Major STUART. Administer their school lands; yes, sir. They are intermingled with national forest lands. Under that agreement those States get a proportionate part of the receipts, based upon the areas involved. Mr. SANDLIN. You mean it is supposed to be the amounts coming from their own land? Major STUART. Yes, sir; but it is based upon a general year-to-year plan on a proportionate acreage basis. Mr. BUCHANAN. Now do they get 25 per cent of the balance? Major STUART. So far as there are receipts from the national forests; yes, sir. Their compensation under this item is solely in meeting their own equity in their land. Mr. BUCHANAN. I know, based solely on the income or receipts from their own land. Major STUART. Yes, sir. Mr. BUCHANAN. Of course they would get the 25 per cent of the Federal Government's part, under that other act? Major STUART. True. ROADS AND TRAILS FOR STATES The next item is "Roads and Trails for States, National Forests Fund," in the amount of $370,000 for the fiscal year 1934. This represents 10 per cent of the estimated national forests receipts with legislative furlough deducted for that fiscal year and is money that is to be spent on roads and trails within the national forests. Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, is not the money to be spent in the States from which the proceeds are derived? Major STUART. Within the particular areas of national forests territory. Mr. BUCHANAN. It is for trails, too, is it not? Major STUART. You will recall that the States get 25 per cent of the receipts and, in addition, 10 per cent of the receipts are used by the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Forest Service, for the construction of roads and trails in the particular counties involved. Mr. BUCHANAN. This is for forest roads and trails, is it not? Major STUART. Not on high standard roads; it is used on roads and trails that primarily are for the protection, administration, and utilization of the national forests. Mr. BUCHANAN. Certainly you do not spend it for any through roads? Major STUART. Not high-standard roads. Mr. BUCHANAN. That is, not roads for the public? Major STUART. The expenditures are made for our minor roads and trails. Mr. BUCHANAN. It looks to me like it ought to be exclusively for the benefit and protection of the forests. Major STUART. It is spent directly for the protection, administration, and development of the national forests. Mr. BUCHANAN. Taking it all in all, how much of those gross receipts are diverted from the Treasury? Major STUART. Thirty-five per cent. Mr. BUCHANAN. If 35 per cent is diverted from the Treasury, we are making a big loss. Major STUART. It should be borne in mind, however, that this 10 per cent money goes directly for the benefit of the property. Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes. It merely increases the administrative costs; that is all; 10 per cent more is appropriated, just like we appropriate 10 per cent more of the receipts for administration and travel. So that is a charge on the upkeep of the forests. Major STUART. Well, it has the other effect, Mr. Chairman. Το the extent to which we can improve our road and trail system, no matter what the source of the fund may be, we are going to have better and more economical forest protection. Mr. BUCHANAN. I understand. I said it adds to the expenses of the administration of the forests just that much in addition to our appropriation for the protection of forests. Mr. JUMP. But it is really capital investment in a way. You are putting part of the proceeds each year into increased capital investment on the property, because these improvements enhance the value of the surrounding forest as these trails and roads are completed. Mr. BUCHANAN. I wonder, Major, if you could figure out approximately how much these forests are costing us over and above the receipts that are put into and remain in the Treasury, that are not reimbursed? Major STUART. We can give you a statement, Mr. Chairman, in considerable detail as for the fiscal year 1932. Mr. BUCHANAN. I do not care about considerable detail; I just want to know approximately. Major STUART. May I give it to you by major captions? NATIONAL FORESTS ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Major STUART. For the fiscal year 1932 the cost for the administration of the national forests in that fiscal year was $2,661,876.15; for the protection of those properties $7,234,173.15; for improvement and equipment that is your capital investment. Mr. BUCHANAN. I know. Major STUART. For improvement and equipment, it was $20,723,729.58, of which the great bulk was roads. Reforestation was $291,899.49. Extension-that is, land exchange and land acquisition was $1,838,181.72; general administration, $355,084.65; forestry extension, $133,399.11, and research in all of its phases, including construction of the laboratory at Madison, Wis. ($900,000), was $2,502,669.20. Mr. BUCHANAN. I want the item for Madison, Wis., taken out and I want the item for the purchase of forest lands taken out. I do not mean the exchange-forest extension, I believe you termed it there. Major STUART. Mr. Chairman, may I have the opportunity of submitting for the record a concise statement? Mr. BUCHANAN. I would rather you would do it that way. Major STUART. Which will give the net costs to the Government of these various activities, which I think is what you want. Mr. BUCHANAN. I would rather you would make a concise statement and put it in the record, showing the amount that it costs the Government I mean what it costs the United States Treasury-after all of this 35 per cent has been taken out, to administer the forests. Mr. JUMP. Are you speaking of the national forests? Mr. BUCHANAN. I am speaking of the national forests. Mr. JUMP. You are not speaking of the Government promotion of the entire subject of forestry? Mr. BUCHANAN. I am not speaking of the provisions of the McNaryMcSweeney Act. Mr. JUMP. That is what I thought. Haven't you included the research expenditures in those figures? Major STUART. Yes. The figures I have given you deal with the whole activity of the Forest Service. It would be quite simple to submit to the committee a statement of gross and net costs of operating the national forests' enterprise. Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, I want that done; but I want you to subtract from the net result all charges against the Forest Service funds that have to be taken out and refunded to the States and that have to be taken out for improvements of roads and trails in the national forests those items we have just been discussing. I want that taken out, because that is not net. Those donations to States in consideration of the land being exempt from taxation, or additional funds for improvement and protection of the forests, I want them taken out. I want it to show the net cost, or the cost that comes out of the Federal Treasury for administration of the national forests. Major STUART. Do I understand you do not want included in that statement the funds spent for roads and trails? Mr. BUCHANAN. Certainly I want it to include roads and trails in forests. Major STUART. All expenditures of whatever character, that take place and are made by the Federal Government on national forest land, you want set up as a cost? Mr. BUCHANAN. That is not for the purchase of new land. Statement of Forest Service expenditures on national forests, fiscal year, 1932, showing net expenditures from Federal Treasury Administration of the national forests, including maintenance of forest service owned improvements.- Less net receipts (after deducting payments to States $589,477.81) _ Protection of national forest lands and timber from fire, insects, tree diseases, and rodents__ Capital investments: Equipment, stores, construction of roads, trails, telephone lines, buildings, fire-control and range improvements, and general surveys and plans___ Total.... Less contributed by cooperating agencies. Net national forest expenditures_ Includes $4,158,381.26 for fire fighting. $4, 658, 651. 73 1, 704, 769. 52 2, 953, 882. 21 1 7, 234, 173. 15 5, 895, 445. 85 16, 083, 501. 21 910, 597. 37 2 15, 172, 903. 84 Includes "10 per cent fund" derived from national forest receipts and appropriated for construction and maintenance of 1oads and trails. Does not include expendituies for the following items which are not national forest costs: Research (McNary-McSweeney) and construction of laboratory at Madison, Wis.. Cooperative distribution of forest planting stock to States.. Fire cooperation with States. Examination of water-power sites for Federal Power Commission.. Construction of roads of primary importance to States, counties, or communities within, Total. $2,502, 669. 20 85, 744. 22 102, 464.98 2, 031, 888. 04 22, 098.00 13, 089, 258. 42 500, 534.98 1,838, 181. 72 20, 172, 839. 56 Mr. BUCHANAN. Then, I would like to have another statement, right along there, showing the cost to the Government of the McNaryMcSweeney Act. Mr. JUMP. We have a statement covering that, I think, already prepared. Major STUART. Yes; that is represented by the summary of the items covered in the forest research work. Mr. BUCHANAN. I want those items arising under the McNaryMcSweeney Act put in the record. Major STUART. Yes, sir. Mr. JUMP. I have a statement on that. · Forestry research items under authorizations of the McNary-McSweeney Act of May 22, 1928 STATEMENT OF DR. HENRY G. KNIGHT, CHIEF, DR. W. W. SKINNER, ASSISTANT CHIEF, AND DR. C. H. KUNZMAN, ACTING CHIEF OF FERTILIZER INVESTIGATIONS GENERAL STATEMENT ON ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF BUREAU Mr. BUCHANAN. We will take up next the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. Doctor Knight, do you wish to make a general statement? Doctor KNIGHT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have a good many samples here that illustrate the work of the bureau, and I am wondering if the committee would care to take about 10 minutes to get a general view of the type of thing we are doing from these samples, and then go on with the regular discussion. Of course, we may bring some of these samples back again, but most of them will not be brought back. Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, let the record show as we go along what they are so that the House will know. It is as important for the Members of the House to know about it as it is for the members of the committee to know about it. Doctor KNIGHT. I should state that following the showing of these samples, if it meets with your approval, I would like to introduce into the record a statement written from an economic standpoint, showing the work that we are doing, by crops, which has never been done before. Mr. BUCHANAN. All right, that would be more systematic. Doctor KNIGHT. I think that would explain better the samples. we have here. Unfortunately, I think in showing the samples alone, even though we make the record very full, those reading the record would not understand what the samples mean. The first sample I hold in my hand here shows that by mixing onethird cottonseed meal with two-thirds corn meal you can get an increase in growth of 100 per cent in young animals. This is to illustrate some of the protein work that we are doing. Mr. BUCHANAN. I suppose these fine things are the mixtures. Doctor KNIGHT. Those are the proteins made from those samples. This second one here shows some of our work on improving the quality of sugarcane sirup. "A" is the clarified and high-grade sirup made from the lower grade sample "B" in each case. Mr. BUCHANAN. What do I see here? Doctor KNIGHT. You see a sediment. Mr. BUCHANAN. What is this? Doctor KNIGHT. This is sorghum sirup, clarified and unclarified. Doctor SKINNER. In the State of Texas, these improved methods. have added 10 to 15 cents per gallon to the farm value of sorghum sirup during the present season. Mr. BUCHANAN. Under the old system the sugar was in the bottom. Doctor KNIGHT. Yes. Mr. BUCHANAN. I have had experience with that. I used to make it myself. This is the clearest sirup I have ever seen. Doctor KNIGHT. Here is a sample of beet sugar. I am sorry some other members of the committee are not here. It shows the effect of impurities in beet sugar. You have heard the statement made that beet sugar could not replace cane sugar for certain purposes. When the question came up a good many years ago, I said, "Something is wrong because both of them are better than 99 per cent sugar." We find that variations exist in the quality of beet sugar due to variations in certain nonsugar impurities which are present in minute amounts. Those samples there show the effects of heating certain samples of beet sugar that contain impurities. Such sugar is not satisfactory for certain types of confectionery or for use in bottled beverages. |