We are appearing in support of Senate bill 2318. We strongly favor the principle of a long-time Federal program for support of farm products and of including potatoes in such legislation.

New Jersey is one of the oldest commercial potato-growing areas of the country. The industry developed here because of:

1. Our location near the consuming centers and the need for potatoes at our marketing season.

crop.

2. The natural adaptability of our soils and climate to the 3. The increasing skill of growers in getting high yields of excellent quality.

Due to these factors our acreage during the past 60 years increased from 48,000 acres to a peak of 92,000 acres in 1921. Since that time acreage has changed due to (a) voluntary adjustment by growers to produce in line with market requirements and because of competitive acreage increasing their output and (b) adjustment to the Federal goals which were initiated in 1938 on a reduction basis to 52,000 acres, then increased during war needs to 71,000 acres and in 1947 decreased to 51,000 acres.

I would like to take a moment to inject the national picture so far as production is concerned, because it is an astonishing picture so far as potatoes are concerned. We now have the lowest acreage of potatoes in 70 years. The peak was in 1922, when we had 4,307,000 acres. Nationally we are down now to 2,100,000 acres. The population during that time has almost tripled.

This shows that the potato industry generally as well as in New Jersey has very greatly curtailed acreage, but is the victim of its own efficiency if overproduction is wrong. This increase in production, while the acreage has been cut in half and while the population has been tripled, has still provided enough potatoes due to the weather conditions in the last few years, better soil adaptations, certified seed, and so on.

These data are cited to point up the fact that New Jersey potato growers have made an outstanding record in consistently adhering to Federal goals. We have given a practical demonstration of our determination to support the principle of acreage adjustment to consumer needs on a national basis. We strongly emphasize our continued support of legislation for the future along these lines for the potato industry.

We vividly recall the distress of the early 1930's before goals were established, when industrial economic collapse followed years of agricultural bankruptcy. This very serious situation was magnified in our potato sections because of the high investment necessarily involved in producing potatoes.

Due to inflation we are now witnessing the collapse in the value of the dollar, which has already declined 40 percent of the 40 percent and the end of that decline is not in sight.

This situation is particularly serious for potato growers, since it tremendously increases production costs, already high, and correspondingly reduces the value of the dollars received from the crop in paying for equipment, fertilizer, and other supplies and labor.

This one current economic factor alone is ample reason for our support of legislation that would have as one of its purposes the establish

ment of parity income and purchasing power for producers of essential crops, including potatoes.

In summary, our earnest efforts are directed toward a long-time potato program that includes:

(1) Price support on a parity base of 75 to 90 percent by means of direct purchases and loan when needed.

The principle of that program of 70 to 90 percent of parity is established on page 38 of the bill.

The second point we wish to emphasize is the national acreage control based on consumption needs.

The third point is removal of off-grade, unfit potatoes from commercial channels and their utilization for other purposes.

This program is, in essence, the establishment of potatoes as a basic commodity.

We are thus asking Government support to stabilize the potato industry only along these lines in which we cannot effectively function as an industry. The New Jersey Potato Industry Committee is actively promoting our industry by action of the growers themselves in several important fields. These include:

(a) The development of new and improved varieties.

(b) Studies of storage construction and management to spread our marketing season.

(c) Intensive development of new and old market outlets.

(d) Enlisting the active interest of the younger generation of potato growers on long-range aspects of production and marketing.

(e) Cooperation with other producing areas on problems of mutual

interest.

(f) A strong program of public relations through press, radio, and meetings.

(g) Assistance in research at the State agricultural experiment

station.

(h) Establishment of a potato-research center with the aid of research and marketing funds under the Hope-Flannagan Act.

These essential parts of our effort to "do something for ourselves" are listed only as demonstrating our determination to maintain a permanent and successful potato industry in New Jersey.

May we respectfully and earnestly restate our conviction that action by the Congress at this time in the direction of the underlined paragraph given on page 3 is absolutely essential for our industry.

We believe that Government support in its appropriate field, coupled with energetic industry effort in its own behalf, can keep New Jersey's $19,000,000 potato industry on an even keel. Without the Government support, our own efforts may be futile.

The CHAIRMAN. Does that conclude your statement?

Mr. DURYEE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. DURYEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com

mittee.

The CHAIRMAN. The concluding statement today will be made by Mr. Kent Leavitt, president of the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts.

STATEMENT OF KENT LEAVITT, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, MILLBROOK, N. Y. Mr. LEAVITT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, on behalf of my association which now represents about 10,000 district supervisors and the farmers with whom they work, and of myself, may I express my appreciation for your courtesy in extending to us this opportunity to testify before your committee. Some of our members had the opportunity of presenting testimony before your subcommittee during its tour of the country and now many of us have read the bill which you have drawn up as a result of these hearings.

Although I have not had the opportunity of consulting personally with our membership in regard to the bill in question, many of them have written me their opinions and, as I have been in close touch with them on many other matters and operate a farm as they do, I believe I can speak for them in as far as this bill is concerned.

As many of you know, and as you can see by the maps which I have submitted to you, the growth of soil-conservation districts in the United States has been very rapid. Nothing like it has ever occurred before in our history or that of other nations past or present. There is a very sound basic reason for this development, and, in order that we can have a common meeting of minds on this issue, I believe a review of the past and present relationship between available agricultural land and present and future populations is in order.

Throughout the last 40 centuries man has developed an ever-increasingly complex civilization. Title III of S. 2318 is a concrete example of his endeavors to control some of its complexities. At the same time and over the same years man has done things to the face of the land, to the soil on which his civilization is based, which have gone unnoticed until recent years and which, if unchecked, can result in nothing less than widespread misery and starvation.

