Mr. MERRIAM. Mr. Chairman, our report on planning is summed up in our report on pages 27, 28, 29, and 30, and the recommendations of the committee are substantially embodied in the Robinson bill. There are a few minor changes. The main recommendation of the committee is carried out by Senate bill 2700. Do you wish, Mr. Chairman, a further discussion of the subject? The CHAIRMAN. Do the Senators desire any explanation of that section? Senator BYRD. I have no particular interest. Dr. Merriam can either make his explanation or not make it. The CHAIRMAN. The section is perfectly plain, as I understand it. Does any other member of the committee desire to ask any questions? If not, Dr. Merriam, that will be all. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon at 11:35 a. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m., Friday, Aug. 6, 1937.) (The following statements were submitted to the committee concerning the National Resources Planning Board:) Hon. JOSEPH T. ROBINSON, NATIONAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, Chairman, the Senate Select Committee on Government Organization, MY DEAR SENATOR ROBINSON: We submit herewith a report on the merits of S. 2700, a bill to provide for the reorganization of the agencies of the Federal Government, and the propriety of its passage, as requested in your letter of June 24. The sections of the bill dealing with the National Resources Committee and the organization of a National Resources Planning Board follow very closely the recommendations of the National Resources Committee and its predecessors. The permanent establishment of this agency in the manner provided in your bill would be of inestimable value to all agencies of the Federal Government and particularly to the Chief Executive. The experience of the National Resources Committee shows the need and value of an agency for correlation of studies and plans from Federal departments, bureaus, and agencies, and for cooperation with regional, State, and local planning boards. The members of the National Resources Committee, consisting of the Secretary of the Interior, chairman; the Secretary of War; the Secretary of Agriculture; the Secretary of Commerce; the Secretary of Labor; the Works Progress Administrator; Mr. Frederic A. Delano; and Dr. Charles E. Merriam, having endorsed previous bills and recommendations for the establishment of a permanent board along the lines indicated in your bill on numerous occasions. In order to provide for continuity in the work of the present National Resources Committee, we would like to suggest a minor amendment to section 406 so as to make it read: "SEC. 406. The National Resources Committee, established by Executive Order Numbered 7065 of June 7, 1935, is hereby abolished, and all unexpended balances of funds, personnel, records, and property (including office equipment) of said Committee are hereby transferred to the National Resources Planning Board." This amendment would treat the National Resources Committee in the same manner as is proposed elsewhere in the bill (sec. 2) for all other agencies transferred under authority of the bill. The National Resources Committee urges favorable consideration by your committee of those portions of S. 2700 relating to the proposed National Resources Planning Board. Sincerely yours, CHARLES W. ELIOT, 2d, Executive Officer, STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING AND CIVIC ASSOCIATION The American Planning and Civic Association wishes to record itself in favor of the establishment of a permanent National Resources Planning Board as provided for in S. 2700, a bill to reorganize the agencies of the Government. The Robinson reorganization bill makes provision for a permanent National Resources Planning Board to be composed of five members appointed by the President, unpaid except for a nominal per diem and expenses. The Board would specially be authorized to secure basic information for planning the development and utilization of the resources of the Nation, both natural and human, and to initiate and propose in an advisory capacity such plans and planning policies. The Board would prepare and submit reports and recommendations to the President and be available to secure information and make recommendations at the request of the President. The national planning agency has given an excellent account of itself. It is inconceivable that the preliminary reports which are necessary to develop longrange plans should be abandoned without follow-up. The National Resources Committee has justly earned its reputation for sound judgment and careful procedure. It has stimulated the States to set up official planning boards. These have made good beginnings, but the time has not been sufficient to perfect plans and see them carried into effect. In the city-planning field we estimate that at least a decade is needed to see on the ground sufficient realization of plans to permit the public to visualize planning results. In State and National planning, probably, more time will be needed to see tangible manifestations of planning. But preliminary plans which lead to nothing are sheer waste. We are bound to salvage the preliminary work of the National Resources Committee if we expect