Page images
PDF
EPUB

ture. These State extension foresters are really doing a swell job, they are arousing the farmers' minds in our section of the country to the possibilities of preserving and having a sustained yield on the farmer's wood lot.

The farm forests in the Southeastern States are larger in area than any other crop that we have got. In our mountain sections it is a very important crop of our farm economy. There is more pride in farm forests among our people than in national forests.

Senator TOWNSEND. I understood you to say that you are head of a cooperative organization, the Farmers' Cooperative Association. What crops do you handle?

Mr. MCCLURE. Senator, we handle every crop we can raise. It is a region of small farms. In the North Carolina area we handle chickens for them, eggs, vegetables, all kinds of forest products from rhododendrons to zinnias, fencing, pulpwood, acid wood, corn, wheat, sweet potatoes, and apples. We haven't any big commodities, you know, like oranges or wheat. Our farmers are very small farmers. The average income of our farmers is less than $100 a year per family. That is the net cash income. We are trying to develop the income of those people.

Senator TOWNSEND. You say the net cash income is only $100 a year?

Mr. MCCLURE. The net cash income per family in the mountain section is less than $100 a year, and what we are trying to do is to develop crops and develop the marketing of crops so they will get more money.

Senator TOWNSEND. That is a very surprising statement to me. Mr. MCCLURE. I can give you the exact statement made by the Tax Commission's report for the State of North Carolina in 1929. They tried to show how much of the tax burden fell on different sections of the State, and in the mountain sections of the State they found that the average net cash income per farm family was $86 a year. I think it is one of the most startling facts that I know of. That is what we are interested in, trying to increase that, trying to develop crops and marketing. We are trying to find markets for them. We think we can increase that income to at least $500 a year. Thank you, gentlemen, very much.

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT OF JAMES G. K. MCCLURE, Jr.

This bill and the report of the President's Committee on Administrative Management in the Government of the United States as transmitted to Congress on January 12 have been studied by the directors of the American Forestry Association, and as the president and representative of the association, I respectfully recommend that paragraph 4b of section 2, defining the power of the President be amended to read that "Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to authorize the President to abolish or transfer to any other agency any of the functions exercised by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Biological Survey, or the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture."

I am the president of the American Forestry Association, an association of people from all parts of the United States who are genuinely interested in preserving and maintaining the physical resources of this country. The American Forestry Association was organized 61 years ago when there were no national forests. The association has aroused national interest in creating national forests and for acquiring lands for increasing them, in passing laws and securing public support to control forest fires, establishing forest experiment stations, State forestry commissions, and schools of forestry. Its interest in national parks has been similar to that for national forests. When the association was started there were no national parks as we conceive them today. The Yellowstone National Park had been set aside

and was being administered by the Army, but there was no system of national parks as we know them today. I give you these facts, gentlemen, so that you may understand our organization as one genuinely and disinterestedly interested in efficient, able administration of the conservation responsibilities of the United States.

The word "conservation" as used in this bill is the cause of considerable mental confusion. A "Conservation Department" sounds constructive, but on careful inquiry the idea of coordination which we all want for our national Government functions would appear to be hindered instead of helped by the new grouping evidently contemplated under the banner of conservation.

The interests grouped under the single term "forestry" are more complex than appears on the surface. It would be a comparatively simple matter if the 167 million acres of national forests ended the administrative responsibilities. But there is more land in farm forests, owned and operated by farmers, than in all the national forests. Farm forests comprise 185 million acres which must not be divorced from the Department of Agriculture. They are an integral part of each farm all over the United States. Only a step beyond them in close relationship to the fundamental responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture are the 270 million acres of privately owned forest lands operated for commercial purposes.

In my State of North Carolina we have 30 million acres-20 million acres of which are classified as forest lands. Of this 20 million acres 65 percent is farm woodland-that is, the majority of our forest land is owned by farmers. I understand more than 50 percent of all forest land in the Southeastern States is owned by farmers.

Increasing efforts are being made by State and Federal agencies to bring to the farmer the consciousness that his farm woods must be considered as a crop. If properly thinned and cut for sustained yield, the farmer will get a more sure annual income from this farm forest crop than from any other of his crops. There are 44 extension foresters in 37 States of the Union carrying out this program of education and assistance. These men are on the staffs of the land-grant colleges which are in every State in the Union and work through the county agricultural agents. To divorce the Forest Service and its related work from the Department of Agriculture would create an inexcusable state of confusion and delay the accomplishments which are universally desired.

