not the concern of this subcommittee, may I have this statement submitted for the record, and capsule what I have said?

Senator HART. Indeed, yes.

Let the statement be printed in the record in full as though given. Mr. KIMBALL. Our statement can be summarized in about six different topics.

First, oil shale lands should be recognized as a great public asset, and should remain in public ownership and management.

Second, the Congress should declare invalid the old claims on which the required assessment work has not been done under the old mining law-the original claimants have long since passed on, and about the only ones that have an interest are attorneys and some of the oil companies who are interested in the validity of what was once determined by the Interior Department and the courts to be invalid mining claims.

Third, to adopt laws which require utilization of the oil shale resource in the manner best designated to protect the surface. The oil shale country is the wintering grounds for the largest migrating deer herd in North America, and this public asset must also be safeguarded. In this connection, we hope the in situ recovery method proves to be the most successful—at least in that area where there is so much overburden, because to strip mine or use the open pit method would eliminate this very valuable resource.

Senator HART. I think you use the right word-you say "tragic."

Mr. KIMBALL. That is right. It would be tragic. Fourth, without casting any aspersions at any agency or individual or administration, we think the basic policies and regulations governing the development of such a vast and valuable public resource should be set out by law. I hate to even refer to the Teapot Dome scandals, because of what already has been said before the committee, but nonetheless, this happened. And the present problems revolving around the creation of a Redwoods Park is another example of a resource that was once entirely in public ownership, having passed almost entirely to private ownership, and now the Government is in the position of trying to buy back at great cost enough of these magnificent specimen trees to preserve them for posterity.

So we certainly hope that the Congress itself will give attention to setting out in the law the methods and regulations by which this very valuable public asset should be developed. Fifth, we also feel there should be a revised distribution formula for royalties. We make the same point as Mr. Dennis of the Izaak Walton League. But I suppose we better take that up with the Interior Committee.

We are also of the opinion that the Federal Government should retain in a much greater portion of the royalties, and that no low-fixed fee be determined in advance.

Also, we believe that the removal of the depletion allowance on the federally leased land would make a substantial contribution to the Federal Treasury, and by that addition, the means to adequately finance badly needed social programs.

And six, care should be taken that this vast mineral resource of public wealth can be developed competitively with the small oil companies entitled to a share in the leasing and extraction of this valuable mineral resource.

And in this connection, I would like to add a few additional comments to the testimony given by one of the witnesses this morning. If the technique for the extraction of the oil from shale has not been developed to this point, and the cost of additional research is so vast that only the larger oil companies are going to be able to perfect this type of technique, then it seems to me that the Government has a responsibility of continuing in this research field, in order to provide techniques for other companies who may not have that amount of money if the development of oil shale is to be competitive.

If the hundreds of millions of dollars of research work that has been bandied around is actually the cost to develop a technique I really don't see how the Government can stay out of it. At least the research part of it--in order to develop a process which would permit the smaller companies to compete.

Senator HART. Well, on that point, Mr. Kimball, many of us have this feeling that the key to competition in the petroleum business is a method of economic extraction. We are told it is not in hand yet. Any number of methods have been suggested as to how we shall get it. Apparently who holds the key when it is cast will determine largely whether we will have increased competition or monopoly.

Mr. KIMBALL. That is exactly right.

Senator HART. I guess this, in the eyes of many experts in the field, oversimplifies it. But I will have to plead guilty to having this attitude at this moment.

Mr. KIMBALL. Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the techniques or process of removing oil from the oil shale competitively is any different from most of the other techniques developed by industry. If they can find a better way of doing things, do it more economically, they have an economic advantage. And if there is some way that the Government can encourage the larger companies to do this type of research work, and yet not permit it to be developed into the type of monopoly for singular advantage to a company or a group of companies, then this, of course, would be the advisable way to do it. And I don't envy the committee's position in trying to arrange a procedure whereby this can be accomplished. But certainly if no one else will do it, the Government should help develop the techniques so competition would be assured.

Senator HART. You know, the Federal Government spends about $17 billion a year on research. Admittedly it is somebody's guess but the figure has been given us that it would take a hundred million dollars to break through, to get the key. If that is the cost, in the 4 days that this committee has been holding hearings, the government has spent twice that much in research on something else, how to get to the moon, or get downtown. I am in favor of both. But it is not an astronomic figure if a hundred million dollars is fairly accurate. There is no grinding of teeth around here when we talk about several billions to pursue the celestial travel. Probably in terms of the bookkeeper's analysis of return on investment, there is probably a much easier case that the public investment in developing techniques to extract the oil will be repaid many times over than the several billions spent in reaching the moon.

