Mr. DANA. That is aimed to add to the area of national forests.

Mr. KINCHELOE. What is the difference between that bill and the Weeks bill?

Mr. DANA. It provides a larger authorization covering a wider area of land.

Mr. KINCHELOE. In other words, it is an enlargement.

Mr. DANA. An enlargement of the Weeks bill; that is virtually what it amounts to.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Why do we need that legislation? I do not want to get into a discussion of that bill, however. We are not going to carry out the purpose of the Weeks bill in this authorization.

Mr. ASWELL. That was confined to navigable streams.

Mr. KINCHELOE. They put "watersheds" in there to get around a constitutional provision, of course.

Mr. DANA. I can answer very briefly. Mr. Clarke's bill, the Clarke-McNary bill, authorized the purchase of timber land for timber production.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I am not talking about the Clarke bill.

Mr. DANA. The Woodruff-McNary bill provides funds for carrying out that provision of Mr. Clarke's bill.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I thought you said it also enlarged the Weeks bill.

Mr. DANA. Yes; the three all tie together as forming a part of the acquisition policy.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I was wondering if there were not some cross currents working against each other in those three bills.

Mr. DANA. One other thing, answering the question of expenditures, and that is that the maximum expenditure authorized by the bill would amount to approximately three-quarters of a cent per acre. That is the maximum per year.

Mr. KINCHELOE. That does not mean anything to me. ing about dollars and cents.

I was talk

Mr. DANA. I am transcribing it into figures per acre. I have also a percentage figure showing that it amounts to three one-hundredths of 1 per cent of the capital invested in our timberlands and woodusing industry; and it amounts to seven one-hundredths of 1 per cent of the value of our wood products turned out annually.

Mr. KINCHELOE. You do not mean to include in your figures Government land, do you?

Mr. DANA. Pulp, paper, lumber

Mr. KINCHELOE. In that amount per acre-do you include all the forest acreage in the United States, including that owned by the Government?

Mr. DANA. All forest land in the United States.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Does that include cut-over land?

Mr. DANA. It includes cut-over land.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Do you all include all land capable of being reforested, in your judgment?

Mr. DANA. No; not all that is capable, but all that is likely to be continued in forests. I might add that all the agricultural land could be reforested, but it is not likely to be.

Mr. KINCHELOE. If I understand you, at the end of 10 years you have reached the maximum of these appropriations under this bill. There will have been appropriated by that time about $15,000,000.

How much is appropriated thereafter when all these appropriations get to the maximum?

Mr. DANA. Approximately, $3,325,000.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Did you add in the inventory item under section 9 in that?

Mr. DANA. No; I subtracted that inventory item from the previous one. The total amount included that also, $3,575,000. I have subtracted that, which brings it down to approximately $3,325,000. Mr. KETCHAM. Have you the figures available to show how much the Clarke-McNary bill and the Weeks bill and the McNaryWoodruff bill together with this bill will cost?

Mr. DANA. I can not give you that offhand. We can submit that later.

Mr. KETCHAM. I would be very glad if you would just put that in one sentence and insert it in the record. If you could give us an estimate I would not insist that it be entirely accurate, but just an approximation.

Mr. DANA. I would like someone more capable than I am to do that, Mr. Ketcham. It would be more satisfactory.

Mr. KETCHAM. What we would like is a statement embodying the annual appropriations for all forestry work when the program now contemplated gets into high gear.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you submit that to the committee later?
Mr. DANA. Yes.

Mr. ADKINS. This organization, as I understand from the testimony, that is sponsoring this legislation, represents, among others, the owners of large areas of cut-over lands.

Mr. DANA. I said the National Forestry Program Committee includes owners of all types of land, including owners of cut-over lands, timber owners, manufacturing interests, as well as forests.

Mr. ADKINS. Large areas of this land, as I understand it, have been gone into, and the forests denuded, and this land is on their hands. They have got the proceeds from the forests, and I presume this land is not a very profitable thing to-day. After this is all done; after they have enjoyed the proceeds of the forests, and pocketed them, and this work is all done, and this land is reforested, how much interest have these people got in that then? Are they the private owners of this land, or does the Government take this land over?

