neighbors will suffer along with him. And when we continually shift these acres out--I have had more complaints, letter after letter, stating:

Why is it that our wheat areas are taking cuts and the other States that are not wheat areas are getting increases in their allotments?

I have been unable to explain that logically, so we passed this law to correct it. If we repeal the law for 1 year, we might as well throw it out. This is the critical year right now-if you will check the acreages in the other States-the Department may be able to supply the figures.

Not only that, we may get another repeal on this law if these other States start getting too many acres in the picture. We will have a lot of wheat States in the next year or two.

Mr. ALBERT. Are there any further questions?

If not, Congressman Breeding, we thank you for a very full and fine statement.

I note the presence of another author of a bill, our distinguished colleague from Colorado, Mr. Chenoweth.

Mr. Chenoweth, would you like to be heard on this matter at this time?

STATEMENT OF HON. J. EDGAR CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS OF THE THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

Mr. CHENOWETH. Mr. Breeding has made a very good case, I think, for this legislation. I hope I can clear up some of the confusion which appears to exist, particularly in the mind of my colleague from Oklahoma, because I fear he sees something in this legislation which does not exist at all.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am happy to have the opportunity of appearing before you today in support of H. R. 9814, a bill introduced by my colleague, Mr. Breeding, of Kansas. I wish to state that I have introduced a companion bill, H. R. 9819, which is also pending before this committee.

I might state that my district joins that of Mr. Breeding, and our problems are very similar. We have the same type of wheat farmers in both of our districts.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on this legislation, which I feel is of the utmost importance to the wheat growers of my district. I urge the committee to promptly report this bill, and hope that it will be passed by the House at an early date. The purpose of this bill is to protect the wheatgrowers who planted excess acreage last year, from the additional penalty of losing their acreage allotments as provided in Public Law 85-203. The bill applies only to those farmers who planted wheat in 1957 for harvest in 1958. The bill provides that those wheatgrowers who did plant excess acreage last fall shall not be subject to the additional penalty of losing their acreage allotment as a result of the 1958 harvest.

I want to also call the attention of the committee to the fact that this legislation applies only to section 2 of Public Law 85-203. We are not seeking in any way to amend or modify the provisions of section 1 of Public Law 85-203, which contains the 30-acre limitation

provision. The passage of the bill now before you will in no way affect the penalties imposed on the 15 acre and 30 acre wheatgrowers as contained in this law.

The President signed S. 959, which became Public Law 85-203, on August 28, 1957. Paragraph (h) of section 2 of this law reads as follows:

(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no acreage in the commercial wheat-producing area seeded to wheat for harvest as grain in 1958 or thereafter in excess of acreage allotments shall be considered in establishing future State, county, and farm acreage allotments.

I think this is the section now that is causing the difficulty. At the time this law was signed some wheat had already been planted in my district in southeastern Colorado, and I understand this is also true in western Kansas and other areas. In most cases, the wheatgrower did not know of the additional penalty for overplanting when he planted his excess acreage. The county committees in my area did not issue a notice on the added penalty involving loss of acreage allotment until late in October.

I might state at this point, I believe it was stated to me by wheatgrowers in my district, they did not get this information until early November.

My attention was first called to this situation by a group of wheat farmers in Baca and Prowers Counties in my district last December. I met with a group of some 100 wheat farmers on December 13 in Springfield, Colo., where the matter was discussed at considerable length. Some wheat farmers were also present from Kansas, Mr. Breeding's district.

These wheatgrowers stated that they had no knowledge of the additional penalty imposed by Public Law 85-203, when they planted their wheat last fall, and they felt that this penalty should not apply to the 1958 harvest. In my opinion they made a good case, and I also feel that those who planted excess acreage last year should not be subject to the penalty of losing their acreage allotments so far as the 1958 harvest is concerned. This is a matter of doing justice to a large group who overplanted without knowledge of the new law.

