There are 22-million acres there, I mean that very seriously, there are 22-million acres there which is an area the size of the State of Indiana.

They have spent some $50 million in exploration by the Seabees, the last which was done in 1956 or 1953, somewhere along there. They drilled to a depth of 300 feet in, if I recall correctly, six wells, and they hit oil and/or gas in all six wells. They are furnishing the village of Point Barrow, Alaska, with natural gas which is coming out from one of these wells.

They have not spent any more in exploration even though the fields. which were struck at Prudhoe Bay, 68 miles away, were struck at 13,000 to 14,000 feet. They have steadfastly refused, and this is Armed Service Committee policy and Armed Services policy to explore no further because they are afraid that they are going to find something which they may be compelled to use.

Now, I don't think I can be accused of squandering the resources of this country and I am not suggesting that we develop petroleum reserve No. 4 and start gobbling up the oil there, but I think it is absolutely ludicrous to have a petroleum reserve for strategic military purpose which could not in any stretch of the imagination be brought into production within 6 years.

There is no way in the present state of the art to bring Petroleum Reserve No. 4 into production in less than 6 years that I am aware of, and yet the Armed Services Committee fights against a modest exploration period.

I have a bill in and we haven't had hearings to increase the jurisdiction and leave it with the Armed Services, to spend $100 million over a period of 5 years.

You say 4-million barrels. When you are talking about the Prudhoe Bay field, you are talking about provable and when you talk about 40-billion barrels in petroleum reserve No. 4, that is conjecture.

I think it is probably pretty good conjecture, but we don't know. We don't have any way of knowing and we haven't made any effort to find out. I don't care whether Armed Services has it or who has it, but we at least ought to get it developed.

I don't think that is going to happen as long as it stays in Armed Services.

Mr. BERESFORD. You approved of our previous tentative decision. Chairman BOLLING. This is the one I personally think we are going to have to take to the floor and fight over. I don't see how we are going to avoid it.

Mr. STEIGER. Either way.

Chairman BOLLING. I think that is exactly correct. I think the proof of that is in the vote we had on the House floor which came late at night and probably didn't prove anything final, but it was pretty clear.

Mr. STEIGER. Let us keep it in energy and environment.

Mr. MEEDS. That vote came over a thing on the Elk Hills matter where Standard may be slant drilling and taking some oil away. Chairman BOLLING. It is not on all fours.

Mr. MEEDS. Maybe the military are right on Military Reserve No. 4-on Elk Hills-but I think they are terribly wrong and antiquated in their thinking on Petroleum Reserve No. 4 in Alaska.

28-947-74-pt. 1-4

Mr. SARBANES. It seems to me that they are entitled to adequate reserves. I don't get upset at their having a reasonable reserve placed under their jurisdiction to insure that they can meet their responsibilities.

If you work it out to the logical extreme, it gets pretty ridiculous. If you go in one direction, you could assert that they ought to have jurisdiction over any such reserves on any publicly owned land because they have got to maintain that assurance.

I guess the question I am really asking is whether it can be defined in such a way that a reasonable jurisdiction can be given to the Armed Services Committee to meet the security question they raise, and at the same time insure that they will not gobble up the whole thing on the basis of what they feel they have to carve out to protect this interest. Mr. MEEDS. I agree. The problem with Petroleum Reserve No. 4, they don't know either. They may have 40 billion barrels and they may have 40 million.

We know they have more than 40. How can you make that kind of determination when they don't even know. They haven't even done the kind of exploration that would be required to find out.

Mr. SARBANES. It seems to me the point they make has some legitimacy to it. I would try to accommodate. I assume a properly developed Energy and Environment Committee, even if it did not have this jurisdiction, would be in position to put the issue fairly to the House over a long period of time. Then if the Armed Services Committee held on to the jurisdiction it could be verly effectively challenged by another committee that had both the expertise and knowledge to make the kind of point you have just been making.

