business has its import controls, tariffs, patent protection, and fair trade laws, agriculture has got to have market supports and price parities in their own defense and for defense of our whole economy. Obviously one large segment of our economy cannot survive if it is constantly at a disadvantage.

I believe that the marketing agreement or Federal milk order has contributed to more orderly stabilized marketing of milk in the Cleveland area. I served on our board during the time that we were on a purely bargaining basis and know how a temporary excess of milk did unduly depress the price, not only during its continuance but for long periods thereafter. Also, that the order enforces the payment for milk on the agreed class usage prices and not on the basis of the handler with a low class I utilization as was the case before. Marketing agreements assure that the producer will be paid for his milk as it is used and that the price shall be in relation to the overall supply and demand for milk and not based on a local surplus or on his ability, at the time, to bargain for it. Records will show that our class III-manufactured milk-price has been in line with Midwest condensery and manufacturing prices and not depressive of the market.

While on the subject of milk marketing orders, I wish to say that I and my associate board members in Cleveland, feel very strongly that changes in the law should be made to permit acceptance of the rejection of an amendment on its own merit and suitability. As the law now stands after a hearing has been held and the final recommended amendment has been submitted to the market, an affirmative vote must be cast to accept the amendment on the amended order or you throw out the whole marketing agreement in the market. An arbitrary or unsatisfactory decision must be accepted in order to retain the agreement and its otherwise beneficial provision. An unfavorable decision by the Department of Agriculture could result in denying a market the use and benefits of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act.

In the field of public relation, I feel that much needs to be done to sell the importance of agricultural health to our whole economy. The farmer depression of 1921 dragged the rest of the Nation down in 1929. Today many people say we do not dare have a mild recession in business, yet farmers are already having more than a mild recession and would have still more without Government purchase programs, price supports and parity assurance. They need to be continued to keep us all up together or we shall all go down together. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hale, for your state

ment.

We now have a completed list of those who have asked to be heard, whose names we have. It may be that if your name is not on this list and you have asked to be heard, in some way the request has been mislayed and we are sorry. I will ask Mr. Heimburger, the counsel for the committee, to read the list of witnesses for the committee which we have at this time. If your name is not on the list I wish you would go to the room just back of you, through the open doors at the back. Mr. Reid, the clerk of the committee, will be there to take your names and put them on the list. Is that clear to everyone?

On the list before the chairman there are two names not yet called, Mr. Dwight Heckathorn, and Mr. Ray Heckman, who will be called. Now, will you proceed, Mr. Heimburger?

Mr. HEIMBURGER. Mr. Chairman, before I read the list I want to apologize to those witnesses who might have written to Washington to the committee in the past 10 days or so, and whose names will not be on the list. The reason for that is that I joined the committee last Saturday, bringing with me the names of those who had written to Washington last week, and lost the list somewhere along the way. The names that are on the list are as follows:

Calvin Heilman, Kenton, Ohio; Arnold Keller, Elyria, Ohio; Francis Hothem, West Lafayette, Ohio; Wilbur Kidnocker, Chillicothe, Ohio; Paul W. Walter, Cleveland, Ohio; Joseph Fichter, Oxford, Ohio; C. Elton Rhoades, Washington Court House, Ohio; Elwood Butler, Lancaster, Ohio; Harry Donohoo, Blanchester, Ohio; Leslie C. Mapp, Dayton, Ohio: Ralph Tugend, Jeromesville, Ohio; Norton Woods, Maumee, Ohio; James B. Lane, Xenia, Ohio; H. M. Leitnaker, Columbus, Ohio; James Lewis, Hamilton, Ohio; Dwight Lifer, Danville, Ohio; Rex Long, Loudenville, Ohio; Charles Weaver, Marysville, Ohio; Dale Williams, Darke County, Ohio; Sterling O. Neal, president, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Worker of America, Dayton, Ohio; William H. Stauffer; George F. Tyler, Alexandria, Ohio; Thomas Watson, Newcomerstown, Ohio; Ralph O. Brown, Hoytville, Ohio; Harry West, New Philadelphia, Ohio; John Lovengood, Zoar, Ohio; Homer S. Morrow, Sabina, Ohio; Frank Schlup, Newcomerstown, Ohio; Harry Silcott, Washington Court House, Ohio; Moses Dickey, Napoleon, Ohio; Carl Gugel, Milford Center, Ohio; William Fling, Johnstown, Ohio; O. R. Reed, Delaware, Ohio; S. S. Chambers, Columbus, Ohio; C. M. Kaiser, Hilliards, Ohio; Robert Snyder, Wilmington, Ohio; Robert J. Shirden, Clarksville, Ohio; and Peyton Telfair, Sabina, Ohio.

