mental tyranny that is deeply resented and may ultimately result in the farm program being discredited. We strongly urge that the House Agriculture Committee favorably report the bill at this time. The people from the commercial wheat area are strongly of the opinion that this is a very desirable improvement from the standpoint of continuation of the wheat program. They are very much concerned that the resentment that is smouldering in areas like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and other areas. They would like to see the source of that irritation removed. They cannot see any logic whatsoever in permitting farmers to produce feed without restriction, and feeding it on farms, and then making a direct prohibition against wheat being fed on farms. The logic of it completely escapes them. Mr. ALBERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Woolley, would you say, in the light of your statement, that you would favor the Anfuso bill? Mr. WOOLLEY. The Anfuso bill? There are about 17 or 18 of them. Mr. ALBERT. That would put a 30-acre limitation on the exemption, and at the same time change the method of allocating history to the 15-acre grower. In other words the Anfuso bill would not permit a grower to accumulate history for acreage exceeding his allotment. Mr. WOOLLEY. I am sure that our people would agree on the part of the proposition that a person should not earn history for exceeding his allotment. Mr. ALBERT. You would go along with it as being a compromise and a step in the right direction. Mr. WOOLLEY. We think it is a step in the right direction, but we still think it is basically and fundamentally wrong. How do you rationalize that a man can put in a thousand acres of grain sorghums and feed it, but he cannot put in a thousand acres of wheat and feed it? What is the rationale of that? Mr. ALBERT. Grain sorghums on the free market? Mr. WOOLLEY. They get price support. Mr. ALBERT. But they do not have quotas. Mr. WOOLLEY. What does that have to do with the merits of the question, of the farmer in one instance producing a thousand acres for feed? One happens to be wheat that he will feed, and the other grain sorghum. Mr. ALBERT. Except we have two entirely different programs. Mr. WOOLLEY. But the fact is that no program is sacred within itself. There is no fountainhead of virtue in a program as such. It should rest on the basis of logic if it has any basis at all. And it is illogical. Mr. ALBERT. Of course, whenever you feed grain sorghum, you are not interfering at all with somebody else's quota. Mr. WOOLLEY. You are interfering, definitely affecting the quantity of livestock that is on the farm, and you are definitely interfering with other people that are in the livestock business. Mr. ALBERT. Then would you recommend that we should go further and let them sell the wheat, if they want to? Mr. WOOLLEY. No, no, we would have them use it for feed. That is as far as we go. Mr. ALBERT. You can sell feed grains. Why not wheat without limitation? Mr. WOOLLEY. There is a difference between feeding wheat and selling it in the normal channels of trade. Mr. JENNINGS. What is the difference in the logic there? Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, the difference in the logic to me is that if you permit him to sell it, quite obviously it will go into the channels of trade and commerce. Mr. JENNINGS. Won't sorghum grains and soybeans and other feed grains go into channels of trade? Mr. WOOLLEY. They go into channels of commerce, but not into channels of commerce for flour, whereas wheat is going into channels of trade and would go into competition with normal and primary wheat uses for food. Mr. JENNINGS. You would permit him to sell it, provided it was sold for feed? Mr. WOOLLEY. We would not go that far. Our resolution does not cover that. Our people do not think that you have to go that far. Mr. JENNINGS. You are willing to compromise then? Mr. WOOLLEY. Our people think that the people in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and those areas have a real point, and they want to go along with them. Mr. JENNINGS. What is the logic behind it? Mr. WOOLLEY. The logic behind it is that one is producing for feed and it is going into livestock. Mr. JENNINGS. For feed. Suppose you say they sell it for feed and not for human consumption? Mr. WOOLLEY. One trouble is that you would have the problem of identifying that it was actually used for feed after it had been sold into the normal channels of trade. Mr. JENNINGS. I agree with you, and I think you have the same trouble identifying it for feed if you used it on the farm, in competition with other grains. Mr. WOOLLEY. We doubt that there would be any serious problem. Mr. JONES. If it is a question of getting no change in the law or going part way with the compromise bill of Mr. Anfuso, what would be the position of the Farm Bureau then? Mr. WOOLLEY. If