benefit that will reduce the critical fire hazards that confront us here in the South.

Going back again to Mr. Haley's point, you cannot lightburn in this country. A fire either burns rapidly and practically explodes or it will not burn at all. There is no middle ground in burning down here, it seems.

Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Connaughton, on the third page of your statement it states:

Man-caused fires in California national forests have declined from an average of 1,033 per year in the early 1930's to an average of 656 per year in the past 5 years.

Have any of those man-caused fires in the past 5 years resulted in a loss of life?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes, sir; they have.

Mr. SAYLOR. Could you tell us for the record which ones?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. The one of last fall, the Inaja fire in which 11 lives were lost, and which was set by a boy. That is the most recent. I would have to check back specifically on the others, but I am almost confident of calling to mind the next most recent loss of life was a man-caused fire.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAYLOR. Yes; I yield.

The CHAIRMAN. On page 9 of Mr. Connaughton's statement he has quite an extensive breakdown of loss of fire fighters that occurred. Mr. SAYLOR. The next question I have is, How many fires have occurred in a comparable period in the national forests, both manmade and natural?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I do not have the lightning fires added to this. That is what you want?

Mr. SAYLOR. That is right.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I would have to get that for you.

Mr. SAYLOR. I would appreciate very much if you would get it. I would like to have it for comparison.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. We certainly will provide it for the record.

Mr. SAYLOR. Because, if my information is correct, lightning causes a great deal more fires, nature causes more than man does.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. No.

Mr. SAYLOR. Not in this area?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. No; not in a normal year. Let me get those figures for you, Congressman.

Mr. SAYLOR. All right. I would appreciate it very much.

I want to congratulate your whole group for the cooperative spirit which you have shown here in working with each other. I think you have got a real problem, and I think the statement of Mr. Hedger showing how he disagrees with your burning policies because of

He shakes his head and says he does not agree with that. But, if I read it correctly, he did not come out and say so, but, believe me, he certainly showed what happens when there has been a fire, regardless of who sets it or what causes it. I think it is important that his statement points up the importance of the working together of all agencies in this area and any area, in fact, on this great problem. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina, Judge Shuford.

Mr. SHUFORD. There are only 1 or 2 questions I have in mind. I would like to ask Mr. Connaughton about those.

Are there more forest fires originating in the national forest than out of the national forest in this area?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Total?

Mr. SHUFORD. Yes.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I do not have that comparative figure. We can get that for you.

Mr. SHUFORD. I would like to know that, because I was under the impression one of the witnesses stated this morning-I think it was the chief-a good may of the fires started in the mountain section and came down into the brush area.

I am like Mr. Saylor. I want to congratulate you gentlemen for the splendid cooperation you have shown with each other in fighting the fires in this section.

Of course, I come from an area where we have more water than you have here, and you know, Mr. Connaughton, the situation we have there.

I think it boils down to this, as far as I can see, that the main trouble in fighting fires here is that the Forest Service has not been getting sufficient money to carry on this very necessary work in this State.

Like our chairman, Mr. Engle, I think that some study should be made, and some report should be given to the Congress to justify an additional allowance for this work so that you can cooperate with the other gentlemen in fighting the fires in this area.

I was very much interested, Mr. Connaughton, in the remark made about the brush that follows a fire. You know in our area we have fire cherry that comes in right after a fire. We do not know why, but it does, and that gives way to spruce and hemlock.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement in regard to manpower.

We believe that the strong initial attack from an adequately distributed fire-fighting force is fundamental in fire protection. We believe that yearlong employment of key personnel is also fundamental.

The State now has most of its key personnel in the fire-fighting classes on a yearlong basis. Mr. Raymond mentioned a moment ago the movement of a good many pieces of equipment and manpower from the north into the south to meet this threat which always comes here in this area during the fall season when we get those eastern and northern winds.

It is because of the yearlong staffing of those key personnel with the State division of forestry that he has those men that he can move into this critical area at this time.

It would certainly be helpful if Mr. Connaughton and his organization could do likewise when the critical period in the north is over, if he could move some of that personnel, if he had them, after the calendar fire season, into the south to strengthen all of our forces during this critical period.

Mr. SHUFORD. Mr. Connaughton, do you have that authority now to bring them down from the north so you could use them in the south? Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHUFORD. Would not that help your manpower situation some? Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes, sir; to some degree. However, the real basic thing-although I am in full agreement with the program as outlined, their base organization is still here, and this is just a group on top. Our base organization is still inadequate in terms of our comparative needs, but this other could be worked out.

Mr. SHUFORD. You do have the right to move those extra men down to augment your force here?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes; we have.

Mr. SHUFORD. But you still think your base organization is not sufficient?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes.

Mr. RAYMOND. May I comment also, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. RAYMOND. We are able to do this because the last session of the legislature appropriated funds which were to maintain on a yearround basis our foremen and truck drivers and equipment operators, who always in previous years before that, except for a certain few, had to be laid off in the fall of the year. We are now on a yearlong basis on those personnel, and we can move them from northern California to southern California; whereas previously, when the fire season ended in northern California, we had to lay them off.

The CHAIRMAN. That is an interesting point.

Mr. SHUFORD. I yield back any time remaining, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Hosmer. Mr. HOSMER. I would like to pursue one line of questioning with you, and it is with respect to the personnel you hire who have been in the United States Forest Service.

