various parts of the

world under conditions largely comparable to those existing during

the years of the Korean emergency.

Eligibility for an allotment under the resolution would depend, in

part, on a person's intended actions during a period of from 12 to 17

years ago. We are more than a decade removed from the last year

of the base period provided by law for establishing rice allotments.

During the interim most persons engaged in agriculture as a livelihood have developed their farming operations in the context of legislation which has been in effect in these years. In other words, those

producers who have made other farming arrangements, at considerable

expense to them, would not look with favor upon the legislation in

(view of the date of its consideration and enactment.

Administration of the legislation would raise a number of problems

such as, for example, the determination of a person's intended actions

well over a decade ago. This was a time during which there were

relatively large numbers of persons serving in the Armed Forces;

while we have no precise basis for an estimate, it is possible that a

number of these owned or acquired land during this emergency period.

Some of these people may, of course, be eligible for a rice allotment

under the provisions of this resolution; in this situation it would be

necessary to make a decision as to their intentions, based upon such

information as could be ascertained. Other complexities would arise

in determining the size of allotment which constitutes an economic rice

operation, taking account of factors such as the total acreage of cropland and sizes of rice allotments of other producers.

Mr. O'NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Shofner.

The Chair will recognize the author of the resolution, Mr. Gathings,

Mr. GATHINGS. Since Mr. Shofner is on the stand, Mr. Chairman, 1.

would like to ask him a few questions.

Mr. O'NEAL. Please proceed.

Mr. GATHINGS. Would you explain to the subcommittee the present

rice laws that are on the statute books applicable to the rice program

today?

Mr. SHOFNER. In effect, we have a program involving a rice acreage

allotment having a minimum of about 1.6 million acres. The allotment for 1967 is slightly over 2 million acres.

Mr. GATHINGS. Will you state to the subcommittee how that came

about, by what steps that came up to that figure?

Mr. SHOFNER. The allotment for 1967 is identical with the allot.

ment for 1966 as to size; that is, the acreage. It was originally set at

1.8 million acres and was just recently increased 10 percent to fractionally over 2 million acres.

Under legislation now in effect and, I believe, under provisions of

the Agricultural Act of 1965, when the allotment is reduced below 1.8

million acres, even though the statutory minimum is 1.6 million acres,

producers would be offered a diversion program, involving payments
8 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

for making the reduction below 1.8 million acres. The program has

been in effect since the allotment and quota program for rice has been

in effect, since, I believe, 1955—all of the years since the period of years

covered by this resolution.

Mr. GATHINGS. The 1949 act is the basic rice program or legislation ?

Mr. SHOFNER. This is the basic legislation, but it has been amended

several times since then; but the program runs back to 1949 and the

period, of course, covered by this resolution relates to acreages of

producers during the 1950 through 1954 period. These were the base

period years which were used in establishing allotments.

There are other parts of the legislation which, in effiect, require that

when allotment increases are made nationally, pro rata increases are

credited to each State on the basis of the pattern which prevailed, I

believe, in 1956. So, increases in the allotment, you see, which have

come about since 1956, have been made on a pro rata basis to the States

and to the counties.

Mr. GATHINGS. And the 1949 act permits the Secretary of Agriculture to meet the needs by increasing the allotment above that figure?

Mr. SHOFNER. This is true, yes, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. That is the original base?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. You have referred to 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954 as

the base years?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir; 5 years, 1950 through 1954.

Mr. GATHINGS. Those 4 years were wide-open years, were they not,

Mr. Shofner ?

Mr. SHOFNER. What do you mean "they were wide-open years"?

Mr. GATHINGS. Where a ricegrower could plant all of the rice that

he wanted to plant, in those years. Could he not, Mr. Shofner ?

Is this correct?

Mr. ROLLINS. Except for the year 1950—the year 1950.

Mr. GATHINGS. That was the year that the program went into effect.

In those 4 years they were wide-open years?

Mr. Rowxs. That is true.

Mr. SHOFNER. This is Mr. Rollins who is accompanying me, Mr.

Gathings.

Mr. GATHINGS. That was during the Korean conflict, was it not?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. There was a need for food like there is today, and

we need an awful lot of grain to meet the needs of the people as a result of the population explosion throughout the world.

Let me ask you this question: What is the proportion between rice

grown in the United States as compared to all rice production over

the world?

Mr. SHOFNER. It is relatively small, Mr. Gathings.

Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Rollins, do you know?

Mr. ROLLINS. I am not sure what it is.

Mr. GATHINGS. Approximately?

Mr. ROLLINS. It is practically nil. I do not have the figures. II

do not believe I have that information at the moment.

Mr. SHOFNER. It is relatively small.

Mr. SAITERFIELD. I do not have it either.
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 9

Mr. SHOFNER. It is quite small; it is very small. I do not have the figures with me.

Mr. GATHINGS Now, then, there were an awful lot of areas that were

not growing rice, in the 4 years when the controls came into effect; is

that not true?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. And, again, in 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954, in those

4 years, these new areas commenced growing rice, because they wanted

to grow rice and rice was needed badly for the war demands?

Mr. SHOFNER. Additional rice was produced during this period of time. I think that the areas that were producing rice were really the

same areas, but there was an expansion in the areas, yes, sir. Rice has, for many years, been produced in the same traditional areas countrywide.

Mr. GATHINGS. That is true. In my district, in one county in par- ticular, it had not grown a stalk of rice until the controls were thrown

off, during the Korean conflict, in 1951 or 1952, 1953, and 1954.

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. How were these new areas given their allotment in 1955? As the result of what?

Mr. SHOFNER. The acreage that was planted during the base years

was used as an average with adjustments for the determination of rice allotments initially, so that farmers who did produce rice during this base period were eligible for an allotment.

Mr. GATHINGS. SO that these new areas did come into the program that had not produced rice before?

Mr. SHOFNER. They came in to the extent that they had production during this base period.

Mr. GATHINGS. During the base period?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes.

Mr. GATHINGS. That is right.

Mr. O'NEAL. Without regard to what they had been doing prior

to that period?

Mr. SHOFNER. This is true, because the base years were 1950-54, a

5-year period.

Mr. GATHINGS. What was the first year that we got that 10 percent increase that you mentioned—the first 10 percent over the base national allotment of one million six?

Mr. SHOFNER. I believe it was 1962, but I am not really certain,

but this about the area.

Mr. GATHINGS. And the Secretary determined that we needed more grain, that we needed more rice, and increased the acreage allotment?

Mr. SHOFNER. This is right.

Mr. GATIIINGS. By 10 percent?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes.