the Farm Bureau thought it could not get any legislation passed without accepting the Anfuso compromise, we might accept that as being a step in the right direction. Mr. JONES. That would be better than the situation we are in now. Mr. WOOLLEY. But I do not think that it would be a wise decision to stop at that particular point. The Senate is convinced that we ought to go ahead and open this up to feed wheat and the Farm Bureau wants to do away with the 15 acre or 200 bushel minimum as a condition to opening up feed wheat without limitation. Mr. JONES. Without limitation? Mr. WOOLLEY. That is right. The House-I am sure there are many people in the House, who feel if you go the 30-acre route you will continue to have a lot of agitation and friction, which will be way out of proportion to the possible benefits that it could be to the commercial grain grower that markets wheat in the normal channels of trade. Mr. JONES. The impression I got from those who wanted to grow it for feed seemed to think that that 30-acre limitation would take care of at least a vast majority of the cases, and would relieve most of the objections, at least the source of the objections at the present time. Mr. WOOLLEY. There would still be people that would be incensed about it, and the question that I am raising, why have that friction for something that is of very doubtful value to the commercial wheat farmer? Mr. JONES. Let me ask you this, then. Do you think that you ever are going to get any program or no program that will relieve the situation without getting some complaints from somebody? Mr. WOOLLEY. Well, I am sure that as long as we are human beings we will not act like we are in Heaven. We just are not going to be converted into angels overnight. But we ask ourselves the question, why borrow trouble? Mr. JONES. It seems to me, what we are doing with the Anfuso bill, we are giving the commercial wheatgrower-we are protecting him in a status quo, thereby preventing the continuation of permitting people to overplant and still get history, and we are helping to that extent. We are helping the fellow who wants to feed his wheat on the farm. We are helping him. So I think we are helping the two largest groups that are interested in this problem, by that bill. I do not think that either one is perfect, but I think we go a long way toward getting it. That is why I am inclined to go along with that bill as a very fair compromise. Mr. WOOLLEY. So long as we are willing to go that far, why not go the rest of the way and not have any cause of complaints from the fellow who happens to have 31 acres, for example, and eliminate the 15-acre exemption? Mr. JONES. We have some complaints-a lot of them have been in here complaining about going up to 30 acres, so we would still have that complaint from those people. Mr. WOOLLEY. There will be some people that will. But I can assure you that this subject has been discussed in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas-all of the commercial wheat areas in the Farm Bureau, and we have a lot of members in all of those areas. The people in those areas that are members of the Farm Bureau are in favor of allowing wheat to be produced for feed on the farm. Mr. BELCHER. Those farmers in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, also would like to see the 15-acre exemption repealed, too? Mr. WOOLLEY. This is what we recommend. We recommend the 15acre exemption be repealed. We think that more damage is being done to the commercial wheat farmer, by far, by the 15-acre exemption. We know of thousands of farmers in many States that have gone into wheat because of the 15-acre exemption, and the price they can get for it as a result of the price support. They are really producing wheat that is indirectly piling up in the hands of the Government. Mr. ALBERT. It goes into commercial channels? Mr. WOOLLEY. It has the net effect of increasing the Government's stock of wheat. Mr. ALBERT. You talk about "squawking," if you eliminate the 15acre provision, you will hear plenty of "squawks" from all over the country. Mr. WOOLLEY. Our people would still not agree unless the 15-acre provision is eliminated. Mr. ALBERT. I know you would. But the National Wheat Producers Association wants the 30-acre limitation on the feeding of wheat, if we have that provision at all. Mr. SMITH. I have no questions of Mr. Woolley, but I wanted to put this telegram in the record, that I received and I asked permission for it yesterday. It is from the United States district attorney's office in Topeka : I regard to your wire this date we have 15 cases pending on acreage and wheat allotment programs. That is on farmers who have exceeded their acreage in wheat allotments. Since institution of program we have taken judgment in 68 cases. That is to collect the penalty. That means, if you do not pay the penalty, you are going to the