involving present or potential damage to lands or improvements, shall be covered into the Treasury and are hereby appropriated and made available until expended to cover the cost to the United States of any improvement, protection, or rehabilitation work on lands under the administration of the Forest Service rendered necessary by the action which led to the forfeiture, judgment, compromise, or settlement: Provided, That any portion of the moneys so received in excess of the amount expended in performing the work necessitated by the action which led to their receipt shall be transferred to miscellaneous receipts.

SEC. 8. The Secretary may require the users of roads or trails on national forest and other lands under the administrative control of the Forest Service to deposit such sums as the Secretary estimates to be necessary to cover the cost of maintenance made necessary by their use thereof. Such deposits shall be covered into the Treasury and are hereby appropriated and made available, until expended as the Secretary may direct, to cover road and trail maintenance on such lands.

ACT OF MAY 11, 1922 (16 U. S. C. 556)

SEC. 9. [And provided further] Provided further, That hereafter no part of any funds appropriated for the Forest Service shall be paid or used for the purpose of paying for, in whole or in part, the preparation or publication of any newspaper or magazine article, but this shall not prevent the giving out to all persons, without discrimination, including newspapers and magazine writers and publishers, of any facts or official information of value to the public: And provided further, That this prohibition shall not apply to scientific or technical articles prepared for or published in scientific publications.

ACT OF MARCH 3, 1925, AS AMENDED (16 U. S. C. 555)

SEC. 10. Where no suitable Government land is available for national-forest headquarters, ranger stations, dwellings, or for other sites required for the effective conduct of the authorized activities of the Forest Service, the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized to purchase such lands out of the appropriation applicable to the purpose for which the land is to be used, and to accept donations of land for any national forest or experimental purpose: Provided, That such lands may be acquired subject to such reservations and outstanding interests as the Secretary determines will not interfere with the purpose for which acquired: Provided further, That not to exceed [$25,000 $50,000 may be expended in any one fiscal year pursuant to this authority.

Mr. GRANT. Thank you, Mr. Crafts.

The House is meeting at 11 o'clock and we are somewhat under the hammer. We do not want to cut off discussion, and if we have to meet again, to finish it, we will just have to do it. But I think for the matter of discussion, Mr. Crafts, instead of deferring it, we might go to sections 7 and 8, which have been called to the attention of the committee, and have discussion by the membership on that, and further explanation from you in regard to these two sections.

After we dispose of those we can go from there, so if you would go into a little more detail regarding section 7, first, and then section 8, I am sure that the committee will appreciate it.

I might ask if any of the members have any particular questions as to section 7, particularly as to the objection that was raised by Mr. Nelson a few moments ago, as to these two sections?

Mr. McINTIRE. I think it might be well for the record if under section 7 there were figures put in there as to the total amount of money that is involved annually in forfeitures.

Mr. CRAFTS. About $200,000.

Mr. McINTIRE. About $200,000?

Mr. CRAFTS. In both of the categories, not in the forfeitures alone, but in the two categories that section 7 would cover.

The forfeitures

and deposits or judgments end settlements included therein are about $200,000, more or less.

Mr. McINTIRE. Thank you.

Mr. HEIMBURGER. How directly does the Forest Service proceed against some individual who, they believe, has negligently caused trouble?

Mr. CRAFTS. Not very effectively. We do not like to exercise the authorities that we have here for forfeitures by proceeding against the individuals.

But there are cases where we do, and it comes to about $200,000 a year. I cannot tell you how many cases a year are involved offhand. There are such situations, though. Strip mining is a good example, which applies to acquired national-forest lands, where we can require the miner to restore the site to productivity; and if he does not do that, either we restore the productivity with appropriated funds, or the job is not done. In any settlement that is received from him the funds go into the Treasury.

Quite often the situation has occurred where we are not able because of lack of appropriated funds to take the action necessary to restore the site to productivity.

Mr. JOHNSON. You have to use appropriated money the way the law is now; the other way you would be able to use the money recovered?

Mr. CRAFTS. Yes; but if we recovered any in excess of restoration needs the excess would go into the Treasury.

Mr. JOHNSON. You must have some regulations that you use now on these different roads, that at certain times you keep them off— you must have regulations to haul a less amount?

Mr. CRAFTS. The road question comes in section 8 primarily; the States have the road limits.