Mr. GATHINGS. Now, he found that we needed additional rice in 1966?

Mr. SHOFNER. This is true.

Mr. GATHINGS. People had urged him; that is, the people in Cali- fornia and in Arkansas and in Louisiana and also in Mississippi, the principal rice-growing areas, all had an increase, and the Secretary did provide that, which made it go up a little more than 2 million acres

across the belt?
10 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, this was done in 1966, yes, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. Now,what is the amount of the national reserve?

This legislation would fix the acreage at a figure equal to that of

an economic unit acreage to come out of the national reserve. What

is the national reserve acreage now?

Mr. SHOFNER. It is a little less than 700 acres. It isabout 672

acres, both for 1966 and 1967.

Mr. GATHINGS. How much of that 672 acres were used in 1966?

Mr. SHOFNER. Actually, very little.

Mr. GATHINGS. Very little?

Mr. SHOFNER. I do not have the figures on that. I am not sure,

But very little was used.

Mr. GATHINGS. Very little was used?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. As a matter of fact, this legislation, if it were approved and the bill were passed and enacted into law, would not have

an adverse effect on any grower who now grows rice, would it?

Mr. SHOFNER. I do not really know—If one could assume that the

total acreage acquired 

Mr. GATHINGS. How much was used in 1965 of the 672 acres national reserve? We did have about that acreage in the reserve in

1965?

Mr. SHOFNER. Pretty close to that.

Mr. GATHINGS. Did we not have that amount in 1964?

Mr. SHOFNER. My point is that we have a reserve; that is, we had

a reserve in 1966 of 672 acres. This acreage was available for certain corrections and appeals, and things of that kind. And if we had

had this legislation, the acreage could have been used to cover cases

of this kind.

My point is that I do not know how many cases would be covered

by this legislation. There may or may not have been enough to cover

the cases which could arise as a result of this legislation; you see? We

do not have the figures.

Mr. GATHINGS. How many veterans have you known to come to

your Department urging that this legislation be approved and that

they be given the privilege of using some of that acreage?

Mr. SHOFNER. I do not know that we have heard from any veterans

with regard to this specific legislation. We do get occasional letters

from veterans.

Mr. GATHINGS. Mr. Mills introduced a bill 2 years ago, did he not?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir; it had been introduced in 1963.

Mr. GATHINGS. You mentioned there have been some years which

have elapsed and that it is a difficult proposition after 10 years to

evaluate. And that can be understood.

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes.

Mr. GATHINGS. And as to the people who would avail themselves of

this legislation which is general in scope, those who have acquired land

during these base years, that during the time that they were in service,

for the production of rice—as a matter of fact, there is only one man

who fits this category, is that not about right?

Mr. SHOFNER. I do not know. I understood that there was a man

involved in this who would benefit by an allotment if this were enacted.

I do not know whether or not this is the o lily man. When one writes
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 11

general criteria it is likely that other people will be dredged up, and that some could qualify.

Admittedly, this is not likely to be large, however; but there may be others. When we have general standards to apply, there certainly could be several cases. How many, overall, there may be, though it

may be very few, we really do not know. I would believe that they would be relatively small in number, yes.

Mr. HANSEN. If you will yield?

Mr. GATHINGS. Yes.

Mr. HANSEN. I would like to ask this question:

You say that you do not know what you are getting into.

Would you rather that this language be narrowed with regard to

one individual?

Mr. SHOFNER. I do not believe that we could support it on this basis.

Mr. HANSEN. Can you support it on the existing basis?

Mr. SHOFNER. I do not believe so. No, the Department—

Mr. HANSEN. That is the question.

Mr. SHOFNER. If it were enacted and made applicable to one person, then we would know precisely that this one person was being given relief under the measure and that this is all it applied to. When the language is more general, there could be a few more other

cases, although admittedly they are not likely to be very many. We do not know. Actually, our grounds for our position on the bill are broader than this in the context that we have a number of commodity

programs, undoubtedly to which legislation of this kind which applies

to rice, could apply—and a situation which has existed in connection with the Korean emergency—the probability that similar situations

were being experienced by other producers in other wars for other

crops; it is on these grounds that the Department feels this is not desirable legislation.

Mr. HANSEN, Either in this general form or in specific form; is that correct?

Mr. SHOFNER. This is right, yes.

Mr. HANSEN. Which would you rather support, if you had a choice? Mr. SHOFNER. We do not have a position on a choice, one or the other. We just do not favor this general approach.

Mr. O'NEAL. I would like to ask a question at this point.

Let us see how broad or how narrow it is.

If I understand the bill, the person who would desire to come under this bill must show a number of things. He must show that be had land suitable for growing rice during this period of 4 years. That is One thing.

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. He would further have to show that he was in the armed services abroad and was unable to establish a history during that period?

Do you agree with that?

• Mr. SHOFNEit. Well, he would have had to be prevented from grow- ing rice; because of service in the Armed Forces.

Mr. O'NEAL. That is another way of saying what I was trying to

say.

Mr. SHOFNER. I agree with you, yes, sir.
12 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

Mr. O'NEAL. Then he would further have to show that it was his intention to grow rice during this period but that he was prevented from

doing so because of military service?

Mr. SHOFNER. Being in military service, yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. I am thinking about other crops at this point. Is

there not something else that he would have to show under this particular bill? Would he not have to show that he had constructed

the necessary water system from wells and the like to produce the

rice? Would he not have to show under this bill that he did those

things, too?

Mr. SHOFNER. I do not know whether he would have to show that

as having been done at that time or not. The bill's language says

that you should take into consideration other factors. And one of

these is the source and availablity of water. Whether or not this

means that the water had to be there at that time, and available, or

whether it is just there now, I do not know.

Mr. O'NEAL. You are concerned that there might be other people

who could show their intentions during this 4-year period—during the

Korean conflict; that is your real concern is it not?

Mr. SHOFNER. Our real concern is that this legislation, applying to

a particular commodity, to one or a few individuals, may lay the

groundwork for legislation of similar nature affecting other emergencies and other crops.

Mr. O'NEAL. Should this bill become law and if this individual were

to receive a rice allotment, who would decide the number of acres that

he would get?

Mr. SHOFNER. Well, the issuance of an allotment would be handled,

as other allotments are. His history records would be brought together. They would be screened through the county ASCS committee.

Mr. O'NEAL. I do not mean that. Would it be decided in Washington or the State of Arkansas, for example?

Mr. SHOFNER. Well, it would be decided on the basis of the recom.-

mendations by the county committee that reports to the State ASCS.

