verbal agreement, which is legal for only 1 year in Texas, many are secured through agents and the farmer does not know whether the agent's sublease has a period of 1 year or more. A majority of the leases to the producing farmer are for only 1 year. It would be impossible for either the rice farmers or the ASC Office to secure the necessary information to properly set up descriptions of the farms, according to regulations, within a period of 12 months in the Brazoria County, Tex., rice-farming area. The situation is further aggravated by the large number of tenant rice farmers who move from one location to another annually. This situation could be simplified and very easily administered by defining a farm as the actual tract of land farmed in the current year. We recommend that such a definition be applied to each farm in the States where the allotment is vested in the farmer. If the acreage allotments were placed on the land in Texas, the oil producers and out-of-State landowners would receive a majority of the rice acreage allocation.

3. LIMITED TRANSFER OF ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS

Under the present regulations there appears to be only three circumstances under which the vested right in acreage allotments may be transferred, and according to the county ASC interpretation of partnership it has not been possible for a limited partnership to exercise the right of transfer from one partner to another upon dissolution of such partnership. There are numerous ex-farmers and landowners who have small acreage allotments which under normal circumstances they would not use. But 99 percent of them can find a legal method of having such allotments used for a small percentage of the crop, and under the present regulations such small allotments will continue under the same ownership indefinitely. There is a possibility the limitation upon disposition of such vested rights might fail if contented in the courts. There are numerous dairymen in our area and they advise us that their base allotments may be sold either with the sale of milk cows or without the sale of such cows. We believe a large number of the owners of such vested rights would dispose of them if the regulations permitted them to sell, donate or otherwise barter for their disposition and we recommend that the regulations be amended to permit such disposition of rice-acreage allotments. This change in procedure would eliminate a volume of red tape in the county ASC offices which is now required in connection with the determination of the various interests in the many complicated farm setups which now provide for multiple party interests in individual farm and it would also eliminate the numerous headaches in connection with the final disposition of the crops.

We have not polled the opinions of the State and county ASC offices but we believe you will find a large majority of them in agreement with the recommendations stated herein.

A copy of this letter is being mailed to the last-named members of the Rice Advisory Committee as well as to some officials of the State and county ASC committees and to other rice farm groups.

Very truly yours,

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Carriker.

J. F. COLLIER, General Manager.

May I again suggest-I notice that witnesses have quite long statements, and unless they have something new, the Chair may have to do something about limiting the time so as to give everybody a chance. Here you have 6 pages. I can give assurance to all of those who have prepared statements that their statements will be placed in the record in full, and since we have so many witnesses, and I want to hear them all, I want to give everybody a chance, it may be necessary to ask you, sir, and other witnesses, if you have got anything new in your proposals that has not been stated, let us limit it to that, if you will. Let us see if we can do that.

STATEMENT OF MAX D. CARRIKER, ROBY, TEX.

Mr. CARRIKER. It is a distinct pleasure to appear before your committee here today.

I am Max Carriker, of Roby, Fisher County, Tex. I am a farmer in Fisher County, and I am primarily dependent upon the production of cotton for a livelihood, although I do maintain a small beefcattle herd, and sow a nominal acreage of winter wheat for grazing and harvest.

The farmers of Fisher County, of which we are a part, and virtually all the rolling plains of Texas, struggle with a very unique problem. Our problem is no more or less special than countless other areas across the Nation, but it probably stands alone in its severity. The rolling plains is an arid dryland area with a one-crop economy. In extremely localized sections we sow some wheat, and most all of us attempt to produce grain sorghums on otherwise idle acres, but so far as the economy of our area as a whole is concerned, our one and only cropland product is cotton.

We have suffered continuous severe drought since 1950, and only in 1955 has this continuity been partially broken. Even now, I have neighbors who are harvesting a virtual failure because of drought. This factor alone has reduced our yield average over the past 5 years to disaster levels. A rapid breakdown of the statistics available from our county ASC offices and the Bureau of the Census reveals that our average farmer in Fisher County, operating 165 acres of cropland with a 61-acre cotton allotment, has produced an average of 6.2 bales of cotton per year through the drought years. This is, of course, far below the subsistence level.

