Изображения страниц

You may have been here this morning, or earlier today, rather, when I mentioned the fact that we have five counties that have been designated distressed counties in Idaho, and particularly I am interested at this time in trying to assist in, providing this bill is passed, getting some work stimulated and putting some of our people to work in those five northern counties.

Do you feel that the program could be put into effect rather quickly in these five distressed counties, Dr. Selke? Dr. SELKE. I would rather have Mr. Hendee answer.

He is responsible for this. Will you answer, Clare, please?

Mrs. Prost. Thank you very much.

Mr. HENDEE. Yrs. Pfost, these five counties I believe have considerable national forest acreage, if I am right on that.

Mrs. Prost. Yes, they do.

Mr. HENDEE. Yes. People could be put to work almost immediately because we do have plans developed and it is the type of work that doesn't require a lot of getting ready as do some other work projects.

Mrs. Prost. For your information, at Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, we have a nursery started. The Forest Service has started a nursery. They are just completing some of the buildings and one of the things that has been rather interesting to me is the fact that they are able to utilize women, housewives, part days or in some instances so many days per week, and this is supplementing the income of their husbands who are not able to work. They have been able to utilize approximately 30 to 35 women in the nursery itself and the Forest Service personnel tell me that the women have been extremely efficient at this type of work.

Now, of course, the thing that I am interested in doing; we have many workover areas. We also have areas where because of soil erosion and because of cutover big plantations have not been followed through, I feel that those areas could very constructively be planted and work progress in them.

We also have, as you people I think, Dr. Selke, would be familiar with, we had the spruce bark beetle infestation in north Idaho and it was necessary for us to cut trails and various methods of fighting the spruce bark beetle.

Now, of course, we have the downed timber which is a real problem, and we don't have access roads in many of those areas. And I am interested in this program actually taking care of this type of distress area, and you people are quite confident, then, in view of the fact that we have been designated in the area of redevelopment designation that we would be able to utilize funds providing this bill passes and funds are provided for it and we would be able to go forward with our work constructively then in our forest areas. Is that true?

Mr. HENDEE. As I understand the act, Mrs. Pfost, that is correct.
Mrs. Prost. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Schwengel?

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say I come from Iowa, a neighbor, and I am sure you are aware of some soil conservation problems we have. Some of you in your Department know of my great interest in your development, and I want to say, sir, that I think it is unfortunate that the President has got you in this project because you are far more important than a lot of the other projects that you are clashing with here.

I believe you are identified with one of the most important areas and with one of the most important problems that we have in America. The soil of America is the only natural resource we have that can renew itself if we cooperate with nature. I think you


agree with that.

Dr. SELKE. I agree with you.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Everything we have depends upon that soil, and I think it is urgent that we get to work on the preservation programs that are needed.

I want to say to you that this program I believe is completely inadequate for you because you and I know we have laws to contend with before you can get going very fast in a lot of these private ownership areas, and right in my own hometown we have a project that is costing the taxpayers $10,000 or $12,000, up to $50,000 over 10 to 15 years because people up in the headwaters aren't completing their soil conservation programs up there and they aren't doing it because there is a shortcoming in the law that needs to be dealt with. Those areas are very, very important and I think we ought to give some thought to changing those laws so that we can get those watersheds completed so that the great soil erosion doesn't go on like it has been and like it is going on in northwest Iowa right now. Millions of tons of the best soil we have in the world are going down the river.

So I personally would like to see you completely divorced from this project and give new consideration to this problem, soil conservation, especially in the Midwest. This is not a spending program. This is an investment program. There isn't a better investment that we could have in America.

Mr. BLATNIK. Soil, water, trees.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Take this out of this bill and get busy on this project and have it better programed. This is most important to presentday America and to the future.

Mr. Robison. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Dr. Selke a couple of questions.

