Also, I understand that Mr. Crafts is here with an amendment to this bill which will further protect the people of the United States, and I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that they should be protected, because they have an interest in it. The land was bought by the taxpayers in the first place. However, it did not cost much.

I want to reiterate that it was about $3 or $4 an acre. At the same time, I think the people of the United States and the Department of Agriculture ought to be protected.

I understand that Mr. Crafts, of the Department of Agriculture, is here to present an amendment to this bill, so that when Clemson makes these deals in order to further develop the land they have an amendment which will force Clemson to check with the Department of Agriculture, more or less a routine check by the Department to which I have no objection.

I want to tell you this morning that there was quite a bit of discussion about it a few days ago among many of us but, personally, I think maybe this amendment which will be presented later is wise. I hope you gentlemen will carefully consider it.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do have with me Mr. J. F. McLaurin of the board of trustees of Clemson College, and Dr. W. A. Barnette, of my hometown of Greenwood, of the board of trustees at Clemson.

These two gentlemen are prepared to answer any question that the committee might like to ask about the past history of this land or the present bill.

I will say that these two gentlemen are very distinguished members of this board which I might say is one of the most distinguished boards of visitors of any college. Jimmy Byrnes is a member of the board. Former Senator Daniel is a member, as is President Brown, of the South Carolina State Senate.

That is about all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.

I have tried to be as brief as possible to give you the background of this bill. It will not cost the Government anything and it will be of great benefit to the United States because these people plan to really develop this thing for the interests of agriculture all over America. Clemson does draw students from everywhere and since this land is being further eroded, I do not think it is worth anything under the circumstances unless Clemson can be permitted to go ahead and develop it and sell some of the outlying portions and put the money back into the other area and develop it.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. POAGE. Mr. Dorn, would you like us to hear Mr. Crafts now? Mr. DORN. Perhaps it would be better to hear him since he does have an amendment to the bill which I think meets with everyone's approval.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. CRAFTS, ASSISTANT CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD F. MYNATT, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. CRAFTS. Mr. Chairman, I am Edward C. Crafts, Assistant Chief of the Forest Service.

I should say to you, first, that the Department has not reported on this bill to this committee. We have been asked for a report on an

identical bill by the Senate committee and that report has been under preparation and has been completed as far as the Department of Agriculture; it has not yet cleared the Bureau of the Budget. So I am able to speak to you not as an administration position but I can speak to you as a Department of Agriculture position.

Because you are pressed for time, I think the simplest thing is to read to you from our proposed report to the Senate committee on this bill.

We would have no objection to these bills if they were amended as I subsequently suggest. These bills would revoke a condition contained in the deeds of December 22 of last year transferring about 27,000 acres of title III Bankhead-Jones lands to Clemson Agricultural College.

The condition which would be revoked is one which requires the college to continue to use the lands for public purposes and that if they ceased to be so used title to the lands reverts to the United States.

These bills would permit the sale, lease, or other disposal of these 27,000 acres by the college provided the price from the sale or other disposition of the lands are utilized for, one, the operation, development, or improvement of the lands not disposed of; or, two, the development or advancement of agriculture; or, three, general research. The bill would also provide for certain payments to the United States if the Secretary of Agriculture finds that the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of the lands are used by the college for purposes other than those specified in the bill.

The lands in question are part of some 800,000 acres of title III Bankhead-Jones lands which the Department has had under longterm lease, 50 to 99-year leases, to non-Federal agencies, and which are now in process of being donated without consideration to such agencies.

There are 72 such areas located in 29 States. The particular tract in question is mostly timber but it has some pasture and orchard land and the present market value is estimated at something between $1 million and $2 million.

Mr. POAGE. How much?

Mr. CRAFTS. Between $1 million and $2 million.

In addition to the long-term lease lands which are being donated to State agencies, the Department expects that a substantial number of title III areas may be sold to State agencies at not less than 70 percent of current market value.

