GENERAL FARM PROGRAM 687 



in the fall of 1947 it was very dry, and consequently many acres prob- 

 ably were not planted; or possibly it was not so much that it was not 

 planted, but a lot was not harvested, and they prepared more ground 

 and that was seeded to wheat in the fall of 1948. You are speaking 

 here that we might be penalized on the crop of 1948. 



Mr. Hope. Yes. 



Mr. Hughes. However, although you have already passed this 

 legislation in the case of cotton, there are many areas where both 

 wheat and cotton are raised, and if we exclude the acreage in cotton 

 for that year and do not exclude the acreage in wheat, we might get 

 into some difficulties there in setting up the historical acreages for 

 State and county allotment. 



Mr. Hope. I had not thought about that as being anv particular 

 difficulty. In the one case they have notice, and in the other case 

 they would not have. I do not care to follow that any further at 

 this time, but it seems to me the fact here is that we have been dis- 

 cussing a subject that has to be pretty carefully considered before we 

 pass legislation that will exclude it altogether. 



Did your committee give any consideration, Mr. Hughes, to the 

 question of considering summer fallow in connection with the allot- 

 ment to the individual farm, as to whether the reduction in acreage 

 which might be required should be made by taking into consideration 

 the land that might have been summer fallowed''' 



Mr. Hughes. There was quite a little discussion on that, and I 

 think it was the feeling of the group that there possibly was an in- 

 equity there, but the general feeling and general agreement was it was 

 something you could not set a hard and last rule on and it would be 

 pretty hard for us to make any specific recommendation. We felt 

 like the leeway which the county committee would have in adjusting 

 between individual farms under the wording of the act would be 

 sufficient to take care of that as between farms within a county. 

 However, I do not know just how much could be done between counties 

 in setting county and State allotments along that line. 



Mr. Hope. It just occurs to me one difficulty with that is, that if it 

 is left up to the county committee, you would have a county committee 

 in A county that would make one determination on that point; the 

 county committee in B county would make another; and perhaps the 

 county committee in C county would inake still another one, and all 

 of us who have had any experience with county committees know it is 

 a very disturbing thing to have one thing go on in one county and 

 something else in another. 



Mr. Hughes. That is right. 



Mr. Hope. For that reason it seems to me there should be some 

 provision in the law or possibly some regulation that would make for 

 uniformity at least in areas on that point. I realize it is a very difficult 

 problem to work out and that, to some extent at least, it will have to be 

 left to the county committees. 



Mr. Hughes. Yes. 



Mr. Hope. Of course, there is another ver}^ controversial question 

 that was not covered in your statement and apparently upon which 

 no agreement was reached at Omaha. That is the matter of rigid 

 or flexible price supports. Was that matter considered and discussed? 



Mr. Hughes. Yes; to some extent, it was. I believe I state the 

 feeling of the group in this way: we felt we have a program that has 