Mr. JOHNSON. I know. We do in Wisconsin.

Mr. CRAFTS. And what is involved here is not so much the matter of road limits, if I may talk of section 8 for a moment. What is involved here is that there are certain commercial users of the roadsand by that I mean the miners, or the timber operators who are cutting on private land inside of the national forest and using nationalforest roads to get their products out-who, as a consequence of that use, subject the road to more than ordinary wear and tear of the casual incidental user, such as the recreationist.

We can now require those users to do maintenance on the roads. We can, if they wish it, do the work for them. But if they do not ask us to do the work for them, or if they do not do it themselves, then it either does not get done, or we do it with funds which were appropriated for road construction and maintenance.

We do ordinary maintenance on the road. It seems equitable that we should to this out of appropriated funds. It has also seemed equitable in a situation where there is heavy commercial use for that particular user to pay for the extra maintenance occasioned by his use. Mr. DIXON. Do you have many situations in which they do not voluntarily make this protective deposit to you?

Mr. CRAFTS. I could not tell you, Mr. Dixon, offhand, how many situations we have of that type. But we do have quite a few. I could get that information for you.

Mr. DIXON. That would justify this.

Mr. CRAFTS. We think so.

Mr. GRANT. At the present time it is permissive-it is not mandatory-for the user to make a deposit?

Mr. CRAFTS. That is correct. It is permissive for the user to ask us to do it, if he does not perform himself.

Mr. JOHNSON. They have to make the deposit, now, though, don't they; is that correct?

Mr. CRAFTS. We may accept deposits, but we may not require them. But if he does not do the work himself or offer us a deposit then we are stuck, you see.

'

Mr. JOHNSON. Can you not keep him from using the road if he does not make the deposit, and starts hauling the timber out?

Mr. CRAFTS. That is a question I should ask our attorneys. I do not know. May I ask one of them?

Mr. GRANT. According to your statement, the user cannot be required to make this deposit.

Mr. CRAFTS. He cannot be required to make a deposit for us to use. That is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. I see. He can do the work if he wants to?

Mr. CRAFTS. He can if he wants to, but we can't make him give us the money for us to get it.

Mr. JOHNSON. If he does not want to, then the money has to go back to the Treasury, and you have to make it out of the appropriated money?

Mr. CRAFTS. That is correct.

Mr. GRANT. Are there any further questions as to section 7?

Mr. McINTIRE. I have another question that relates to section 7. Is it your understanding that if these funds which are accumulated by both provisions 1 and 2, forfeiture or judgment settlement, if those would be available, would they have to be used only to the extent to which that particular situation contributed to the fund or would the whole fund be available to the Forest Service for use wherever they chose?

Mr. CRAFTS. My understanding, Mr. McIntire, is the former of your alternatives.

Mr. McINTIRE. In other words, if you had a certain situation under which you made a settlement for $5,000, and you got $5,000 to repa r that particular situation, you would not have access to the total fund to do a specific job?

Mr. CRAFTS. We would have access to the $5,000 to repair that particular situation, and if there were any left over, we would not be able to use it. That would go to the Treasury.

Mr. McINTIRE. If it was not sufficient?

Mr. CRAFTS. Then we would have to make it up.

Mr. McINTIRE. It would only be to the extent of the $5,000?
Mr. CRAFTS. That is correct.

Mr. BURNS. On that same point, Mr. Crafts, you do not have a miscellaneous receipt now in the Forest Service, that you can use for your own work without any report otherwise, or without appropriation?

Mr. CRAFTS. No; our work is financed by appropriated funds. Mr. BURNS. I noticed you used "Miscellaneous receipts" account here rather than Treasury account.

Mr. CRAFTS. Perhaps the terminology is wrong. account we can draw on.

Mr. BURNS. It goes into the United States Treasury?
Mr. CRAFTS. Yes; that is correct.

It is not an

Mr. McINTIRE. It goes in as a miscellaneous receipt rather than timber-sales receipt, or that type of classification?

Mr. CRAFTS. That is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. Going back to the question I had on section 8, you say that the purchaser of the timber has to make his deposit now, before he goes on the roads?

Mr. CRAFTS. That is right.

Mr. JOHNSON. When he signs the contract. How could this legislation, then, be to his particular advantage, if he has to make the deposit? It only provides means for you to use the money when you receive it instead of going into the Treasury. I do not see where it puts him in any worse position?

