home that required their presence, so our number here today is not as large as we had hoped it would be. But everything that is said here will be made available to all the members of the committee.

When we get back to Washington for the next session we will hold further hearings at which will be the Department of Agriculture, the national farm organizations, and anyone else who wants to be heard. After those hearings are completed and we have the results of all the hearings before us, the committee will then proceed to consider agriculture legislation.

We appreciate your coming out today. I am sure that the committee will be very well repaid for its visit here in the information. we will get.

I have a few announcements that I want to make relative to the program here today, and then we want to introduce the members of the committee. I am going to ask your distinguished Congressman from Ohio, who is a member of the committee, Jim Polk, to present the members of the committee a little bit later, and also the Members of Congress from Ohio who are not members of the committee and whom we have invited here today and who we are happy to have here with us at this hearing. Then we will proceed to call the first witness.

Before I ask Mr. Polk to introduce the members I want to say that we have a large number of witnesses for which we are very happy, but that is going to make it necessary for us to limit the time of each witness. However, those of you who have statements can file the complete statements. If you want to make an oral statement which is not related to your written statement you may do that, of course. Anything that you have prepared, of course, will go into the record. We are sorry there will not be time for everyone to be heard in full, but the committee feels that all who have come here to be heard should be permitted to appear, and in order to do that it will be necessary to cut down the time.

Jim, will you undertake to introduce the members of the committee and the members from Ohio who are here today. We would appreciate it very much. I am sure the audience would like to know the names and States and backgrounds of those who are present.

Mr. POLK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a real pleasure to bring this representative delegation from the House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture to Columbus. We are very happy to have such a large, representative delegation of Ohio farmers here today. To you farmers from Ohio, it is a real pleasure for me to introduce my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture who are present for this hearing.

Chairman Hope has just addressed you, and I know that Chairman Clifford Hope needs no introduction to an Ohio audience. He is well known and well loved by all agriculture people throughout the United States. He has served many, many years on the Committee on Agriculture, and we are indeed very happy that Chairman Hope should be able to come to Columbus today.

Beginning on my right we have Congressman McIntire, of Maine. Next, Congressman Harrison, from Nebraska. We are very glad to have Mr. Harrison with us. Next, Mr. Page Belcher, of Oklahoma. Mr. Belcher is interested in many of the same types of agriculture that we have here.

Next, my neighbor, Ralph Harvey, of Indiana. Next, Congressman Dague, of Pennsylvania. Next, on my left, is Chairman Hope, whom you all know. Then Congressman Bob Poage of Texas. Next is Congressman Carl Albert, of Oklahoma.

Also on the platform we have three members of the Ohio congressional delegation: Mr. John Vorys, the Congressman from this district here in Franklin County; Mr. Bill McCulloch, of Piqua; and the Honorable Tom Jenkins, of Ironton. We are glad to have them here to participate in this program.

I believe the secretary of agriculture from the State of Ohio is present. I would like to ask Mr. Foust if he would like to give us a word of greeting, as the secretary of agriculture from this great State.

STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD FOUST, SECRETARY OF

AGRICULTURE, STATE OF OHIO

Mr. FoUST. Thank you. It is certainly an honor and pleasure to have the State of Ohio selected to come and have the farmers of our great State meet with this agriculture group.

In the State of Ohio our agriculture is diversified enough so that most all of the problems that you would encounter we have here in the State of Ohio. I know that the farmers have a great interest in this program and we want to do our share. Thank you very much. Mr. POLK. Thank you, Mr. Foust.

It is now my pleasure and privilege to turn the meeting back to Chairman Clifford Hope, of Kansas, who will preside during the hearing here at Columbus.

The CHAIRMAN. Before we call the first witness I do want to express the appreciation of the committee to all who have contributed to making this meeting possible. There is always a lot of work that someone has to do before you have a meeting of this kind. The committee, of course, is especially grateful to our colleague, Jim Polk, who has long been an active and very effective and very important member of our committee. He has done a fine job in representing not only his district but the State of Ohio and the committee, and he is always on the job on the Agriculture Committee on behalf of the agriculture of this great State, and we do owe a vote of thanks to him because he has taken the time and responsibility for arranging the meeting. He has had the help of others here and we appreciate everything that has been done by all of you who have contributed to this meeting.