jailhouse. Mr. WATTS. Farmers who take advantage of the exemption will not be eligible to participate in any price-support program for wheat or other feed grains. Mr. WOOLLEY. That is right. Mr. WATTS. There is a support program for every feed grain? Mr. WOOLLEY. That is right. Mr. WATTS. A barley producer in the West, to draw an illustration, has been in the habit of relying on the support price for barley, if he should want to grow a little wheat, he could not do it under the exemption. Mr. WOOLLEY. He could grow wheat, but he could not get price support on any other feed grain. Mr. WATTS. The barley producer grows 200 acres of barley each year, and has been relying on the support price, and at the present time he produces 15 acres of wheat. Mr. WOOLLEY. That is right. Mr. WATTS. He does not get the support price on it, but under the proposed legislation, if he produced as much as 1 acre of wheat, he would not be eligible for price support on the barley. Mr. BELCHER. You do not intend to change the present 15-acre extemption? Mr. WOOLLEY. Yes, we would change it; we would remove the 15acre exemption, we would remove the 200-bushel exemption, and just say, "let him go ahead and feed wheat on the farm in return for eliminating the 15-acre and 200-bushel exemptions. If he wants to feed it on the farm, fine. If he does not want to feed it on the farm he would be subject to quotas." We would likewise let them vote. Mr. WATTS. You would let producers who did not have an allotment vote? Mr. WOOLLEY. Everybody that has an allotment, let him vote. Mr. WOOLLEY. Yes, sir. Mr. JONES. Those that have a 2-acre allotment of wheat, and grow a thousand acres of wheat, you would let him vote in the program? Mr. WOOLLEY. Yes. Mr. JONES. He would have just a 2-acre wheat allotment, and grew a thousand acres of wheat, he would still vote in the program? Mr. WOOLLEY. The law and regulations issued pursuant thereto right now provides that anybody that has an allotment of less than 15 acres, who certifies that he will plant more than 15 acres, has a right to vote. Mr. WATTS. The allotment is what, at the present time? Mr. WOOLLEY. The law, by the clause in section 336 reading "of farmers who will be subject to the quota specified therein" in effect right now says, if a man has an allotment of less than 15 acres and certifies that he will plant in excess of 15 acres, he has a right to vote. Mr. WATTS. In other words, he violates the quota in order to be able to vote? Mr. WOOLLEY. Yes. Mr. JONES. Do you think that is a good provision? Mr. WOOLLEY. Yes. Mr. HEIMBURGER. Refer to paragraph 3 on page 2. I have some questions about that. Do you not think that that provision should provide that the producer must actually forego price supports rather than to merely agree to forego them? Mr. WOOLLEY. That would be perfectly all right. Mr. HEIMBURGER. Shall in fact forego? Mr. WOOLLEY. Yes. Mr. HEIMBURGER. That was the intent? Mr. JENNINGS. Just mark out "agree." Mr. WOOLLEY. I think Mr. Jennings' suggestion is right. Just strike out the word "agree." Mr. ALBERT. We thank you, Mr. Woolley, for your testimony. The Chair has statements here, from Congressman Wharton and Chamberlain, one from the Michigan Farm Bureau Federation, signed by Dan E. Reed, associate executive legislative council, also one from the National Grange, and without objection these statements and data will be included in the record at this point. (The statements and data referred to are as follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. J. E. WHARTON, OF NEW YORK Mr. Chairman, I think that your committee is to be congratulated in entering upon the consideration of the present subject which has long been under fire. When I first learned that the small farmer in any section of the country could actually be penalized for growing and feeding grain on his own acres, I thought that someone must have misconstrued the law. We would expect something of that nature in Russia but I am magnanimous enough to believe that Congress erred in this regard and is about to correct a serious omission. The plight of the small dairy and poultry farmer has been called to your attention time and again and it would be entirely superfluous for me to dwell on their difficulties further at this time. I sincerely trust that the proposed legislation will meet with the approval of this committee and that it will soon be enacted into law. STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. CHAMBERLAIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to submit to you the statement of one of my constituents, Daniel E. Reed, associate legislative counsel, concerning the proposals before you today to eliminate the wheat penalty on grain used for feed by the grower. Mr. Reed was a farmer in the State of Michigan for nearly 20 years and for the past 28 years he has been active in farm organizations. For a considerable |