At the meeting in Springfield on December 13, a committee on resolutions was appointed to draft a resolution setting forth the sentiment of the meeting. This resolution reads as follows:

At a wheatgrowers meeting held in Springfield, Colo, December 13, 1957, at which wheatgrowers from Baca, Prowers, and Las Animas Counties in Colorado, and Stanton and Stevens, Morton and Seward Counties in Kansas were represented, the following resolution was adopted by unanimous vote:

"Resolved, That Representatives and Senators of the areas represented be informed of the general dissatisfaction in the interpretation of Public Law 85-203, section 2, which involves a penalty for overseeding wheat allotments. Since this interpretation came after wheat seeding was completed, it was felt it should not apply to 1958 wheat crop. It was agreed that overseeding should not increase base acreage, but should not invoke additional penalty of allotment base acreage loss.

"An interpretation by the Department of Agriculture going to the established allotment on the farm instead of an historical base (allotment plus diversion acres, could make the present law acceptable.

"OLIVER L. BROWN, Liberal, Kans.
"FORREST BURNS, Lycan, Colo.
"R. H. TROSTLE, Johnson, Kans.

"GEORGE G. MURRAY, Stonington, Colo.
"W. O. BROWN, Springfield, Colo.

"Committee on Resolutions."

I was in hope that this situation could be corrected for the 1958 harvest by an administrative order. I took the matter up with the Department of Agriculture, and found that this could not be done. I then introduced my bill which you have before you, as I know of no other way to give these wheatgrowers the protection to which they are entitled.

In our areas, the winter wheat is planted in the fall for harvest the following summer. I do not believe that Congress intended to impose these additional penalties where the wheat had already been planted. We can correct this situation by passing this bill, so that the 1958 harvest will be exempt from the penalties imposed by section 2 of Public Law 85-203, on all wheat planted in 1957. That is all we are seeking to do in this legislation.

Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chenoweth, we appreciate that very clear and succinct and excellent statement, and we are glad to have the benefit of your experience and your knowledge.

Are there any questions?

Mr. BELCHER. I would like to ask my friend from Colorado where that clears up any of these fears that I had concerning the bill? Mr. CHENOWETH. I don't think, Mr. Belcher, this bill affects any acreage allotments at all. It will not shift any acreage allotment that I can see.

Mr. BELCHER. Isn't your complaint the fact that they can't include these overplanted acres?

Mr. CHENOWETH. Whether they are going to accept the base or the allotment, that is the difference. I do not claim to be any expert in this wheat allotment situation but as I understand it

Mr. BELCHER. The point I am fearful of is that the same advantage that the wheat farmer gets in Colorado or Oklahoma or Kansas, will, also, redound to the benefit of the fellow in Mississippi, in Mississippi and all of the other States, only that they have overplanted 10 times as much as we have.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I think not, Mr. Belcher. I am not familiar with the situation in these States.

Mr. BELCHER. This does not just apply to Colorado?

Mr. CHENOWETH. No. It does apply to the wheat planted in 1957. Mr. BELCHER. They planted it in Missouri.

Mr. CHENOWETH. It would apply to any wheat planted in 1957 except it does not apply to the 15 and 30 acres that is a different section.

Mr. BELCHER. I thoroughly understand that. But there is a lot of wheat that has been planted that had no intention of coming in under the 30 acres. There has been a tremendous increase in wheat acreage throughout the other States in the United States that does not come under the 30-acre section at all.

Mr. CHENOWETH. As I understand the situation, suppose a man had an allotment of 200 acres, a base of 250 and he plants 300. He plants 50 acres excess acreage. Now he would still retain the 250-acre base under the present law. But if you invoke this additional penalty he will go back to the 200 acres.

Mr. BELCHER. I am just interested in the wheat farmers in the wheat

area.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I appreciate that.

Mr. BELCHER. But I do not want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.

Mr. CHENOWETH. No.

Mr. BELCHER. In other words, I have had some fears about this from the beginning. I am anxious to get those cleared up because I would hate to do away with the benefit of this law we tried so many years to get, the shifting of acreage in all of these basic commodities, and if this is going to let the bars down, in my opinion, from the statistics that I have received, then letting the bars down for 1 year will be rather serious.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I just think of this illustration, Mr. Belcher. I do not know whether it would apply altogether or not. It is the best way I can see to illustrate.

A man is driving his automobile 65 miles an hour and he is stopped by an officer, who says, "You are exceeding the law."

"I am not, the speed limit is 70 miles."

"You are wrong. The State board met 3 months ago and decided it would be 60. We are just a little late getting the notice out to the people. You are breaking the law."