Mr. DANA. Private interests would continue to hold such lands as they now have unless purchased by the Government.

Mr. ADKINS. And the reforesting, in time, when it comes to be harvested again, would be harvested by these same people?

Mr. DANA. It would, if they continued in the ownership of the

land.

Mr. KINCHELOE. They pay taxes on it.

Mr. DANA. The thing is to get information that the private owners can use in making those lands permanently productive. The whole interest of this bill is to lead to permanent production, and do away with this skinning proposition.

Mr. MENGES. What provision is there in this bill for the cooperation of State forestry departments with the National Government or for the National Government to cooperate with the States?

Mr. DANA. The first section of the bill provides for cooperation with any interested agency; and the section relating to the inventory of the forest resources provides specifically for cooperation with the States in taking that inventory. As representative of an institution, the University of Michigan is carrying on research work; and I can say that I feel that the passage of this bill will greatly stimulate the amount of research being handled by it and other agencies, including the State educational institutions and private organizations. It will lead to greatly increased research on the part of many State agencies, and full provision for cooperation is provided in the first section.

Mr. MENGES. In the State of Pennsylvania we are about to vote a loan of $25,000,000 for our forestry department and the State now has acquired a large area of land on which they are carrying out experiments; and I was wondering how the National Government would come in to assist the State. I think the State of Pennsylvania has done more along that line than any other State.

Mr. DANA. The Government already has an experiment station with headquarters at Philadelphia, which is working in cooperation with the State authorities in solving those problems.

Mr. MENGES. But the land is over in New Jersey.

Mr. DANA. Some of it is.

Mr. CLARKE. The efforts to eradicate the gypsy moth in the State of New York would be a good illustration of the benefits Pennsyl vania receives, possibly indirectly, from Federal aid. The gypsy moth comes down from New England into the State of New York and the State of New Jersey, and probably into Pennsylvania. The State of New York has appropriated large sums, and did so before the Government came into the picture at all; and yet you in Pennsylvania reaped considerable benefit from the work done by the State of New York.

Take another example: We have 19 of the northern counties in the State setting forth to provide for the planting of a billion trees in the next 15 years. The State nurseries in the near future are going to send out 45,000,000 trees per year and distribute them through the Junior Project Workers, the Farm Bureau, the Home Bureau, and all the other agencies. Then along comes this gypsy moth, and we need more money this year to fight it. The agricultural appropriation bill will be under consideration this week, we ask for an enlarged appropriation of the Federal Government regarding the gypsy moth as a real menace.

As I say, what we do in New York toward the eradication of the moth, which came to us from other States, helps you in Pennsylvania, not only by reducing the liklihood of the moth getting into your State in such large numbers as it otherwise would but also by making available to you the information we have obtained in our fight against the insect. So it is with the efforts of the Federal forestry people working in the State of New Jersey.

Mr. MENGES. That in part explains the situation. You understand that we have now an appropriation for handling the gypsy moth you were speaking about.

Mr. CLARKE. And you are getting some money from the Federal Government to do it. What I was after is that since we have these

agencies now in operation, you are going to benefit by them. The State of Pennsylvania, for instance, is getting benefit in regard to the gypsy moth now.

Mr. MENGES. I did my best to help get that experiment station there, and I was not very much pleased when it was transferred across the Delaware River.

Mr. DANA. This station in Pennsylvania is doing the same kind of work as is being done by these other stations. They are located in one spot as a headquarters, and work in the surrounding States. Mr. MENGES. Understand I am not criticizing anybody.

Mr. KETCHAM. You spoke of the work now being done in our own university at home. Would you mind explaining to the committee how it fits in with the program set up in this bill and to what extent the State of Michigan expends its moneys in this regard?

