As a matter of fact, if you will recall, I made a similar statement in Alaska when the question was raised as to whether the Commission would be dealing with this subject. I said I hoped it would be resolved before the Commission submits its report.

Upon being briefed on this, the Chairman then wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Interior stating that the Commission had found the problem to be as tremendous as it is and urging the Secretary to come up with recommendations as to how this problem should be solved if he himself found he was without authority to do something within the Department administratively.

Mr. POLLOCK. You may be aware that about the first of the year the Secretary of the Interior froze all land transactions which we are really very concerned about, and that apparently he has no intention of relinquishing the freeze or thawing it in any way until legislation is passed by the Congress.

I am hopeful that we can first have some hearings in Alaska on this matter on a bill which is before Congress now and it will be enacted into law next year sometime.

The only other comment I would like to make, and I do not want to cast any aspersions on the gentleman from Wisconsin on the committee, but I was wondering why the study of Alaska was being done by the University of Wisconsin instead of the University of Alaska. We would have been happy to have the $240,000 study conducted by the university.

Mr. PEARL. I will agree it is a very good university and I know personally the director of the research institute up there, Mr. Fisher, and know his qualifications. I have also met other people in the university including President Wood with whom I had the pleasure of discussing these factors. We received proposals for the Alaska study from several different prospective contractors. In sum, I would say this: that we got, from the University of Wisconsin, what we think is the best contract at the lowest price for the shortest period of time to complete this job and that is why they are doing it.

I would be glad to go into more detail now or any time at your convenience.

Mr. HOSMER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. POLLOCK. Yes.

Mr. HOSMER. I just want to observe I think his suggestion would be something like putting the fox in the henhouse to watch the chickens. The CHAIRMAN. May the Chair state that he thinks this should be taken up with the Director or with the Chairman of the Commission, because I think when you find the way that these contracts are evaluated, you have to admit with me--and I have been in the same position as my colleague that we have to consider more than local interest as far as contracts are concerned.

Mr. POLLOCK. I am sure you do, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure they will do a very excellent job and I appreciated the comment Mr. Pearl made about it. I can only indicate that the people in Alaska were surprised when the contract was given to the University of Wisconsin. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. MCCLURE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to join with what has been said as far as the work of the Commission for those of us in my State watching the activities of the Commission. It has been my pleasure to check with several members

of the Commission on the work that is being done and we are proud of the Idaho members of this Commission; both of the Commission and the members of the Advisory Council.

We think the job being done is being done in an excellent manner and there can scarcely be a single matter of greater importance to the public land States than the review being undertaken.

Certainly I commend you on the work that is being done and I hope that indeed we will find this extension will be sufficient for you to complete your work because vital interests of our State are involved, and vital to the Nation as well.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. May I say, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Pearl, I am confident the University of Wisconsin was a good selection. It is in my district, and they have competence in the field, and I am sure even the gentleman from Alaska will ultimately be satisfied.

Mr. PEARL. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. MORTON. Mr. Pearl, the point brought up by the gentleman from Oklahoma as to the time available for the utilization of these studies by the Commission and to come up with final recommendations based on their evaluation and interpretation seems to me to be the real crux of whether this is going to be an effective job or not.

You are going to suddenly come up with a great many studies. You are going to project these studies well into 1969 before they actually are available to the Commission.

This concerns me, the balance of this work, as to whether the Commission itself is going to have the time to fully utilize the studies prior to coming up with a recommendation.

I know you must have thought about this, and do you have any answer to it?

Mr. PEARL. Of course we are aware of this, and we think-we based our assumption on obtaining additional funding during this year by October 1. If we do not get additional money by October 1, 1967, this whole schedule will be disrupted and I do not know whether the extension would be sufficient.

Mr. MORTON. But even if you obtain additional funding and are able to meet the projections, as you have them on the chart, would you be able to bring the Commission together frequently enough during the interim period between the time these studies are completed and the time they have to come up with a final report to really do an adequate job.

Mr. PEARL. We think so. The Chairman and I have discussed this in detail and laid out this timetable and think it can be done. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MORTON. I yield.

