« AnteriorContinuar »
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1937.
ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CEMETERY, FORT SNELLING, MINNEAP
STATEMENT OF MILLARD W. RICE, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. WOODRUM. Gentlemen, Mr. Rice, representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars, would like to make a statement to us in connection with the establishment of a national cemetery at Fort Snelling, Minneapolis, Minn.
Mr. Rice, we shall be glad to have a brief statement from you at this time.
Mr. Rice. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, let me say first that Congress has already passed two bills that have become public laws which authorize the establishment of a national cemetery at Fort Snelling, Minneapolis, Minn., which is contemplated to be an area cemetery; that is, to take care of not only Minnesota, but also of the surrounding four States.
However, no appropriation has been made by Congress, in spite of the fact that there must have been a recommendation by the War Department to that end, because detail plans have been made, or the information for detail plans has been furnished.
I do not know definitely whether it was turned down by the Bureau of the Budget, or just what transpired, but it did not come to this committee. I should like to have the committee call the War Department and find out whether or not it made a definite recommendation. I have every reason to believe that they did, in conformance with the law authorizing and directing it to do so.
I believe that it would necessitate the sum of about $150,000 for the current year, with the anticipation that that would make possible an additional appropriation or allocation of funds from W. P. A. of about $250,000 I have the assurance of the W. P. A. in Minnesota that they have the labor available there for working on this project in the event that the money becomes available.
Because of the lack of appropriation, that has not been done up to this time. If a constructive program of this kind is not made available, they will have to fritter away their time on some project that is not nearly as meritorius as this one. And this is one to which the Federal Government has already committed itself. It would seem inconsistent to authorize the establishment of this national cemetery by the passage of two separate acts, and then fail to furnish the funds to make that establishment possible.
Mr. WOODRUM. Why cannot W. P. A. go ahead with it, without further authorization?
Mr. Rice. Because they must have a sponsor's share, and the State government cannot furnish it, nor can the local agency, the city. It is a Federal project, therefore, the sponsor's share for it, for the material, and so forth, must come through the War Department itself.
The War Department has prepared a chart, which I have here, showing with reference to Minnesota the contemplated number of deaths and the contemplated number of burials that would take place in connection with this proposed national cemetery.
This chart shows that their anticipation is that there would be a total number of burials of 36,832; that there have been 10,528 who have died in that area up to this time.
Also on this chart for the entire country, they have listed Minnesota as being one of the States that has a national cemetery, there being 20 other States that do not have a national cemetery. Those that do not are so listed. Those that do are not listed. Then there is also shown the total contempated number of burials in that cemetery.
But no burials can be made here because nothing can be done on this ground that has been set aside for this purpose until there shall first be an appropriation.
SIZE OF PROPOSED CEMETERY
Mr. WOODRUM. What is the acreage that has been set aside for this purpose?
Mr. Rice. One hundred and seventy-seven acres plus.
Mr. RICE. Yes. It was War Department property. It is in a corner of the War Department reservation there. That happens to be my home town, so I know about it. It cannot possibly be of any value for military purposes.
Also, it would relieve a congested situation there relative to the existing post cemetery that is now in between barracks buildings. Nothing can be done until at least some money is made available.
Mr. Boylan. It is up to the War Department to designate the States where national cemeteries will be located or established?
Mr. Rice. Yes. There is a general law that makes that possible, but they have hesitated in past years to do that except on the basis of specific designation by Congress itself. They do have that general authority, but they have not been exercising it because, if they did, it would necessitate additional appropriations.
Mr. BOYLAN. Where a designation is made, what has the practice been heretofore about the expense of laying it out, and so forth?
Mr. Rice. That has come directly from War Department appropriations.
Mr. BOYLAN. Especially designated appropriations?
Mr. Rice. That is correct. For example, San Francisco was given a cemetery last year by a special public act, an act of Congress. The War Department appropriation contained an item for the development of that cemetery. It failed, however, for some unexplained reason, to contain any items for the development of the authorized cemetery at Fort Bliss, Tex., and for this one at Minneapolis. The one at Fort Bliss would need an appropriation of about $100,000, according to the estimates that I have gotten unofficially from the War Department; and it would need about $150,000 for the current year for the one at Fort Snelling.
There is no national cemetery in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, or Montana-well, there is a very small one in Montana.
Mr. Boylan. What is the prospective demand for burials in that section?
Mr. Rice. Their estimate is that there would be burials in the number of 36,832, of World War veterans, over the span of their lives.
Mr. BOYLAN. But they may not all be buried there.
Mr. Rice. Oh, no. There is a greater number of veterans than that in the State. I say, that is their contemplated estimate of the number that would be buried there in the event the cemetery is established, on the basis of their experience in other States.
Mr. Boylan. Thirty-six thousand?
Mr. RICE. Yes, 36,832. There are 120,000 World War veterans residing in the State now.
Mr. BOYLAN. What would be the approximate capacity of the cemetery as proposed?
Mr. Řice. One hundred and seventy-seven acres, and they can bury about 600 to the acre. I have not figured out the arithmetic of it.
Mr. BOYLAN. Six hundred to the acre?
Mr. Rice. Yes. That would come to much more than 36,000; it would make available room for many more than 36,000.
Mr. TABER. It would make-
Mr. Boylan. I am speaking now about the total capacity, the area being 177 acres.
Mr. Rice. Well, it would be 600 times 177.
Mr. BOYLAN. You think it would come to 600 to the acre, is that your estimate?
Mr. RICE. That is correct.
Mr. Rice. Yes; of course, with proper landscaping, etc., the number might be less than that.
Mr. BOYLAN. It probably would be less.
Mr. Rice. They contemplate that they would not start to develop the 177 acres if they received this first appropriation of $150,000. They would develop-.
