has demonstrated that probably he has a clearer understanding of the act and what it really needs to do than any other Member of Congress, and I am glad to be counted among his friends.

From Georgia, we have Mr. Walter Myers of the Forest Farmers of America, who is executive director of that association in Atlanta. Also from Georgia, we have Mr. Harvey Brown of the Georgia Forestry Association, Mr. H. M. Verdery, from down in Lincoln County, Ga., down near Augusta.

Then we also have present in Washington, who had hoped to be here this morning, a gentleman from this new territory that I got down in the legislation the other day when they redistricted Georgia, Mr. Hoyt Andrews, but Mr. Andrews didn't get over here, and we are sorry that he can't be here, but we are glad to make note of his interest and concern in this.

I also understand that there is another distinguished gentleman from Georgia and the timber industry here, who will appear later under the auspices of our mutual friend, Mr. Hagan.

I want to thank the chairman for giving me the opportunity to present these people, and to let the record show my grave concern about the problem which confronts them, namely, this problem of the 12-man timber crew, and the exemption now provided in the law for it. I hope very much that we can establish a case to the satisfaction of the chairman and the subcommittee and the full committee and the Congress, to show that this would work a tremendous hardship on many, many, people, and not do anything toward providing additional wages or additional jobs, if it is changed in any respect.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I want to thank, both on behalf of the committee, and myself, Congressman Landrum, for his kind statement and also for the pleasure we have in welcoming the people from the State of Georgia who are here today.

Now I think probably I should read off, at this point, the members of the first panel, and then we will try to proceed with them and follow up with the members of the second panel.

On the first panel, my information is that we have Mr. Thrash, Mr. W. T. Hickman, Jr., Mr. Elmer Dyal, Mr. Walter Myers, Mr. É. R. Wagoner, and Mr. Steve C. Kardell. If that is correct, gentlemen,. would you come forward, and perhaps the best way is after you are seated, if then you would identify yourself for the record. I think this would be the easiest procedure.

PANEL: JAMES THRASH; W. T. HICKMAN, JR., MISSISSIPPI FORESTRY ASSOCIATION; ELMER DYAL, FLORIDA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION; WALTER MYERS, FOREST FARMERS OF AMERICA; E WAGONER, TEXAS FORESTRY ASSOCIATION; STEVE C. KARDELL, TEXAS FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Roosevelt. Now, starting on my right, would you mind introducing yourselves?

Mr. WAGONER. Wagoner.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Wagoner.

Mr. KARDELL. Steve Kardell, president of Texas Forestry Associa

Mr. HICKMAN. W. T. Hickman, Jr.

Mr. MYERS. Walter Myers, Forest Farmers of America.
Mr. DYAL. Elmer Dyal.

Mr. THRASH. Jimmy Thrash.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Gentlemen, we are a little pressed for time. We have to clear this room by 12:30, so we are going to give approximately an hour to this panel. We would appreciate it if each of you in turn would make roughly a 5-minute statement, and then from there, we will go forward with such questions as the committee members may have.

May we start in the same order, if we may?

Mr. WAGONER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is E. R. Wagoner. I am executive secretary of the Texas Forestry Association.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you, and we realize that there is a shortage of time, and for that reason, we will gladly abbreviate our statement. We would like to request respectfully, sir, that the entire statement be made a part of the official record.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Without objection, the same will apply to all the statements.

Mr. WAGONER. Thank you, sir.

I am executive secretary of the Texas Forestry Association. I have studied forestry at the University of Tennessee, the University of Georgia, and Duke University. Prior to assuming my present duties, I was employed by the Texas Forest Service, the Kentucky Division of Forestry, and the Ohio Division of Forestry.

The Texas Forestry Association, a statewide organization promoting the conservation, the extension and wise use of the forest and related resources of our great State, is celebrating its golden anniversary this year. Our association has hundreds of members who are small pulpwood dealers, logging contractors, woods products producers, and small tree farmers. There are 120,000 timberland owners in Texas. Small ownerships prevail. Eighty percent of these, or approximately 96,000, own less than 100 acres.