I want to say that we have had requests come in from witnesses from various sources. We have several lists here. On that account there is a duplication on some of the lists and there is another list being compiled at the present time. It is possible that you may have written in or made a request to appear and your name may not be on the list. But just as soon as we can get a consolidated list here, the list will be read and if you have made a request to appear, or if you have not made a request and desire to appear, then we will put your name on the list and you will, of course, be given an opportunity to appear. Until this consolidated list is prepared we will not know exactly how many there are who desire to appear. Whether your

name is on the list or not if you are here and want to appear before the committee we of course want you to do so.

A little later, as soon as this list is prepared, it will be read. If your name is not on the list we want you to come up to the front here, and Mr. Heimburger will take your name and put it on the list so that you can appear. In the interim, while we are waiting to get this consolidated list, before I go to that I would like to read a telegram which came in:

Sincerely regret my plans do not permit attending your hearings. Agriculture in Ohio plays an important part and I know how much your investigation of conditions here is appreciated. You are certainly welcome in the Buckeye State.

That is signed by Oliver P. Bolton, of the Ohio delegation in the House. We are sorry Mr. Bolton could not appear here today but we appreciate having this wire from him.

We have already heard from Dr. Foust. I do not know whether you care to make a further statement or not, Mr. Foust.

Mr. FOUST. I have Mr. Van Schoik here.

The CHAIRMAN. We will open the hearings then as far as testimony is concerned by hearing from Mr. Van Schoik.

STATEMENT OF CLARK W. VAN SCHOIK, CHIEF, DIVISION OF FOODS AND DAIRIES, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF OHIO

Mr. VAN SCHOIK. Chairman Hope, members of the Agriculture Committee of the House of Representatives, we deem it an honor to be permitted to present a statement, in behalf of the economic welfare of the Ohio farmer, to the members of this august body which represents individually not only their own constituents but also the agriculture industry of our great Nation.

We believe that our answers to the 10 questions on vital farm issues will serve to transmit our views better than a general statement. To that end we shall proceed with those specific comments.

Chairman Hope, we received these questions from your clerk, Mr. Reid. If you would like we will read the questions; if not, we shall just make our comments.

Chairman HOPE. I believe you had better read the questions because the audience does not have a list of the questions.

Mr. VAN SCHOIK. Thank you, sir.

Question 1: Is there a way to support storable commodities at 90 percent of the parity price without inviting excessive production, acreage allotments, and marketing quotas?

Question 2: Would a flexible price-support program, ranging between 75 to 90 percent of parity, adjust production and require less controls over the operations of farmers? Or do farmers prefer rigid supports at 90 percent even if a lower level would mean less controls? Our comments will deal with questions 1 and 2. Much is said of letting the law of supply and demand work and the farm law was written to do that by obtaining an adjustment in acreage when supplies became excessive. It is also true that a great majority favored 90-percent supports when the wars were on and all-out production was needed.

Now when prices need their greatest support, advocates of lower support levels, who apparently assume no responsibility for the abundant supplies farmers have provided, want to try to force lower production by removing the props, rather than to require a smaller acreage under the provisions of the Agricultural Act.

It appears that farmers have answered very emphatically and effectively the question of higher supports and more controls or lower supports, less controls and economic help when badly needed. It is inconceivable to most farmers who have a good memory that anyone would believe that a low support would accomplish lower production sufficient to provide a parity price or would eliminate huge supplies. Farmers recently exemplified their willingness to accept the responsibility, with Government help, to bring down their acreage in return for economic supports.

Drastic as the adjustment is in the acreage of soft winter wheat in Ohio, the Ohio farmer has shown the Congress that he would accept it and vote for controls, when just shortly before that the Congress was voting a higher national acreage allotment for wheat because of their fears that farmers would vote against quotas.

