cost you and me that is to say, the State and the Nation's taxpayers-several million bucks. I can't see anything wrong with having this one on Uncle Ben instead of Uncle Sam.

Skiers have been trying to pry San Gorgonio loose for 16 years but every time they were told to go home and wax their skis or take up roller skating-that the only thing the Forest Service was going to let mankind do to San Gorgonio was paint it or fly over it.

I say if we want to go out and break our damnfool necks on it, why that's what we fought for, Orville. Anyway, where was the Forestry Service on Bunker Hill and Lookout Mountain when we needed them? Hand me my muddled wine and crutches, boy, and help me on that ski lift. And be sure to bring the snowsled litter and band aids and check the Blue and Red Cross. We're off to build a ski area at Gorgonio. We're starting with a hospital.

Senator ANDERSON. I want to continue this afternoon but I want to say that I hope that people who are having difficulty was plane accommodations will let us know so we might accommodate them. Senator Allott called my attention to the fact that representatives of the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association are here and if they will come forward, we will take them at this time so they don't have to miss their afternoon reservations.

STATEMENT OF V. P. CLINE, ROCKY MOUNTAIN GAS & OIL ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT LAUGHLIN, OSCAR SWANN, AND SCOTT PFOHL

Mr. CLINE. My name is V. P. Cline. I live in Denver. I am a lawyer and am here before this committee in my capacity as chairman of the Federal Legislative Committee of the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association.

Senator ANDERSON. Is that the same association that Mr. Warren Downing represented for many years?

Mr. CLINE. Warren Downing was a member of that association and I dare say as a member he represented it ably.

Accompanying me, too, are Mr. Robert Laughlin and Oscar Swann, of Casper, Wyo., and Mr. Scott Pfohl, of Denver.

I shall respect your request for brevity, Mr. Chairman. Our association is comprised of some 2,300 individuals and companies engaged in all phases of the petroleum industry in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

We are here to urge that the committee consider and adopt the concept of affirmative review by Congress as embodied in the proposed amendment by Senator Allott to S. 4. It appears to us that this conclusion is inescapable: That Congress, by virtue of the Constitution, is the duly appointed trustee of the public domain for the people, that no part of this responsibility should be abdicated, and that when such abdication occurred, Congress ultimately had to reinstate itself as the trustee.

You are, of course, keenly aware of the provision of article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution granting Congress the power to dispose and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

What attitude should Congress have in exercising this power? The Supreme Court as early as 1875 in the case of Newhall v. Sanger held:

The Government holds public land, in trust for the people, to be disposed of so as to promote the settlement and ultimate prosperity of the States in which they are situated.

In my filed statement there are further cases cited. Thus, under the Constitution, Congress acts as trustee in determining the use of public lands for the greatest benefit of maximum number. This means that the best management of public lands should be determined affirmatively by Congress giving due regard to whatever use or combination of uses offers the greatest good to the greatest number.

Accordingly, we believe that Congress should retain its full authority in order to fulfill its responsibilities as trustee of the public domain. In doing so, it should require the various governmental agencies supporting particular uses to prove which use or uses which will result in the greatest benefit to the maximum number. Such use should not be determined in a proceeding before an executive agency in which the stated presumption is that exclusive wilderness use is the highest use. The justification for any proposed use should be shown to Congress for its decision.

Further, delegation by Congress of its responsibility as trustee would eliminate the only remaining effective voice for those who are most affected by a proposed withdrawal.

Congress has had the experience of having to recapture its authority. That experience began with the act of March 3, 1891. This is the very basic act of delegation to which the Secretary referred earlier this morning. Under this act the executive commenced using this new authority and never looked back. Congress didn't catch up until 1907. In that year it was necessary for Congress, by the act of March 4, 1907, to recall its delegated authority by providing

That hereafter no forest reserve shall be created within the limits of the States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, or Wyoming, except by act of Congress. Commenting on the expansion and abuse of the authority delegated to the executive, Senator Clark of Wyoming observed that there was very little conception upon the part of the Senate or the country as to the extent to which the Forest Service had been carried and the power of the forester increased.