Mr. DANA. The State of Michigan cooperates in two ways in carrying out this program, through the university, with which I am connected, and through the conservation commission, which is one of the State departments. The university has several tracts of waste land in the neighborhood of Ann Arbor which it is handling experimentally, carrying on investigations, and has been carrying on investigations for the last 25 years as to the best trees to grow, what returns we get from them, the best way to handle the trees as they grow in order to get full returns. I have also recently arranged with the Director of the Lake States Forest Experiment Station which. though located in Minnesota, carries on work in Michigan, for cooperative studies with them, by which we can work on a joint project, the university furnishing certain men, and the Lake States Experiment Station, a forest station, furnishing certain men, and together work on specific problems. The State conservation commission contributes several hundred dollars each year to the Lake Forest Experiment Station for the carrying on of investigations in the State of Michigan, the feeling being that these investigations can be correlated effectively through the Federal agency, but with the State agencies participating and taking active part, both in financing the work and in interpreting and using the results. Does that answer your question, Mr. Ketcham?

Mr. KETCHAM. What I particularly wanted to get at was. How much money in the aggregate our own State actually expends in this work? Could you give us an estimate of how much the University of Michigan, the conservation department, the forestry commission, and the State college, altogether, spend in this work?

Mr. DANA. The total expenditures made for these purposes is $10.000 by State agencies within the State of Michigan-around $10.000.

Mr. KETCHAM. But your own bureau of forestry is more comprehensive than $10,000, is it not?

Mr. DANA. No; not if you apply it on the basis of the amount in Michigan alone. The Lake States Forest Experiment Station has been spending about $27,000 a year for the three States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Mr. KETCHAM. But I am speaking of your own university.

Mr. DANA. I thought you said the Federal Government. The university is spending about $5,000.

Mr. KINCHELOE. This bill, as we said awhile ago, with the possible exception of section 9, is experimental work.

Mr. DANA. Yes; and section 9 is research in forest economics. Mr. KINCHELOE. Experiment for what?

Mr. DANA. For the purposes outlined in the various sections. Mr. KINCHELOE. For what?

Mr. DANA. For the purposes outlined in the various sections.

Mr. KINCHELOE. No; I mean what is the purpose of this experiment. Do you mean to find out what kind of a tree will grow in a certain climate?

Mr. DANA. Yes; and on certain soils, and how many trees it will grow, and how much it will reap at the end of 40 or 50 years, and what that wood is best suited for.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Do you think it would involve much difficulty and expense to find out what trees will grow in the various sections of the United States?

Mr. DANA. It is a great problem to deal with, the climate

Mr. KINCHELOE. I am not talking about climate. You gave a while ago the per acre cost for this on all forest land. Mr. DANA. That would be the cost spread over the whole forest

area.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I just wondered, for instance, in my own part of the country, in my district, I have hundreds and hundreds of acres of cut-over land, rich land, too. I do not think it would be much trouble to know what would grow back down there in that climate; but I was just wondering about cut-over land owned by private individuals. That is what I am talking about, whether they are going to get the benefit of this.

Mr. DANA. There are both types. All the information acquired under the bill will be disseminated.

Mr. KINCHELOE. They are not going to get anything out of the information are they?

Mr. DANA. The information derived from the program contemplated by the bill will be available for the handling of both public and private lands.

Mr. KINCHELOE. What kind of information do you propose to give that will be of use down there on those cut-over lands when they know what kind of timber will grow on that kind of land?

Mr. DANA. They do not know as much as they think.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I sometimes think they have a little more practical knowledge than you fellows have with all your theory. Mr. DANA. I am not going to debate that point with you.

Mr. KINCHELOE. I was just wondering how they would benefit from this bill with this expenditure of $15,000,000 when they already know what kind of trees will grow on that land.

Mr. DANA. The great bulk of our forest land, however, still has some trees on it.

Mr. KINCHELOE. Certainly. So has mine. What else do you expect that will aid them?

Mr. DANA. Information about fire fighting and insect diseases. Mr. KINCHELOE. I imagine our fellows know something about fighting fire down there too. They might not know the theoretical end of it, but they certainly know about the practical end of it.