The deeds to both the donated lands and those sold to the States must contain a requirement for continued public use or reversion to the United States in accordance with section 32 (c) title III of the Bankhead-Jones Act of July 1937. The requirement for continued public use by the States was one of the key considerations which influenced the Department to adopt a policy of donating long-term leased lands to States and selling certain other title III lands to States at 70 percent of current market value.

If these bills were enacted as introduced, they would establish a precedent which we believe would be aqually applicable not only to the remaining acreage of Bankhead-Jones land which would be donated to the States but also to lands that are subsequently sold to the States at low-market value.

If the provision in the Bankhead-Jones Act for continued public use by State agencies were to be revoked, it would seem that the State should pay market value for the lands which they purchase.

Under the Department's title III policy and under, I believe it is, H. R. 5088 in the House by Mr. Cooley, which the Department has recommended to the Congress, certain title III lands would be sold to the States without regard to whether they were suitable for permanent private ownership.

These lands were originally acquired by the Government as submarginal lands and their transfer to the State without regard for suitability for private ownership is favored because of the requirement for continued public use by the State.

Therefore, these bills, if enacted as introduced, would establish a precedent for conveying certain lands which may be permanently submarginal to private ownership contrary to the purpose of the Bankhead-Jones Act, and two, possibly reinitiating the cycle for submarginal lands of depletion followed by Federal purchase and rehabilitation. We have, in consultation with the authors of these bills and we have attempted to work out something that would protect the interests of the United States with respect to these lands which have been acquired and been under long-term lease to the State and at the same time meet the needs which Clemson College has.

We would not object to these bills if they were amended by striking sections 2 and 3 of the bill and substituting in place of sections 2 and 3 the following:

SEC. 2. The Secretary shall release the conditions referred to in the first section only if the Clemson Agricultural College agrees that all proceeds from the sale or exchange of such portions of the lands as shall not be needed in connection with the purposes of the project shall be used by it exclusively for the acquisition of lands within the exterior boundaries of the project and the Secretary shall find such sale or exchange in the interest of agriculture generally.

Now, that is a rather substantial change from the present language of the bill..

With this language the Department would have no objection to this bill.

Mr. POAGE. You do not require that the land that Clemson College acquires would then be subject to the same provisions as the land that they traded off. The land they trade off is subject to public use but, as I understand your amendment, you can trade off every acre of this land and in that way Clemson College could then sell every acre of it and devote not a dollar of it to public use. Is that right?

Mr. CRAFTS. I do not believe so, Mr. Poage. As I understand the amendment, and I may have to call on one of our attorneys here to help me out, here is a map of the area. Here is Clemson College here. This black line is the exterior boundary of the project. My understanding of the amendment is that subject to the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture who would have to find that these actions would be in the interests of agriculture generally, the college would be authorized to sell some of these lands which are crosshatched which are the title III lands, and use the proceeds to buy other lands within the boundaries or to block it up.

Mr. POAGE. But as it stands, if I get this picture right, Clemson College can only use the lands she now has for public purposes, and I think that is a sound provision of law.

As I understand your amendment, Clemson College will be allowed to go on and trade some of those lands with me if I owned adjoining land within the general boundaries. Then when it gets title from me it gets a warranty deed without any restrictions whatsoever and the Federal Government has nothing to do with the land which it traded. Mr. CRAFTS. I would like to ask Mr. Mynatt, who is the Assistant General Counsel for the Department, to comment on that.

Mr. MYNATT. That would be an acquisition by the State college. The Federal Government would not be in that and we would not have that restriction.

Mr. POAGE. Then why put any restriction at all if you are going to let Clemson College go through the process of trading and abandoning all restrictions?

Mr. CRAFTS. Well, Mr. Poage, it seemed to the Department that with this amendment the Department would have the approval of the sale or exchange, in the first place.

