which no wheat is removed would appear to be desirable. Such farms constitute only a small portion of all farms which produce wheat and the proposed exemption, although creating some new problems, would not unduly hamper the administration of the wheat marketing quota and price support programs with respect to farms from which wheat is removed.

Enactment of this bill would be another step toward achievement of our objective-that farmers be permitted to operate their farms with a maximum of freedom. At the same time, it would remove the dissatisfaction of some small wheat producers with the program as it must be operated under present legislation.

The bill, if enacted, would become effective with the 1957 and subsequent crops of wheat. It would in no way relieve or otherwise affect the liability for marketing penalties incurred by farmers under past wheat marketing quota programs who fed or used for seed on the farms which produced their entire wheat crops.

Section 114 of the Soil Bank Act provides that as a condition of eligibility for participation in the acreage reserve program under that act the wheat acreage on any farm must not exceed the larger of the farm wheat acreage allotment or 15 acres.

In order to clarify the matter of eligibility for participation in the acreage reserve program of any farm for which an exemption from marketing quota penalties might be obtained under the bill, we believe it highly desirable that such bill be supplemented by a new section containing an amendment to the Soil Bank Act which would make it clear that any farm for which an exemption from marketing quota penalties was obtained under the proposed bill would not be required to comply with the larger of the farm wheat acreage allotment or 15 acres to be eligible for participation in the acreage reserve program.

We believe that farmers who might obtain an exemption from wheat marketing quota penalties because their entire wheat production is used on the farm where produced should be entitled to participate in the acreage reserve program on exactly the same basis as those farmers who avail themselves of the 15-acre exemption. We shall be glad to submit to you the legal language to make this effective.

As indicated above it is recognized that there will be certain administrative difficulties in putting the provisions of the bill into operation, but we believe it will be possible to develop adequate safeguards. Additional administrative expenses would be incurred in carrying out the provisions of the bill, if enacted. It is believed that such increases might be absorbed from funds appropriated for administering the wheat quota program.

Section 2 of the bill would prohibit the use of excess wheat acreage in 1958 and subsequent years for history purposes in determining future State, county, and farm acreage allotments and prohibit farms. planting wheat without an allotment in 1958 and subsequent years from becoming eligible for an allotment in succeeding years as "old" wheat farms. Each of these proposed provisions now apply to tobacco and the first provision now applies to all basic crops except corn and wheat.

Enactment of this section of the bill would do much toward minimizing undesirable shifts in State and county wheat acreage allot

ments which are prevalent under existing programs. By limiting allotments credits to 1958 and subsequent years to the acreage seeded to wheat within the farm allotment, State and county allotments for succeeeding years will become more stable.

Although the acreage allotment and marketing quota programs for wheat have generally been effective in holding down the production of wheat, there are problems under the present provisions of law which are inherently contributing to the instability of State and county allotments. Foremost among them is the provision of law which exempts from marketing quota penalties farms seeding not more than 15 acres of wheat for harvest as grain.

In 1956 there were 562,643 farms in the commercial wheat producing area, or 34 percent of all wheat farms in such area, on which the acreage seeded to wheat for harvest as grain was in excess of the farm allotment. The total allotment on these excess farms was 4,559,317 acres, but the acreage seeded to wheat on such farms for harvest as grain was 8,991,601 acres. Thus, the total wheat acreage on such farms was 97 percent above the total allotted acreage.

An analysis of the 1956 wheat performance reports submitted by all applicable State ASC offices indicate that overplanting of allotments was prevalent on larger farms in some of the important wheatproducing States such as Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Washington. If these States, together with North Dakota and South Dakota in which the number of noncomplying wheat farms were relatively small, are disregarded, a true picture of overplanting wheat allotments or small farms becomes more apparent.

Outside these States within the 1956 commercial wheat-producing area, there were 498,088 farms, or 39 percent of all wheat farms, on which the acreage seeded to wheat for harvest as grain in 1956 was in excess of the farm allotment. In the States of truly small wheat farms, the total acreage seeded to wheat for harvest as grain in 1956 on excess farms was about 211⁄2 times larger than the total allotment assigned to such farms.