Mr. O'NEAL. And the county committee would recommend it to the

State committee who would either approve or disapprove, and the final

decision would be made here in Washington?

Mr. SHOFNER. This is correct. Our concern is in checking to see that

the total allotment in the county or the State are within the approved

total, but this is,essentially, correct, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. L That is, the way that I described it?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. Are there any further questions by members of the

subcommittee?

Mr. GATHINGS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It so states on page 2, and I

quote: "* * * a rice acreage allotment of sufficient size to constitute an

economic rice operation for the producer."

What would be an economic operation for a producer in a situation

in which the present support level on rice is 65 percent of parity,

whereas the 1949 act provided that it should be 65 to 90 percent of

parity support for rice, and it has been lowered down to where it is, to

65 percent? That is not very high.

Mr. SHOFNER. I believe it is about that.
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 13

Mr. GATHINGS. What would you say would be an economic unit?

Mr. SHOFNER. I am not sure that I can answer as to an economic

unit, which would be based upon many things, certain criteria, certain

factors that are set forth in the bill. I think that it would depend on

whether or not the producer had alternative income from farming,

whether rice was the sole crop that he was producing. It would depend upon the amount of land that he had and his ability to produce

rice.

Mr. GATHINGS. If he had to buy a combine, and if he had to dig a

well, and to put in irrigation ditches, to grow that rice. He may need

a combine which would be paid for over a period Of years. What size

would you say would warrant an "economic operation?

Mr. SHOFNER. I am afraid that I could not answer that question,

Mr. Gathings, because I think if we were doing this under the legislation, we would need to take account of where he was situated, and the

size of allotments in the area where he lived.

It would be inappropriate, I think; certainly, it would be bad judgment to establish an allotment of a much larger size than the average

in the community where this man lived. I think we run into difficulties there on just what an economic unit might be.

Mr. GATHINGS. It is quite different from tobacco, for example.

Mr. SHOFNER. Oh, yes, it is.

Mr. GATHINGS. Let me go off the record.

Mr. O'NEAL. Yes. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. O'NEAL. On the record.

Mr. GATHINGS. It takes quite a lot of hand labor when you deal

with tobacco; when you deal with crops that require all mechanization why, of course, you can handle a lot more acres, like in wheat.

Iiihat would be the ordinary size of a wheat operation?

We have the chairman of the Subcommittee on Wheat and Livestock

present with us. What would you say it would be?

Mr. PURCELL. We do not have any ordinary sized operations down

in my State.

In the Midwest, in Ohio, and Indiana and Illinois, they have 15-acre

wheat allotments. In other areas, you have 50 to 100 acres, and in

the Far West and the Midwest, they have a lot of acres.

Mr. HANSEN. There are both general irrigation and dry farming.

Mr. PURCELL. I would not be sure what the allotments are in all

areas.

We have many large-sized units, whether irrigated or not. All of

these factors enter into the growing of wheat, which I would assume

would make it very much different.

Mr. GATHINGS. Now, Mr. Shofner, you mentioned in your statement that there were regulations and laws on the statute books having

to do with rice, did you not?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. I note that there are some that apply to the Civil

Service Commission and the Post Office Department. Everytime a

list comes out from the Civil Service Commission it states on there

whether or not the applicant is a five-point veteran or whether or not he is a 10-point veteran.

They have various designations in that fashion.

78-043-67-3
14 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

In any event, you cannot pass over the name of a veteran on an eligible roster and recommend a nonveteran whose name appears on the

roster at a lower place than that of the veteran and name the nonveteran in a situation of that kind; that is, when a veteran happens to

be on the top of the list or at a place higher than the nonveteran on

the list. This Congress has recognized that situation in offering employment to these people. I know that it is true in the Post Office

Department. I do not know about other departments. It may

apply in other departments just as well. I know that they are chosen

in that way in the Post Office Department. The Congress recognized

that and there was a reason to do so.

I was not in World War TI; I was not in World War I. I was

entirely too young to enter the service in World War I but there were

three stars hanging in our parlor window in World War I.

Those veterans in World War II, when they came home, were

entitled to this veteran's preference.

We are asking here that this man who will testify here today be

given the same privilege to make a living in growing rice where he

acquired this land from ,his savings while he was in the service. So,

the principle is the same. This is not new ground at all that the Con-

°Tess is asked to traverse. It is as simple as that. It was good law

when it was passed. It is still on the statute books.

You are not going to deny a fraction of an acre to any rice grower

if this man is accorded an economic unit, if this bill is passed, since

we do have more than 600 acres in the national reserve at this time;

is that not right?

Mr. SHOFNER. We do have more than 600 acres in the national

reserve.

As I say, if this were the only case to be covered by this legislation

it is clear that an allotment within this could be established for him

and it would not affect other allotment holders that year, because the

reserve is there—yes, but there would be a question in future years

as to how this allotment would be handled. Suppose the year comes

along when the national reserve is established at the level of 600 or 700

acres and is needed for the purpose for which it was established, and

one of these allotment holders has to be taken care of, in addition,

it could very well impinge upon old allotment holders and the size

of their allotments because a larger reserve would necessary.

Mr. GATHINGS. You do not have the figures as to just what the

drain has been upon that national survey.

Mr. SHOFNER. I do not have the specific figures, although it has been

very small, yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Rollins.

Mr. RoLLiNs. I would like to revert back, if I may, to Congressman

Gathings' earlier question along this line.

I do not believe it was clearly answered.

As I understand the wording and the language of this particular

resolution, any allotment that might be granted under this, be it one

or more for the 1967 program year, would be derived from the acreage reserve—that is, the national reserve—would come from the national reserve this year. Once that allotment is established from the

national reserve, then in subsequent years that allotment would be

used in the same manner as all other allotments already established
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 15

and would share in the allotments available to the States after the

reserves have already been set aside.

So, what I am driving at is that while it comes out of the national

reserve history, the next year it is set up alongside all the others and it

receives its allotment from the regular allotments rather than the

reserve allotment.

Mr. O'NEAL. Which is to be determined?

Mr. ROLLINS. Yes, but it would not come from the national reserve

each year thereafter.

Mr. SHOFNER. It would draw from the national reserve only the

first year. After that, you see it must be taken care of within the total

of all old allotment holders.

Mr. GATHINGS. And it would be one additional rice grower.

Mr. RomArrs. That is correct.

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes.

Mr. O'NEAL. You mean that the other rice growers would have to

be reduced to compensate for this?

Mr. ROLLINS. Yes.

Mr. SHOFNER. Under this, after the initial year, this is true.

