Mr. GRANT. Without objection that request will be granted, and we will keep the record open for that purpose. (The statement referred to is as follows:) Hon. GEORGE GRANT, NATIONAL LUMBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. GRANT: In my appearance before your subcommittee on July 19 with respect to H. R. 7953, an omnibus Forest Service bill, it was requested that our association be given the privilege of objecting to sections 7 and 8 at a later date and of filing our industry's views for the record. This request was granted. Sections 7 and 8 of the bill propose substantive additions to existing legal authority of the Department of Agriculture. They are of far-reaching significance to timber purchasers. We feel that they are not "housekeeping" details relating to Forest Service administration such as are reflected in other sections of the bill. Both sections 7 and 8 of the bill would automatically appropriate to the Forest Service and make available for expenditure sums of money that under present law would be deposited into the Treasury. In particular, section 8, if enacted, would empower the Forest Service to insist, if it chose to do so as a matter of policy that it perform all road maintenance necessitated by timber purchasers using national-forest roads. Present law and policy allow a timber purchaser the choice of advancing funds to the Forest Service for road maintenance; otherwise, the timber purchaser performs the work himself as a condition of his timber-sale contract or special-use permit. If section 8 were enacted, and used by the Forest Service broadly, a timber purchaser would have no assurance that the Forest Service maintenance would be timed to his needs or to specifications required by his trucks. It would deny the operator the choice of maintaining roads himself where he can do the job more economically and efficiently than the Forest Service. Attached is a summary of the present law and policy of the Forest Service with respect to road maintenance by timber purchasers, and a summary of some objections to section 8 already brought to our attention. Since several industry groups at our request are currently engaged in studies as to the effects of the proposed changes on their members, we respectfully urge that if action is to be taken on H. R. 7953 in this session, sections 7 and 8 be stricken from the bill. We have no objection to the other sections of the bill. We are continuing our studies and taking steps to get the views of companies that would be directly affected by the proposals in sections 7 and 8. When we have complied this information, we will advise you further. Respectfully, A. Z. NELSON, Forest Economist. NATIONAL FOREST ROAD MAINTENANCE BY TIMBER PURCHASERS PRESENT LAW AND POLICY Road maintenance is secured in either of two ways under present law and policy: (1) It is performed by the timber purchaser as a condition of his timber-sale contract or special-use permit. An allowance for road maintenance is made by the Forest Service in its appraisal of the timber. A performance bond may be required by the Forest Service (13 Forest Service Manual, 104.15, 105.34, 105.39). (2) Under the Granger-Thye Act, if the timber purchaser is obligated to maintain roads under his timber-sale contract or special-use permit, he may elect to have the Forest Service do the work for him and advance cooperative deposits for that purpose. The Forest Service cannot compel him to do so (10 U. S. C. 572b). PROPOSED BY SECTION 8 Section 8 would give the Forest Service authority to impose road maintenance charges upon timber purchasers, which amounts are automatically appropriated to the Forest Service for its use. INDUSTRY OBJECTIONS TO SECTION 8 (1) If the Forest Service decides to do the road maintenance itself, the timber purchaser would have no assurance that the maintenance would be timed to meet its needs, or that the roads would be maintained to required standards. Under the present setup, if Government-road costs estimates are too high the operator simply does the work himself instead of electing to have the Government do it for him. (2) It would pinch operators for additional working capital at a time when capital requirements are already tight. (3) The automatic appropriation features bypass the power of Congress to scrutinize public expenditures.' (4) Road maintenance performed by the Forest Service would probably cost more and the charges would exceed the allowances made in timber-sales appraisals, thus causing loss of revenue to the Federal Treasury and to county governments (which get a percentage of national-forest receipts). Mr. JOHNSON. I have some questions. Mr. GRANT. Yes; you may go ahead. Mr. JOHNSON. I just hurriedly read through sections 7 and 8. It seems to me that the purpose is for the users of these roads not to destroy them. What has been the practice in the past? I suppose you use the highways that are laid out through the national forests to truck the lumber out. Have they been overloading and ruining the roads as the result of trucking lumber out? There must be some reason for these particular sections. I wondered if there had been abuse of the highways in the past? Mr. NELSON. Your question is, of course, to be directed more to the Forest Service representatives here than to me. As far as the lumber industry is concerned, the use of the roads within the