The permitting of excess wheat acreage to be used for history purposes in determining allotments is causing some radical shifts in State, county, and farm allotments even though the national wheat acreage allotment remains constant at 55 million acres. The result is that a State such as North Dakota, with only 1.2 percent of the wheat farms overplanting the farm allotment, loses allotment to Missouri and other States where overplanting is exceptionally heavy on small farms.

The impact on county allotments is even greater. For example, the 1958 State allotment for Kansas is about the same as for 1957, but because of excess planting on small farms in counties of eastern Kansas, a considerable shift of allotment from the wheat belt of western Kansas will be necessary to provide allotments for the increased acreage in the eastern part of the State.

Nebraska, another important wheat-producing State, has still another problem resulting from the overplanting of allotments. The overplanting of wheat allotments in this State has, for the most part, been on large farms in certain counties of the high plains area. This overplanting on large wheat farms, although deliberate in the face

of marketing quota penalties or under the provisions of law which permits storing the farm marketing excess, is building up excessive wheat acreage history which can only be covered in subsequent years by shifting allotment acreage from other States or from other counties in Nebraska. To illustrate, in Cheyenne County, Nebr., 914 farms, 68.6 percent of all wheat farms in the county, had an acreage of wheat for harvest as grain in 1956 in excess of the farm allotment. The total acreage of wheat on these noncomplying farms was 43.4 percent larger than the total allotment acreage on such farms.

Other important wheat-producing counties include Banner, with 64.3 percent of farms overplanting, Deuel with 40.6 percent, and Kimball with 68.9 percent.

The shifting of allotment acreage from one State to another and from county to county within a State as the result of overplanting of farm wheat acreage allotments is a matter of grave concern to complying producers. Even within counties complying farms must, under existing legislation, give up allotment acreage to cover the excess acreage on noncomplying farms. Unless legislative action is taken to alter this situation, the problem will become greater as we move into the future. We strongly urge the enactment of this section of the bill.

Section 3 of the bill was, no doubt, designed to stabilize the commercial wheat-producing area by preventing certain States from moving in and out of such area from one year to the next. Only four States Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, and Mississippi-would likely be affected, in subsequent years, by the provisions of this section. Based on the latest available statistics of the Department of Agriculture, the acreage seeded to wheat for harvest as grain in each of these States during the last 3 years was as follows:

The computed 1958 State wheat acreage allotments for these States were: Alabama, 23,240 acres; Arizona, 21,401 acres; Louisiana, 6,302 acres, and Mississippi, 16,256 acres. When you compare that to the number of acreage actually harvested for grain in the table, you will see what we are trying to illustrate.

Since existing legislation gives the Secretary discretionary author-. ity to designate a State as outside the commercial wheat producing area if the allotment for such State is 25,000 acres or less, each of the 4 States were so designated for the 1958 crop. An analysis of the wheat seedings in these States indicates that the 1959 State wheat, acreage allotment for both Alabama and Arizona will likely be in excess of 25,000 acres and thereby could not, under the present provisions of law, be excluded from the commercial wheat producing area for 1959. Under the provisions of section 3 of H. R. 6784 both of these States would definitely be in the commercial area in 1959 and

would have to remain therein for a period of at least 3 years before they could again become eligible to be excluded from such area.

We believe that the provisions of section 3 of the bill are necessary in order to stabilize the commercial wheat producing area in future years and to implement the effective administration of the wheat production adjustment programs. It is recommended, however, that section 3 be modified before its enactment as follows: (1) Insert on line 24 of page 3 the words "for harvest as grain" immediately following the words "planted to wheat," (2) insert on line 3 of page 4 the words "for harvest as grain" immediately following the words "acreage planted to wheat," and (3) insert on line 8 of page 4 the words "for harvest as grain" immediately following the words “annual acreage planted to wheat."

In summary may I say that subject to the suggested changes we feel that this proposed bill is a step in the right direction.

Mr. ALBERT. Thank you, Mr. Berger, for your statement.

I would like to ask you a few questions for the record.