to see long-range planning established on a stable basis. The bill S. 2700 sets forth the necessary provisions. Either in this omnibus bill or through alternative legislation we hope to see a permanent National Resources Planning Board authorized by Congress to take the place of the present committee set-up by Executive order. The board of directors of the American Planning and Civic Association has voted to support the principle of creating a permanent National Planning or Resources Board. At the conference on city, State, regional, and National planning held in Cincinnati May 20 to 22, 1935, representing the National Conference on City Planning, American Civic Association, American City Planning Institute, and the American Society of Planning Officials, there were adopted two resolutions indicating the sentiment of the members of the organizations, as follows: The work of the National Resources Board has advanced planning to a place of recognition in the Nation and in the States and their local communities which offers hope for the accomplishment of the objectives of the agencies participating in the conference on city, State, regional, and National planning meeting in Cincinnati on May 20 to 22, 1935. At the same time the National Resources Board has taken the effective first steps in a competent evaluation of our national resources, rural and urban, toward laying the foundation for orderly national development which shall be socially and economically sound. The conference hereby expresses, first, its gratitude to the members of the National Resources Board, who have directed this work, and to the staff who has conducted it; and second, its confidence in the effective national leadership which is thus being proIvided in this field. The conference on city, State, regional, and National planning meeting in Cincinnati on May 20 to 22, 1935, has separately expressed its appreciation of the efforts of the National Resources Board in the advancement of planning and toward an orderly national development. The conference believes that the ultimate success of these efforts is dependent upon the establishment of a national planning board as a permanent agency of the Federal Government through appropriate congressional legislation, and urges its participating organizations to endeavor to secure the adoption of such legislation. A similar resolution was passed at the national planning conference held in Detroit, Mich., by the American Planning and Civic Association, the American City Planning Institute, the American Society of Planning Officials, and the National Economic and Social Planning Association on June 1, 2, 3, 1937. The above views are recorded in the hearings before the Committee on the Public Lands, House of Representatives, Seventy-fourth Congress, second session, on H. R. 10303, on page 56. HORACE M. ALBRIGHT, President. Hon. JAMES F. BYRNES, UNITED STATES SENATE, August 12, 1937. Chairman, Reorganization Committee, United States Senate. DEAR SENATOR: In the matter of S. 2700, under consideration by your committee, I beg leave to submit to you an amendment to section 404 of said bill, as follows: On page 37, after subdivision 3, add: "(4) Assist State and regional planning agencies through assignment of personnel or grants-in-aid under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Board." The President in his message on the reorganization bill, of which this is a part, definitely recommended not only the creation of a national planning board, but also Federal aid to State planning boards. This is of the utmost importance for the purpose of coordinating the work of the State boards with that of the National Board. Necessarily, much of the work of planning within any State has a very definite relationship to the work being carried on by a number of Federal agencies. Both because of the necessity of cooperation and coordination, and also because of the value of the service the State planning boards shall be able to render, not only should there be a tie-up in personnel between the National Board and the State boards, but also, in recognition of such services, grants-in-aid to the State planning boards. Subsection 2 of section 404 of the bill may possibly intend such assistance to State boards. However, it is open to question. In order to make it definitely certain that it is the intention of Congress that such assistance be rendered to the State boards, the amendment is offered to clarify the situation; and if such amendment is agreed to, it would make certain that the recommendation of the President as to the assistance to State planning boards be carried out. Many of the State chairmen of the State planning boards have the impression that in order to make this assistance definite and certain, this amendment should be agreed to. Respectfully yours, HERBERT E. HITCHCOCK. REORGANIZATION OF THE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FRIDAY, AUGUST 6, 1937 SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON Washington, D. C. The committee met, Senator James F. Byrnes presiding. STATEMENT OF JAMES G. K. McCLURE, JR., AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClure, you desire to be heard with reference to one phase of this bill. We will be glad to have you make any statement you desire to at this time. First, state whether you are connected with any organization, and if so give the name of that organization. Mr. MCCLURE. Mr. Chairman, I am president of the American Forestry Association. I am also the president and general manager of the Farmers' Federation, a cooperative organization of the mountain farmers in North Carolina. The American Forestry Association is a voluntary organization of people all over the United States who are interested in preserving and maintaining the natural resources of this country. It was started 61 years ago, and since it originated it has had something over 150,000 members. The members of this association are voluntary members. They pay dues, and our association is supported in that way. Our directors, and myself, contribute our time to this organization, and expenses. The association is intensely interested in forests, parks, and all natural resources. In fact, the American Forestry Association was formed before there were any national forests and started the movement to obtain national forests. It developed the initial movement to get forest-experiment stations, to develop laws to prevent forest fires, and so forth. It has been a very constructive influence all through the years along the line of conserving our natural resources. Senator TOWNSEND. How many people do you have in the organization? Mr. McCLURE. We have about 15,000 members, active members, paying dues at present. Senator TOWNSEND. Scattered over how many States? Mr. MCCLURE. All over the United States. We get out a monthly paper called the American Forests that goes to all of our members, and we also publish a summary of conservation news called Conservation. We publish that every 4 months. It is a nonpolitical, noncommercial organization of people who are interested in forestry. We also have an endowment which is being contributed by people interested in forestry. We are as interested in the national parks as in the national forests. That is all part of our conservation program. In fact when we started there were no national parks, in the sense in which we now consider national parks. The Yellowstone Park had been set aside and was being operated by the Army at that time, and our forestry movement has been one of the great forces behind the acquisition of parks which are administered by the Department of the Interior, and the acquisition of forest lands administered by the Department of Agriculture. Now, the particular reason that the directors of the Association wanted me to appear this morning was that in connection with this reorganization bill they feared that the word "conservation", as used to denote a new department, is confusing, and we wanted to have the opportunity to explain that a little bit. The idea of conservation is one that we all believe in. The Department of Conservation sounds, right off, just swell, it sounds like something we all believe in, but if you commence to think about it and analyze it, and see how these different departments are built, we are afraid that there is a danger there that cannot be brought out unless it is brought clearly out, and that is that the Department of Agriculture at present administers the Forest Service. Under the Department of Conservation there is some likelihood that the Forest Service will be transferred to the new department. Well, it is like a piece of machinery. If a piece of an automobile, like a piston, or something, is taken out, that machine just does not operate as well, and the Department of Agriculture has the various bureaus, such as Soil Conservation, Pathology, the study of tree diseases, and various departments, all of which are in the Department of Agriculture. Now, personally, I am a farmer and manager of a farmer's cooperative. We have, I believe, the only cooperative which has a forest products department, designed to find a market for the products of the farmer's wood lot. The farmer's wood lot, down in our part of the country, is more than one-half of his farm. In the State of North Carolina we have 30,000,000 acres, and 20,000,000 acres of that land is in forests, but of that 20,000,000 acres in forests 65 percent is owned by the farmer. The majority of forest land in North Carolina is owned by the farmers as part of their farms. Senator TOWNSEND. You say 65 percent of the 20,000,000 acres is owned by the farmers? Mr. MCCLURE. Yes; 65 percent of our forest land in North Carolina is farm land, farm woodland. I think I am correct in stating that in the Southeastern States more than 50 percent of the forest land is farm land. Senator TOWNSEND. I am rather surprised to know that that is so. I thought that the large tracts in that section were operated by commercial institutions, and also by the Government. Mr. MCCLURE. Senator Townsend, it may be that in the last 2 or 3 months there has been some change, because there has been a great influx of pulp mills down in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, but they have not bought enough land to make an appreciable difference. It might be 62 percent now that is owned by farmers. The figures that I gave, as it happens, I got from the State Extension Forestry yesterday. |