When Arizona and New Mexico were admitted to the Union, Congress included then in the restriction against increasing forest reserves "except by act of Congress." This could be done only by act of Congress.

The Secretary of Agriculture in 1924 initiated procedures to protect the primitive character of a portion of the Gila National Forest in New Mexico. In 1929 the Secretary authorized the Forest Service to set aside primitive areas within the national forests. In 1939 the Secretary of Agriculture provided by regulations which are cited in my filed statement for the establishment of wilderness-"and wild areas." Withdrawals under this assumed authority have occurred without any direction on the part of Congress. Eventually Congress will have to face the same problem it faced in 1906 to regain its position as trustee with positive control over the public domain which is entrusted to it.

We believe Congress should not relinquish its responsibility to make affirmative decisions. Should the Congress choose to give full attention and consideration to recommendations of the President for additions to the wilderness system, the same amount of congressional timewill be involved in either opposing or favoring the recommendation.

Further, since the citizens whose interests are directly affected would be deprived of a forum and a positive voice through their representatives, it may be expected that they would devote time and effort futilely complaining to their Congressmen.

There is no such substitute for a thorough and unbiased analysis by Congress of all the factors involved in public lands administration in the light of their ever-changing values. There is no advantage to postponement of the exercise of this power.

In response to Senator Anderson's request for brevity I shall only refer to the testimony and recommendations of the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association when it testified before this committee on S. 174 on February 28, 1961. For the reasons presented then, and the additional reasons presented by us today, we urge your favorable consideration of the Allott amendment to S. 4.

Senator ANDERSON. Thank you particularly for the brevity which you certainly exemplified.

You mentioned this provision about recalling the delegated authority, at the bottom of page 2:

Providing that hereafter no forest reserve shall be created within the limits of the States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, or Wyoming, except by act of Congress.

And you think at the last

there is no substitute for a thorough and unbiased analysis by Congress of all the factors involved in public lands administration.

Do you approve of that language that was put in in 1907 that

was

Mr. CLINE. I approve it to this extent, that Congress found it necessary to recapture its delegated authority.

Senator ANDERSON. Did you think that was done on the basis of a thorough and unbiased analysis by Congress of all the facts involved? Mr. CLINE. I would hope that that was the case.

Senator ANDERSON. You cited it. You must have looked at it. Was it not put on as a rider to the appropriation bill without any discussion by committees of Congress?

Mr. CLINE. I certainly think there was lengthy discussion on the floor of the Senate for days. I do not know of committee discussions. Senator ANDERSON. We have had lots of discussions on the floor of the Congress about some rules recently, but that doesn't mean we had a long and unbiased analysis. If you are going to pass legislation—are you going to cut out Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, and Wyooming and include others who have forest preserves?

Mr. CLINE. I do not think they should be left out but I think they have a condition in those public land States which concern special consideration of the effect of a bill such as Senate 4.

Senator ANDERSON. I don't argue with your statement that Congress is trustee. I just hope you heard the statement Senator Metcalf made that they operated in his State without reference to the people who represent that State and they do it in other fields as well.

We have a bill on Hells Canyon before the Interior Committee and I had the unpleasant task of conducting the hearings. They ran for days and days and days, thick volumes. The Senate finally passed the bill providing for the public construction of Hells Canyon Dam and the Federal Power Commission gave authority to Idaho

Power to go ahead and build it and it became a completely moot question. So sometimes Congress does like to assert its rights even though it doesn't get too much consideration.

Senator Allott?

Senator ALLOTT. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I don't have any questions except one of Mr. Cline but I appreciate his coming here and these other gentlemen accompanying him because it seems to me that they pointed up in this statement in a unique way the responsibility of Congress which is, of course, the one thing in this bill that I personally feel so strongly about.

Mr. Cline, you were sitting there when I was questioning Mr. Cliff. Would you agree that under the provisions of the bill on page 15 that the provisions with respect to mining have escalated the decisionmaking power almost, maybe not literally but almost literally, beyond any practical meaningfulness?

