Funds budgeted by individual States for forestry work, fiscal year 1937-Coutinued

Large expenditures of State forestry funds are made for fire protection and suppression, but only a fraction over 9 percent of the State forest budgets is earmarked or diverted for the production and distribution of planting stock or for farm forestry work.

OBLIGATIONS UNDER ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS FROM EMERGENCY RELIEF ACT OF 1937

Mr. WOODRUM. You will also place in the record a statement covering this $700,000, showing what you will spend it for. Mr. CLAPP. I will do so.

(Statement requested is as follows:)

Schedule of obligations of Emergency Relief Administration funds for prairie States

Schedule of obligations of Emergency Relief Administration funds for prairie States forestry project-Continued

PLANTING OF NURSERY STOCK ON FARMS SHOULD BE STATES FUNCTION

Mr. BACON. What I am getting at is this: It seems to be that this is essentially a State problem, and I am trying to find out why the Federal Government should go into it as a Federal proposition.

Mr. CLAPP. As I have stated, this particular phase of the forestry problem on the farm has been badly neglected as compared with other farm crops.

Mr. BACON. I can see why the Federal Government should make a general survey, and should make known the results of that survey, but it seems to me that the Federal Government should not do the actual planting.

Mr. LUDLOW. Has any State made an appropriation for this purpose?

Mr. CLAPP. Some of them are doing relatively small amounts of work.

Mr. LUDLOW. Have they actually made any appropriations?

Mr. CLAPP. I do not know whether any States have appropriated funds specifically for farm forests.

Mr. BACON. My own State makes a very large appropriation every year for the reforesting of abandoned farm lands throughout the State. When a farm is abandoned, they buy it at $1 per acre, and plant trees on it.

Mr. CLAPP. I imagine that New York makes about the largest appropriation of any State for that purpose, but, in general, something is needed to stimulate the State activities in this field. A part of the justification for this is that the Federal Government must go into it to stimulate the State agencies.

Mr. BACON. I can see the justification of making the survey, and I can see the justification of the Federal Government acting as the guide, counselor, and friend of the State authorities in the matter, but I think that the actual planting should be done at the expense of the different States.

Mr. CLAPP. A good deal of the work will actually be done by the States. We will try to get them to contribute financially also. Some Federal contribution will put this thing across, but if there is no Federal contribution, it will move much more slowly.

DEMAND BY STATES FOR SHELTERBELT WORK

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. As I understand it, this tentative program is a suggestion from the Department here in Washington, and not the result of any definite demand from the States that would be affected by it.

Mr. CLAPP. There is a demand from the States. I think that all of a sudden there has been a kind of general realization throughout the country that here is a part of the forestry problem that is not receiving the attention it needs.

Mr. LUDLOW. Is this shelter-belt enterprise urged for climatic reasons?

Mr. CLAPP. There is no question but that these strips cut down the local wind movement. That means less movement of hot and dry winds that simply wither and destroy the crops. It cuts down the wind movement so that the snow does not blow away, but melts and goes into the ground. It means less wind movement and the protection of livestock in the open, in the winter season.

Mr. LUDLOW. It will be on a character of land where trees will readily grow?

Mr. CLAPP. Yes, sir; we are satisfied that they can be grown. It is not an easy problem, but we are satisfied that they can be grown. Mr. WOODRUM. We thank you for your statement.

TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1937.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

BUREAU OF LIGHTHOUSES

STATEMENTS OF C. A. PARK, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER; AND WALTER P. HARMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

SPECIAL PROJECTS, VESSELS, AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

Mr. WOODRUM. We have before us in House Document No. 34 a supplemental estimate of appropriation for the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Lighthouses, for special projects, vessels, and aids to navigation.

Mr. Park, will you give us a statement on this item, please?

This provides for an additional amount for constructing or purchasing and equipping lighthouse tenders and light vessels for the Lighthouse Service, $20,000; and for establishing and improving aids. to navigation and other works, $320,600; in all $340,600.

Mr. PARK. These items, Mr. Chairman, are all, with possibly the one exception, vessels, matters beyond the control of the Lighthouse Service. They represent expenditures in connection with the marking of channels which have been improved by the War Department and reached the stage now where this marking is required.

MAINTENANCE OF RADIO BEACON AT ST. PAUL ISLAND, ALASKA

The first item is in a little different category; that is the item for St. Paul Island. The situation there is that the Navy Department, which has maintained a radio-communication station and a radiocompass station at that point, desires to discontinue their service there and concentrate at Dutch Harbor, which is a more accessible point for them; it is open all the year around. They have a considerable personnel, or have had, at St. Paul Island, in maintaining their equipment, which they wish to reduce by this concentration.