Mr. Boylan. Only a part of it?
Mr. Rice. Only a part of it, that is right. It is a triangular section of land. They would develop the apex of the triangle first, just a little at a time as they figured they might need it.
Mr. Ludlow. Have there been instances where the Government acted in the roll of a sponsor in a W. P. A. project?
Mr. Rice. There have; yes, indeed.
Mr. Ludlow. That means that the Government furnished all the money for the entire project?
Mr. Rice. Yes; out of two different pockets; that is right.
Mr. WOODRUM. If there is nothing further, Mr. Rice, thank you. We will take this under consideration.
Mr. RICE. May I say that Congressman Maas had intended to be here. He is ill and is unable to be here and asked me to make this statement in his behalf.
Mr. WOODRUM. Thank you.
JULY 21, 1937.
COOPERATIVE FARM FORESTRY
STATEMENTS OF W. A. JUMP, BUDGET OFFICER ; EARLE H. CLAPP,
ASSOCIATE CHIEF; GERALD D. COOK, DIVISION OF PRIVATE TIMBERLAND COOPERATION; R. E. MARSH, ASSISTANT CHIEF, FOREST RESEARCH DIVISION; AND C. W. WARBURTON, DIRECTOR OF EXTENSION WORK
FARM FORESTATION AND WOODLAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. WOODRUM. We will take up the supplemental estimate in House Document No. 301 for the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of enabling the Secretary of Agriculture to carry into effect the provisions of the Cooperative Farm Forestry Act, approved May 18, 1937 (Public, No. 95, 75th Cong.) including the employment of persons and means in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the purchase of reference books and technical journals, printing and binding, the purchase (not to exceed $9,000), operation, and maintenance of passenger-carrying vehicles, the construction or purchase of necessary buildings and other improvements, fiscal year 1938, $1,000,000, provided that the cost of any building purchased, erected, or as improved, exclusive of the cost of constructing a water supply or sanitary system and of connecting the same with any such building, shall not exceed $7,500.
The authorizing act will be inserted in the record at this point.
The act entitled "An act to authorize cooperation in the development of farm forestry in the States and Territories, and for other purposes”, approved May 18, 1937, provides as follows:
That in order to aid agriculture, increase farm-forest income, conserve water resources, increase employment, and in other ways advance the general welfare and improve living conditions on farms through reforestation and afforestation in the various States and Territories, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized in cooperation with the land-grant colleges and universities and State forestry agencies, each within its respective field of activities, according to the statutes, if any, of the respective States, wherever such agencies can and will cooperate, or in default of such cooperation to act directly, to produce or procure and distribute forest trees and shrub planting stock; to make necessary investigations; to advise farmers regarding the establishment, protection, and management of farm forests and forest and shrub plantations and the harvesting, utilization, and marketing of the products thereof; and to enter into cooperative agreements for the establishment, protection, and care of farm- or other forest-land tree and shrub plantings within such States and Territories; and, whenever suitable Government-owned lands are not available, to lease, purchase, or accept donations of land and develop nursery sites for the production of such forest planting stock as is needed to effectuate the purposes of this Act, but not including ornamental or other stock for landscape plantings commonly grown by established commercial nurserymen, and no stock grown in Government and cooperating nurseries shall be allowed to enter regular trade channels. No cooperative reforestation or afforestation shall be undertaken pursuant to this Act unless the cooperator makes available without charge the land to be planted. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated annually not to exceed $2,500,000 for carrying out the purposes of this Act. This Act shall be known as the Cooperative Farm Forestry Act.
Mr. WOODRUM. That authorizing act authorizes $2,500,000. The Budget estimate is $1,000,000. Are you going to tell us about that, Mr. Jump?
Mr. JUMP. This estimate involves several lines of work that are authorized by the new enabling act; for that reason we have brought several people here to testify, not with the idea of holding you for any longer time than the Committee may want to take; but if you have the time to permit a detailed discussion, we would like to present some of the activities in detail for the information of the committee.
I believe the best way to begin is for Mr. Clapp, Acting Forester, to make a brief statement of just what the enabling act contemplates.
Mr. WOODRUM. All right, Mr. Clapp.
Mr. CLAPF. The act is intended to be broad enough to cover pretty thoroughly the whole field of farm forestry, that is, all Government activities that will be necessary to put the farm forestry on a satisfactory basis in the United States, starting with the establishment of the forests, their planting or establishment by natural processes, and carrying down through the culture and protection and all of that, and the cutting and the marketing of the products, so that the farmers will be in a position to grow the most material and the best material and get the best prices from it.
Beyond the question of scope, which is very broad, the intent also was to bring to bear on this problem the Federal agencies and the State agencies that are interested, the agencies in the Federal Department of Agriculture and the various agencies of the State governments, so that we will have coordination of public efforts, Federal and State, upon this big farm problem.
We in the Department regard this as a wonderful opportunity in a field which we think has been pretty sadly neglected on the whole.
To just give you a little idea of the scope of this thing: There is anywhere from 150 to 175 or 185 million acres that fall into the farm woodlot class. That comprises the largest area that is devote i to any single product on the farms in the United States. The latest information that we have indicates that the actual production of wood in these farm woodlots is not on the whole more than one-third and probably less than one-third of the possibilities.
Mr. WOODRUM. What do you mean by “farm woodlots”?
When you get into the question of returns, that is, the return that the farmers get, the percentage of possibilities is probably still less than production as such, because the farmers very often are at the mercy of the buyers. They have small quantities to sell, and they take what they can get.
DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATE
We have broken this estimate down into four projects as follows: 1. Cooperative projects with States. Forest Service and State
forestry agencies, cooperatively, will produce or procure tree-