The CHAIRMAN. We will complete the program if the Chairman has his way, as soon as we have the studies which handle the whole subject of any particular matter, and then the Commission begins to work on final conclusions and recommendations. We do not intend to wait until the last where it is necessary to have the latest subject so the analyses made by the staff can be before the Commission. In other words, we will have just as much expedition as we can. I feel just like my colleague from Maryland-there are just some things you cannot push, that is all there is to it.

Mr. MORTON. This was one of the difficulties we had on the Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico. It made it very, very difficult. The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman understands the problem, and he is going to try to expedite it.

Mr. MORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has asked the Director to see whether or not we could have a report on the additional man-hours and time so we could put it in our report. I think it is in the statement and I think that what you would suggest is that as far as the year is concerned, inasmuch as we ask for 18 additional months, as near as possible the first year would be two-thirds of what we are asking for as far as man-hours and expenses concerned, and last year would be approximately one-third.

This is so the Members of the House understand when we get it to the floor.

If you would try to furnish that to us by tomorrow morning, we would appreciate it.

Mr. PEARL. We will do it, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. And it will be made a part of the record following the executive communication.

(The letter referred to appears on p. 36.)

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to state there is a letter from the Secretary of the Interior being sent up to us endorsing and supporting this legislation, and I would ask that letter be made a part of the record along with the other letters inserted in the record and the beginning of the statement.

Are there any additional comments?

If not, unless there is an objection, H.R. 12121 will be considered as having been read in full and open for amendment at any point. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

Are there any amendments? If not, unless there is an objection, H.R. 12121 will be forwarded to the House with a favorable recommendation that it do pass.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

Unless there is an objection, the title will be amended in accordance with the existing provision of the bill.

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.

The Chair designates the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Baring, to prepare and file the necessary report.

We thank you very much, the members of the staff of the Commission, for appearing before the committee this morning in support of this legislation, and the chairman thanks the members for getting the information which he thinks is necessary to their better understanding of this legislation.

(Whereupon, the committee proceeded to other business.)

APPENDIX

Pursuant to permission previously granted the following statements are included in the record.

Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL,

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION,
Washington, D.C., August 11, 1967.

Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We have been interested to notice your introduction of the bill to extend the life of the Public Land Law Review Commission, and to increase the financial authorization for it.

It is our opinion that such an extension is both necessary and desirable if the Commission is to complete the work. However, we recall that two other important Acts, those relating to the multiple use classification of public lands, are geared to the termination of work of the Public Land Law Review Commission. Therefore, we wonder if arrangements are being made to extend the effective dates of these Acts by similar periods, either through separate legislation or by amendments to S. 2255 and H.R. 12121? We believe these extensions are equally necessary and desirable.

Thank you for the opportunity of making these observations.
Sincerely,

LOUIS S. CLAPPER,

Chief, Division of Conservation Education.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE,

August 15, 1967.

Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN ASPINALL: The Institute is concerned about one aspect of H.R. 12121, which according to the schedule of committee meetings in the "Congressional Record," will be before the committee on August 16, and 17.

Nowhere in the suggested amendments to the act creating the Public Land Law Review Commission can we find reference to the important Public Sales Act (Public Law 88-606) and the Classification and Multiple Use Act (Public Law 88-608). These Acts conferred necessary, temporary authority on the Bureau of Land Management to deal with pressing public lands problems. As enacted, they are scheduled to terminate at the present termination date for the Public Land Law Review Commission. Under H. R. 12121, the two Acts would expire 18 months prior to the end of the work of the Commission.

The Institute believes that the extension sought for the Public Land Law Review Commission in H. R. 12121 is both necessary and desirable. Certainly, the Commission's work should not be hurried or abbreviated because of the pressures of time or the lack of funds. The very nature of the Commission's complex assignment demands that a competent and thorough study be conducted. For these reasons we join other conservationists in supporting the objectives of H. R. 12121.

We are hopeful, however, that the bill will be amended to similarly extend the authority of the Public Sales and the Classification and Multiple Use Acts. If for any reason it would be impractical to include such necessary extensions in H. R. 12121, then we would suggest that the subject be considered in separate legislation to accompany and be handled on the same schedule as H.R. 12121.

Sincerely,

DANIEL A. POOLE, Secretary.