The CHAIRMAN. That makes exactly 50 names on the list at this time. I am sure there will be others. I want you to be sure to get your name on the list if you came here to appear before the committee. I think it is obvious that with as large a list as we will have it is necessary to put some restrictions on the time. Those who appeared so far have certainly been able to say a great deal and in a short period of time. I think we have done a wonderful job in that regard.

We have the 5-minute rule in the House of Representatives, and you cannot talk any longer than that except by unanimous consent if we have an important bill up. I think that in view of the number of witnesses that we have here that we must apply the House of Representatives rule and make it 5 minutes. I am sure that while it may not be all the time which some of you would like to have, and while we would like to hear you longer than that, you can say a great deal in that time. If you have a prepared statement which is longer than that then you can, of course, file it with the committee and it will appear in the printed hearings and be available for the members of the committee to study.

With that understanding we will call the list of witnesses and apply the 5-minute rule. You do not have to talk 5 minutes if you do not want to. I think we will get along expeditiously and everyone will have an opportunity to be heard if we can operate under that rule.

The next witness will be Mr. Dwight Heckathorn, of Forest, Ohio.

STATEMENT OF DWIGHT HECKATHORN, OF FOREST, OHIO

Mr. HECKATHORN. Chairman Hope and other members of the Agriculture Committee, I will try to stay within the time limit just mentioned.

As a livestock farmer of Ohio, this is my idea of a farm program: First, to provide the food and fiber needed by our people each day; and second, to maintain an adequate reserve in case of an emergency, the reserve to be owned by the Federal Government and controlled by an agricultural board composed of farmers and appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.

High support prices create more and greater problems instead of solving the ones we have. High supports for grains and fiber, though pleasant to take for the farmer who produces them, discourage the production of food and fiber which are necessities to the people of a strong nation.

We have never been short on food or fiber in our history even though we did not use Government supports until recently. Since high Government supports for some products came into being, our problems have become greater-namely: Financing those supports; storing of the products; finding or attempting to find a market for the overproduction; and last, but not least, the wasting of our natural resources in producing an unwanted product at such high prices. In my home county 23 percent of the cropland is in grass or soil-conserving crops, yet the best sources of information available state that at least 40 percent of the cropland should be in such crops.

Government controls which go with high supports destroy the free enterprise system and discourage self-initiative. These must exist if we are to remain a free people. So it seems to me we should substitute flexible supports for the rigid supports now in operation to be used during the time it will take to get a proper land use program into action. This should be done by making more and better use of the Soil Conservation Service, a branch of the USDA at the present time. So let us use the knowledge available from this service and it will undoubtedly be necessary to increase the appropriations for Soil Conservation in order to carry on the work of finding new and better ways of caring for our natural resources. This does not mean large appropriations for the Department of Agriculture but rather a reallocation of the funds already appropriated for the Department, some of which, I believe, could be used to a better advantage. It will also be necessary to provide an enlarged education program through our land-grant colleges and experiment stations to get this knowledge out to our entire population and impress upon all of us the real importance of our natural resources and the need for conserving them in order that future generations may not decay for the lack of them. So here are some suggestions:

(1) Retire a certain percentage of the land now used for crop production by putting it back to grass so it can be used by animals or for soil and water conservation.

(2) Explore the field for new methods of marketing.

(3) More research in finding new uses for products of the farm. (4) An educational program on how people can help themselves through the use of cooperatives.

38490-54-pt. 10- -3

(5) Promote foreign trade rather than restrict it by high tariffs. (6) Help establish facilities for credit suitable for the agricultural business, this to be done by longtime loans that it may become a selfsustaining feature in the farming field.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Heckathorn.

I think we will follow a little different method here. We will call the name of the next witness, and when the second name is called, if that party will come forward and be available I think we can save a little time as we go along. The next witness will be Mr. Ray Heckman, of Bradner, Ohio. Following Mr. Heckman we will call Mr. Calvin Heilman, of Kenton, Ohio.