boundaries of the national forests have been under strict regulation, contractual or otherwise, laid down by the Forest Service, and we have not destroyed any roads that I am aware of. We have, in fact conducted a great deal of maintenance work on those roads. A good many secondary roads are constructed by members of the lumber industry under contract arrangements. Mr. JOHNSON. To get the particular timber on the main highway? Mr. NELSON. That is right. Mr. JOHNSON. I do not know anything about your particular trucks that haul your timber, but I know the general practice is that in various parts of the country at certain times of the year, up in our country, for example, they have to stop the big trucks from overloading and ruining the highways. Mr. NELSON. We have situations of that kind. Mr. JOHNSON. That is all. Mr. GRANT. From Mr. Teague. Mr. TEAGUE. Do you have California members in your association? Mr. NELSON. I should explain, sir, that the membership of the National Lumber Manufacturers Association is comprised of a group of association memberships. We have 16 federated associations comprising our association. Within three of those federated State member groups we have many members in California. You might say that most of the lumber 1 Objection also applicable to sec. 7. 96951-57-2 producers and manufacturers in California are members of one or the other of our federated associations. Mr. TEAGUE. That is all. Mr. GRANT. Mr. Heimburger wishes to ask some questions. Mr. HEIMBURGER. So that we get a little more background on this matter that you mentioned specifically, where the lumber industry enters into the operation of section 7 is the bond. What kind of bond would normally be referred to here? Mr. NELSON. The bonds that are referred to in section 7 are deposits which relate to what might be termed guaranties of satisfactory performance. I prefer at this stage, Mr. Heimburger, not to get into the detailed discussion of this matter until we have received the full advice of our industry. Mr. HEIMBURGER. Turning to section 8 of this for a minute, what kind of arrangement-just following Mr. Johnson's question-is now made for the use of these roads? Is there not a repair contract or a damage guaranty or bond or a specified rental now for all of the use by one person of another person's roads? Mr. NELSON. The Forest Service representatives can answer that more expertly than I, but in general, I think your statement is correct. Mr. HEIMBURGER. That is all. Mr. GRANT. Are there any further questions? Thank you very much, and you will be given an opportunity to make a statement. Mr. NELSON. Thank you. Mr. GRANT. The next witness is Mr. Edward C. Crafts, Assistant Chief of the Forest Service. STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. CRAFTS, ASSISTANT CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, USDA; ACCOMPANIED BY RAWLEIGH L. TREMAIN, ELMER MOSTOW, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL; AND GORDON D. FOX, CHIEF, OPERATIONS DIVISION, FOREST SERVICE, USDA Mr. CRAFTS. Mr. Grant and members of the committee, I apologize for being a few moments late. I was called up unexpectedly this morning by another Member of the House, and I just could not quite get away at 10 o'clock. He kept me a few moments over. I am glad to respond to your invitation to make a statement on H. R. 7953, a bill to facilitate and simplify the work of the Forest Service, and for other purposes. This bill was sent to the Speaker of the House and President of the Senate by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture on May 29, 1957. It was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and introduced by Mr. Cooley. An identical bill, S. 2244, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Ellender. The Bureau of the Budget has indicated that there would be no objection to enactment of the bill. The principal purpose is to make a number of relatively minor changes in the statutes affecting the Forest Service which would enable it to function with greater efficiency and effectiveness. In an agency such as the Forest Service with broad responsibilities and a great many activities, there arises from time to time the need for clarifying and supplementing legislation on items which for the most part do not involve important policy. At periodic intervals, therefore, the Congress has in the past enacted such clarifying legislation. The last such statute was the act of April 24, 1950, which was considered and reported favorably by this committee in the 81st Congress as H. R. 5839. In the 7 years that have elapsed since that act, some additional situations have arisen which can be cared for only by statute. It is for this reason that the present bill was recommended by the Department of Agriculture. For the most part, the situations with which the various sections of the bill would deal can be considered of a minor or "housekeeping" nature. Nevertheless, they are important in particular situations and to the operations and individuals affected. Some sections of the bill would amend existing law while others would constitute new authority. For your convenience there is attached to this statement the statutory changes which would be made by the bill. Existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in brackets; new provisions are italicized. Because the various sections of the bill