Under those circumstances are we going to fine that man? That does not affect the others who go up and down the highway at all. Just this one particular man.

Mr. BELCHER. That is not the way I understand it. He is going down the road 65 miles an hour, and you said the speed limit was 60. He knew it was going to be 60 and he was only going to exceed it 5 miles an hour, and intended to pay for that 5 miles excess. And he now finds out it is 55 and has to pay for 10 instead of 5.

Your wheat farmer knew he was violating the rules when he planted. Mr. CHENOWETH. Let me state this, Mr. Belcher, I think you are familiar with the picture and the conditions which have existed in the so-called drouth areas which affected Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas, particularly. These wheat farmers have been through some trying years out there, and they have not been raising a great deal of wheat. This year they saw a chance to raise a little wheat, that is, to recuperate some of the losses which they suffered in recent years. I do not think we can be too critical of them for yielding to the temptation to overplant a little.

However, I think you will remember that we didn't impose this additional penalty until late in August when the President signed the bill. For some reason, I don't know why, the Department did not get the notice to these people until late in October in Colorado. I think the date was October 29. I believe that was the date of the notice from the Colorado State committee. I think it was early in November before that notice reached some of the wheat growers.

You mentioned a moment ago that you did not believe in changing the rules in the middle of the game. That is really what we are doing because much of this wheat was planted before the growers received any notice from the State committee of this additional penalty.

It is, perhaps, true that some would have overplanted, anyway. I do not say they would not. I think in many cases they would not have overplanted. But they knew nothing about the additional penalty until the wheat had been planted.

Mr. BELCHER. I have many farmers who would be hurt by this, as you have, and I am not saying that I am not going to oppose the

amendment. The only thing that I, certainly, hope is we will not penalize 80 percent of the farmers in order to try to help 20 percent of the farmers; when we are penalizing 80 percent of the compliers to help 20 percent of the noncompliers.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I submit we are not penalizing any of them.

Mr. BELCHER. You are going to penalize every farmer in Colorado. Mr. CHENOWETH. We have no intention of doing so.

Mr. BELCHER. Yes, you are-under your bill it does.

Mr. CHENOWETH. We do not mean to do that.

Mr. BELCHER. Then you just haven't got the right bill.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Maybe we can put an amendment in which will satisfy you?

Mr. BELCHER. The only thing, if it is not amended at all, if you do not keep this bar, if you let the bar down at all the acreage will flow out of Oklahoma and Kansas, into the nonwheat areas in anything you do. It will do that. It will not be of any help. It will help one individual farmer but hurt the overall farmers in Colorado, Oklahoma, and Kansas, unless I misunderstand the effect of the amendment.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I think you are unduly alarmed and I think you do not understand what the motives of Mr. Breeding and I are. We are not trying to shift any acreage allotments.

Mr. BELCHER. If you let the gates down it will shift itself.

Mr. CHENOWETH. All we are saying in this legislation is "So far as the 1958 harvest is concerned, you just forget this bill that we passed late last year, where the wheat was planted in 1957."

Mr. BELCHER. You say that to the farmer in Mississippi, too. And in Missouri. If you could say that just for Colorado, that would be fine, but while you are helping them there are a lot of other farmers who will be benefited more.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I am not familiar with that situation. I do not know if that is the case or not.

Mr. BELCHER. That ought to be studied before we pass on this legislation. You are not applying this to Colorado, the First District of Oklahoma, or Mr. Smith's district in Kansas-you are saying to the farmer over in Missouri, to the farmer in Ohio and all of the southern States, "You can do the same thing."

Mr. CHENOWETH. If you are referring to the 15- and 30-acre farmers, that is not true.

Mr. BELCHER. I am interested in the others.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I am not familiar with those conditions in those States.

Mr. BELCHER. That is a thing to be investigated before you introduce the bill.

Mr. CHENOWETH. I am anxious to protect by own wheat people. That is all I am trying to do. And that I think is what Mr. Breeding is trying to do. And we think an unjust penalty is being imposed upon them. The same situation may apply in the other States you mentioned. I don't know what time they plant. I don't know whether they plant in the fall, or not. I do know what the picture is in the Third District of Colorado.

Mr. BELCHER. I know that in my district, some of those farmers under this interpretation are going to lose some.

Mr. CHENOWETH. Nobody will lose anything under this bill.