Mr. UMSTEAD. For whom did you make that investigation? Mr. VAUGHAN. I made that for the Subsistence Homestead Unit before that was abolished.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Are you now connected with any agency of the Government?

Mr. VAUGHAN. Yes; in a way, I am. I am doing some work in the way of research for the fourth division down in North Carolina. Mr. UMSTEAD. The fourth division of what?

Mr. VAUGHAN. The fourth region of the Resettlement Administration. We found that in all of these investigations we needed to make there were facts that we could not get hold of, and the only way we could get them was from the Government figures.

Mr. UMSTEAD. The Government conducted in 1934 an agricultural census. They accumulated a tremendous amount of data about farms and farm problems, and farm conditions, all of which is available at the Bureau of the Census, is it not?

Mr. VAUGHAN. Yes; we use that.

Mr. UMSTEAD. One of the things which that survey showed, and one of the things that the Bureau of the Census sent out as the result of that survey, was the number of farms in 1930 and the number of farms in 1934 in every State, and in every county where they conducted the survey?

Mr. VAUGHAN. Yes.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Your rural rehabilitation division, which has been taken over by the Rural Resettlement Administration, knows the number of people in each county in the scope of its operations that have gone back to the farm. Why do you not have all the informa tion you want about that?

Mr. VAUGHAN. We have the information, so far as it goes. But this is the permanent set-up of the Department to keep these figures up to date. The Rural Resettlement Administration only deals with folks on relief. Relief will be the big part of the problem, if something is not done for the larger number of people on relief that the rural population is trying to work out a program for. They want to analyze the facts to find out the nature of the conditions that are surrounding the people and make reports. In other words, a facifinding agency of an extension department such as rural population, from the standpoint of the people, is to determine what the human resources are, to get at the actual situation in the United States.

There are a great many farmers in the United States that never can get any benefit from any legislation in reference to marketing. In other words, there were more farmers in the United States who never got anything out of any of the triple A program as there were who did, because they live in areas that do not produce products for market. I can show you hundreds of counties where they did not organize a single crop-adjustment program.

We hope this item of $10,000 for a study of population migration, and the item of $7,500 for the study of rural organization. will not be cut. That is the whole proposition.

They asked for $30,000, but the Budget cut the amount. They used to have $40,000 for doing that work, because the foundation of all the figures relating to rural people throughout the country has been developed through this division of the Government, but in the

last few years that has been sliced down, down, and down, until it has become rather impotent in its ability to do the thing it is supposed to do, that is, to give the various departments of the Government the real facts pertaining to the population of various areas. Last year they had $12,500, and the chief had to resign because they did not pay his last 2 months' salary. In order to carry out the things they had to do they had to borrow people from other departments.

This $17,500 will enable them to keep the nucleus of an organization, but they will still have to borrow people from other departments. They are negotiating now with the extension department and also with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to try to arrange to borrow some employeees. If they do not get the $17,500, it will kill the organization, and we are interested in seeing that it is not crippled in that respect.

Mr. UMSTEAD. We appreciate your presence and are glad to have your statement. I assure you the committee will sympathetically consider everything you have said.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1936.

ROAD BUILDING IN ALASKA

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY J. DIMOND, THE DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA

Mr. UMSTEAD. Mr. Dimond, the committee will be glad to hear you now in reference to any matter that you desire to discuss with it.

Mr. DIMOND. Mr. Chairman, the only matter I desire to discuss is the limitation upon the expenditure in Alaska of the appropriation for forest highways, which you will find on page 504 of the committee print of the bill. The proviso making the limitation reads as follows:

Provided further, That during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, the expenditures on the forest highways in Alaska from the amount herein appropriated or from appropriations heretofore made for such purposes shall not exceed $350,000.

This bill carries, as I understand it, or the estimate is for $8,000,000. Were it not for some limitation upon the appropriation, Alaska, based upon the Budget estimate, taking into consideration the value of the forests and other elements that members of the committee are familiar with, would receive about 912 percent of the total. I am not able to give you the exact figure, but it will not be much larger or smaller than that.

This places a rigid limitation of $350,000 for expenditure in Alaska during the fiscal year 1937, not only from this appropriation, but from all appropriations heretofore made for this purpose, both regular and emergency appropriations.

Last year the bill came out of the committee in precisely the form in which it is written now, and as soon as I discovered the form it was in I took it up with members of the committee informally.

47432-36-65

Inasmuch as the hearings on the bill had closed, I talked with the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Buchanan, and with Mr. Sandlin, then chairman of the subcommittee, with Mr. Thurston and others and consulted with Mr. MacDonald, the Chief of the Bureau of Public Roads, and the form of the bill was changed on the floor, to appropriate $250,000 from the amount carried in the bill for the fiscal year 1936, but placed no limitation as to the expenditure of moneys from appropriations theretofore made. In that form the bill went through, without any objection from anyone on the committee, with the approbation of the full Committee on Appropriations, and no objection was made on the floor of the House.

Under the bill as it passed, appropriating $250,000 in that appropriation item, and with no limitation on the expenditure from the amount previously appropriated, the Bureau of Public Roads will have expended in Alaska at the close of the fiscal year 1936 about $623,000.

Mr. UMSTEAD. During what period?
Mr. DIMOND. During the fiscal year.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Of 1936?

Mr. DIMOND. During the fiscal year 1936. I cannot say definitely, although I talked with the men in the Bureau of Public Roads, how much remains from former appropriations, but one of the figures given me shows that there is at least $102,000; there may be more available.