Mr. KIMBALL. As I see this, if the Government's research program is as good as industry, let's say-and I see no reason really why it

should not be--and the technique is found to extract oil competitively, the process could be offered to all bidders and public values preserved. But if the Government expects private industry to do all the research and development at its own cost, then whoever develops and patents the process will have a monopoly in the development of one of this Nation's richest assets. The question of competitive development would be resolved and Government would have to take some stand, I would think, to prevent a monopoly from developing. Senator HART. Thank you very much.

I appreciate very much your further thought on that point.
Mr. KIMBALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Kimball follows:)

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. KIMBALL ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE

FEDERATION

I am Thomas L. Kimball, Executive Director of the National Wildlife Federation, which has its national headquarters at 1412 16th Street, N.W., here in Washington, D.C.

The National Wildlife Federation is a private tax-exempt organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means. The Federation has Affiliates in 49 States. These Affiliates, in turn, are made up of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters of the National Wildlife Federation, number an estimated 2,000,000 persons.

Mr. Chairman, I come today to tell you that the National Wildlife Federation has a deep and abiding conviction that the tremendously valuable oil shale lands must remain in Federal ownership. They must be administered to protect the great public values. Our organization took this position in a resolution adopted during the annual convention in 1966, a part of which reads:

"A national policy on oil shale should direct that the Federal Government continue in oil shale technology and research, with all exploitation of minerals located on public lands being accomplished under leasing arrangements, allowing control of the surface resources to remain with the Federal Government."

At the outset, believing it relevant, I should also point out that I have had more than a passing familiarity with these lands. It was my personal privilege and pleasure to serve as administrator of the Colorado State wildlife agency for nearly a decade, and know firsthand all too well many of the propertiesand problems-involved in this complex situation.

The unfortunate history of the magnificent redwood groves in California comes to mind when the oil shale assets are discussed.

A history of the redwoods reads like a first-class frontier adventure novel, or a Hitchcock-style movie, with the good guys battling the bad guys. When California and the Oregon Territory became parts of the United States, all of the giant redwoods grew on Federal land. The young, new, and vigorous nation was rich in natural resources and there were men who stood ready to exploit them. Some far-looking conservation leaders endeavored to protect these national assets, but the Homestead and Timber and Stone Acts did not allow a person or company to acquire forested land of sufficient amount and size to make commercial logging economically feasible. As a consequence, the era of the great land frauds came into being. So-called "timber barons" manipulated, circumvented, and contravened the law until the land pattern within the incomparable redwoods had changed completely-from Federal ownership to near-complete private ownership. Now, the Federal Government is placed in the paradoxical position of attempting to buy back enough of the redwoods to create a national park worthy of the name and at a price exceedingly dear.

The same cannot-or should not-happen with oil shale lands. Yet, all of the same ingredients are there.

Unless one has lived and worked in the oil shale country it is difficult to appreciate the air of get-rich-quick connivance, of heady profiteering. Lawyers deal in what was once determined by the courts to be invalid mining claims for high stakes. Speculation drives paper "values" and "profits" up to unbelievable heights. All of this is built on outdated and outmoded mining laws governing mineral assets owned by all the people of the United States.

At least part of the uncertainty surrounding the oil shale lands has its genesis in an unfortunate situation. The management of the public domain lands, in the past, has not been of the type to instill confidence in the Federal Government. Most laws under which public domain lands are administered were enacted at a time in our nation's history when our resources needed exploiting and incentives had to be given in order to colonize our great land. That era has passed. We need to repeal these outmoded statutes and enact a new body of law designed to protect the public interest while developing what remains of our resource wealth. To make a difficult task almost impossible the professional management staff of the Bureau of Land Management long was held at ridiculously low numbers. Each employee had far too much land to supervise for him to do an efficient job. I might interject the observation here that the BLM still is woefully understaffed, with respect to assignments and in comparison to other Federal land management agencies. In short, the task of keeping up with all of the claims on oil shale lands was beyond reason, especially when there was no requirement that the Federal Government even be notified and in the light of conflicting and outmoded laws and court interpretations. Claims are superimposed upon others. Some few people each located more than 50 claims!

Mr. Chairman, it is our opinion that the time has come for the Congress to bring order into this confused and contradictory situation. Now that research appears to be on the threshold of important breakthroughs in the processing of oil shale, it is even more urgent that basic decisions be made.

The National Wildlife Federation believes the Congress soon must take these highly significant steps:

1. Recognize by a suitable policy statement that the oil shale lands are public assets which will remain in public ownership and management. This declaration will discourage private speculation.

