by the use of soy beans? If you did not do that you would transfer your market to the Northwest or some other area of the country.

Mr. HALL. I am trying to look at this thing from an American standpoint.

Senator EASTLAND. Yes; but it is your market.

Mr. HALL. I know, but if we don't work with the boys from the soy-bean areas and wheat areas and the corn areas, they are certainly not going to work with us.

Senator EASTLAND. Certainly not, but why should we give them our market?

Mr. HALL. I don't consider that we are giving them our market, Senator. I am speaking of putting diverted acres into land-building crops principally.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hall, that simply points up the problem. That is why I brought it out on several occasions. If any bill is to be enacted we are going to have to have the votes of a majority of the Senators and Members of the House and this very problem of dealing with the diverted acres may determine whether or not we have a bill. That, to me, is one of the problems that we are going to have to work on and solve so as to get any kind of reasonable bill.

Mr. HALL. Senator, I have been before your committee on 2 different years and I have been before House committees and I realize when you talk about a few million dollars that you have trouble getting them passed. Personally, I would say put every acre diverted into landbuilding crops and keep off it; let it build up for that day when we need high-productive land.

If you can get that kind of money to support that kind of program I would say that is the program.

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with you a hundred percent.

Mr. HALL. But can you get it?

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to be able to say yes, but I doubt it. That is my honest opinion. You asked for my view and I will tell you.

I happen to be on the Appropriations Committee and I know how hard it is to get your little Hartwell Dam started here. We had to wait for years and years. Without the aid of my good friend, Dick Russell, who was on that Appropriations Committee way at the top, the chances are this would have been delayed again. I do not want to forget my good friend, Senator Young, gave us a good push, too, that made it possible to start your Hartwell Dam. Though it may not be of importance to your immediate area here, for the State of Georgia it means a lot and that dam project has been before us for 7 or 8 years. We finally got it started and I hope we can complete it before long and I hope to be here when you dedicate it.

Mr. HALL. I remember how hard it was, too, to increase the 35 percent per capita cost to strengthen our soil-conservation service. Those moneys are hard to get and I appreciate your position.

Let me conclude by saying that on August 9, 1954, a great statesman made a very fine and comprehensive speech on the Senate floor. Some heard and heeded; others did not agree. I ask that you accept a copy of this great speech and study it as it tells the story of the farmer most truly and completely. It was true then and it is still true, only worse. Thank you very kindly for this valuable time you have given me.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE F. POWERS, PRESIDENT, GEORGIA ASSOCIATION OF SOIL-CONSERVATION DISTRICT SUPERVISORS, MILLEDGEVILLE, GA.

Mr. POWERS. I grow pine trees and beef cattle. I would like to endorse what Mr. Hall has said with one provision and that is that our diverted acreage be put to use according to the capabilities of that land in some sod crops, soil-improving crops. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Are there any questions? (Statement of Mr. Powers is as follows:)

I am George F. Powers, president of the Georgia Association of Soil Conservation District Supervisors, whose membership is 226 covering 27 soil-conservation districts. There are 90,000 farmers who have individual soil- and water-conservation plans on their farms.

It is very apparent that the farmers of Georgia and the entire Nation are having financial difficulties and are headed for greater trouble which could very well be disastrous if something is not done to either reduce their production costs or raise the prices they receive for their commodities.

There is about 13.5 percent of the people in this great Nation who today live on farms and are dependent on farming for a livelihood. This percentage is decreasing each year. During the last 5 years over 3 million people have left the farm for urban employment where they could at least hope for a fair standard of living. In 1954 the 13.5 percent of the population living on farms received only about 5 percent of our national income. The percentage received by farmers in 1955 will no doubt be considerably less than in 1954. It is reasonable to believe that the farmers income will continue to decline unless he is given some assistance immediately.

The most expedient method of relieving the present agricultural situation is through price supports and marketing quotas. The average Georgia farmer does not generally approve of subsidy, but today, through no fault of his, finds himself in a position that either demands that he ask and accept a subsidy or face bankruptcy. The support price on all commodities should be 90 percent of parity and the formula for computing parity should be based on current prices that the farmer has to pay for both labor and supplies.

The Georgia farmer and farmers of the Nation have always been in favor of marketing quotas if they be needed and are fairly administered. There is every reason to believe that a great majority of the farmers are today of the same opinion.