The group of activities bearing on forests now carried on by the Department of Agriculture are so interrelated that we fear it would be a grave danger if they were torn asunder. Some of these agencies are as follows: Bureau of Chemistry and Soils; Soil Conservation Service; and may I say here that the conserving of the soil in the Southeastern States is the most important task now facing the people of the Southeastern States. This is a job that must be carried out on individual farms. It is a farm and farm forest matter requiring the most intimate cooperation on the part of several bureaus in the Department of Agriculture.

The Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine deals with insect and fungus pests that may at any time threaten our forests, as for example the Dutch elm disease and white pine blister rust; the Division of Forest Pathology with its facilities for research in forest and tree diseases; the Biological Survey having to do with propagation and management of wildlife so closely related to farm forests as well as national forests; the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which studies farm forests as an integral part of farm practice.

The American Forestry Association is jealous for constructive administration of our national resources to insure the continuance of forest development now so ably carried on in the United States. Reports in the daily press of last June indicate that the original draft of this bill carried a clause which specifically exempted the Forest Service from either transfer or abolishment. When the bill was introduced and made public no such clause was included. Therefore, we request and urge that a similar amendment be added to paragraph 4b, section 2, comparable with that maintaining the status of the Mississippi Flood Commission and the work of the Army Engineers. To be specific, we respectfully suggest that this paragraph be amended to read, "Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to authorize the President to abolish or transfer to any other agency any of the functions exercised by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Biological Survey, or the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture."

That the position of the American Forestry Association may be clear, I submit for your consideration the following resolution passed on February 10, 1932, and reaffirmed at a regular meeting of the directors on February 12, 1937:

"Resolved, That any reorganization or consolidation of the activities of the Federal Government relating to the administration of the public lands and reservations should be based on the principle of bringing under one departmental

direction the agencies which are concerned with the production and conservation of (1) crops and plants, serviceable for food or environment for man and animals, and (2) plants and forests serviceable for soil and water production, fibers, woods, and other plant products.

"The problems of production and conservation of plant life and the problems of protection and conservation of soils and waters relating to agriculture, grazing, and forestry should be handled through a common administrative agency. Under the same direction should be included the conservation of domestic stock and wildlife whose management depends on plant foods and environment. These activities should be centered in the Department of Agriculture."

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith.

STATEMENT OF H. A. SMITH, ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, will you tell the stenographer your initials and the organization you represent?

Mr. SMITH. H. A. Smith, president of the Association of State Foresters.

The CHAIRMAN. You are the president of the Association of State Foresters?

Mr. SMITH. That is correct, sir, representing 35 State forestry organizations in America.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith, you have heard the statement of Mr. McClure. Do you desire to make a statement on the same subject? Mr. SMITH. Practically the same thing, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you.

Mr. SMITH. The 35 State foresters' organizations of the United States are very intimately tied in with the activities of the National Forest Service. All of those organizations in the South, or practically all, owe their very existence to the coopertive funds provided by that forest service. They are, therefore, very much concerned over any movement which might tend to disrupt the present recognized efficient handling of the funds upon which their existence depends.

They feel that the changing of the name of the Department of the Interior to the Department of Conservation and thereby offering support to those interested in the enlargement of their duties would offer, not only now but in the future, a constant threat to the stability of the existing forestry program through the danger of transferring the forest service to organizations outside of the Department of Agriculture.

They feel further that authorization to the President, or to future Presidents, to make any transfers he chooses would subject him to pressure from powerful minorities and might result in such transfers.

They object to the transfer of the entire Forest Service to any new branch of the Government because, first, the idea behind such a transfer to them does not seem sound. They feel that there must always be provided conservation measures under any system that can possibly be set up. Practically any of the present departments today have some sort of conservation measures. There are too many conservation branches, too intimately tied in with the present departments, to permit of such transfer. Forestry cannot be removed from chemistry and soils, from research, from extension, from plant industry, from pathology or entomology.

They object to the transfer of the entire Forest Service, in the second place, because forestry is a long-time project intimately

9757-37-8

tied in with other branches of agriculture and should not be unnecessarily shifted or changed unless definite, tangible values are to be guaranteed.

The State foresters are opposed to the transfer of even a portion of the Forest Service to any set-up outside of the Department of Agriculture. In our work, we work in reality with two branches of the Forest Service itself, the branch contained with work on State and private lands, and with those in charge of the national-forest areas. We actually work in cooperation with both of them. If such a program would be conceived as to put the handling of the national forests in one organization we feel we would still be handicapped.