There are several reasons why I believe this limitation should not be placed in the bill.

In the first place, it is quite important that it should be omitted because the Bureau of Public Roads, in collaboration with the Forest Service, has entered upon a program of building roads in Alaska which will take several years to complete, and to reduce the amount available at this time to $350,000 would simply delay a large part of the program, and would materially lessen the usefulness of the work already done.

It is valuable and desirable in Alaska, as elsewhere, to have a steady program of construction from year to year.

Mr. UMSTEAD. Do you happen to know what the recommendation of the Bureau of Public Roads to the Budget was in reference to this matter?

Mr. DIMOND. All I know is what Mr. MacDonald told me. I asked him if he had made any commitments to the Budget, and he said he had not on this point.

Last year, Mr. Cannon, when the bill came out of the committee, there was a limitation of $350,000 for this purpose. The matter was taken up with Mr. MacDonald and he then recommended that language be inserted in the bill which would enable the Bureau of Public Roads to spend during the fiscal year a larger sum which will probably total about $623.000.

They are not going to throw this money away, Mr. Chairman. The Bureau of Public Roads is a very conservative organization. The attitude of the Bureau of Public Roads is that they ought to be given greater freedom in connection with road building in Alaska than will be the case if the Bureau is limited to $350,000.

Mr. CANNON. Does Alaska share in the distribution of the forestroad fund on the same basis as the States?

Mr. DIMOND. Under the law, we share on the same basis as States, that is, figured on the value of the forest area, the number of people, the needs for transporation, and so on. Figured on that basis, we would get about nine and a half percent of the total amount of the appropriation, which would make nearly $750,000 out of this fund if there is no limitation put upon it.

Several years ago, when Mr. Simmons, of Nebraska, was a member of this subcommittee, he came to the conclusion that too much money was being spent in Alaska. Mr. MacDonald was present before the subcommittee at that time, and as I recall the testimony, Mr. MacDonald then recommended a limitation of between $500,000 and $600,000. Instead of that, the subcommittee at that time, withoutcalling in the Delegate from Alaska, reduced the amount arbitrarily to $350,000, which is too little, if you are going to carry on a proper road-building program for the forest areas of Alaska.

The Bureau of Public Roads has adopted a road program which involves the building of a road through what is known as the Chugach National Forest.

The road starts at Seward, goes out north of Seward about 18 miles, and then there is a break of about 12 miles, and then it continues for about 40 miles down to Sunrise, and on to Hope on Turnagain Arm.

They have already started their program of connecting those two pieces of road. It is highly necessary, if you are to use the money to the best advantage and get the best results that those two parts should be connected. But if this limitation is kept in the bill I do not see how that is going to be done.

The plan of the Bureau of Public Roads is to build down to the boundary of the forest reserve on the Kenai River, and to carry through that program the Alaska Road Commission, which is the other road-building agency in Alaska, which, however, is not within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, will eventually carry the road down along Cook Inlet.

The provision in this year's bill reads

That during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, the expenditures on forest highways in Alaska from the amount herein appropriated or from appropriations heretofore made for such purposes shall not exceed $350,000.

Last year's bill was exactly the same, except that it carried $250,000, and left out the final phrase, "or from appropriations heretofore made for such purposes. That language was omitted from last year's bill, and the Bureau of Public Roads was able to make use of emergency appropriations that had been made in 1934, and, I think, some in 1935. I am not sure of it, but I think they were also enabled to make expenditures from appropriations that had been made in prior appropriation bills. Therefore, the door was opened to spend more than $250,000.

Now, if you will leave out these words, "or from appropriations heretofore made for such purposes", I believe the Bureau of Public Roads could go through with the program in a moderate and systematic manner, but when you limit them to an expenditure of not to exceed $350,000 the hands of the Bureau are tied.

Mr. CANNON. Would you be kind enough to submit a tabular statement showing the amounts expended on this item for construction of roads and trails in Alaska for the last 10 years, stating the full amount spent, and the sources from which the moneys were secured! Mr. DIMOND. I will furnish such a statement as soon as I can prepare it.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

Expenditures from forest road funds by Bureau of Public Roads and Forest

The area of the forests in Alaska is about 32,000 square miles out of a total area in the territory of 589,000 square miles.

Mr. CANNON. These roads and trails would not be available in that region during the winter season.

Mr. DIMOND. No, sir; unless costly road clearing equipment and machinery were used, to remove the snow.

Mr. CANNON. There would be no justification for that expense. Mr. DIMOND. No, sir. In southeastern Alaska, however, where the larger part of the roads are located, they are open the year round. There is no difficulty in getting motor cars over them during the entire year. The roads might be blocked by snow for a day or two, but that is all. As I have said, the people cannot get out of those towns without these roads. There is a road that was built from the city of Juneau, the capital of Alaska, along the side of one of the waterways. It had been built only a short time when dozens of people built homes out along this road. They established farms and gardens there, and this road enabled them to establish themselves in that way, with access to the town. This same road should be ex tended about 12 miles to a mining camp, on Berner's Bay. That road cannot be built if this limitation is kept in the bill. This limi tation destroys the continuity of the road program. I think Mr. MacDonald, the Chief of the Bureau of Public Roads, back in 1933 or 1932, when he testified, said that they ought to have, he thought, probably five or six hundred thousand dollars for expenditure in Alaska. Now, I am not asking you to require the Bureau of Public Roads to build those highways if they think they are not justified, but I do believe that you ought to give them more money that they