Mr. CANNON. Is this of any aid to the air service, or is it useful only to marine service and land service?

Mr. PARK. I believe it would be useful only to marine service. It would be of very little use to air service except for purposes of communication although the radio beacon, would be useful to aircraft provided they were equipped with direction finders.

The proposal of the Navy Department was that the Lighthouse Service and the Bureau of Fisheries, which are represented on that island, together carry on what is necessary. Our proposal is to provide here for the maintenance of a radio beacon at that point, which will meet the needs of navigation, as far as guiding commerce is concerned, and then the Bureau of Fisheries will take care of the communication end of it.

Mr. WOODRUM. Have you a break-down of this $7,000 item? What is it for?

Mr. PARK. I do not have a break-down here, Mr. Chairman, but I can give it to you from memory.

Mr. WOODRUM. Very well.

Mr. PARK. It represents the cost of transmitting equipment, about $4,000; that is, two radio-beacon transmitters. It represents generating equipment to the extent of about $1,000 and installation and miscellaneous equipment of $2,000, including improvement of the

Less equipment already provided by Lighthouse Service by transfer from other points in the Service...

Net to be provided...

800

1, 200

7,000

2,000

5,000

Mr. CANNON. The Navy is going to dismantle their station there and remove all the equipment?

Mr. PARK. No. They will leave the antenna tower and their communication transmitter.

Mr. CANNON. But it is no longer of any service to the Navy, inasmuch as they are going to transfer their base. What is the importance of the commerce which would be served by this, now that the Navy will no longer be there?

Mr. PARK. It is still important to the Navy for their occasional trips up there. It is important to the Coast Guard in their patrol work.

Mr. CANNON. That is only semioccasionally?

Mr. PARK. There is regular traffic there during the open season. Mr. CANNON. What is the length of the open season; what is the character of this traffic?

Mr. PARK. From June to October, inclusive, could be regarded as the open season. The character of the traffic is the handling of supplies for that northwest country from Seattle, chiefly, during that period, to Nome and other settlements there.

Mr. CANNON. You have no information of the tonnage?

Mr. PARK. I could not give you the tonnage, no sir. It is not large, however, because the population up there is rather small. The population of this island itself is considerable. Here is a picture of the island.

NOTE. The total tonnage shown for Nome Harbor in 1935 was 17,862 tons valued at $3,952,000.

Mr. WOODRUM. In your justification, you state that the proposed arrangement is estimated to effect material economies in operation and maintenance cost of the Navy Department, and to adequately provide for the needs of shipping and of the Bureau of Fisheries. What economies would be effected by this arrangement?

Mr. PARK. The Navy has been maintaining there a radio compass station, with a number of employees. I cannot give you the number, but there would be at least four employees. Under this arrangement, we will save those employees.

Mr. WOODRUM. Is that civilian or enlisted personnel?

Mr. PARK. I believe it is enlisted personnel.

Mr. CANNON. This photograph, apparently, shows construction of the Navy.

Mr. PARK. Yes, sir; the original construction was by the Navy. Mr. CANNON. When the Navy moves out, this will be abandoned? Mr. PARK. Yes, sir; except insofar as it will be adaptable to the radiobeam station.

Mr. CANNON. Then, due to that inaction, the civilian population will not remain, will it?

Mr. PARK. I think the civilian population remains, as it is connected with the operations of the Fisheries Bureau in that locality. Mr. CANNON. What is the permanent population?

Mr. PARK. I think it is about four or five hundred.

I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, that we are prepared to reduce this estimate from $7,000 to $5,000, because of equipment that we have been able to apply to this project.

Mr. LUDLOW. Does the Bureau of Fisheries have any interest in it? Mr. PARK. Yes, sir; they will maintain a radio operator there. They will handle the communications and will take care of our equipment. We are not proposing to place any personnel there.

Mr. CANNON. When did this situation develop or become evident, or why was it not taken up in connection with the original estimates for the regular bill?

Mr. PARK. It became evident about September of last year.

Mr. CANNON. Was there not ample time in which to include it in the estimates for the regular bill?

Mr. PARK. The attention of the Bureau of the Budget was invited to it although budget estimates had already been submitted.

Mr. CANNON. Did they refuse to consider it, or reject it?