Not only is this true in Fisher County, but is typical of a vast spread of the rolling plains of Texas.

I would refer you to exhibit 1 on the back of this statement for a more graphic picture of the affected area.

The CHAIRMAN. You are giving us the problem. You told us what the losses are. What is the solution to it? That is what I want to hear, if you have any.

Mr. CARRIKER. I believe our problem is rather unique, and I do not believe we have been considered in Washington, and I would like, at least for you to hear the problem of these 25 to 30 counties in west Texas, that do not seem to get any voice up there.

The CHAIRMAN. You have some mighty good Congressmen in Texas, who are very, very vociferous; they have been pretty good representatives.

You may proceed.

Mr. CARRIKER. If you would glance briefly at our yields, in 1951, Fisher County produced 43 pounds of lint cotton per acre. You are from a cotton country, and you know what it means.

The CHAIRMAN. It means you should not be in the cotton business. Mr. CARRIKER. Well, I have a brief reference to that right away. The CHAIRMAN. That is what it means, because you lose before you plant it. You know you are going to lose it; why plant it, then? Mr. CARRIKER. At any rate, we have compared the years 1951 through 1954, and we have had 51 pounds per acre, and I have compared it with the national average, which, beginning in 1950, started at 278 pounds up to 1955, when it was 365, for an average of 315 pounds. A brief comparison of these local yields with national yield makes it obvious that our arid, dryland area occupies an untenable position, as you say, under the present program with cotton yield trends such as they are.

We are squeezed in between the ever-higher production of the irrigation areas to the west and areas of more favorable rainfall to the east. Our soils are fertile, our methods are modern, and we, of course, welcome any new methods or any better cotton varieties, but because of limited available moisture, our yield levels are virtually fixed. Because of the prolonged drought, we have almost lost sight of our socalled normal yield; however, under normal conditions, we expect to average about 130 pounds of lint per acre, which is considerably less than half of the present national average.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the staple there? How long is it? What is the quality?

Mr. CARRIKER. Seven-eighth, fifteen-sixteenth.

The CHAIRMAN. That cotton is not, of course, as salable as that produced in alluvial soil or irrigated areas; is it?

Mr. CARRIKER. I have heard that theory advanced.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is. The record is replete with evidence to the effect that in California, for instance, they have irrigation, and where they grow not 51 pounds, but 2 bales, sometimes 21⁄2 bales. They have never had 1 bale of it in CCC.

Mr. CARRIKER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. So they have been exceedingly short out there. I am familiar with all that has happened out there in the past 20 years, almost since I have been in Congress, and the production of cotton has gradually gotten away from us, and it is going west. Your Senators and Congressmen, as well as those of Mississippi and in the South, have tried to stay that trend, if we can, but gradually it is moving where it is more economic to grow. Those are the things that we do not seem to be able to cope with, if things keep on as they are now going.

You may proceed.

Mr. CARRIKER. Where, then, do we find ourselves in this picture of ever-increasing acre yields? We find ourselves with an ever-decreasing acreage in an area unable to compensate with boosted yields.

Some might say at first glance that there is no place for such inefficiency in our national cotton economy. However, further study will reveal that dryland west Texas is one of the most efficient cottonproducing areas in the Nation. We are fully mechanized, our cultivation problem is minimum, our insect problem is minimum, and our farm labor situation is entirely satisfactory, envied by many.

The crux of the matter is, we are unable to keep pace in the mad race for higher yields, and are forced to operate under a control program that offers absolutely no consideration for our particular situation. That I may not be misunderstood, certainly no one advocates the penalizing of the man who has the ability and means to increase his production, but we wonder if it was the intent of Congress to penalize the man who cannot. We find at home that that piece of land which was considered a complete economic farm unit as recently as 3 years ago, will no longer support a family under the present program, and obviously, price is not a very large part of the problem.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the greatest production you have had Mr. CARRIKER. 1950 was our last crop, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. 1950?

Mr. CARRIKER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And your yield there was what?

Mr. CARRIKER. In 1950-I did not show it here-our yield in 1950, our last crop year before the drought, was about 190 pounds per acre. The CHAIRMAN. What are you suggesting, that because of this drought condition, you get a big acreage?

Mr. CARRIKER. Not exactly because of the drought condition. Now, possibly we are due some hardship consideration because of the drought.

The CHAIRMAN. How would you attain that goal. Would it be by giving you more acres?

Mr. CARRIKER. Yes; that would be one solution; it surely would. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. CARRIKER. Now, moving away from local problems and into the national picture, it seems that our greatest obstacle in the cotton economy is the gaining and holding of market outlets.

So long as our United States maintains a price support for the whole cotton-producing world, then our American cotton farmers are at a distinct disadvantage in the world market place. So long as we do not meet competition with other cotton producers and other natural and synthetic fibers, our American cotton market can do nothing but continue to shrink.

At the same time, our American agricultural economy must be held on an even keel. This presents a two-edged problem that would indicate a lower market price for our cotton on the one hand, and a sustained economy for our cotton producer on the other. This simple and sound thinking has led many of us to take a close look at the present wool producers' program that allows their product to go to market with an even break with its competition.

Again, in the overall farm surplus picture, if we must cut down on agricultural production, then there is much merit in the acre-leasing proposal that has received publicity over the past several weeks. I feel that the American farmer will be more than willing to take acres out of production if he can expect to receive enough remuneration to cover taxes and maintenance on these acres plus a "standby" return on his investment.

As to the question of the level of price supports under the present program, our opinion is very clearcut in my area. In the basic crops we have controlled production through acreage controls, and this measure alone, has curtailed the capacity of our production machinery by half in most cases. Why slap the farmer in the face a second time by attempting to curtail his production even further through dollar controls?

In other words, why hand a crippled man a rubber crutch? Flexible price supports, although designed to control production, shoot far wide of their mark in large areas of the Nation. In my area, where we can expect a reasonable return from cotton only, we can do nothing but attempt to produce the maximum, regardles of support levels. Farther west of us where famers are dependent on grain sorghums as well as cotton, they, too, have no other choice. This fact is borne out by the record crop of grain sorghums this year in the face of an all-time-low support level.

In summation, I can see no salvation for our area, short of complete reformation of the farm program. In this reformation, I feel

that some consideration should be given to the efficient producers, burdened by fixed low-acre yields, who presently are experiencing a diminishing return disappearing cotton acreage.

Very serious consideration should be given to our world market situation, with proper stopgaps placed to maintain an increased worldwide demand for our products. This, in my estimation, is the one goal, that when achieved, will render all other temporary measures almost wholly unnecessary.

It is high time we were lending less emphasis to scaling production down to pessimistic demand estimates, and lending more emphasis to the philosophy of creating a demand more commensurate with our ability to produce.

This is a lesson we should have learned from our brothers in industry many decades ago. In the interim, while markets are being matched to our productive ability, the American farmer will certainly consider taking a part of his acreage out of production if he is economically enabled to do so.

Meanwhile, the prices we have to pay for the goods seem to flex only upward. Do not punish the American farmer for his ability to produce abundantly. May God grant that the horn of plenty will always spill freely among us.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CARRIKER. I certainly thank you, Senator.

I have one other comment in reference to some earlier testimony. I feel it is my duty to bring it out, and it will only take about 30 seconds.

May I have it, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. CARRIKER. Although I do not wish to divert from the purpose of this hearing into a harangue between east and west Texas, I feel it is my duty to answer some remarks made by a previous witness this morning, who said that cotton acreage had been diverted from his area to west Texas.

I have exhaustive statistics in my briefcase to support the fact that the cotton farmers in Fisher County have taken just as serious an acreage cut over the past 2 years as Navarro County, for example, and Fisher County is certainly west of Fort Worth.

I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Atchison?

He is not here.

Mr. Weiss? He will file his statement.

William Schmidt? All right.

Mr. Schmidt, will you give us your name in full, and your occupation.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. SCHMIDT, SINTON, TEX.

Mr. SCHMIDT. I am William A. Schmidt, of Sinton, Tex., San Patricio County. I do not have a long dissertation up here. I would like to add a few comments to what has been said.

I am a cotton, grain sorghum, and a vegetable farmer in the coastal bend area of Texas, south of Houston, about 200 miles. I farm 500 acres of land.