Mr. POAGE. That is the purpose, and I think the laudable purpose, of seeing that they do not trade off some lands that is submarginal and that could never be properly used back in private ownership. So I think very properly you put in a provision there that they cannot trade with me and sell me some land that never can properly be used in a commercial farm, because otherwise we would have lost everything that we did in the whole program of submarginal land and we would go back putting that submarginal land in private ownership again. So you require a determination as to the interests of agriculture to make the trade, but once Clemson College gets this 100 acres of land that is now in private ownership Clemon College gets it or the State of South Carolina gets it under a warranty deed. The college gets the beneficial use of the land absolutely in fee simple without any restrictions whatsoever. They do not have to use it for public purposes except to the extent that the State law requires it.

I presume the laws of South Carolina require it, but the United States Government would no longer have any control whatsoever over what the land is used for.

Clemson College could sell it and put the cash in its pocket and do whatever the Legislature of South Carolina would let them do with it. Either it is a good thing to put these restrictions in the original conveyance or it is not.

If there is any reason for putting restrictions in the original conveyance, and I think there is, because we have had experience with that same thing in my State, if there is any reason for putting those restrictions in, and saying "it shall continue to be used for public purposes, and when it ceases to be so used shall revert to the United States," then we ought not let them be evaded by simply going through the process of making a trade. You wash out all the Federal restrictions. by that amendment.

Frankly, I do not think the amendment accomplishes anything. I think, to come back to it, Clemson College has the opportunity to do what she pleases with this land, even with your amendment.

Mr. MYNATT. Mr. Chairman, may I comment?

Mr. POAGE. I would be delighted if you would.

Mr. MYNATT. The problem we have is that the fee simple title is in the college or State now.

Mr. POAGE. The fee simple title is not in the college now, not to the Federal lands.

Mr. CRAFTS. Yes, it is.

Mr. POAGE. Conveyed subject to continued public use. That is not a fee simple title.

Mr. MYNATT. There is a condition on it.

Mr. POAGE. Of course, there is a condition on it, and as long as that condition remains it is not fee simple title.

Mr. MYNATT. I was going to say that except for that condition all of the title is in the college.

Mr. POAGE. That lacks a whole lot of being all the title. That is a very, very limited title.

Mr. MYNATT. If that condition is released as this bill proposes, I do not know how we could impose the condition on property that the college would purchase.

This would not be Federal money purchasing the additional land and I think the problem is how we could even fit the public purpose condition into the subsequent transactions even if the Federal Government wished to do so, because we are not a party to it.

Mr. POAGE. I think you can get in there all right. I think it is perfectly possible to get in there if we decide we want to do it.

Apparently, the decision is that we do not want to do it. Is that right?

Mr. CRAFTS. Mr. Poage

Mr. POAGE. If we decide we want to do it, then let us worry about getting it in there.

Mr. CRAFTS. The basin issue in this bill, it would seem to us, was the one that you are pointing at: Whether this requirement for continued public use or reversion to the United States should be continued, and the effect of sections 2 and 3 would be to remove that condition. Mr. POAGE. That is right, and so would your amendment, as I see it. Mr. CRAFTS. As to this proposed amendment, I will be perfectly frank with you that I had thought that the lands which the college would acquire under this proposed amendment would be subject to those conditions and would continue as part of the project.

Now we have a different construction placed upon them by the attorneys, and I defer to them, but my understanding had been that the purpose of this amendment was to allow the college to consolidate these lands and that such consolidation would be only with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and I had thought that the lands would continue as part of this project under the administration of the college.

Mr. POAGE. I doubt that any one would take issue with the desirability of allowing the consolidation of blocking this land up, trading one block for another, so as to get solid blocks rather than scattered land.

I can see no objection to that, but I see a serious objection if it is going to be the instrumentality whereby the college engages in selling a quantity of timber.

We are told that this is largely timberland. It should have substantial value in the near future.

I know of no reason in the world for the United States Government to give away 27,000 acres of timberland to Clemson College or Texas