Mr. ALBERT. If you will yield, the national allotment goes up and down?

Mr. THOMSON. That is correct.

Mr. WATTS. Each state and each farmer is part of the national allotment-it is based on history?

Mr. THOMSON. That is correct. I point out to the gentlemen it has happened in the State of Wyoming when a reclamation dam is put in. It inundates a lot of wheatland. So that takes some out of production, just by force of that act. And that would be made available for distribution over the Nation, but it would be distributed on the basis

Mr. WATTS. That would come out of the national wheat allotment set aside for distribution to correct any inequities. I am not familiar with it is that right?

Mr. THOMSON. Yes. This bill of mine, I will say to the gentleman, was very hurriedly put together, and I think that there are places that the committee counsel might have to suggest where you could do a better job of draftsmanship than the way I have done it.

In the first place this business of starting out "notwithstanding any other provision of law"-maybe we ought to amend the law, when further statutes are printed up. I am not proud of this draftsmanship at all.

if

Mr. WATTS. Your objection to the law that we passed last year, I understood you, is that while it prevented anybody from getting an increase in allotment or base by planting excess wheat at the same time it penalizes people and reduced their allotment.

Mr. THOMSON. That is correct.

Mr. WATTS. What you hope to do with your bill is to fix it so that none can get an increased allotment nor anybody suffer a loss of allotment by overplanting?

Mr. THOMSON. That is correct.

Mr. WATTS. Is that all the bill does?

Mr. THOMSON. That is correct. It would just separate the penalties from the allotments.

If we have to have more penalty let us know what we are doing, but it would stabilize the allotment.

·

I would say to the gentleman that I have another bill that I hope some time this committee can see fit to consider if we can't handle it administratively, not only in my State but in other sections of the country. As induced by this 1939 act we went to the summer fallowing which immediately cut our acreage in half, because we summer fallow half of it, planting half of it, the next year they switch it around. For several years they allowed us that portion summer fallowed for history purposes because they paid us for doing it in the amount we summer fallowed.

Someplace along the line they whacked that off. So thereafter they figured history at 50 percent. What happened was down in the places that they didn't stay with that, like down around Cortez, Colo., when we had a drought it blew all over the place, and the Government went down there and spent taxpayers' money to chisel and everything else to stop the blowing. We have higher winds than most places in the country, but we didn't have that blowing.

That is a separate subject that I just mention.
Mr. ALBERT. We thank you very much.

We are going to have to meet next week or maybe the week after, and we will set a latter date. I want to apologize to the departmental representatives and to the other witnesses for not getting to them today because we did tell them that we would hear from them.

There is a lot of interest in the wheat area in this problem. We are going to need these bills analyzed, not only with respect to the legal effects of the existing law, and the legal effects of these various proposals and other proposals that I understand are before the committee, but, also, the economic effect. We want to know as Congressmen from agricultural States just how much are we going to gain or lose. We do not want to penalize anybody by anything we do. We want to know the facts. I think our counsel has some questions along this line. I think the Department is right in considering this on the overall effect. I, certainly, agree with the Department that we do not want to encourage overplanting at a time when we have been growing so much wheat that we do not know what to do with it.

Do you have some questions?

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Mr. Chairman, I have during the course of the testimony made a list of certain data which it would seem to me would be helpful to the committee in getting this overall picture. It is data that I believe the Department has available. And if you do not have it, I would be glad for you to say so, so that we can work out some substitute that you do have available.

Can you give us a table showing the wheat allotment by States since wheat allotments were resumed, and when it was resumed-in 1951? Mr. J. A. SATTERFIELD. In 1950.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Can you give us the table going back to 1950 showing the wheat allotments by States?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Now a table showing the State's base figure would not be substantially any different

Mr. SATTERFIELD. No, sir.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. In its indications than a table based on State allotments?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. No.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. There would not be a necessity for a table showing the State base going back that far?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is correct.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. However, I think it would be interesting to have a table showing the current base for each State, the base acreage as compared to the acreage allotment.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. You mean current-you mean for 1958?

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Say, for 1957 and 1958-is that available? Can you give us State by State data on this 30-acre exemption that we provided for in the wheat law-do you have that in there?

Mr. LAURENCE MANWARING. May I go back to your previous question?

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Yes.

Mr. MANWARING. I think it would be interesting, too, along with the allotment and such figures as you want on the base, that you also have the planted acreage by States. I think that would be revealing. Mr. HEIMBURGER. Thank you for that contribution. I think it

would.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. We have that all in one table, prepared.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. If you have the data on this 20-acre thing by States, will you bring it to us, also?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. I think you, also, keep records of overplanting or compliance by States; do you not?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Yes.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Can you bring that, also, going back as far as is reasonably possible to go?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. We go back to 1955.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Can you, also, bring us the statistics on wheat allotments by size of allotment-for whatever year you have it available?

Mr. MANWARING. For the latest year available?

Mr. HEIMBURGER. I think that would be enough, for the latest year available, so we can get an idea of the picture of the size of wheat farms. Mr. ALBERT. Yes.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. I do not see any point going back historically on that. Just have it for your last. Is that broken down by States, also, or just national?

Mr. MANWARING. We can give it to you both ways.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. I think we would like to have it both ways.

Can you, also, give us figures showing what the effect of Mr. Breeding's bill would be and the possible effect on wheat acreage?

Mr. MANWARING. We can give you the effect of the present provisions of law with respect to the allotments for 1959, I mean, an estimate of what that would do which is the same thing, and then project that to the allotment for 1960, which would be the first time that the 1958 acreage would affect the allotment.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. What you would have there would be data showing how the State allotments would be made in 1959, in the absence of the Breeding bill; is that correct?