Mr. HANSEN. Will you yield?

Mr. GATHINGS. I yield, gladly.

Mr. HANSEN. Would this be possible: to have the national reserv€

reduced this amount permanently so that you do not have this squeeze?

As I understand it, this rather small, and with some 2 million acres

in the program, it seems that you would only have a relatively small

effect by this.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I anticipated that this question would come up,

and have prepared a draft amendment to the bill that would protect

other producers in the State or county from being adversely affected

in subsequent years by allotments established under sections 1 and 2

of the bill. Since any person receiving an allotment under this bill

would become eligible the following year to share in the State or

county allotment along with all other producers, there needs to be

incorporated into the bill authority permitting in subsequent years the

transfer to the State or county allotment from the national reserve

sufficient acreage to offset the allotments initially established under the

bill.

Mr. HANSEN. This would meet the same objections that you raised?

Mr. SHOFNER. Well, this is not an objection on our part; it was

just a statement of fact as to the way that the bill would apply.

I take it that what Mr. Satterfield has said is that he has language,

the result of which would be to reduce the national reserve in future

years by an amount which would represent the allotment size established the initial year under this bill.

Mr. O'NEAL. It is always coming out of the reserve then?

Mr. SHOFNER. In effect, it would have that effect, yes, sir. The

national reserve can be up to 1 percent of the total allotment. It is

not set at this high a figure. It is just a fraction of 1 percent. So,

it could vary. And on the basis of administrative discretion, the reserve could vary from year to year, but we do say that if it would

happen that a number of veterans would qualify under this, and the

allotment set for the initial year, for example, consisted of hundreds

of acres, that it would raise a problem in future years. And we be-
16 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

hove inevitably over time it would work against the established old

allotment holders.

Mr. HANSEN. I have one further question.

If the language were adopted to take this permanently out of the

national reserve, and the only place that you had to work again was

the national reserve, for any so-called future claims that might arise,

then you would restrict this area to an area where the man could not

get it out of the national reserve. In a sense, you have restricted this

to a point where this will affect the people in production, if you do it

this way. What would you say in this regard?

Mr. SHOFNER. I do not believe that we would favor the legislation

even on this basis, simply because of the several reasons I made in the

statement. It tends to set a precedent which we do not believe is a

good one.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do you agree that it would keep it from getting out

of hand?

Mr. SHOFNER. I think it would keep it from getting out of hand.

It would clearly limit it, yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. That is right.

Mr. SHOFNER. I will agree to this, yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. It could never give you the fear that you presently

have.

Mr. SHOFNER. It would always keep it within predetermined limits.

Mr. O'NEAL. In other words, what you are afraid of is that anytime

some person who has been in the armed services might come and say,

"I intended to grow some crop during this particular period," that is

it might get out of hand. Is that what you are really worried about?

Mr. SHOFNER. We are also afraid that the producers of other crops

having problems in other crops might look at this and extend this

kind of legislation to their crop areas, and to some other emergency,

and that the more bits and pieces of this kind we have make it such

that we just consider this to be undesirable.

Mr. O'NEAL. This would keep it from geeting out of hand?

Mr. SHOFNER. It would be limited under the terms that the gentleman suggested.

Mr. O'NEAL. I am familiar, of course, with some of the tobacco

problems and those in peanuts, but here we are talking about rice,

about which I do not know too much. Is it not true, in a particular

locality, all of the land is not suitable for growing rice?

Mr. SHOFNER. This is true.

Mr. O'NEAL. In addition to this, is it not necessary that considerable

expense go into the preparation of the land, such as the availability

of water?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, this is true.

Mr. O'NEAL. I notice that on page 2 of the bill, and I will enumerate

these things here, that the first thing that the man would have to show

is that it would be due to his military service.

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. Then, if you drop down to line 7, then you take into

consideration other factors: No. 1 is the total acreage that was acquired.

And, 3, the suitability of the cropland for the production of alternative

crops;.and, 4, the sources of availability of irrigation water; and, 5,

the producer farmer's background, and, 6, the extent of ownership in
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 17

other lands or interest in other lands devoted to the production of agricultural commodities.

It would occur to me that you would nail it down a little bit better

if you had another in there that referred to the suitability of the land

for the particular crop, such as rice, which would help to restrict it;

would it not?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir, I think that is true.

Mr. O'NEAL. Your position is that you do not think that it can be

restricted enough to keep you from having the worry that you have

about anybody claiming that they intended to grow rice?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir; we have reservations about the number of

people who might qualify under this. We have reservations about

the principle involved in this approach, in the belief that there are

advantages extended to veterans in other areas, and more appropriate

areas, than agricultural acreage allotments; and, secondly, or thirdly,

that this may be extended to other crops and other emergencies, and,

fourth, it would be difficult to administer for a number of reasons that

we have gone into in determining what an economic size unit was, and

fitting him in with his neighborhood.

The impact upon the allotments in future years.

All of these are reservations we have about the measure, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do you have any questions, Mr. Purcell?

Mr. PURCELL. I have no questions.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Wampler ?

Mr. WAMPLER. No questions.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Mayne?

Mr. MAYNE. No questions.

Mr. RARICK. I want to make an observation, Mr. Chairman. I came

in late, and I apologize for that. We have a young man returning

from combat and investing his money in land. We all know that there

is a limited number of farmers on the land and soon there will not be

many more wanting to farm. It is difficult to get people to stay on

the land. He comes to Congress and has to get a bill to beg for a license to grow rice on his own property. We are told that we have a

national reserve.

May I ask who sets the national reserve?

Mr. SHOFNER. The national reserve is set by the Secretary in line

with the provisions of the legislation which limit it to 1 percent of the

allotments.

Mr. RARICK. Congress can enlarge the reserve and do what they

want with it?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes? sir.

Mr. RARICK. I notice that one comment in your statement is to the

effect that other programs might be open to something of this kind,

and that this is the main reason for opposing it?

Mr. SHOFNER. This is one of the reasons for opposing it.

Mr. RARICK. Do you see anything wrong in opening up the program?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir. We do not believe that this is the right approach. We do not believe that farm programs should be encumbered,

if you want to use this word 

Mr. RARICK. How is that, again?
18 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

Mr. SHOFNER. By legislation which applies to specific groups to the

detriment of established allotment holders and producers of these

crops. We have to recognize that if we are operating marketing allotment programs, programs which are aimed at restricting or controlling

the production, then some control 

Mr. RARICK. Do you know of economic programs which are called

"poverty programs?"

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. RARICK. Would you not say that they were devised and designed

to promote certain groups?

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes.

Mr. RARICK. Then, why do you discriminate against the returned

veteran in favor of these poverty programs?

Mr. SHOFNER. I would not say that the Department's programs are

operating to discriminate against the veterans in favor of the poverty

man.

Mr. RARICK. You would admit that you are discriminating?

Mr. SHOFNER. I would say that I am not; I would say that they are,

perhaps. I admit that we are operating some programs running along

poverty lines, yes sir; we have several of those.

Mr. RARICK. You have set up credit agencies, from which they can

borrow money, and you encourage those in the low-income groups, socalled, to obtain loans to get into agriculture.

Mr. SHOFNER. We are doing a lot of things for the low-income people. I am not a specialist in this area, and I would not want to get

involved in a lengthy discussion of exactly just what the Department

is doing in the poverty area. I would simply say that we are doing

a lot of things for them.

Mr. RARICK. And you are against one who has and for the one who

has not?

Mr. SHOFNER. I would not say that.

Mr. RARICK. Thankyou.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think that the Department's representative has taken the position that they feel is the safest in this

situation.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Mathias, any questions?

Mr. MATmAs. No questions.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Gathings ?

Mr. GATHINGS. I would like to ask permission to put some figures

into the record which will be most enlightening, it seems to me, in this

type of legislation when we consider it. I have some tables that were

furnished to me by Mr. Satterfield, the gentleman who is here from

the Department, dated February 2, 1966, and among these tables there

are two or three, items that I would like to read into the record.

It has been testified to here that the first year that the program on

rice went into effect was 1950. Then the Korean war came along in

1951; there was no program, and there was no program in 1952, 1958,

and 1954, and then the program began in 1955.

Mr. SHOFNER. Yes, .

Mr. GATHINGS. Ths table reflects the amount of allotments in the

State of Arkansas in 1950, showing that my county of Crittenden had
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 19

570 acres, and that is all-570 acres of rice in 1950. And my cotmty

of Crittenden, according to these tables in 1955, after they had had

4 wide-open years had an allotment of 6,900 acres in 1955.

I want to call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to another county in

Arkansas: Mississippi, which, according to the tables here, did not

have an acre or any allotment in 1959—not one acre. In 1955, after

the 4 years of open years, Mississippi County turns up with an allotment of 1,608 acres.

Those folks are my friends. They had an opportunity to grow rice

like everybody else who was home and was not tied down in the military service. They had 1,608 acres. They had none whatever back

there in 1950.

I think that we should permit a veteran to acquire land during the

time while he was in service and saving his money, putting it into

farmland, that we should give him the same privilege, the same opportunity that these farms in my home county of Crittenden have enjoyed and enjoy today—and those in the county of' Mississippi. That

is the situation in other counties in my State.

Mr. O'NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Shofner and Mr. Rollins.

We will now call on Mr. Satterfield.

I understand that you are deputy director of the grain policy staff

of the ASCS of the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is correct.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. No, I do not, since Mr. Shofner testified on the

bill 2 years ago which was similar to this one, we asked him to appear

as the spokesman for the Department on the bill.

Mr. O'NEAL. Would you proceed with any statement that you care

to make ?

STATEMENT OF J. ALTON SATTERFIELD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GRAIN

POLICY STAFF, ASCS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, there has been considerable discussion on the point of determining

the intention of a person acquiring land back during the base period

years which were used in establishing rice allotments at the beginning

of the current series of allotment years. Speaking as an individual,

it is my feeling after having worked with the rice industry for 30-someodd years and having had a part in each rice program that has been in

effect since 1935, I do not believe that county committees would have

any difficulty in determining what would constitute an economic rice

operation for a particular farm. It would depend upon the locality

in which the farm was located; whether it had well or canal irrigation—if it had well irrigation, how much water the well would supply,

and, also, what rice-producing equipment the operator had to operate

it with. I do not believe there would be any problem ,whatever in determining what would constitute an economic rice operation in a

partiCular area.

Mr. O'NEAL. If a man has land suitable for growing rice, what does

he have to do in the way of making water available?
20 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

Mr. SATTERFIELD. There is considerable expense.

It depends, again, on the locality. In the Grand Prairie area of

Arkansas, for instance, where the water table has been falling each

year, today they have a water lift something like 125 feet, and that is

quite expensive, to lift water that distance would necessitate a little

larger unit than it would in the area north of there in what we think

of as the Post Oak Flat area of the White River Delta, where the water

table is much closer to the surface, you probably would not have to

lift the water more than 50 feet. Consequently, a producer could get

by with a smaller operation than one could in the Grand Prairie area.

Mr. O'NEAL. Are there any questions, of Mr. Satterfield?

Mr. WAMPLER. I would like to ask this question, not being too familiar with rice production.

How many ricegrowers in recent years have abandoned their allotments or have switched to different types of agricultural production?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is a little difficult to say. There have been

some, of course. But these operations have either been combined with

those of another producer or they have been taken over by a son or a

close relative of the original operator.

Mr. WAMPLER. There has been no appreciable change in the overall

picture?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is correct. The number of producers has

declined where the original operation has been consolidated with that

of others.

Mr. O'NEAL. Are these rights to allotments transferable by either

lease or sale to another person or another farm?

Mr. 'SATTERFIELD. Not in the area where allotments are determined

or established on a farm basis.

In the producer area, such as Texas or California, there is a provision for transferring the allotment in certain instances such as in

the case where a producer lies or where a producer voluntarily withdraws from production and desires to pass it on to a son or close relative.

These are the only provisions for transferring rice allotments.

Mr. O'NEAL. In Arkansas it stays with the land?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It stays with the land, you cannot transfer it.

Mr. GATHINGS. Will you yield there?

Mr. O'NEAL. Yes.

Mr. GATHINGS. The 1965 Farm Act, as you will recall, had within

it the provision that ricegrowers can swap with a cottongrower, and

vice versa?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. One man has the equipment to grow rice and the

other man has the equipment to grow cotton, and both have cotton

allotments and both have rice allotments. They can get together on an

arrangement of swapping. They can go to the county committee and

say "Now, we want to trade 10 acres here of rice for 10 acres of cotton,"

and the like.

Is much of that being done?

Mr. SArTERFIELD. There probably is not very much. I just do not

know the full extent of it, but, as you will recall, Mr. Gathings, the

basis for this legislation was to provide those producers who got into

the rice game during the 1950-54 base period with short histories an

opportunity to adjust their operations where they could have either
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 21

an economic cotton operation or an economic rice operation, or both,

in case they wanted to continue the production of both.

