In case it has not been called to the attention of the committee, the resolutions of the American Farm Bureau Federation on this problem are also in line with our position. Quote:

Recent legislation designed to prevent wheat growers from building up allotments by overseeding should be retained; however, we favor an amendment to provide that this rule shall not operate to reduce a farm's allotment base.

Also on market quota penalties:

We recommend that the penalties on the marketing of over-quota production be increased to 75 percent of the support price for wheat."

I might add that we have been under somewhat of a handicap trying to prepare a statement for the committee and trying to arrive at some satisfactory solution to this problem after hearing the testimony previously presented the committee.

(Appendixes of this statement are as follows:)

States showing lower yield: Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming.

23.6

25.7

2.1

Mr. HUGHES. I would like to give you our recommendations on the two alternatives that have been presented by the folks from the Department this morning.

We feel very friendly toward the latter one, whereby the grower who is out of compliance now because of this change in the law, which he did not know about, would be given his base acreage as far as its effect on future allotments, next year, he would not have any acreage penalty, in other words.

Then, also, it retains the thing that has been concerning us about the privilege of storing the excess wheat to be carried sort of as a crop insurance.

Both of those have been taken care of by this proposal by the Department we feel that is probably the most satisfactory solution to this current problem.

Now, if you have any questions, we will be glad to try and answer them.

Mr. ALBERT. Thank you, Mr. Hughes.

I think you would agree with me when I say that my first reaction, when that first proposal was made, was that we would want to study that for sometime; do you not agree?

Mr. HUGHES. I think that is right. This latter proposal retains one of the things which many of the folks felt was beneficial and I am

sure some of the members of the committee, in that it will allow some of this allotment that has shifted because we have let this thing go back again to the commercial areas, it will shift back much slower, but at least it can be shifted back.

Mr. ALBERT. You may recall that last year we had the noncommercial area provision in the bill that tangled the bill up on the floor and we agreed to amend it in order to pass the legislation; do you remember that?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes.

Mr. ALBERT. Do you think that we might further get at this matter if we changed the 15-acre provision to provide that anyone who took advantage of the 15-acre provision received no history at all for that year! Under the law now, as I understand it, a man who plants 15 acres gets his allotment credit if it is less than 15 acres. Should we provide that he should get no history at all?

Mr. HUGHES. You mean any of the 15 acres?

Mr. ALBERT. Any of it up to his allotment.

Mr. HUGHES. Any of it up to his allotment-you mean above the allotment?

Mr. ALBERT. That would be all of it. At the present time, as I understand the law, if a farmer takes advantage of the 30-acre provision it does not make any difference whether he got an allotment or not, he gets no credit?

Mr. REID. The way we understand it, if he had a 10-acre allotment and he takes advantage and plants 30, the law says that any acreage planted in excess of the allotment would not be counted, he still gets credit for his 10 acres.

Mr. ALBERT. And it is true with respect to the 15-acre?

Mr. REID. That is right.

Mr. ALBERT. Do you think wherever he takes advantage of that, he should get any credit for his allotment, and thus keep wheat acreage in the State county which he does not need in order to take care of the 15- and 30-acre planters.

Mr. HUGHES. In the past, he certainly has brought allotments in, that is, he has increased his allotment. I would not say that he has necessarily increased all the allotments but he has increased his own and he had no use for it, so it denied all of the rest of the allotment we should have had.

Now, if you go as far as you propose you would do two things in my opinion. You would move it very rapidly out of these areas. Actually it would move slower if you do what the Department proposes because he would not get credit for his base, if he has 5 acres and planted 15 acres, this will give him credit for future allotments, and his average is going to be down some, it will not average 15, it will be about 12 or 13 and it will factor his allotment from 13, which will make it about 812, so to that degree it will begin to move back and it would probably be better to do it at a slower rate.

One other factor, if he has an allotment below 15 acres and you take that away and put it into commercial area, you will increase wheat production by that amount, and that would probably be unwise.

Mr. ALBERT. That is very good, I am glad to hear that answer to that problem which has been mentioned.

Any questions, Mr. Smith?