Mr. MANWARING. Right.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Then you would, also, have it show what the effect of that bill would be on these same figures if the bill went into effect; is that correct?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. That is correct.

Mr. MANWARING. We would have to assume, however, for that, I think, that we were using the provision of the Breeding bill to establish the 1959 allotment, that is, the 1 year. We would have to make some assumptions there, because we do not have the specific data on which to determine a 1960 allotment which is the first year in which this 1958 acreage would apply. We would just make an assumption. We will do the 1959 allotment like we would do it under present law and as under the Breeding bill, if it were in effect. Mr. HEIMBURGER. I think that is what we want.

Mr. ALBERT. Do you have the figures on overplanting of this year's crop by States or by counties within the States?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. It is kind of a preliminary figure. It is based upon the seeding of winter wheat because there are no figures available on the spring seeding yet.

Mr. ALBERT. Winter wheat is all we are interested in, anyway. Mr. SATTERFIELD. We have things worked out on that basis.

Mr. ALBERT. I think we ought to have those by counties do you have those that way?

Mr. SATTERFIELD. We only have it worked out by States.

Mr. MANWARING. In examining that data, however, we should not overlook the possible effect on the spring wheat, because, manifestly, it is unfair to say to winter wheat producers, "You can overplant and the spring wheat can't."

Mr. ALBERT. In the first place, future allotments are affected, whether it is spring or otherwise; there is no question about that.

Mr. MANWARING. We cannot furnish any figures. I wanted to point out they had a similar interest in the provisions of any bill that would change this provision of the law.

Mr. ALBERT. Is there any way of figuring the overplanting as to how much acreage would be required? I know you won't be in favor of this, but this is another aspect. How many acres will be required to add to the minimum national allotment to take care of this, take the 55 million plus these that have overplanted?

Mr. MANWARING. We can give you some kind of an estimate which will be an estimate of what is now overplanted and would be likely to be harvested, we think.

Mr. ALBERT. I think we should have that because it has been suggested here by Mr. Smith that maybe one of the approaches to this thing would be to raise the national minimum. We have done that with other crops, you know, to add enough this year to take care of it. Mr. MANWARING. You know any such increase will add to the total production of wheat?

Mr. ALBERT. Oh, yes, I know that.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. You gentlemen know what we are after here. We would like to get as broad a statistical background on this thing as it is possible. You know what figures you have down there. Do you have any others that we haven't thought of that you think would be helpful to us?

Mr. MANWARING. If you would permit it maybe we should give that a little thought and discuss it with you at a later time.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Why don't you do that. You see what we are after here. We want to get the arithmetic on this thing, the whole national picture of it, if we can. And it is very helpful to the committee to have these tables in front of them as we are discussing these various things. And it is understood that you will reproduce these in quantities sufficient for the committee members.

Mr. MANWARING. We haven't had an opportunity to discuss or to analyze the effect of Mr. Thomson's bill.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. I would like to ask Mr. Thomson a question about the intent of his bill, if I may.

Mr. ALBERT. Yes.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. I would like to ask you one question about the intent of your bill, so we do not get off on another misunderstanding. It is so easy to misunderstand what we are after in this complicated business.

You were asked the question, I believe by Mr. Watts, whether or not your bill would have the effect of freezing the allotment so that it would go neither up nor down, and I believe your answer was that

was the effect of it.

As I read it, sir—and I didn't see it until this morning-it looks to me as though it would have the effect of freezing the allotment on the high side but not on the low side; that is, if a man didn't plant his allotment in the absence of any statute which says it shall be considered planted and we do have one on the books which expires in a year or so, it would not freeze the allotment of the man who didn't plant, so that if the farmer who did not choose to plant his allotment would lose part of his allotment for history purposes.

Mr. THOMSON. That is right.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. That was your intention?

Mr. THOMSON. Yes; no acreage in excess of the allotment would be counted.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. But not to freeze it?

Mr. THOMSON. But not to freeze it; that is correct.

Mr. ALBERT. Would you add a comment or a supplement to your statement on the Thomson bill? We hope to have you back in a week or two to discuss this. We did not get to you this morning, and that is probably just as well, because you see what has taken place.

Could you elaborate in your statement on that to include the principle involved, and the aims involved in the Thomson bill?

Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. We can.

Mr. ALBERT. I have seen your statement. It is obvious that a lot of the producers do not know of the changes in the law, but would be willing to go along with the bill provided it is modified. That probably would be necessary.

I wish you would think that over, because you cannot be fair to to the fall farmer who knew and did not overplant.

And secondly, if you do bring the spring planter into it, it will encourage a much wider noncompliance in the spring planting than you have got in the fall planting.

Mr. MANWARING. We would like not to do that. If we are going to let the winter wheat man in, it is manifestly unfair to say to the spring wheat man, "You cannot protect yourself."

Mr. ALBERT. That is the trouble. There is no way to go back and get those.

Mr. MANWARING. That is true.

Mr. C. D. PALMBY. The spring wheat farmer is a much better complier.

Mr. ALBERT. Before you make your official statement I think we had better wait until the next meeting. I am sorry that we detained you so long.

Mr. MANWARING. It may not be the same.

Mr. ALBERT. Several different ideas have come forth.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. There is just one additional point for our information that I wish they might include the next time they come up here. That is, tell us how and when the Department decided that the language we had in our bill, which we thought meant what it will mean if amended by Mr. Thomson's, which states it did not mean that at all, but meant that the base acreage would continue to be counted, and so forth.

Mr. MANWARING. You want a statement to that effect later or do you want it now?