Under the present 12-man forestry exemption, a small operator can work on small tracts with small crews and light equipment. This small operator cannot operate without violating the law if S. 2487 or H.R. 9824 is passed as proposed. He will be forced out of business. While I am sure that you have heard this statement many times, I would like to give you the reasons why I feel this to be the case. Thousands of workers now employed by these small businessmen will be without a job. These are some of the people this measure is supposed to help, however, instead of increasing their earnings, the bill as it now stands will indirectly destroy their jobs. No doubt some of them will be absorbed by larger operators, but the majority of the marginal, unskilled workers will be unemployed.

*

When a company or large operator works a tract of timber, the tract must through economic necessity have sufficient volume to justify the movement of large crews and heavy equipment. These companies and large operators will be unable to cut small acreages. The small tree farmer will no longer have a market for his tree crops.

If he cannot market his tree crops, he will no longer be interested in practicing wise woodland management. He will no longer be interested in tree farming or in the conservation of our essential natural resources our forests, water, and soil. In fact, the small tree farmer is already beginning to suffer. The plight of these small tree farmers is expressed in a letter we received recently, part of which is quoted for your information:

Everybody was encouraged to set out pine seedlings and the Government paid people to set them out * * *. During the past few years nearly all the lumber used around here has been that imported stuff. *** I think about all we can now do with our timber here is to bulldoze it up and put our land in Johnson grass or some other noxious weed.

I could be wrong but it is my opinion there will never be enough demand for timber for us to ever get anything out of all this pine we now have. I had always considered pine timber a good investment but now it has been overdone by advice of the so-called experts encouraging everybody to set out all their land to timber. Maybe though everybody now except myself will go ahead and bulldoze all their timber up and put their land in cattle and overdo the cattle business. If I am the only one left with timber maybe I can get

something for it.

Removal of the 12-man forestry and logging exemption will further complicate these problems and will be breaking faith with thousands of small timberland owners. Certainly they should not be penalized because their acreage is small.

The Texas Forestry Association, other associations, forest industry, the U.S. Forest Service, other agencies in the Federal Government, and the State forestry agencies have jointly spent millions of dollars in the past 30 years to encourage these small woodland owners to practice wise forest management and to produce continuous crops of timber to meet the growing demands of our rapidly expanding population.

Two past Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, provided much of the leadership in the Nation to conserve our natural resources. Enactment of S. 2487 or H.R. 9824 will eliminate a great deal of the progress recorded. In his agriculture message on January 31, 1964, President Johnson urged the transfer of excessive cropland into trees, grass, and other conservation uses.

The passage of S. 2487 or H.R. 9824 as originally introduced will wipe out the remarkable forest conservation progress that has been accomplished in the past three decades. Much of the soil bank payments and the Production and Marketing Administration payments will be wasted.

When the small tree farmer no longer has a market for his tree crop, considerable land which was removed from cultivation and planted to trees will be returned to grow crops, aggravating the staggering farm surplus problem, inviting soil erosion, and costly silting of many expensive water impounding structures. The value of these subsidies will be lost.

The passage of this measure will discourage reforestation, timber stand improvement, and selective cutting on small holdings. We are confident that S. 2487 or H.R. 9824 will encourage clear cutting and force liquidation of thousands of small southern woodlands.

Many east Texas cities came to life around a sawmill and are still dependent upon this industry. Timber resources and industries are the basis for the economic stability of many east Texas counties. In

fact, Texas has been among the leading States in lumber production for the past 75 years, but its production in recent years has declined. In 1907, Texas was the third lumber producing State in the Nation with 2,229,590,000 board feet, which had declined to only 703 million in 1961, according to Texas Forest Service statistics.

The American softwood lumber industry has been severely depressed by Canadian imports. Approximately 16 percent of the U.S. consumption of softwood lumber is now imported from Canada. Softwood lumber imports for 1963 were 10 percent higher than in 1962, and 26 percent above the 1961 figure. Texas has received more than its share of Canadian imports, which jumped from 2,400 carloads in 1953 to 4,600 carloads in 1961.