In the first place, the present 15-acre exemption in the law would not be disturbed, as I understand this bill, by the enactment of this bill, except with respect to building up future history, is that right? Mr. BERGER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ALBERT. In other words, a farmer can plant up to 15 acres and sell the wheat if he want to do so. But suppose his allotment was 7 acres and he planted more than 7 acres, he would not be adding to his history.

Mr. BERGER. That is right.

Mr. ALBERT. That is correct?

Mr. BERGER. That is the way I understand it.

Mr. ALBERT. For any year in which he exceeds his allotment?

Mr. SORKIN. He would still get the 7 acres. He would not add to his history.

Mr. ALBERT. He would get the 7 acres?

Mr. SORKIN. Yes.

Mr. ALBERT. Would that be true of the 30-acre as well as the 15acre provision?

Mr. SORKIN. He would still only get the history up to his allotment. Mr. ALBERT. He will get up to his allotment?

Mr. SORKIN. Yes.

Mr. ALBERT. He cannot build history, though, otherwise

Mr. SORKIN. That is right.

Mr. BERGER. That is right.

Mr. ALBERT. Now for the second point. You understand, this bill is a compromise, Mr. Berger. You suggested that perhaps some of these other bills would suit you better. I do not exactly understand the position of the Department, in that regard.

On page 3 you say:

Production of wheat for feed is in general confined to small farms in the feed deficit areas.

If it is confined to small farms, why should we leave the exemption wide open? Why should we not make it a small-farm proposition? Mr. BERGER. It will take care of itself, as I see it, whether you have the 30-acre limitation or not. The matter of further administrative problem we have is to see that it stays within the 30 acres-that is all.

Mr. ALBERT. Do you think that the 30-acre provision is ample to take care of the overwhelming majority of small farmers who want to feed their wheat produced on their farms?

Mr. BERGER. Yes; but I see no reason for drawing the line at 30

acres.

Mr. ALBERT. If a farmer desires to feed his wheat on the farm, you think he should be allowed to do so even if he plants several thousand acres?

Mr. BERGER. If he should feed 2,000 acres of wheat on the farm where produced, that is entirely up to him. I would just as soon have him raise wheat on that 2,000 acres as I would any other type of feed grain, such as barley, sorghum, oats, or other grains, so long as he will feed it.

Mr. ALBERT. This seems to be a contradictory situation. Here you want to let the man grow wheat for feed, and at the same time let him participate in the soil bank, the purpose of which is to cut down the surplus of commercial wheat production.

Mr. BERGER. We will let him raise barley, oats, and sorghum grains. Mr. ALBERT. But he does not get the same soil-bank provisions that he does under wheat.

Mr. BERGER. Well, on the excess acreage he does. Am I right on that?

Mr. SORKIN. He would not participate under the_wheat-soil-bank provisions. What we are recommending here is this: Let us say a man has a corn allotment and a 5-acres wheat allotment. Under the present laws, if he is allowed to plant 15 acres of wheat, and if he comes within the provisions of the corn allotment minus what he puts into the soil bank, he is eligible for a soil-bank payment.

We are proposing to extend this 15 acres to whatever is done here. The man has to do the same thing with respect to corn acreage as he does under the present law. It is a technical change that we are recommending here.

Mr. ALBERT. I don't quite follow that. Are you saying that you do not want him to participate in the wheat-acreage reserve?

Mr. SORKIN. If he takes advantage of the 15-acre provision, he cannot participate in the wheat-acreage reserve; actually he should

not.

Mr. BERGER. Should not?

Mr. ALBERT. But he should be able to participate in other crops. Mr. BERGER. For example, cotton or corn.

Mr. BASS. What you are saying here is that for the purposes of the soil bank then, this wheat outside of commercial allotments would be considered as a feed grain for the purpose of obtaining the soil bank?

Mr. BERGER. That is correct.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. The effect of your proposed amendment, then, with respect to the soil bank would not permit a farmer who is getting an exemption under this proposed bill to put the acreage into the soil bank?

Mr. SORKIN. That is correct.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. In other words, it would affect only acreagereserve commitments for other crops, and would say that he is in compliance with his wheat for that purpose, if he is in compliance with the exemption granted under this bill; is that correct?