Mr. CLINE. I agree to the extent that if I were called on to advise how to approach the problem, I could not give an answer that would be practical.

Senator ALLOTT. Thank you.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Burdick?

Senator BURDICK. No questions.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Simpson?

Senator SIMPSON. No questions.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Mechem?
Senator MECHEM. No questions.

Senator ANDERSON. Senator Metcalf?

Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I just have one point.

Mr. Cline, is it your position and the position of the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association that you represent that the wilderness areas should be discontinued that have been established by a delegation of power to the Secretary of Agriculture?

Mr. CLINE. No, Senator Metcalf. The Rocky Mountain Association is in favor of wilderness areas.

Senator METCALF. So all the wilderness areas that have been created so far are all right. Even though they have been created under this legislation that you feel is an improper delegation.

Mr. CLINE. We are proceeding now, of course, to prospect, shall I say, for oil and gas under administrative regulations and I would say that they are all right to the extent that we have been able to prospect for oil and gas within those regulations and that prospecting has been found compatible with the use to which this land is devoted. Senator METCALF. Are you prospecting in wilderness areas? Mr. CLINE. In forest areas. I think I should correct that. Senator METCALF. Now, you are critical of the delegation of the power of Congress. It was my understanding that you said that we should go back and analyze-the Chairman read your statement about an appraisal-each one of these areas for the use to which it should be put. Now, according to the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Senator from Colorado brought it out, there are 16 existing wilderness areas amounting to 6,285,186 acres and they have been created by the Secretary of Agriculture after hearing and been set aside by Executive orders.

Now, would you eliminate those areas or would you keep them at the present time?

Mr. CLINE. I would keep those areas but for the future

Senator METCALF. So you would agree with the Senator from Colorado and you would agree I believe with most of the members of this committee that at least the wilderness areas that have been created to date should be kept wilderness.

Mr. CLINE. That is right. There is no quarrel with a wilderness system. The quarrel is with the basis on which that wilderness system will be used. Our approach is this, that the trusteeship of Congress should see that the balanced use of any public land should be for the benefit of the maximum number of people.

Now, if the system-let's take an analogy of a private trustee. He wants a balanced estate for the benefit of his growing family. Does the trustee go and turn over the investment of his trust, we will say, to a real estate broker, a bond salesman, a stock salesman or a banker and say, "You go ahead with this, and once in a while come back to me and I will tell you whether I disapprove of what you have done"? I dare say that if you turned it over to a banker, the likelihood would be that the funds would be invested in the bank as deposits. A real estate broker would invest in real estate. It seems to me this is not the way to achieve a balanced portfolio.

Senator ANDERSON. I only want to get this in quickly. As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, I will tell you if you don't turn it over absolutely, you may have some tax problems when you die. You lawyers would understand that. You recognize there are certain things you had better allow the trustee to do if you hope to get away with tax benefits.

Mr. CLINE. I think this can be called a fringe benefit for the estate managers who are present.

Senator ANDERSON. I think it might be. I think one of the finest things lawyers-one of the finest functions lawyers serve is as estate planners.

Senator METCALF. I just still don't quite understand what you would do with the existing wilderness areas.

Mr. CLINE. We would take the position that the present areas should be maintained.

Senator METCALF. As wilderness?

Mr. CLINE. As wilderness but they are, of course, subject to review by the Congress.

Senator METCALF. Of course they are subject to review by the Congress. This Congress could enact a law that would say that you could go in and you could drill for oil in the middle of Yellowstone National Park on the site of Old Faithful Geyser if the Congress desired to do so. I don't think any Member of Congress would vote for such a piece of legislation.

Mr. CLINE. And I don't think we would be unwise enough to seek it. But

Senator METCALF. But there are folks who would suggest that this be done and here in the Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Association, but I wouldn't think your association as such would take such a position. Mr. CLINE. I am not acquainted with those individual members, sir.

Senator METCALF. Well, the reason it was created, Yellowstone National Park was created, was so that the mining people could not come in and stake a claim on some of the greatest scenery.