State foresters are opposed to the method of appointment of certain positions described in section 203 (a) and (b), since it removes foresters from the technical class and deprives foresters of the right of advancement by making appointments subject to Presidential approval only.

State foresters agree that there is an opportunity for the segregation of many conservation bureaus into one department, but it is felt that all phases of conservation dealing with the management of organic life and the ground from which that life springs should be centered in the Department of Agriculture along with Soil Conservation, Chemistry and Soils, Pathology and Entomology, Research in Agriculture, Extension, Plant Introductions, and all other similar agricultural activities which can never be removed from that Department.

We suggest that there be included within this bill, in an appropriate place, a clause specifically exempting the Soil Conservation Service, the Biological Survey, and the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture from the authority of the President to abolish or transfer them to any other department.

In conclusion, the State foresters request and respectfully urge that no step be taken that will cause or even facilitate we recognize, however, that the passage of this act does not cause the transfer we hope nothing will be done that will even facilitate the transfer or disruptions in any way of a sound conservative, reputable bureau with a department with whose major activities it is so intimately associated, in a mistaken attempt to create a new set-up under a popular name, allinclusive in its ideals but practially impossible of attainment. The outcome in the future of the Forest Service is, to a very large extent, the future of the State forestry organizations, and particularly is this true in the South. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cope, will you come forward please?

STATEMENT OF FRANCIS R. COPE, JR., PENNSYLVANIA FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cope, you are with the Pennsylvania State Forestry Association?

Mr. COPE. Yes.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cope, I do not want to ask you to shorten your statement unnecessarily, but in view of the fact that the other two gentlemen have spoken on this matter, is it the same phase of this bill to which you desire to address yourself?

Mr. COPE. It is in regard to the same general phases, yes. Possibly I might emphasize a little more one point rather than another. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. COPE. Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak for the Pennsylvania Forestry Association which recently celebrated its fiftieth birthday, and which is quite a strong, active, working body, in favor of everything that will make for forest conservation, particularly in Our State.

I should also like, if I may, to speak a little bit for myself, as one who has been long engaged in farming, particularly dairying and fruit growing, and I have also, for that reason, been very deeply interested in the closely related problems, particularly of forestry and the conservation of wildlife.

We are opposed to certain provisions in this pending Robinson bill which we believe will give the President too sweeping powers to reorganize, transfer, regroup, or abolish, either in whole or in part, the Forest Service and certain related bureaus and divisions within the Department of Agriculture.

It is just because we do believe in the importance of conserving all our natural resources, both organic and inorganic, to use the newly accepted terms, that we feel so concerned about this matter. But, may I say right here, that the Pennsylvania Forestry Association is not opposed to any reasonable plan of reorganization which we feel would abolish waste, make for economy, and thereby make for greater efficiency in the control of our forests and other natural resources. Particularly would we look, I think, with favor upon any bill for reorganization which would follow, more or less, the lines, as I understand them, provided for in the pending Kleberg bill in the House, which will divide the great natural resources, as you know, into renewable and nonrenewable, and concentrate the renewable resources, if you please, if that is going to make for greater efficiency, within, but not outside of, the Department of Agriculture.

Specifically, we are particularly opposed to giving the President, as I said, such sweeping power, either in whole or in part, to transfer the Forest Service, or any of its related bureaus, which we believe is unnecessary and dangerous and would not necessarily work for greater efficiency or the greater safeguarding of our natural resources.

We are opposed to section 402, which, as I understand it, designates the existing Department of the Interior as a new Department of Conservation, apparently with the obvious intent of transferring to it the Forest Service, the Bureau of Biological Survey, and all these other related agencies which we believe are now within the Department of Agriculture very properly and should be left there because they have such a vital and close relation to problems of soil conservation, water conservation, and so on.

We are also opposed, rather particularly, as we interpret it, to section 203 in the Robinson bill, especially to subsection (b), which authorizes the President apparently "to fill any vacancy in any office or position of head of any bureau, division, service, or other similar agency", clause 1.

We are opposed to the portion of section 203, subsection (a), which authorizes the President alone to appoint the head officer of any office which he determines to be policy making, instead of leaving, as we believe would be wiser, such appointments to the executive head of the department or agency to whom they should be naturally responsible.

« PreviousContinue »