With respect to the $600 million requested by the President for the immediate acceleration of capital improvements, have you made any preliminary survey, or has someone in your Department made a survey with respect to the number of projects authorized but not yet started under Public Law 566 that might fall into the eligible areas, that is, redevelopment areas, or areas of substantial persistent unemployment.

Dr. SELKE. Mr. Brown I think could answer that.

Mr. Brown. Mr. Robison, we don't have any Public Law 566 projects authorized but not started. The manner in which this program operates is that as soon as a project is passed by resolutions of the appropriate committees, of which this is one, then the project is in operation and up to this time we have had financing provided in the appropriation, the lump sum appropriation, to move ahead progressively with carrying out that project.

Mr. Robison. Well, then, let me ask you, have you been “shorted” by Congress with respect to the necessary appropriation moneys to move ahead as the authorizations come along?

Mr. Brown. Up to this time we have been able to provide funds as rapidly as the local people generally could meet their commitments. We have I believe been fairly modest in the estimate made here that we could use some $10 to $20 million, at least modest compared to some of the other estimates that have been presented here today, but this is because the act under which we operate does require certain conditions, as Mr. Schwengel pointed out, that must be met by local people. So this is not under the control of our agency.

We do believe there could be a modest speedup in this program on a short of a forced draft basis because there is in the aggregate a number of the structures on which easements have now been cleared, and by putting on some temporary additional surveyors and engineers and craftsmen, and so forth, we could speed up in any 12-month period possibly as much as $10 to $20 million which would be, of course_our 1963 budget for all watershed activities is about $83 million, so this doesn't represent proportionately any vast speedup.

Mr. Robison. Thank you, sir, but to get back to my original question, then under the $600 million part of the proposal, there will probably be no small watershed projects that could be accelerated. Would that be right?

Mr. Brown. I would say the conditions would be the same under the $600 million or under the longer term program if funds were made available. Out of that we could begin to accelerate, yes.

Mr. Robison. There is an added problem in that the $600 million is supposed to go only into areas designated as redevelopment areas under the Area Redevelopment Act.

Mr. Brown. Yes. We have a great many projects now authorized in those counties that are designated under the ARA Act. So we could move ahead on those authorized projects.

Mr. ROBINSON. You don't know what they would amount to as of now, do you?

Mr. Brown. I couldn't tell you the proportion of the total number of projects in those counties at the moment.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. If we had some modernization or up-dating of our laws and dealt with some of the shortcomings that we know about that are based on experience, we could bring a lot more of these projects into being in a hurry, couldn't we?

Mr. Brown. It would require some amendments to the existing act to provide a real acceleration program.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. The greatest help we could give you is to change some laws to improve the atmosphere in which you could work.

Mr. BROWN. I would say that.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. That is more important right now to you than money. Isn't that true?

Mr. BROWN. Well, so far

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Vast expansion of the program. For instance, if you want to set a target date-in the Interior Department they have a inission. They call it Mission 66.

Mr. Brown. I will repeat again, Mr. Schwengel, so far I would say the Congress has beeen quite generous in providing appropriations at

a rate suflicient to meet all of the local needs as fast as they can meet their requirements, their commitments under the law.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Right. If we had a law, for instance-I have in mind now this Black Hawk Creek area in my hometown—whereby, we will say, 60 or 65 percent of the people voted in favor of the watershed and you go ahead and it makes sense, I think it would be in the public interest. But the way it is now, you have to get them all signed up, isn't that right?

Mr. Brown. Well, I would say that the largest single bottleneck to moving the program at a faster rate is the fact that local people must acquire the land easements and rights without any Federal cost, and the matter of financing this acquisition really takes some doing on their part.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. And that phase could be changed, too, in my opinion, but also other phases of the law, and then our relationship dealing with the various State laws needs to be looked into, too.

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir, I agree with you.

Mr. SCHWENGEL. Then we could break the backlog and then really get moving on this program.

Mr. Robison. Don't you now have some sort of a loan program, though, for the local contribution under the 566 program!