These figures cover rail shipments only and do not reflect water shipments. The Texas carload receipt of Canadian lumber in 1961 was double the shipments received by Florida, the second highest Southern State, and four times as large as the shipments received by any other Southern State. For each Texas house framed with imported lumber, we estimate that on the average $1,000 is lost in bank deposits, plus the loss of 1 day's employment for 20 to 25 Texans. With the loss of Texas lumber markets to imported lumber, Texas sawmills have closed at an alarming rate. The 505 mills operating in Texas in 1953 dropped to only 200 in 1962. Any wage and hour legislation which places additional handicaps on Texas mills will result in fewer jobs and smaller paychecks for employees. Higher labor or manufacturing costs cannot be offset by an increase in Texas lumber prices. Such a penalty on Texas mills would only invite additional Canadian imports.

National economists estimate that 100 new workers will make the following changes in a community: 296 other jobs are indirectly created; 112 more houseowners; $590,000 more personal income per year; $270,000 more bank deposits; 107 more passenger cars purchased; 4 more retail establishments; and $360,000 more retail sales per year. If this is true, then the loss of each 100 employees as sawmill after sawmill in east Texas blows its last whistle might conceivably adversely affect our economy to the same extent.

We, in Texas, differ with the Secretary of Labor's claim that, since the passage of the 12-man forestry and logging exemption in 1949, many large pulp and paper companies that previously operated their own woods departments are now subcontracting their logging operations to small independent contractors in order to avoid the minimum pay requirement.

In general, our Texas companies have always contracted for their logging. The pulp and paper industry is a relatively young industry in Texas. Most of our Texas companies were established in the 1940's and one of our major companies was organized in the 1950's.

In addition to the pulp and paper companies' dependence on small contractors, many sawmills, both large and small, own no timber and have always depended entirely upon the small independent contractor to supply their logs.

Although, as stated above, a large number of Texas sawmills have been forced to close, others have continued with marginal operations. They have been able to stay in business because the loss from the sale

of lumber was partially offset by the sale of sawmill waste or residue in the form of wood chips used in the manufacture of wood pulp. This is a relatively new development which, although providing only a small percentage of profit, has enabled many Texas sawmills to stay in business in recent years.

We have serious reservations regarding the report on small logging operations by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Wage and Hour Public Contracts Division. We contend that it was not conducted in an objective manner, that it is biased and misleading, and that it is far from typical of conditions in Texas and most Southern States and in no way justifies the repeal of the 12-man forestry and logging exemption.

Our own analysis of Texas conditions indicates that by far the majority of our woods workers are already making far in excess of the minimum wage. The administrative burdens and expenses that would be placed upon the small forest products producers are the principal objections to the repeal of the 12-man exemption.

The dense Big Thicket area of east Texas differs greatly from the forest regions in other parts of the United States. Pulpwood and saw logs are generally produced by groups of men scattered over extensive territory working alone or in a small crew. Workers frequently are a mile or more apart. In the Big Thicket, however, workers are often out of sight of each other when they are relatively close together. Obviously, under such adverse conditions, any effort to maintain factorytype supervision and records would be futile.

Since 1949, Texas tree farmers have made great progress in reforestation, forest management, and the conservation of our forest resources. But now, tree farmers as well as forest products producers face the crossroads leading either to a faster pace of progress and an enlarged contribution to the area's economy or to a stiff uphill battle to stay in business. Removal of the 12-man forestry and logging exemption could well be "the straw that breaks the camel's back."

In summary, we wish to state that we fully recognize the admirable purposes of this measure; however, we respectfully invite your attention to the dangerous provisions of the bill. If this measure is passed by your committee, the Senate and the House of Representatives, we respectfully urge the retention of the essential 12-man forestry and logging exemption as a part of the final legislation.

We have some 120,000 timberland owners in east Texas. By far the majority of them are small timberland owners, 80 percent owning less than 100 acres each. Now, under the present 12-man forestry and logging exemption, this small operator can work a small tract with small crews and very little equipment, but when a large operator has to work a tract of timber, it must be through economic necessity a large tract, with sufficient volume to justify the movement of large crews and heavy equipment.

Large operators couldn't cut small tracts of timber. With the loss of this exemption, the small tree farmer will no longer have a market for his tree crop. He will no longer be interested in tree farming or wise woodland management.