Mr. GATHINGS. What is an economic rice operation in this area of

Arkansas?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I would say somewhere between 50 and 100 acres.

Mr. GATHINGS. Fifty—and what?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Fifty to one hundred acres, depending upon the

acreage necessary to support one irrigation well.

Mr. GATHINGS. One further question: You say that this legislation

would not affect the existing rights of growers?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It would, as it stands now. I have drafted an

amendment which if made a part of the resolution would protect other

producers in subsequent years.

Mr. G-ATHINGS. Will you furnish that for the record?

Mr. SAWERFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. That is, the amendment that you have.

What would be the effect of it?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It would mean that each year you would automatically reduce the size of the national reserve sufficiently to absorb

this acreage that was allocated to the particular farms.

Mr. GATHINGS. Then, there would be sufficient acreage in the national reserve for that?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I have talked to responsible administration personnel in each of our major rice-producing States and none of them

seemed to think that there would be any other case except possibly

one in southeast Arkansas—they are not sure but say there is a possibility of one case there that might qualify. None of the other States

feel that they have anyone who could qualify under the language of

this resolution.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Hansen.

. Mr. HANSEN. You then feel that all of the evidence that is available

indicates that the application is very narrow as to what this bill would

do, so far as the number of people it would take care of—only one or

possibly two?

MT. 6ATTERFIELD. That is right.

Mr. HANSEN. Do you feel that if this legislation is passed that it

would be improved with the language that you are talking about

where this claim would come out of the national acreage reserve, or

do you feel that the production probably would grow up through

the years and that it would be just as well to let it come out of the

regular allotments, since it is such a small amount?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It actually boils down to this, Mr. Hansen, that

if you do not have it coming out of the national reserve each year,

it • would in subsequent years have to come out of the county allotment in a farm State or the State allotment in the case of a producer

State. It would depend on the size of the county or State allotment

as to what effect it might have on the other producers, but to take

it out of the national reserve each year, even if you had to increase

the national reserve substantially over the 672 acres that we are now

talking about, it could only affect farms having allotments .of 500

acres or more, and these could be affected only by a fraction of an

acre. They would have to have, an allotment in excess of 500 acres

to be adversely affected. I do not think that anyone could be hurt

by the enactment of this resolution ; f amended as I suggested earlier.
22 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

Mr. HANSEN. You mentioned it as coming out of the national acreacre reserve. What would happen if you would have an influx of

claims of the same nature, and they exceeded the amount of the

national reserve acreage; what would be your situation then?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I think that we would have to either deny him

an allotment or reduce it sufficiently to come within the available

reserve.

Mr. HANSEN. In other words, the national reserve would be the

limit so far as any precedent created?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is correct.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do you have this suggested language written out here?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. That you can leave with us?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do you have more than one copy of it?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I have only one copy.

Mr. O'NEAL. Could we have you read that into the record so that

we might follow it and study it?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. This would be section 4.

Mr. O'NEAL. A new section?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. A new section.

Pardon—it is to be section 3.

SW. 3. For each crop year subsequent to 1967, the State acreage allotments

which would otherwise be determined for States in which rice allotments are

determined on the basis of past production of rice and past coverage allotments

of producers on the farm, and the county acreage allotments which would otherwise be determined in States in which farm rice acreage allotments are determined on the basis of the past production of rice and past acreage allotments

on the farm shall be increased from national acreage reserve in an amount necessary to provide fair and reasonable allotments for the producers and farms for

which new producer and new farm allotments and increases in old producer and

old farm allotments were approved under sections 1 and 2 of this Act without

decreasing the allotments for all other producers in the State or for all other

farms in the county, as the case may be.

Mr. O'NEAL. That is a little difficult for me to follow.

The first question I have is why would it not be section 3 instead of

section 4? I do not see but two sections to this resolution.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It is to be section 3.

Mr. O'NEAL. You said section 4.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I may have said section 4, but I intended to say

section 3.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. Is this much elaboration necessary?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes, it is; for this reason: Our legislation on rice

is really divided into two parts: (1) with respect to the establishment of allotments on a producer basis and (2) on the farm basis.

That is why they have to have all of the windowdressing in the language.

Mr. HANSEN. To tie it in as section 3, as you proposed; it would

be necessary- in section 1, line 7, to say "acreage reserve for 1967 and

thereafter," and would you not have to modify 1967 throughout the

resolution?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I am not prepared to answer that. I am not an

attorney; consequently, I would not be able to answer that.
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 23

Mr. HANSEN. It would appear that if you take it out of the na- tional reserve it would have to be indicated as such.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is correct.

Mr. HANSEN. That is all. Thank you.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Wampler.

Mr. WADIPT.F.R. Just one question. If I understood the situation

correctly and we adopt the language of your proposed amendment,

what it means then is that those who qualify under the provisions of

the resolution would, I assume, be treated on a first-come, first-served

basis?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes.

Mr. WAXPLER. And then it would be prorated for the others; is

that correct?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Either that or to deny those that came in late.

Mr. WAXPLER. This would be administrative discretion?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes.

Mr. WAXPLER. It would be an administrative determination as to

those who qualify for the acreage?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Rarick.

Mr. RARICK. I was wondering who you propose to do the determination—who would make the determination?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It would be based on the recommendations of

the county and State committees as to what acreage they consider

would constitute an economic operation for the farm. The final deter- mination would rest with Washington.

Mr. RARICK. Thank you. That is all.

Mr. O'NEAL. Thank you.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. You cannot give the State committee blanket

authority to draw on the national reserve. If you did, it would not last very long.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Gathings.

Mr. GATHINGS. If this national reserve could come up to 1 percent, it could not exceed 1 percent—

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is correct.

MT. GATHINGS. It could not exceed that?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Correct.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Purcell.

Mr. PURCELL. You do not manufacture acres spread—the bigger the acreage allotments would be the bigger the national reserve would be ?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It would be if you went to the flat 1 percent. The existing law provides that the reserve is not to exceed 1 percent.

Mr. PURCELL. The national acreage allotment would reflect what

the national reserve would be; the more acreage the more reserve.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Not necessarily.

Mr. PURCELL. Not necessarily, but the Secretary of Agriculture could do that.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes.

Mr. PURCELL. Now, just one more question. Do you know any part of the rice industry that does not like this program?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Do you mean this resolution?

Mr. PURCELL. No; the rice program.
24 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

Mr. SA.I. LERFIELD. No; I do not. .

Mr. PURCELL. There are about $11,000, Government dollars, that

go to each farm?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. There are no doubt, a few producers who are dissatisfied with the rice program. I have heard a few complain about

not having a sufficient rice allotment to earn a decent livelihood.