are unrelated, I shall discuss each one separately. This will supplement the individual section- bysection analysis of the bill submitted with the Department's letter of May 29. Section 1: The first part of this section relates to reimbursement of owners of equipment for damages to the equipment; occurring when in use on Forest Service work. Such reimbursement is authorized by the act of March 4, 1913, as amended, but under present law, except for fire-fighting emergencies, reimbursement may not be made to any owner in excess of $50 without a written contract of hire or lease. The proposed section would raise the limitation from $50 to $2,500 when the owner is not an employee of the Forest Service at the time the equipment is obtained. In some cases a claimant, acting in good faith, rents his equipment to the Forest Service for emergencies other than fire fighting and is later penalized because there was no written contract. The owner is usually not aware of the necessity for a written contract and, in many cases, the arrangements are made by messenger or telephone with no opportunity to execute a written contract. Under these circumstances the equipment is usually rented from local residents whose continued cooperation in fire protection and other national-forest activities is essential. In addition to the equities involved, it is desirable to avoid the dissatisfaction that results from inability to pay a just bill. The proposed amendment would apply only to persons who are not employees of the Forest Service prior to the time the equipment is made available to the Forest Service. The proposed amendment would apply only to persons who are not employees of the Forest Service prior to the time the equipment is made available to the Forest Service. In the case of equipment owned by Forest Service employees, there is opportunity and time to cover it by general written agreements. I do not know whether you prefer to discuss these sections as I go along, or let me complete my statement; whichever is your pleasure. Mr. GRANT. I think we might save time by completing the state ment. Mr. CRAFTS. All right. Section 1 would also provide authority to contract with other parties to train, work, and care for Government-owned pack stock held in reserve for fire-emergency purposes and as all or part of the consideration for such service the other parties would be authorized to use the stock for their own purposes when not needed by the Forest Service. There is no such authority now. Some national-forest areas in the Western United States are not served by roads and the only access is by trail or air. The Forest Service must transport men, supplies, and equipment into these remote areas for fire fighting. Air transportation is not always possible and in such instances the only practical transportation is by pack and saddle stock. During abnormal fire seasons pack stock must be available to transport supplies and equipment into areas that cannot be reached by road. These unusual conditions do not occur every year but animals must be kept available for use when needed. It is difficult and expensive to keep sufficient Government-owned and operated stock in a state of readiness to meet the erratic demands of fire-fighting work. Nor in these sparsely settled areas are there enough owners with sufficient stock so that transportation needs can be contracted when needed. Neither are these owners interested in purchasing and maintaining additional animals to meet the intermittent needs of the Forest Service. The most feasible solution is to contract with strategically located individuals or firms to care for, train, condition, and operate Government-owned stock. Under the bill such arrangements could be made under terms which would guarantee the Forest Service readily available transportation when needed, reduce the cost to the Government by permitting the contractor to work the stock in connection with his own business, and assure that the animals will be trained and in good condition when needed for Forest Service work. Section 2: At the present time there is no authority under which fire fighter or other employees of the Forest Service may be reimbursed for losses of personal property resulting from fire or other casualty at or near where the property is left when the employee is busy in connection with such casualty. Such losses occasionally result from fires, fioods, or other casualties when the employees engaged on such casualty are working away from camp and are not able to protect their property. In other words, the employee leaves the personal belongings in camp while he is performing work in the vicinity and because of the urgent need for his services in connection with such casualties he is unable to remove or otherwise protect such property from destruction if the fire or other casualty takes an unexpected turn and destroys or damages the camp. This section would authorize reimbursement, not to exceed $100 for any single claim. There are not many such claims and usually the amount involved is small, but of consequence to the employee. In one case, for example, 4 employees engaged in fire suppression lost clothing and other personal belongings valued at a total of a little more than $200. A private relief bill was enacted to reimburse the employees for the loss (Private Law 830, 82d Cong.). The section would enable the |