It is doubtful that there is any other way to assure producers of storable crops 90-percent parity and protect the taxpayer from even higher subsidies to agriculture.

The consumer is now protected and assured of no bread shortage for an indefinite period in the future even if the current drought conditions cut wheat production in half in 1954. Practically the same situation exists with respect to corn and other livestock feeds in 1954 and differs only in the supply, which proportionately is slightly smaller.

Question 3: Or would producers of such storable commodities as wheat and cotton prefer to try a two-price system that would avoid restrictions on production? Under such a system that part of the crop consumed in this country would get support prices based on parity, and the exported part would go at the lower world prices.

Comment on question 3: It is questionable whether producers have sufficient knowledge of the workings of a two-price system based on United States consumption and world consumption to offer an opinion in favor of or objecting to trying such a program.

It is correct for wheat farmers to make the following assumption, to wit:

(a) That wheat allotments would be based on the domestic consumption for the purpose of computing the returns to the farmer on a parity basis, and

(b) That his returns from production above the domestic allotment would depend upon the amount of wheat sold for export?

There are a number of factors which are important to farmers among which are the future wheat exporting possibilities and the status of Ohio grown soft wheat in the export trade. If the American wheat grower is to produce primarily for the American market, the acreage will of necessity be drastically cut and points to the importance of the foreign market and pricing which will retain our share of it, if any nation can justify a claim to a share.

Question 4: Of the perishable farm commodities only dairy products now are subject to mandatory price supports. In view of the difficulties of stabilizing supplies of perishable products such as fruits,

vegetables and animal products should the Government attempt any other price stabilization program in this field? How can the program for the dairy industry be improved?

Comments on question 4: On the basis of fair play alone, it is difficult to justify supports for certain commodities in the agricultural economy and not include all of them. Products which are perishable or difficult to store also complicate the problem.

Subsidizing producers the difference between parity and the market price would probably move perishables into consumption, but this method would probably require controls eventually.

In the dairy industry, the fluctuations in production from natural causes are recognized by every one who has an interest in the dairy business.

In Ohio, the production of milk for all purposes in May of this year was 61 percent over the production in November 1952, 6 months previous. Such an increase presents a problem for the whole industry, because the consumption of food products does not fluctuate with production.

Any program which will be successful in leveling the seasonal production of milk will be a great asset to the dairy industry. But that alone will not sustain prices at parity levels. Balance between supply and demand is the only factor which can attain such results and that is difficult to maintain unless Government supports implement that policy when supplies become excessive, by storage and removal from the market or subsidies to producers, which also requires controls in production.

Question 5: What are cattlemen's ideas for long-range stabilization of prices for the livestock industry?

Comment on question 5: Essentially the cattlemen's problem of long-range stabilization of prices is no different than any other phase of the agricultural industry. Production to satisfy the demand for beef at parity prices is the ideal situation.

Plenty of grass and cheap feed with good prices at marketing time may be the ideal situation for the individual feeder but the industry may be tempted to overlook the fact that parity price supports for feed growers discourage the production of beef when market prices drop below the equivalent in grain prices. That correcting influence is now operating with 90 percent supports, but if feed prices were being supported on a flexible or disaster basis cattlemen would still consider cattle feeding a profitable enterprise. The same influence exists in connection with feeding hogs and dairy cows.

This committee is concerned today with the economics of the agricultural industry and farmers. It must surely be obvious to the members of this committee, and to the Congress as well, that when the day arrives that the livestock industry endorses the flexible principle for supports for grain and feed prices that day will signify the beginning of greater livestock and dairy production than ever and the underwriting of economic troubles for the livestock producer and feeder, greater governmental efforts to support livestock products, and further weakening of farm purchasing power and of the whole national economy.

Assuming we had the livestock to consume the current supply of feeds in the United States, what would the price of beef, pork, mutton, and dairy products be today? It would seem better to store the grain