Marketing quotas will mean still further acreage reduction of the various crops. This in turn will mean more diverted acres. The question frequently heard is, "What to do with the diverted acreage?" These acres will be needed in the not too far distant future. Our statisticians tell us that we may expect a population of more than 300 million by the year 2,000. If this be true then all surplus would have disappeared and very likely every acre of productive cropland would be needed to feed and clothe the people. If we are to look to the future then it becomes the responsibility of all the people to share the entire cost of protecting and building the soil of the diverted acres and a portion of the cost of protecting and building the soil that remains in production. In both cases the treatment of the land should be according to the capability of the particular acre involved. Locally organized and governed soil-conservation districts stand ready and waiting to assist in doing this job.

Looking to the future it is apparent that some thinking should be done and some action taken on the following:

1. Creating and developing of additional markets for our farm products. So long as the world has so many hungry people, it would seem that the problem of surplus is only temporary.

2. There is, and will be in the future, an increasing need for educational efforts to all groups and ages of our population. The entire agricultural picture is especially true of the conception of land and water management. Even though our population is predominately urban it is just as important that they be acquainted with the basic facts of soil, water, plant, and human relationship as the farm families.

3. Greater emphasis should be placed on the proper use and management of our soil and water resources. Additional basic research is needed in this field.

A lot of the answers are known but a great many more answers are to be found than has been found. Additional facilities are needed.

4. Additional technical assistance is needed. Farming today is a rather complex operation if it is to be profitable and at the same time assure future generations of adequate soil and water.

5. There are certain portions of the total soil and water conservation in which the public shares the cost of the installation or improvement. This appears

to be fully justified, especially where the benefits are to the public as well as to the individual. There appears though to be a lack of balance in the public expenditure for large "downstream" structures where $50 to $150 million are spent on a dam or navigation channel and the amount that is spent in cost sharing on the "upstream" treatment and installation of a small watershed which feeds into the reservoir or channel.

Improvements on the upstream reaches of a watershed, such as small dams, grassed waterways, terraces, reforestation, and all the other soil and water conservation measures held hold the rainfall at its source on the farm, thereby making greater beneficial use of water, reduces soil deterioration and sedimentation of channels and reservoirs. The public, as a whole, benefits from such work, however the farmer in many instances does not derive benefits in keeping with the immediate cost. Farmers as a whole desire that the technical phases of the soil and water conservation program, along with the upstream work on small watersheds, continue to be funneled through the locally organized and governed soil conservation districts.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. Harley Langdale.

Senator YOUNG. I have to leave to catch a plane. I dislike very much leaving your good State of Georgia. It is a pleasure to come down here.

You people here have a good farm organization which has unified the thinking of the people in your State to an extent not prevalent in any other place we have held hearings. I know the bankers here and chamber of commerce people and all others are pretty well agreed on the solution to this farm price problem.

Another unusual thing is that we have had more Members of the House of Representatives here today than any other meeting. I think if we had a situation like this in all of the States of the Union our chance of solving this farm problem would be much easier.

May I say again many thanks for all the nice things you have done for me on this trip and before. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Langdale.

STATEMENT OF HARLEY LANGDALE, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN TURPENTINE FARMERS ASSOCIATION COOPERATIVE, VALDOSTA,

GA.

Mr. LANGDALE. I am Harley Langdale. I am a farmer and I am also president of the American Turpentine Farmers Association Cooperative, an association representing all the gum naval stores industry in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, our position is just different from anybody else's position that has been on this program today. We have no surplus problems, we are not a basic. I was very much interested, someone wanted to forget those nonbasics. We are nonbasic. We have enjoyed a loan with the Commodity Credit Corporation for the past 18 years. For the past 5 years we had a 90 percent of parity loan on our products. We are in the permissible group, not compulsory, and this loan was based on our supply and demand. In other words, these last programs have been based on a supply and demand proposition.

Last year we did take in quite a bit of rosin and turpentine. We were able to sell it all at a profit plus all expenses to the Government of something like $75,000, which was distributed among our members. This year we have had a 90-percent loan and we haven't had a single gallon of turpentine or a pound of rosin to go into loan.

The point I have is this: You know naval stores is the oldest agricultural product in this country. The first ship that left the American shores when this country was first founded carried naval stores, and it played a very important part in the economy of this country ever since.

