ment of such areas. Administrative personnel were advised that, in our opinion, priorities could be established and schedules of construction developed which would assure easing of pressures for new camp and picnic areas which require destruction of valuable properties and loss of revenue in fees and taxes.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to express the views of the Lake Alpine Improvement Association and particularly the eleven permittees adversely affected by the Forest Service phase-out program.

L. S. NELSON, Vice President, Lake Alpine Improvement Association.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, as evidence of the widespread interest in and support of the legislation we have before us, may I list for the hearing record the names of those who have sent me their com

ments.

Telegram from Norman F. Brown, president, Echo Lakes Association, representing 250 permittees in El Dorado County, Calif.

Letter from Chresten M. Knudsen, president, Barton Flats Cabin Owners' Association, Redlands, Calif.

Letter from Mr. and Mrs. G. E. Graham, cabin owners in Tahoe National Forest, Berkeley, Calif.

Letter from Mrs. Allen W. Capron, member of Hume Lake Home Owners Association, Visalia, Calif.

Letter from H. M. Sherman, cabin owner at Hume, Calif.

Telegram from Mr. and Mrs. Howard Benedict, Laguna Hills, Calif. Telegram from Sarkis Takakjian, Fresno, Calif.

Telegram from Mr. and Mrs. John C. Willard, Simi, Calif.

Telegram from Leo Rossiter, president, Havasu Lake Home Owners Association, Havasu Lake, Calif.

And also, Congressman Sisk would like to have a statement appear in the record, if he has that opportunity. He is in support of the legislation.

And the same request for a statement by the Honorable Edward R. Roybal to be included in the record at this point.

Ånd also the statement of the Honorable Charles S. Gubser.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Without objection, those statements will be included in the record.

(The statements follow:)

STATEMENT OF HON. B. F. SISK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, as author of H.R. 1285, I would like to express my complete support for the concept which is set forth in this bill and the companion bills introduced by our good friend and colleague, Mr. Mathias, who is a member of this fine Subcommittee, by Congressman Charles Teague, who is a member of the full Committee, and by our mutual friend, Congressman Johnson, who drafted the original legislation.

I have given very close attention to the statement presented here this morning by Congressman Johnson and I have reviewed the statement which one of my fine constituents, Mr. O. S. Peterson, of Fresno, has prepared for presentation to this committee tomorrow morning. Mr. Peterson, will of course, be testifying as President of the National Forest Recreation Association Association.

I would also like to point out to the committee that the situations which he will describe in his testimony, and also were outlined to you earlier this morning by "Bizz" Johnson, do exist in the National Forests of Madera and Fresno Counties, California, which I represent. I would like to reaffirm the concensus among the people who have built homes on national forest lands in accordance with special use permits issued by the Forest Service, that they were very definitely lead to believe that their tenure on the land was the equivalent of 99 years

regardless of the type of permit issued, whether it be terminable at the will of the Forest Service or the one issued for a specific term.

I have been in many of these areas of my district, including Bass Lake, Shaver Lake, Dinkey Creek, Huntington Lake, and other areas of the national forests, and I have been in these summer homes, and I know for a fact that these homes which were built in accordance with Forest Service regulations, were constructed in effect to last for the full 99 years. These are permanently built homes which withstand for instance, at Huntington Lake, heavy pressures of many feet of snow during the winter.

Many of these people have invested tremendously in these properties. They have paid their taxes; they have paid annual permit fees to the federal government; and they have provided all the services associated with the maintenance of these tracts. And as a result of their earlier pioneering interest in many of these areas, the public demand has increased to the place where occasionally public use requires the removal of the cabins.

I don't think it is at all fair that these people should bear the full burden of the expense of their removal or the demolishing of their homes under such conditions.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD R. ROYBAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: As one of the authors of the legislation which you are considering today-my bill is H.R. 9913, I want to associate myself with the comprehensive remarks submitted by the principal author of this legislation, my good friend and colleague, Harold T. Johnson.

As I am sure you are aware, Congressman Johnson's district covers approximately one-third of the State of California and contains the vast majority of the summer and winter mountain recreation areas which attract visitors from throughout the state and, in fact, from throughout the nation.

Those of us who represent urban districts, from which people go to the mountains for much of their outdoor recreation, appreciate Congressman Johnson's knowledge and judgment in matters of National Forest management and administration.

In addition to this, however, I understand that many people from my own district have summer cabins in the National Forests, and I fully appreciate the problems which these cabin owners face under the presently restrictive laws governing compensation for improvement where land previously under special use permits is needed for higher priority public use.