Mr. CRAFTS. Maybe I gave the wrong answer; Mr. Tremain, our attorney, thinks that I did give you the wrong answer. Could he answer the question?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. TREMAIN. My name is Rawleigh L. Tremain.

Under the timber-purchase agreement, the purchaser may be required to perform his maintenance. We cannot require him to deposit money which the Forest Service can use for that maintenance. Of course, they do deposit advance payments to guarantee funds out of which payment is made for the timber which is cut, and we hold those deposits for that purpose, but not for the road construction. Mr. JOHNSON. Then you have no guaranty; after he gets his timber off you are out of luck on collecting for the road.

Mr. TREMAIN. Presumably he would have done his road maintenance as he goes along. And if he fails to perform all of the requirements of the timber-sale contract, his operations may be suspended or the contract terminated.

Mr. DIXON. With regard to section 10, you have $25,000 now in the budget, I imagine for that?

Mr. CRAFTS. No; we have $4 million appropriated this year for construction purposes. The $25,000

Mr. DIXON. That is not for purchase.

Mr. CRAFTS. Not just for purchase, but for purchase and construction; and the $25,000 is an authorization limitation. In other words, we cannot spend more than $25,000 in any 1 year, to purchase an administrative site at the present time.

Mr. DIXON. You would not need any more money; all you would need is to have the authorization raised from $25,000 to $50,000? Mr. CRAFTS. That is correct.

Mr. DIXON. All of these former sections handle more or less problems of personnel. I have some idea of the difficulty you have getting men to go and live in these remote areas.

Mr. CRAFTS. I know you do.

Mr. DIXON. Have you been having difficulty in acquiring new people, and keeping your staff in the service, due to these inconveniences?

Mr. CRAFTS. It is difficult now, and it is becoming more difficult, because young men who come out of college and start working are

not as willing as they used to be to go out in these remote areas and put up with a lot of inconveniences that used to be expected of them 25 or 30 years ago.

The combination of those difficult working conditions and the salary aspect has made it difficult for us to retain some of the people whom we would like to have.

Mr. DIXON. I am very much in sympathy with your point of view, and I compliment you on your fine testimony.

Mr. CRAFTS. We thank you, sir.

Mr. GRANT. Is there any further statement in respect to the bill? Mr. JENNINGS. I am very much interested in reference to this strip mining in the eastern part of the United States. Just what has been some of your experiences with reference to strip mining? If you fly over the area, one is quite concerned to see so many scars, particularly in my section, where we had a very disastrous flood this past winter. Mr. CRAFTS. Of course a lot of what you see is not on Government land.

Mr. JENNINGS. I understand that.

Mr. CRAFTS. Maybe I should preface my remarks by saying that on the eastern national forests the ownership is very irregular, and there is often inside the national-forest boundaries as much or more private land than there is national-forest land. So you cannot tell when you fly over these eastern mountain areas and look down on strip mining whether it is on Government or private land.

We have no control or authority with respect to private land even though it is inside of the national forests.

With respect to the mining which we permit on national-forest lands, we can write into the permits requirements for restoration of plant cover, control of erosion, water contamination, and that sort of thing; and we do that. We think, by and large, that we have been reasonably successful except where we run into situations which I mentioned here.

Mr. JENNINGS. As I understand it, though, if he fails to perform and forfeits the bond, that goes to the Treasury. What you are asking for is the authority here

Mr. CRAFTS. To use the money, to do the work ourselves.

Mr. JENNINGS. To make the restoration immediately, rather than wait?

Mr. CRAFTS. Rather than wait until we get an appropriation. Mr. JENNINGS. Well, now, as I understand it, some of the contractors are objecting; what objection would there be?

Mr. CRAFTS. I do not know of objections to this, or to any part of this bill, except the question that was raised by the witness who just preceded me.

Mr. JENNINGS. Was that section 7? I was not here.

Mr. CRAFTS. That objection was not a mining objection. That was an objection that went to a request for time. The objection, as I understood it, was a request for time to study the bill further, by the people who are concerned with the matter.

Mr. JENNINGS. Do you contend that if this change were made that would permit you to restore this area at an earlier date and, perhaps less expensively, than it would be to wait for appropriated money to restore the area.