We in the pine tree section, of course, have this dual-purpose tree that extends from Carolina through Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. You know in 1910 Mississippi and Louisiana produced 35 percent of the gum naval stores in the United States, but they cut the trees out down there, but they are coming back. Louisiana at the present time is not producing any naval stores but they are about ready to tap some of those trees in Louisiana pretty soon going to be producing gum naval stores again.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Langdale, if you permit me, let me state that the record shows that in 1955 the naval stores price support program made a profit for the Government of $132,618; in 1954, $9,370; in 1953, $30,253; in 1952, $3,876. The only trouble you got in was between 1933 and 1941 before the war.

Mr. LANGDALE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Otherwise, that is why you have been able toMr. LANGDALE. We had 1,300,000 drums of rosin on hand when the war started.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any suggestions? Do you like the program as it is?

Mr. LANGDALE. We are just as happy as we can be. We are trying to increase production this year 25 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. That will not put you in trouble?

Mr. LANGDALE. No, sir; it will help us. In other words, we are 16 percent short this year on production over last year, and last year we had the lowest production we have made since the Government has kept records.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad to have one industry in good shape.

Mr. LANGDALE. Mr. Chairman, our association handles all the collateral; have been doing so for 18 years. We service it, we sell it, and our expense of operating, I think, will show that we have done it cheaper than any other commodities in which the Commodity Credit Corporation has had anything to do.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that is true because it shows a profit here. Mr. LANGDALE. Yes, sir. And we sold out in 1947 all the crop and the Government at that time took in over $1 million of net profit on the sales end.

Today under market prices there is over a million dollars profit in the collateral and the season is about over for this year's production. All stocks anywhere today are the ones we have and we figure that a large portion of those stocks will move before the next season. Our season starts about May next year when we really have production, and we figure we will be in wonderful position but we are trying to increase.

Ours is a hand-labor proposition; our labor cost is a 50-percent proposition and people any more don't like to work with their hands. Then, too, there has been keen competition for timber, great demand for pulpwood and sawmill timber; it reached an all time high. This tree that makes gum naval stores is like milking shorthorn; you can get turpentine and now with our present method of operation it doesn't diminish value of the tree. The other sections of the country are not so fortunate in having that valuable tree.

You know there is a large amount of land in the South submarginal which should never have been in cultivation or pastures and when cattle got a little high here 3 or 4 years ago a lot of our forests were bulldozed to put pasture grasses. That wasn't suitable, but we have the natural habitat for the pine tree and indications are, as I say, for a big demand now.

The paper consumption in this country now is around 400 pounds per capita, alltime high. And I think that is an out especially in the South here, to plant these in trees. I have planted myself already over 5 million trees and I have 2 million ordered for this year.

The CHAIRMAN. On your land?

Mr. LANGDALE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You must have a large area.

Mr. LANGDALE. Reasonable size. I have 2 million ordered and will plant a million and a half and give away a half million to smaller farmers provided they will match it. In other words, the small farmer, if he will plant 2,500 I will give him 2,500 more to encourage him, which I think is a wonderful thing for our section. I believe that it is the salvation and we can't compete with my friends in wheat. All I have is a 15-acre wheat allotment.

I grow tobacco, corn, hogs, cattle. They gave me 15 acres of wheat. I don't make flour; I use it for livestock and the birds.

Just plant these diverted acres in pine and make it a permanent proposition because the supply of timber in the South is not going to be sufficient in the future in my opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

Mr. LANGDALE. I have a statement here for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LANGDALE. A lot of people want to know what naval stores is used for. I have a list here I want in the record to see the importance. It will surprise you, the number of things in this country that use naval stores, a very important product.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. It will be put in the record. (Statement referred to is as follows:)

I appear before you today representing the gum turpentine producers as president of the American Turpentine Farmers Association Cooperative which was organized in March 1936 and meets the requirements of Capper-Volstead Act and the Georgia Cooperative Act of 1921, as amended. Our association is made up of approximately 3,500 members whose production comprises more than 75 percent of the gum naval stores produced in this country. Its income is derived from two sources: (1) dues paid by producer members, the amount of which is measured by the quantity of gum produced; and (2) royalties paid by licensed packers of turpentine in small containers for the use of the association's copyrighted symbols, slogans, and devices. Royalties so paid are measured by the quantity of gum turpentine distributed by such licensees in containers bearing all or any such symbols, slogans, and devices. Any producer is eligible for membership upon payment of a nominal entrance fee of $1 64440-56-pt. 6—7