STATEMENT OF RAY HECKMAN, PRESIDENT OF PEMBERVILLE ELEVATOR ASSOCIATION, PEMBERVILLE, OHIO

Mr. HECKMAN. Chairman Hope, members of the House Agriculture Committee: I am Ray Heckman, president of the Pemberville Elevator Association, Wood County, Ohio. This is my personal opinion and doesn't represent the opinion of any group or association.

I think that our farm program is too complex to be solved by any one method. Living in a world with two-thirds of the people hungry and in need of clothing, I feel that our first concern is one of better distribution of our surplus.

We need to revise our tariff laws. Trade must be a two-way street. We cannot expect other nations to buy from us if we do not purchase some of their goods. Some of our surplus should be given outright to needy nations such as Pakistan that cannot afford to pay or do not have anything to trade. We should set up a reserve policy with adequate supplies of grain and fiber carried for defense purposes. These reserves should be definitely off the market and not considered part of the surplus.

If these aforementioned programs are carried out, it is my feeling that the majority of farmers would be willing to go along with flexible price supports from 75 to 90 percent of parity. I feel that farmers who are interested in profitable agriculture for themselves and their children in the future will have their own conservation and soilbuilding practices without any dictatorship or controls on the part of the Government. The Agriculture Act of 1949 provides for flexible price supports, but it has never been permitted to go into effect. Instead we have been going along with high price supports which have increased our surplus and tended to lose our markets of certain products to competitive products. Butter has lost consumers to oleo. Cotton has been losing out to nylon and other fabrics.

I feel that farmers would solve their own problems to a greater extent under a flexible price support. They would change their farming program to produce whatever is in the greatest demand without subsidy payments from the United States Treasury. We need a program that will prevent excessive reserves instead of causing them, such as we have had, and also one that will help rather than hurt agriculture's public relations because what our consumers think is also important.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Heckman. The next witness is Mr. Calvin Heilman. Following Mr. Heilman we will hear from Mr. Arnold Keller, of Elyria, Ohio.

STATEMENT OF CALVIN HEILMAN, KENTON, OHIO

Mr. HEILMAN. Mr. Chairman, members of the House Agriculture Committee, I am Calvin Heilman, Kenton, Ohio, Rural Route 1, and live and farm in Goshen Township, Hardin County, Ohio. I would like to submit the following ideas and comments. There is no single plan or easy solution that will solve the problem of agricultural surpluses.

I. The present 90 percent of parity support is a good temporary program; however, it (A) builds burdensome and depressing surpluses, (B) prevents products from seeking new or alternate uses, (C) eventually, under quotas, forces farmers to accept 90 percent prices on reduced production.

(1) This is like asking a laborer to work 30 hours instead of 40 hours for 10 percent less pay per hour.

(2) Under acreage quotas, reduction acres are diverted to other uses. This usually results in overproduction in other crops.

(3) (a) Under quotas based on historical or past production, farmers who have adopted soil-conservation plans are penalized. Farms that have been overcropped in the past usually are permitted more soil-depleting crops than the soil will carry without depletion.

(b) A more positive approach would be to require that a high percentage of each farm's acreage be kept in grass, then permit the farmer to use his own judgment as to crops produced on the remaining acres. This would permit more flexibility and thus allow natural adjustments to take place.

II. A flexible support plan of 75 to 100 percent is a more workable program.

(A) It will permit some natural adjustments of supply and demand through price changes.

1. A decline in price stimulates demand by users. (a) It will make use profitable. (b) It will stimulate alternate uses. (c) It will stimulate exports.

2. A decline in price will drive out marginal and near-marginal producers. (a) Those marginal producers are earning a low labor income anyhow. (b) More help should be afforded for training in the betterpaid trades and in encouraging the shift from agriculture to other trades.

III. The two-price system seems complicated and has many roadblocks.

IV. The following supplemental programs will help but will not solve the problem themselves.

(A) Purchase of marginal and near-marginal land by the Government.

1. No amount of juggling of acreages reduces production much. Even shifting to grass soon increases the production of meat and milk and at the same time results in increased production per acre of cropped land.

2. Government purchase of cheap land can take that acreage completely out of production for as long a time as we wish. That land could be used for hunting areas or forestry.

3. Farmers on this land would be better paid if they were gainfully employed in industry or building trades. Help is needed in training and in making the shift to other work.