Mr. PURCELL. We are dishing out about $11,000 for every farmer

growing rice; are we not?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. We have been; yes.

Mr. PURCELL. So they do not object too much to this.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. NO.

Mr. PURCELL. Thank you. That is all.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Rarick.

Mr. RARICK.. . May I 'ask this question?

You have been around quite a while. Has the price of farm labor

gone up .in accordance .with the labor and management and industry

that makes $4 to $5 an hour for overtime?

Mr. SATTENnELD. No.

Mr. BARTOK. Has the price of food gone up proportionately ?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. No.

Mr. RARICK. That is all. Thank you.

Mr. O'NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Satterfield.

The Chair will now call on Mr. C. E. Greene, Route 2, Brinkley,

Ark.

Do you have a prepared statement?

Mr. GREENE. I do not.

Mr. O'NEAL. Would you proceed, then, to give us something of a

history of your connection with any land in Arkansas that might be

suitable for growing rice and your experience in the armed services?

STATEMENT OF C. E. GREENE, ROUTE 2, BRINKLEY, ARK.

Mr. GREENE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, at

the time that I entered the armed services I owned 120 acres of land.

During the period of time that I was in the armed services, prior to

1956, I increased that to 500 acres. I have the deeds here to substantiate my statement on the acquirement of this land.

Mr. O'NEAL. May I ask at this point: When did you enter the

armed services?

Mr. GREENE. 19,39.

Mr. O'NEAL. 1939?

Mr. GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. And you continued in the armed services until when?

Mr. GREENE. 1959.

Mr. O'NEAL. May I ask where you were in 1950?

Mr. GREENE. In Guam.

Mr. O'NEAL. Will you tell us where you were during the next 4

years, 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1951?

Mr. GREENE. In 1953 I was transferred from Guam to Kingsville,

Tex. I was in Texas at the Naval Auxiliary' Air Station until 1955.

Mr. O'NEAL. All right, sir. Now, how many different times did

you acquire lands?

Mr. GREENE. While I was in Guam, I acquired 200 acres.
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 25

Mr. O'NEAL. You said you started off with 120 acres, did you not?

Mr. GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. When did you get that?

Mr. GREENE. I obtained that in 1938.

Mr. O'NEAL. 1938?

Mr. GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. All right. The next acquisition?

Mr. GREENE. That was in 1944.

Mr. O'NEAL. How much was that?

Mr. GREENE. 260 acres.

Mr. O'NEAL. When did you acquire that?

Mr. GREENE. In 1951 or 1952, 200 acres.

Mr. O'NEAL. That was the next, the 200 acres?

Mr. GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. Is that all now or do you have some more?

Mr. GREENE. I would like to keep from misleading you. I sold the

120 acres, because it did not connect with the larger group of the 460

acres. I did acquire 40 acres prior to 1955-40 acres which was acquired from the State of Arkansas.

Mr. O'NEAL. In 1955?

Mr. GREENE. 1954, I believe it was.

Mr. O'NEAL. That was 40 acres?

Mr. GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. On which of these tracts is it that you would like to

grow rice?

Mr. GREENE. On all of this land, which is in one block, except for

80 acres that I presently own. It is a 520-acre block.

Mr. O'NEAL. That would be the 260 and the 240?

Mr. GREENE. Yes.

Mr. O'NEAL. You sold the 120. You have other land that is not

concerned here?

Mr. GREENE. I have other land that has been acquired since the year

1955. I did not mention that, because it would not be applicable under this program.

Mr. O'NEAL. Have you prepared this land, or any of it, with the

hope that you could grow rice? That is, I do not know whether you

have dug wells or put in irrigation systems or ditches, or what.

Mr. GREENE. I have three wells, each producing over 1,800 gallons of water per minute.

Mr. O'NEAL. When were these wells dug?

Mr. GREENE. The first one was established in 1964.

Mr. O'NEAL. 1964?

Mr. GREENE. 1964; yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. And back in 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954, you had no

wells?

Mr. GREENE. I did not, sir. I was in the service of my country. I

did not put the wells in, did not prepare them at that time; I could

not.

Mr. O'NEAL. The first well that you acquired was in 1964?

Mr. GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. Was there much expense involved in what you did

there?

Mr. GREENE. There was.
26 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

Mr. O'NEAL. Will you tell us something about that?

Mr. GREBNE. Approximately $5,000 per well, the size of wells that

I have.

Mr. O'NEAL. But you did know that you had no rice allotment?

Mr. GREENE. I did.

Mr. O'NEAL. And you had no wells during the period 1950 to 1955?

Mr. GREENE. No, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Gathings.

Mr. GATHINGS. Would you give us a summary, in. chronological

order, of just what you have been doing in trying to grow rice in your

county in Arkansas?

Mr. GREENE. Upon release from the service in 1959; that is, September 1959, shortly thereafter I applied for permission to grow rice,

in 1960. There was a recommendation at that time for 10 acres. And

when it got to the State level, there was one technicality that threw

it out.

The question was asked, I think in the phraseology of the administrative regulation which said that the land must be ready for the seed,

and in the questioning—I am telling you the truth—I told them that it

was not ready for the seed. There was minor preparation to be made

at that time.

Well, therefore, I received seven-tenths of 1 acre on which I could

grow rice. This is not an economic operation by any means. In

fact, many times that would not be an economic operation.

I have been farming 520 acres for the last few years, this block of

land, in soybeans. This is not primarily soybean land; it is rice land.

Since 1960, I have been trying, mostly at the local level, and they

told me that the arrangements are made, that they could not give me

an economic operation through the present law. They said that it

would have to come from the national level. I started writing to my

Representatives here in 1961. Congressman Mills introduced a bill in

1963, very similar to this one, on my behalf. It was brought out that,

probably—the news media did carry this at that time. I do have

the clipping here announcing that some veterans would fall within

this qualification and would have an opportunity to be heard stating

that.

I have gone, if I may say so, to a great deal of effort, but no effort is too great if I can obtain permission to make my own living in this

manner.

When I was in service and did my bit, I built up a very good record.

I am privileged to wear 13 medals and ribbons.

Mr. GATHINGS. I have in my hand, Mr. Greene, a sheet of paper from the U.S. Dyson, Shipyard Branch, Charleston, S.C., dated

August 7, 1946, Subject: Operation and Engagement Stars, State of. Do you have the original of this?

Mr. GREENE. I believe so, sir.

Mr. GATHINGS. What, in essence, does it say?