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. The Watershed Act includes a loan provision and the loan organizations sponsoring the projects are eligible to obtain a loan from FHA under the provisions of this act to finance the local share of their costs.

Mr. Robison. To a certain extent, then, that would be duplicated in this proposal, it seems to me, the loan provision that is?

Mr. Brown. Well, we haven't contemplated, Mr. Robison that the loan provision of this bill would come into play in the watershed activity. We believe that only section t, acceleration of Federal projects, that would be the only section that would be applicable to acceleration of the watershed program.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Harvey?

I'm sorry.

Mr. Robison. Would you take a look for me at section 7(a)-not now but at your convenience—and tell me, perhaps in letter form if you would later on, whether the loan provisions here would also apply to your program.

Mr. Brown. Yes, sir. I will be glad to.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Harvey?

Mr. HARVEY. Dr. Selke, on March 22, I believe, of this year the House Labor Committee reported out a bill which would set up a Youth Conservation Corps, and if I can describe the bill fairly accurately, I think what it would do would be to anthorize expenditure of about $30 million ammually if it were passed by the Congress for the enrollment of some 12,000 young people in certain public works projects, let us say, for the benefit of the country, similar to the former CCC's that we had years ago.

Now, I know that a representative of the Agriculture Department testified in behalf of that bill, and my first question, sir, is did you testify in behalf of that bill?

Dr. SELKE. I don't think I did in 1962. I think I testified in behalf of that bill in 1961.

Mr. Harvey. I thought you were going to say back about 1933. Dr. SELKE. If I wished to be accurate, I did that then, too. Mr. HARVEY. I see. At any rate, my next question thenDr. SELKE. It was the Secretary of Agriculture who testified in 1962, as I recall. Am I right on that?

Mr. HARVEY. But there is no question that the Department of Agriculture

Dr. SELKE. Nobody has testified in 1962, I think, on it.
Mr. HARVEY. The testimony was in 1961, is that correct?
Dr. SELKE. Yes.

Mr. HARVEY. Although the bill was reported out by the Committee in 1962.

Dr. SELKE. That is right.

Mr. HARVEY. There is no question, however, that the Department of Agriculture has come out and endorsed that particular program. Dr. SELKE. That is right.

Mr. HARVEY. And my next question, sir, is whether you can tell me if these projects that you are here recommending to us today are in addition to those projects that were recommended by the Department to the House Labor Committee for this Youth Conservation Corps.

Dr. SELKE. Well, if I may take a moment to answer that, I would be very happy to, because I do know these programs, not only in this country but in many other countries, I wish to say, but in regard to the programs which you referred to, the Youth Conservation Corps in which I believe very definitely, and I don't think I could take the time to tell you why I believe in it, but it is very true that there are many things which young men who go to work on programs of this kind from which they can get experiences for their own good and then also contribute something to improve forests, to improve parks, to improve various recreational facilities and things of that kind.

There is one difference between that program and the one we discussed today. When I think of a Youth Conservation Corps program or a youth conservation program or any youth program, I am thinking more of what the program does to the youth than I do to what it does to the job. In other words, if we have a Youth Conservation Corps, I know they can help with forestry tremendously. But I am more concerned about what forestry does for the youth if we are going to call it a youth program. This program now would be mature people, I mean, that we discussed this afternoon, mature people working to bring something home to those who are dependent upon them and those whom they love and at the same time do something worthwhile to society. There is a very great difference between the two.

Mr. Harvey. Dr. Selke, I think maybe you misunderstood my question.

Dr. SELKE. No.

Mr. HARVEY. I didn't mean for you to think I was attempting to disparage this Youth Conservation Corps in the least. On the contrary, what brought it to my attention was page 2 of your statement.

If you will look at it for a moment, sir, you will note there you have listed several types of capital improvement work to be accomplished on the national forests, and then including—and you have listed several of them below, and one of them came to my attention, for ex

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »