« PreviousContinue »
you have been consulted in the drafting of section 203 in the present language, and whether you are familiar with the history of it.
Mr. RITCHIE. Nothing other than that Senator Randolph of the Senate committee sent over to the Department a draft of some substitute proposed language just before the bill was reported out. I did not participate in the drafting of the language in section 203 which Senator Randolph proposed to be substituted.
Mr. JONES. Are there any further questions, Mr. Cleveland ?
Mr. CLEVELAND. I would like to find out through counsel of the committee, though, if the Department of Agriculture was, other than the testimony that we have had, whether they were consulted in the drafting of section 203.
I think this would be of interest.
Mr. Jones. If you did participate in it, to the extent of your participation, will you give the information to the committee
Mr. RITCHIE. I will try to find out. (The information follows:) Mr. Ritchie advised the committee that to the best of his knowledge the Department of Agriculture did not work on section 203 as now drafted.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Because of the interest generated by Mr. Wright's objections last time, is this section, as it is now drafted, acceptable to the majority of the committee?
Mr. Jones. In your absence, Mr. Cleveland, Mr. Wright declared to the committee that the objections that he had to the section of the bill last year have been removed, and he was satisfied with this portion of the bill.
Now, are you through, Mr. Cleveland ?
Now, Mr. Ritchie, section 203; in order to have the operation of ASC county and State committees, they must be elected by the farmers of the county; is that correct!
Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, the county committee must be. The State committee is appointed.
Mr. Jones. Then the county committee makes recommendations to the Department of Agriculture for the selection of State committee directors, is that not correct?
Mr. RíTCHIE. Well, I am not sure that this is necessarily a regular procedure.
Mr. Jones. Well, I am telling you it is a procedure, if you do not know.
Now, the State and county committees, with consultation of the various agencies, with the various agencies of the Department of Agriculture, then scheme the various practices that are needed in that particular county.
Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, sir, this is true.
Mr. Jones. Then they submit them to you for approval? Or rejection?
Mr. RITCHIE. They submit them first to the State committee. The State committee and the other Department agencies review them.
Mr. Jones. They, too, agree to them or disagree to them, and send them to you?
Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jones. Now, under section 203, can you envision any departure from the normal practices that you are going to bring in the old part of the Department of Agriculture to advise those people, to counsel with those people, as to the programs? They are going to elect their own people to serve on that committee. They know firsthand of the requirements of marketing, they know firsthand the accrediting requirements of the Department of Agriculture.
So 203 is not going to be any different than it is at the present time, with the exception of an accelerated program? Mr. RITCHIE. I believe this is basically right, Mr. Chairman.
The State government will come into the picture, as I understand it, under the provisions of the Commission, the organization of the Commission, but the State government now participates through the extension service.
Mr. JONES. Then you are going to be there, they are going to be there, the extension service, every other phase ?
Mr. RITCHIE. The normal way of setting up a program for a county is for the county ASC committee and the Soil Conservation the Forest Service
Mr. Jones. The marketing service is as important to the agriculture in the form of administration—the Bureau of Public Roads, and every one of the envioronments of government are still going to be there, and yet it is going to be broken down in section 203 as to what the local people want named ?
Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, this is right.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Does the county agent in each county work under your general direction?
Mr. RITCHIE. He by law is an ex officio member of the county ASC committee. He is not under our direction. He is under the direction of the State government, and the State's extension service.
Mr. CLEVELAND. But he works very closely with you?
Mr. RITCHIE. The county forester representing the State or Federal Forest Service and the local technicians of the Soil Conservation Service, and the county ASC committee jointly formulate the agricultural conservation program for the county. They do this in consulation with the soil conservation district governing body, if there is one, and they do it after they have called a meeting and invited all other agricultural agencies, both public and private, to sit with them and counsel with them on what is the best way to apply the program in that county.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Generally speaking, operating in each county, you have the county forester and the county agent, the county agent being chiefly for agriculture, the county forester for forestry.
Mr. RITCHIE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Then you will have either in the county or group of counties a representative of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service?
Mr. RITCHIE. That is correct.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Is it your opinion that in Appalachia there are enough to go around in Appalachia, or do you need more of them?
Mr. RITCHIE. Well, there are county ASC committees in all counties. There are various employees of State and Federal Government who try to service these areas. I do not know what the other agencies would say as to their problems with respect to administration and personnel.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you.
Mr. CLEVELAND. I just want to know if you are familiar with section 214 of the Appalachia bill?
Mr. PYLES. Yes, sir; I am.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Would you tell me how you think this is going to operate?
Mr. Pyles. Well, there is a wide range of opportunities in size and character and purpose of these organizations which we call timber development organizations. They can vary from one, which you may be familiar with, which is patterned after the New England Forestry Foundation, an organization which provides technical services; a purely service organization to landowners, at cost. It is a nonprofit organization. One has been in operation for 20 years in New England. I believe they have 21 foresters to date, and they have been, I believe, quite effective.
The other type of organization would be the one in which a group of landowners would agree to join together and sponsor a timber development organization to provide alĩ the professional services for their land. And there is a wide variation between these two types.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Is this something that has been done anywhere in the country?
Mr. PYLEs. It has been done. There is one operating in eastern Michigan right now. It is primarily a procurement operation, but it is within the scope of this concept.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Would these cooperatives perhaps establish chipping mills or similar mills?
Mr. PYLEs. No; they would not. They are strictly aimed at developing the resource, or, rather, helping the small landowner develop the timber resource on their lands. It is a nonprofit, State-chartered local organization developed by local people.
Mr. CLEVELAND. In your opinion, the county foresters are not properly performing this function in the Appalachia area ?
Mr. PYLES. I think we call them service foresters there. It is the same character of assistance. It is very inadequate in Appalachia at. the present time. In the whole scope of this program one of the other measures proposed is to provide additional assistance for the type of help that you are talking about. It is one of the other measures for which we already have authority.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Are there any other large forest owners, any pulp mills or paper companies that own large holdings in the Appalachia area?
Mr. PYLES. Yes; there are.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Have they conducted experimental forestry work or forest programs?
Mr. Pyles. Yes; they have. The industrially owned lands are, by and large, well managed. This is not where the problem is. The problem is in these small ownerships, fragmented ownerships, in which the owner does not have the technical knowledge or assistance and it not able to make the most of his forest lands.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Of the 11 States in Appalachia, do you know how many of the State universities have colleges of forestry? I believe Penn State has one.
Mr. Pyles. Yes; Penn State has. Of course, Morgantown, W. Va. I am not sure. I could give you that number, if you wish.
Mr. Jones. Shall I name them for you, Mr. Cleveland?
The University of Georgia, the University of North Carolina, rather, North Carolina State; University of West Virginia, and Pennsylvania State.
Mr. PYLES. VPI.
Mr. CLEVELAND. But, in short, it is your opinion that the Appalachia area between the private corporations and between the county foresters or service foresters, as you call them, and the State universities, there is still an appreciable and dangerous gap in Mr. Pyles. There is a big gap; yes, sir. Mr. CLEVELAND (continuing). In science and research in forestry? Mr. Pyles. Yes, sir.
By comparison, the number of consulting foresters and professional foresters in New Hampshire in relation to the number of forest acres in the State is probably greater than for the rest of the United States.
Mr. CLEVELAND. One more question.
you know if the ARA gave any grants for technical studies in the utilization of any of the wood products ? ?
Mr. Pyles. Yes. There have been several grants throughout Appalachia for this purpose.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Can you tell me how many? Mr. PYLES. No; I cannot, but I can get it for you. Mr. CLEVELAND. Can you get it for me and submit it for the record ? Mr. PYLEs. Yes, sir. Mr. CLEVELAND. That is all. Mr. JONES. Please submit the information requested. (The data follows:) Eleven loans have been approved for industrial expansion of wood-using industries in Appalachia ; two grants have been approved for forest product utilization and marketing studies and one application for such a study is pending.
Mr. JONES. Any further questions?
If not, I would like an announce that tomorrow, we will hear the Governors of the 11-State Appalachia area. I think this will include Governor Scranton, Governor Smith, and Governor Tawes.
I hope that the members will all be here at 10 o'clock. The Governors are busy men. I would hate to have them come to Washington and have them sit here while the members come late. Punctuality would be appreciated.
I want to thank you gentlemen.
The committee will be adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, February 4, 1965.)
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1965
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Last week I dispatched a telegram to the Governors of the 11 Appalachian States covered by the legislation now before us. It read as follows:
Ad hoc Subcommittee on Appalachia of the Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives will hold a hearing on H.R. 4 and S. 3 and related bills on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, February 3, 4, and 5. You are cordially invited and urged to testify before the committee on Thursday, February 4. If this is not possible, please submit your statement for consideration of the committee. We appreciate your cooperation in this important matter. Please reply to the committee at he Longworh House Office Building, Washingon, D.C.
We have had responses, and I would like for the clerk of the committee at this time to insert the names of those Governors or their representatives that have statements before the committee.
Mr. McNEAL. Mr. Chairman, in response to your telegram, the following Governors have reacted as indicated:
Governor Millard Tawes, of Maryland, is here to testify.
Governor Člement, of Tennessee, has asked that Mr. Harland Matthews, the commissioner of finance of his State, appear and read the Governor's statement to the committee.
We have statements submitted for the record by the following Governors:
Gov. Donald Russell, of South Carolina; Governor Harrison, of Virginia; Governor Sanders, of Georgia; Governor Rhodes, of Ohio; and I understand Governor Breathitt, of Kentucky, will submit á statement for the record. Mr. JONES. Thank you, sir.