Mr. GREENE. "In accordance with reference (a) examination of your records has been made and it is found that you are entitled to wear the following operation and engagement stars:

"Asiatic-Pacific Area Service Ribbon.

"American Area Service Ribbon.

"Phillippine Defense Ribbon," which is authorized "A1Nav 64 45.
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 27

"Navy Good Conduct Ribbon.

"American Defense Ribbon.

"European Area Service Ribbon.

"Commendation Ribbon.

"Presidential Unit Citation.

"Victory Ribbon."

"Purple Heart."

Upon returning from the service, I felt somewhat in this manner,

that one arm of the Government has said, "Son, you did a good job,

and we are going to commend you for it," but when I come back to

private life, I find another arm of the Government, the Agriculture

Department, saying, "Well, you are limited," and as it turns out, very

limited. I am not given equal privilege, even with those who maneuvered their way around their responsibility to their country.

And this is what I seek at this time, to have some equal rights with

those who are growing rice, and were, in those years when I was serving

my country.

Mr. GATHINGS. What was your rank when you came out of the

service in 1959?

Mr. GREENE. Lieutenant (senior grade) in the Navy.

Mr. O'NEAL. Mr. Hansen.

Mr. HANSEN. You worked up through the ranks to that rank?

Mr. GREENE. I went in at $21 a month; went every step of the pay

grade up to what I came out with.

Mr. O'NEAL. I believe you were in the Phillipines when the Japanese

bombed Pearl Harbor?

Mr. GREENE. That is correct. I was on the destroyer The Whipple,

DD217.

Mr. GATHINGS. What is the size of your family at this time?

Mr. GREENE. I have a wife and two children.

Mr. GATHINGS. What are the ages of your children?

Mr. GREENE. Sixteen and eighteen.

Mr. O'NEAL. I just want to get one thing straight in my mind. I

do not know whether you missed it or not. Did you put in the wells

before or after you got the seven-tenths of an acre rice allotment?

Mr. GREENE. After, but I did not farm the seven-tenths of an acre.

In 1963, the seven-tenths was planted, but this bill came up, and I did

not harvest those seven-tenths of an acre, because I thought it would

affect the resolution at the time.

Mr. O'NEAL. If I understand you now, you spent about $15,000 on

wells?

Mr. GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. After you had gotten only seven-tenths of an acre rice

allotment?

Mr. GREENE. Yes.

Mr. O'NEAL. Why did you do that?

Mr. GREENE. Because, as insurance there, in growing the soybeans,

in dry periods, we can use this water to irrigate the soybeans.

Mr. O'NEAL. You had a use for it?

Mr. GREENE. Yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. Thank you.

Mr. GATHINGS. Was that expense put over a number of years, the

$15,000 for the wells?
28 RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

Mr. GREENE. The $15,000 was really not all of the expenditure in

preparing this land for the production of crops, but I borrowed some

money for putting in these wells, because it was an improvement to the

land—it was necessary in having the land available for the correct

production of either rice or soybeans, really.

Mr. GATHINGS. Did you take some of the money out of your salary

while you were in the service to do this?

Mr. GREENE. The money that went to purchase the land was all from

my salary while I was in the service.

Mr. GATHINGS. What I am getting at is this: Mrs. Greene did not

buy any of the land; you bought it yourself?

Mr. GREENE. That is right. I did not inherit any of this land from

my family, nor anyone else; nor did anyone else buy it for me.

Mr. O'NEAL. Are there any further questions from the members?

Mr. Wampler ?

Mr. WAMPLER. Regardless of the outcome of the resolution, I want

to commend this gentleman for an outstanding record of service ta

his country and showing that he is a good citizen and assuming responsibility on his Own.

Mr. GREENE. Thank you.

Mr. O'NEAL. I am sure that we all join in that.

Mr. MATRTAs. During 1950 through 1955, when you had this land

and knew that rice was on allotment, did you lease any land so as ta

acquire an allotment?

Mr. GREENE. No, sir, I did not. There were times that I was not

in the vicinity of the United States and I thought that it would be

best if I should wait until I come back out of the service and prepared

this land myself or saw that it was done.

Mr. HANSEN. Was this land used at all while you were in the

service?

Mr. GREENE. No, sir.

Mr. HANSEN. For any productive purpose?

Mr. GREENE. No.

Mr. O'NEAL. I do not know whether you can answer this question or

not. Maybe some of the other gentlemen in the room can answer it.

In the years 1951, 1952, and 1953, nobody could foresee the return of

allotments; is that true?

Mr. GREENE. Well, I would say that is true, yes, sir.

Mr. O'NEAL. Then after the decision was made to go back to allotments, how long did it take for the allotments to come in—to go back to

that system?

Mr. GREENE. I believe that the allotments came back in, were put into

effect, in 1956.

Mr. GATHINGS. It was in 1955.

Mr. GREENE. All right.

Mr. O'NEAL. Would you like to answer that question I put?

Mr. ROLLINS. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that, as I recall, during

the period 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954, prior to reverting to allotments

with the 1955 crops, there was some anticipation in some parts of the

country, at least, that allotments would come back within the near

future. Just how soon, I suppose no one could answer that.

Mr. O'NEAL. A man who was in the service would not be as aware of

this as somebody who was at home.
RICE ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS 29

Mr. ROLLINS. That is correct, if he was not in the rice-producing

area during that period of time.

Mr. O'NEAL. Thank you.

We will make this service-record letter dated August 7, 1946, a part

of the record at this point.

(The document referred to follows:)

U.S.S. "DYsoN" (DD572 ),

SHIPYARD BRANCH,

Charleston, S.C., August 7, 1946.

From: Commanding Officer.

To: Lt (jg) Camden E. Greene, USN.

Subject: Operation and Engagement Stars, Statement of.

Reference: (a) NavPers 15632.

1. In accordance with reference (a) examination of your records has been

made and it is found that you are entitled to wear the following operation and

engagement stars.

Asiatic-Pacific Area Service Ribbon, one star, P3.

American Area Service Ribbon.

Philippine Defense Ribbon AlNav 64-45.

Navy Good Conduct Ribbon.

American Defense Ribbon, one star.

European Area Service Ribbon, one star, E217.

Commendation Ribbon.

Presidential Unit Citation, U.S.S. Hadley (DD774)

Victory Ribbon.

Purple Heart.

R. C. SMART.

Mr. O'NEAL. Are there any other witnesses to be heard by the

subcommittee?

If not, the subcommittee will now go into executive session.

(Whereupon, at 11 :50 a.m., the subcommittee retired into executive

session.)