That is something that might eventually flow out of a jurisdictional arrangement, but I think the contention they are making has validity up to a point.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman BOLLING. Surely.

Mr. YOUNG. To indicate to the committee that I don't have any parochial interest in the Armed Services Committee, but I do have in areas of national security, I would like to advise Mr. Meeds I agree with him.

I have no problem with this change of jurisdiction. I want to cite one example where he is so right.

In the national stockpile which the Armed Services has jurisdiction over today, we found a many, many, many years supply of a product called sisal which after 7 years is unusuable and rots.

This oil reserve being tapped by slant drilling or whatever could be a similar type of example. I agree with you on this and have no problem at all with this change in jurisdiction.

Mr. STEIGER. That seems to settle that.

Chairman BOLLING. I have talked a couple of the Members into staying a few more minutes, but when I look at the problems that Banking and Currency and Housing raises. I suggest that we now adjourn until Thursday, and come back at 2 o'clock. The members have been most cooperative. It would really be helpful if we try to be here at 2 or as soon after 2 as the rollcall makes possible.

[Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p.m., Thursday, February 7, 1974.]

COMMITTEE REFORM AMENDMENTS OF 1974

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1974

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 321, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Richard Bolling [chairman of the committee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Bolling, Stephens, Meeds, Sarbanes, Martin, Wiggins, Steiger, and Young.

Also present: Charles S. Sheldon II, chief of staff; Melvin M. Miller, deputy chief of staff; Gerald J. Grady, Spencer M. Beresford, Linda H. Kamm, Robert C. Ketcham, Walter J. Oleszek, Roger H. Davidson, Terence T. Finn, Mary E. Zalar, Linda G. Stephenson, and Joan B. Bachula.

Chairman BOLLING. The committee will be in order.

The place that we had reached yesterday is page 8, and page 9, the Committee on Banking and Currency. The losses in the Committee on Banking and Currency are in mass transit, to Public Works and Transportation, foundations, and charitable trusts to Ways and Means; Commodity Credit Corporation to Agriculture; international trade to Foreign Affairs.

Gains: The Select Committee on Small Business and renegotiation from Ways and Means. The Select Committee on Small Business would come from the Permanent Select Committee on Small Business. Under "Unresolved Issues" it is, "Should college housing be moved to the Education Committee?

"Should nursing home construction be moved to Commerce and Health?

"What is the proper split between international trade financing institutions and other financial or monetary institutions?

"Should this committee have some jurisdiction over land-use planning?

"Should renegotiation jurisdiction which involves excess profits primarily in defense production be in the same committee as defense production measures?

"Would Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs be a more appropriate name for the committee?

"Should lead-based paint jurisdiction be transferred to Commerce and Health?"

We are just about the only people who have these massive comparative prints. I would be interested in the comment of Mr. Martin on any of these issues and then I will go around the table.

Mr. MARTIN. I would like to yield to Mel to explain one change.

Mr. MILLER. This is in regard to international financial institutions. I will say initially that this sheet I have was prepared as a possible substitute for the language that appears in item No. 6 under the proposed jurisdictional language. There has been further discussion and it has been more or less agreed upon that we should propose to have No. 6 read just "international finance," and leave off all the language both on the sheet that was passed around and on item No. 6 in the proposed jurisdictional language.

This most clearly reflects the position taken by the select committee in its deliberations on this matter in December, and the items that were contained in the committee print. In other words, it leaves together as one unit the financial institutions, international financial institutions, including the International Monetary Fund and the loan institutions, which are in the Banking and Currency Committee, which is where they are now. That was the position taken by the committee previously.

It was somewhat of a misinterpretation in item 6 to provide that it would not include other international financial and monetary organizations. The general consensus of the staff is that No. 6 would read "international finance."

Mr. STEIGER. What about export controls?