The cabin owners, of course, are understandably dismayed whenever the lands on which they have built their summer homes are taken for highways, camp grounds, etc. This feeling is shared by anyone who loses his home because of progress and the needs of the public, but this progress cannot be impeded.

Where the homes being taken are situated on private lands, we of course can compensate the owners. In such cases where an agreement cannot be reached, the courts through condemnation can determine an equitable price.

This is not true, however, in most instances, when we must recover for greater public use National Forest lands which are now used as summer homes in accordance with special use permits.

I cannot challenge the occasional need to recover these lands for public use. But, I can, in my own heart, challenge the right of the Federal Government, to accomplish this without providing proper compensation to the individual prop erty owner, as now is often done.

Mr. Chairman, I would recommend favorable consideration of this legislation so that the individual citizen no longer will be forced to bear the great financial burden he now suffers in the name of "progress and the public good." Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES S. GUBSER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman: It is a pleasure to present this statement to you and the members of your committee in support of H.R. 740, a bill introduced by Congressman Harold T. (Bizz) Johnson to establish certain policies with respect to certain use permits for national forest lands.

Real property acquisition by the Federal Government has on frequent occasions presented the individual citizen with an inequitable and unhappy situation. This was brought to my attention quite forcefully some years ago when the United States Forest Service announced a plan to eliminate 162 cabin sites occupied by permittees in the Pinecrest Recreation Area of the Stanislaus National Forest of California.

Although making available more public recreation areas is a worthy goal, I believe it is noteworthy that a large number of permittees are people of modest means who, because of a love of the out-of-doors chose to invest time, money and effort in outdoor recreation. This was a privilege which was offered by the government to all, not just a select few. I found that a number of my constituents had accepted this offer and had acquired permits from the Forest Service which allowed them the use of land in the Pinecrest area. In most cases these permits had been acquired several years ago, some having been held for 20 to 30 years. Many of these constituents had invested thousands of dollars in their cabins and other improvements in the area. Further, I found that they did not hold these possessions selfishly, but made them available year around to their friends and acquaintances on a cost free basis. Improved facilities paid for by permittees were not only for their own benefit, but accrued to the benefit of campers and other recreationists in the area.

After being directly responsible for building Pinecrest into a truly fine recreational community, further, after enjoying the cooperation of the Forest Service in this effort for many years, it was indeed a shock to these fine people to receive an ultimatum that their land use permits were to be terminated. Not only were they to lose their permits, they were ordered by the United States Forest Service to remove or abandon their cabins and other improvements without any compensation.

The fundamental unfairness of such a situation is evident and I was gratified when my colleague, Congressman Harold (Bizz) Johnson, who has long studied the inequities of property acquisition, introduced a bill in the last Congress providing proper recognition of the rights of holders of special use permits. I joined Congressman Johnson in his efforts at that time by introducing H.R. 17216, and although I did not reintroduce my bill in the 90th Congress, I pledged my full support to his bill, H.R. 740, which is before you today.

I contend, Mr. Chairman, that there were two parties to these land use agreements, namely, the permittee and the United States Government. Should the United States Government, therefore, have the right to break the agreement without any consideration of the other party's rights in the matter? I believe not, and I am sure this committee will recognize the worthiness of this legislation.

I urge that H.R. 740 be favorably reported so that the Congress may have an opportunity to correct this glaring inequity in procedures involving the holders of special use permits.

Thank you.

Mr. JOHNSON. There are many things I could say about this particular legislation, Mr. Chairman. I heard the representative of the Forest Service, Mr. Greeley, state the case as to the number of overall permits on the national forests. While we drafted this legislation to be very broad legislation, to bring this up before the committee, I want again to assure you that we would be satisfied with legislation pertaining to the summer home tracts that has been developed on the part of various individuals and they number about 19,000. And in these 19,000 they have investments of better than $100 million. They are paying in annual fees to the Federal Government, plus keeping their place up, plus paying their lease permits, plus paying the possessory interest and taxes to local governments, they are paying into the Federal Government better than $1 million a year.

In behalf of those national park lands as concessionaires who have all types of facilities, homes, business establishments, resort facilities,

their investment amounts to about $33 million throughout the United States. They pay in about $100 million also.

So you see that these people on the summer home leases are paying their share, and their annual fees based upon an adjustment of 5 years pretty much compensates the Government for that land in full, yet they own no right or title to the land.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Thank you for your excellent statement, Mr. Johnson.

Mrs. May, any questions?