2. Declare invalid-or null and void-all old claims on lands on which the required assessment work has not been done. The original claimants have long since passed on from this frail existence. Attorneys out for a fast buck and some oil companies apparently are now showing an almost exclusive interest in reviving the validity of what was once determined by the Interior Department and the Courts to be an invalid mining claim. Otherwise, the entire oil shale program seems destined to settle into a morass of inactivity necessitated by the resolution of claims and counter-claims-a process which could take decades.

3. Adopt laws which require utilization of the oil shale resources in the manner best designed to protect the surface. The oil shale country is the wintering grounds for the largest migrating deer herd in North America and these assets also must be safeguarded. Protection of the land surface is one reason we hope the in situ retorting method proves the most successful. Opening these lands to one gigantic strip-mining, or open pit mining, operation would be tragic.

Without casting aspersions at any agency, or individual, or administration, we think these basic policies and regulations governing the development of such a vast and valuable public resource should be set out by law. In this manner, any temptation for another "Teapot Dome" scandal will be lessened. Sen. Douglas might not even need a “Watchdog Committee” although we are inclined to agree with him on its desirability.

4. Set out a revised distribution formula for royalties. We agree that the States involved should benefit from this public resource, but believe there is no justification whatever for diverting 52% percent to the Reclamation Fund. The Reclamation Fund is designed principally to help finance the irrigation and reclamation of agricultural lands in the western states. There is no solid rationale whatever for giving these special interests such a windfall.

In our opinion, the Federal Government must retain a much greater portion of the royalties. Surely the people of the U.S. who own this land are entitled to at least a 1% royalty-the same amount usually provided private landowners on any oil development lease. Under no circumstances should a low-fixed fee for lease holders be developed. All lease monies, except that paid to state and local governments, should be set aside for broad public benefits such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund, education, health, and other projects the Congress would approve.

5. Remove the depletion allowance on Federally leased land. If the land remains in Federal ownership, as we believe it should there is no reason for the oil companies which utilize the resources to get this generous tax consideration. In this manner, the Treasury of the United States and the proper financing of badly needed social programs should benefit in still another way.

6. Care should be taken that this vast amount of public wealth be developed competitively with the small oil companies entitled to share in the leasing and extraction of this valuable mineral resource.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we should make the observation that this matter is of extremely high importance and significance. In fact, we doubt that the Congress has a more important single principle to consider, from a financial point-of-view, than this policy relating to oil shale. From the long-range pointof-view, this certainly is one of the most important decisions ever to be made in the resources field. Therefore, we urge that this august body not procrastinate until the decisions are made.

Thank you for the opportunity of making these observations.

Senator HART. Our concluding witness scheduled for today is the executive vice president of the American Forestry Association, Mr. William Towell.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. TOWELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FORESTRY ASSOCIATION

Mr. TOWELL. Mr. Chairman, I am William E. Towell, executive vice president of the American Forestry Association. I think in view of previous testimony, it might be appropriate to say that I, too, am an alumnus of the University of Michigan. However, our friend Dr. Childs has departed.

Senator HART. What school-Forestry?

Mr. TowELL. Yes, sir. Our association, with a membership of 53,000 has a vital interest in the oil shale resources. As a conservation organization, we are particularly interested in seeing that these resources are used in the best interest of all Americans, and that other natural resources are not wasted or destroyed in the mining of the oil shale. Congress, we think, has a great responsibility in the development of this resource to insure that the citizens of America who own it receive full value from the industries that are awarded mining leases. Our concern on this subject was expressed in an editorial in the March issue of American Forest Magazine, which we would like to call to the attention of your committee, and request that it be made a part of your hearing record.

Senator HART. It certainly will be. I am delighted to know that the editorial staff and the association took the time and space to bring to the attention of your readers the underlying problem.

Mr. TOWELL. Thank you, sir. We feel a responsibility to call this problem to the attention of the American people, through this vehicle which we have, American Forests magazine. Much remains to be known about the oil shale resource and our responsibility is to help the public, as much as we can to understand it.

There is no need for me to read the editorial. We think it expresses our viewpoint quite clearly.

I will add that the conservationists who have preceded me as witnesses here have adequately presented the conservation viewpoint— Dr. Smith, Mr. Dennis, and Mr. Kimball.

I would summarize our position very briefly by saying that we would like to recommend first of all an orderly development of the oil shale resources, a balance between industry and government, as Mr. Kimball pointed out--so that no strong or big industry is able to develop complete control or monopoly, and that government con