Do you find any particular type of training that you have to give them in order to fit them into your organization, Chief Klinger?

Mr. KLINGER. You see, we have a very unique organization. We not only fight watershed fires, we have an oil problem and a structural problem, and we have to train them in that line of work—yes.

Mr. HOSMER. Do you have to give them any special training with respect to watershed fire fighting?

Mr. KLINGER. No, because the United States Forest Service, the State, and Los Angeles County all work together in the training program. When they have a training program we go in, and vice versa. So everyone is in accord with the training program.

Mr. HOSMER. So your answer would be the same concerning any State board people you may hire?

Mr. KLINGER. That is true.

Mr. RHODES. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOSMER. Yes.

Mr. RHODES. I would like to ask a question along personnel lines, too, but directed to Mr. Connaughton.

Have you ever considered the possibility of putting your personnel under the wage board instead of classified civil service?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. RHODES. Why would not that settle the problem as far as disparity in wages is concerned?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I wish I could give you a good, logical, intelligent discussion of the merits of the wage board versus classified civil service, but I cannot. It is a very real problem in terms of comparative wage scales, wage board and civil service, if you shift from one to another.

There is the problem of the 8-hour law in relation to the wage board.

Mr. RHODES. If you think there is any possibility this wage-board approach might help your problem, I think it would be well for you to prepare a supplemental statement and submit it to the committee so we can perhaps be helpful to you on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOSMER. Yes, I yield.

The CHAIRMAN. Ás I understand, there is a bill pending in the Senate this year that has a direct bearing on this problem of equalizing your staff people, which would have a tendency to even the situation up. I think it lets you put certain types of employees under the wage board so that you can pay them overtime or double time. The thing looked a little more equal.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. Let me ask Mr. Crafts of our office, who is familiar with pending legislation, if he could comment on that. Mr. MERLE LOWDEN (U. S. Forest Service, Washington, D. C.). I will comment on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Identify yourself for the record.

Mr. LOWDEN. I am Merle Lowden, Director, Division of Fire Control, Forest Service, Washington, D. C.

That is the Johnston amendment. I assume that is what you are referring to.

It would be helpful in this situation, but it would leave much yet to be done. In other words, it would not cure the situation we are talking about here, in our opinion.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. RHODES. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. Yes.

Mr. RHODES. Do you feel, Mr. Lowden, there would have to be some legislation to take care of the problem on which we find ourselves in this particular area?

Mr. LOWDEN. Mr. Rhodes, we really do not know the full solution to this problem. I think Mr. Connaughton has given a good answer. We do have some studies underway. There are certain problems of being under the wage board, which he has mentioned, which still do not give us a happy and good solution to this problem.

Mr. RHODES. I presume when you get through with this study you will let us know your recommendations. Thank you.

Mr. HOSMER. I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Sisk.

Mr. SISK. Mr. Connaughton, I am particularly interested in the research work that is being done by the Forest Service with reference to control and so on. What actually is the situation so far as appropriations are concerned on research, scientific development work, in an attempt to discover means of elimination of fires?

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. With reference to fires?

Mr. SISK. That is right; with reference to fire control, fire prevention, the whole thing, because I have been much concerned with that, have talked to a number of your people and with you from time to time on this. I am curious to know just how inadequate or how adequate you may think your present manpower is from the standpoint of research and development.

Mr. CONNAUGHTON. I am glad you asked that question, Congressman, because I wanted an opportunity to introduce Director Arnold of our forest experiment station, and he would be in a good position to comment on that. If it is agreeable, I would like to introduce him and ask him to comment on it. He is here with me today.

Mr. SISK. Is it permissible to have Mr. Arnold comment with reference to research, Mr. Chairman ?

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear you.

STATEMENT OF KEITH ARNOLD, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA FOREST AND RANGE EXPERIMENT STATION, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

Mr. ARNOLD. This past year there was $250,000 increase in funds available for forest fire research.

The Association of State Foresters and other groups, in studying the fire research needs, have suggested for several years that a beginning on an adequate fire research program would come at about a level of a $500,000 increase in research funds.

Mr. SISK. Right there, Mr. Arnold, could I ask you a question?

Did I understand you to say that this year you received a $250,000 increase?

Mr. ARNOLD. That was nationwide.

Mr. Sisk. Nationwide. What is the total nationwide budget budg eted to research and fire prevention and so forth?

Mr. ARNOLD. The particular figure escapes me now. It is somewhere in the order of about $450,000. I would like to be able to check that.

Mr. SISK. $450,000 nationwide?

Mr. ARNOLD. That is right. I would like to be able to check that figure before confirming it.

I think the Association of State Foresters, in their study, and the American Forestry Association, in coming up with the figure of a $500,000-a-year program, considered that as the beginning increase which might lead to a rather rapid improvement of information relative to how fires burn and to the development of new and better firefighting techniques and equipment.

Mr. SISK. Are you speaking of a nationwide program or of a State program?

Mr. ARNOLD. Nationwide.

Mr. SISK. I would like for you, if you can, to discuss also about how much of this present nationwide budget is being used or is subject to your use here within the State of California. Not necessarily just southern California but the entire State.

Mr. ARNOLD. Yes.

In California, the fire research budget that is available to the experiment station is about $170,000.