Mrs. MAY. I want to thank Mr. Johnson for an eycellent statement. I think the sentiment of the people of California was reflected also in the three States in which we had hearings a few months ago, Mr. Johnson.

I did want to ask while Mr. Greeley is here if he could submit for the record three things.

One I think that would be helpful would be if you would submit for the record the various types of permits that you have in force now. I think you know what I mean. I do not think any were introduced in the record during the hearings, as I recall it.

Could we have figures on what income we get from these permittees that are on national forest lands, broken down this way: The income from all types of permittees and then the income from just the summer home permittees. And then would it be possible for you to give us the projected potential cost if this bill were amended to apply only to summer home permittees ?

You have stated in the record that the potential cost might be $1 billion, Mr. Greeley, and could you give us what that percentage would be if it were just the summer home permittees?

Mr. GREELEY. Yes.

(The information follows:)

(a) Income from all special-use permits was $1,900,000 for FY 1966. (b) Income from summer home permits only for FY 1966 was about $1,000,000. If the bill were amended to apply only to summer home permittees, the estimated gross value of the structures and improvements covered would be from about $100,000,000 to $120,000,000 for the 19,000 summer homes and related improvements.

Mr. MCMILLAN. We have a rollcall. Can you come back tomorrow, Mr. Greeley?

Mr. GREELEY. Yes. I can be back tomorrow.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Mr. Baring.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER S. BARING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. BARING. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I should like to ask permission to have my statement put into the record at this point in support of Mr. Johnson's bill and in behalf of my own bill, H.R. 3893.

Mr. MCMILLAN. Without objection, your statement will be placed in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement Congressman Baring and a statement from Congressman Don Edwards follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER S. BARING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my bill H.R. 3893, which is identical to Congressman Johnson's bill, H.R. 740. This legislation proposes to provide relief for people who own summer homes on national forest land leased to them by the U.S. Forest Service.

Leases of summer homes on national forest lands are not of the 99 year variety but are renewable annually. The lessees were led to believe that their investment would not be in jeopardy by the cancellation of the lease nor would it be used for other purposes.

Almost without exception, cabin owners have, in good faith, invested considerable capital to improve and maintain the land on which their cabins are located. This has enhanced the land value as well as attracting people to these areas. It should be pointed out that the cabin owners were invited by the Forest Service to develop the facilities. Not one penny was spent by the Forest Service in the way of fire or police protection nor in the upkeep of the property in and around the cabins.

Yet the Forest Service with its Special Use fees, which runs around 5 percent of the total value, will over a 20 year period get full value of the land without spending any money.

Add to this the special county taxes imposed in many areas.

So, you can see that the initial investment to have a summer home or any kind of a home is only a small part. There are the continual improvements and maintenance costs which are necessary to protect not only the cabin owners investment but the public lands on which they are situated.

The 89th Congress enacted Public Law 89-249 where, in Section Six, concessionaires were given possessory possession of the land. Yet the cabin owners have no protection whatsoever.

I feel sure that the special fees paid by cabin owners on national forest lands throughout this country bring in more revenue to the U.S. Forest Service than fees paid by concession owners.

Yet these same cabin owners face cancellation of their leases in order that the land can be converted to camp and picnic sites without any compensation. This is hardly fair to the thousands of cabin owners who have spent untold dollars in the maintenance and improvement of the forest land.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that your committee give favorable consideration to Congressman Johnson's bill, H.R. 740, which I have co-sponsored with my own bill, H.R. 3893, and which grants a possessory interest to anyone who has prior to enactment of this legislation acquired or constructed a structure or improved any national forest lands pursuant to any permit issued by the Secretary of Agriculture, and that such possessory interest shall not be extinguished by the expiration or other termination of the permit (including failure to renew or extend) and may not be taken for public use without just compensation being equal to the sound value of such structures, but not to exceed fair market value.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to assure the Committee on Agriculture of my conviction that this bill, HR 4713, and companion legislation (HR 740, 1285, 3779, 3893, 4122, 4884, 5041, 8921, and 9913) represent a just and valid correction of what is now an inequitable situation for many Californians who have summer cabins in national forest lands. These persons have their cabins under special land use permits issued by the Department of Agriculture, but are without any protection or guarantees at all as to their rights.

These bills would assure use permit holders a "possessory interest" to "consist of all incidents of ownership except legal title". Title to the land would remain in the hands of the government-so that the property can be recovered for a greater public use if so determined. Authority to engage in any business is not included or implied in "possessory interest" and the use of any improvements would remain subject to the provisions of the permit as well as the law and regulation respecting the particular land.