Mr. MILLER. That wasn't supposed to be in there at all. That is under another item. There is no need to say it is not included here because it is already included in a positive way under foreign affairs. Chairman BOLLING. Does that seem satisfactory to everybody? Mr. SARBANES. What is this paper, then?

Mr. MILLER. That was prepared as an interim replacement for No. 6. It does essentially what was agreed upon, and that is to have it remain as "international finance." Actually, that paper would allow it to be subject to review by the Foreign Affairs Committee, which the committee did not do either. But that was considered to be sort of an interim compromise type of position between the two.

Mr. STEIGER. Exports controls under foreign affairs is not there now. Did we transfer export controls?

Mr. MILLER. Yes. On page 21 you will find it listed in No. 3 in the proposed jurisdictional language, the fourth line down. It says "export controls." So it is positively there and it does not have to be not included here by exclusionary language.

Mr. STEIGER. That is not listed as a gain on page 20?

Mr. MILLER. Perhaps it should be. Yes, that is where it would be included.

Chairman BOLLING. Is there objection to that?

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of Mel, similar to a subject we talked about yesterday.

In your brackets here, you say, "subject to review by the Foreign Affairs Committee." How do you define the word "review"? To what extent are they going to review? Is it just for their own information or will they have some sort of power there?

Mr. MILLER. It would be academic because it is out now. It would be the same way as the word "review" was discussed yesterday, in connection with the foreign intelligence, I think. It is not the primary type jurisdiction, but means someone else would also have an interest in it. As I say, it would be academic at this point because the language is out.

Mr. YOUNG. I understand that, but I am trying to get thoughts on how different people are considering the use of that word or the use of that type of language.

Chairman BOLLING. Is there anything further on this matter? Is that concluded? Bill?

Mr. STEIGER. When we get to either Foreign Affairs or Ways and Means, I have a point. I am intrigued by the Foreign Affairs Committee members, I am sorry our two on this committee are not here today to tell us why they are putting up quite a spirited battle to get international financial institutions in addition to what they already have. I personally think we could deal with that.

On the "Unresolved Issues," should college housing be moved to Education, I would answer "Yes." That would be a sensible move that does not significantly disrupt the Banking and Currency jurisdiction.

Mr. MARTIN. Is that included in the general legislation that Banking and Currency has brought out in the past in regard to housing? Isn't that all in one package?

Mr. STEIGER. My memory is that we have done college housing separately.

Who is the staff for Banking and Currency?

Mr. MILLER. Dennis Taylor, but he is no longer with the committee. Mr. MEEDS. If the gentleman will yield, this is student housing. It must not be anything involving construction because that is all in the Higher Education Construction Act, and also dorms are under that. I don't understand what college housing we are talking about.

Mr. KETCHAM. It is in title IV of the 1954 omnibus housing bill. Chairman BOLLING. Apparently there would be little or no controversy about the move.

Mr. MARTIN. Graham Northup, with the Banking and Currency Committee, could perhaps answer.

One of the unresolved issues is should college housing be moved to the Education Committee.

Where do you include college housing? Is this in your whole package of the housing legislation?

Mr. NORTHUP. I will yield to my boss, Mr. Fink.

Mr. FINK. It has been handled separately and in the omnibus bill. Mr. STEIGER. Does it pose a problem if we could take it and put it in Education?

Mr. FINK. No problem.

Mr. MARTIN. What does your jurisdiction consist of? Construction of college housing?

Mr. FINK. That is right.

Mr. MARTIN. It is the financing.

Chairman BOLLING. Does that go back to 1950 or 1951?

Mr. FINK. About 1950.

Chairman BOLLING. I don't think there is any problem in moving it to Education.

Mr. STEIGER. What do we do about nursing home construction?
Mr. FINK. It would be the same thing.

Chairman BOLLING. Is there any objection to that, tentatively?
Next, Bill.

Mr. STEIGER. Well, I guess we are not splitting. We are just keeping them the same?