A short trip through Greece, Palestine, China, or India, or some of our nearby Latin-American countries or even closer, some of our own States, is all that is necessary to demonstrate what happens to nations that neglect or abuse their soil and water resources. But we have an additional problem. There are nearly 3,000,000 more people in America today than existed at this time last year. This may be unusual so let us say the average increase will be 2,000,000 per year. Each person needs some three acres of land, agricultural land from which to draw food and fiber sufficient for our standard of living demands.

Six million additional acres drawn from our reserve for agricultural purposes, yet we know that some 500,000 acres per year are being destroyed by erosion or improper land use.

The road down which we are headed is not attractive. It needs some special engineering to turn us away from the errors of omission and commission of those nations I have just mentioned, but it will take a successful agricultural policy based on proper land use to conserve these basic needs. Only then, with the soil under our feet where it belongs and not flowing down some great river with the refuse of cities, or washing down hillsides to make untillable swamps, or blowing through the air in choking and destructive dust storms-only then, when we learn to apply proper land use to every acre of our land can we properly legislate the future share that the farmer will

have of the Nation's income; the prices he will receive from the urban dweller; the profits that shall be his for his time spent working and controlling the Nation's greatest natural resource, soil and water.

We now have the tools with which to operate such an effort. We have a Soil Conservation Service with technical ability to assist the farmer in putting every acre to its best use. We have an association of land holders and operators prepared to cooperate with any agencyFederal, State, or local-who desire to foster this idea. We have an agricultural conservation program to assist in financing this effort. We have credit agencies to help the farmer with his financial problems. We have a Fish and Wildlife Service to promulgate and protect that essential segment of nature's eternal ring. We have many other agencies, both State and Federal, all seeking to do an ever-increasing share of this great job.

All we need now to do is to properly coordinate and aline them so that a true land policy will be created that will assure a sufficient supply of food, fiber, and forest products for the demands of our intricate civilization and our rapidly increasing population.

How will you do that? It would be simple if we did not desire to maintain at the same time a democratic form of government-to sustain the right of the individual to operate his lands as he thinks best. Were it not for these conflicts, we would simply have our Federal Government so legislate that proper land-use practices would be made mandatory on the landowner. We don't want such legislation. It would be un-American. We do not need it. For we have not only the proper technical service at hand to help the landholder put the best practices into effect, but we have a rapidly growing body of public opinion which is demanding that such practices be carried out, and, furthermore, we have a growing number of landholders and operators who believe in and are putting into effect such practices voluntarily. They have recently adopted a motto "With the right to own goes the duty to conserve." That is the American way and while we still have time I urge you to do everything possible to insure this method of approach.

As I have said before, all we have to do is to take our existing facilities and put them together in such a way that the full force and influence of the Federal Government will be directing a national land policy based on proper land use, foster additional assistance from State and local governments and then, build up and strengthen the present well-organized but still growing landowner group which is endeavoring to carry out these policies on the land itself.

or

S. 2318 does none of these things.

Senator THYE. Why does it not, Mr. Leavitt?

Mr. LEAVITT. Would you like me to read a little more and explain it do you want me to go into detail here?

Senator THYE. Proceed with your statement.

Mr. LEAVITT. It does not concentrate the powers of the Federal Government on this vital problem. It diversifies them. It does not endeavor to stimulate private initiative toward better land use, but rather attempts to build up a federally dominated bureacuracy reaching down to the county level.

Senator THYE. In which manner?

Mr. LEAVITT. By putting a whole series of new people on the Federal pay roll, State committee, county committee, community committee and giving them the power.

Senator THYE. How do you do it now?

Mr. LEAVITT. We are doing it through soil-conservation districts, sir.

Senator THYE. I know. That of course is a word. What constitutes the soil-conservation committee?

Mr. LEAVITT. You mean the State committee?

Senator THYE. I mean the entire structure that you are referring to and for which you say S. 2318 does not provide.

Mr. LEAVITT. Well, sir, I would like to refer you to the second paragraph from where we are.

Senator THYE. Could you not answer that question right here? Mr. LEAVITT. Well, I will try, sir.

Senator THYE. You have criticized the provisions in this measure and you say it does not do any of the things you think necessary in a good constructive soil-conservation program. For that reason, in order that I may get clearly in my mind, first, what you criticize and secondly what you favor, I would like to have you explain it.

Mr. LEAVITT. Yes, sir.

If you will refer to section 101 of the bill, it reads as follows:

The Secretary of Agriculture shall establish an agency, to be known as the Bureau of Agricultural Conservation and Improvement, to exercise all functions of the Secretary and of the various bureaus and agencies within the Department of Agriculture, which

1. Prior to the enactment of this act, were assigned to the Soil Conservation Service or to the Agricultural Conservation Programs Branch of the Production and Marketing Administration

and they are listed here.

***

That would put the Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural Conservation Program together, would it not?

Senator THYE. Yes, it could.

Mr. LEAVITT. It could. It might or it might not. We do not know. Then it takes (a) and (b) the educational, informational and demonstrational features and puts them under the extension service of the Land-Grant Colleges.

Senator THYE. What are they endeavoring to do?

Are they not in the field and have they not been in the field for a good many years endeavoring exactly what any good producer would seek to do?

Mr. LEAVITT. I am afraid they have not, sir, and I think the record proves it.

Senator THYE. The fact of the matter is that we must always endeavor to permit a minimum number of people to accomplish a job and we must never strive to expand and create new organizations to do a job using the other as a crutch to lean on, you might say. If any phase of the so-called soil-conservation program is to be developed and expanded, it is by unifying the efforts of all rather than sending them off into various different avenues, all striving to accomplish the objective of better soil management, inspired soil conservation, and increased production.

If you make three or four people responsible for the job, you get a duplication and an overhead expense that should not be necessary.