of the Interior, and the Secretary of Labor. The resolution would authorize the President to designate which of these should be Chairman of the Commission. The President of the Senate would select six Members from the Senate, and the Speaker of the House would select six Members of the House.

Senator ANDERSON. I think the provision is that they select six members, three of whom shall be from the Senate.

The CHAIRMAN. No; this is an 18-man Commission. There would be 18 members, in all; 6 selected by the President, 6 by the President of the Senate, the Vice President; and 6 by the Speaker of the House. That is the provision set forth in section 2.

The bill which I introduced authorizes a Commission of nine members, two to be appointed by the President of the Senate from Members of the Senate; two to be appointed by the Speaker of the House from Members of the House, and five to be appointed by the President, one of whom shall be an officer or employee of the United States.

The distinction among these three is perfectly apparent. Senator Myers' resolution is wholly a Senatorial, congressional study-using the word "congressional" in the sense of Members of the Senate being Members of Congress, of course.

The Humphrey resolution, on the contrary, calls for a bipartisan Commission, the Chairman of which is to be selected by the President.

And this other, which, like the Humphrey resolution, is a bill and would require action by both Houses, leaves the choice of the chairmanship, apparently, to the Commission itself, but would require at least four persons to be selected outside of Government, not Members of Congress and not members of the executive branch of the Government. Have you taken these distinctions into consideration?

Secretary CHAPMAN. I have, Senator, and I would like to make this comment: I have been very much impressed with what I think has been the success of the Hoover Commission itself. I know there are a lot of people who do not agree with some of their recommendations, and I don't agree with a lot of things they recommended; but, as to the mechanics, as to arriving at something, I think they made a successful approach to the main objectives. That takes into consideration the administrative people and the legislative people. I like the combination. I, naturally, will support the President's position, as set out in his message. That is the kind of message I like.

I have discussed this with administrative people for more than 6 months now, as to the most effective method of doing this job. I think that the other two resolutions also have strong merit; but I like the idea of being able to appoint some member, for instance, on the Commission with some knowledge of coal; I like to have some menber with a background and experienced knowledge of oil. I do not mean that we should necessarily pick the president of an oil company to be a representative on the Commission, or the president of a coal company; but we can find people that have had experience in the various energy fields.

We ought to have some people on the Commission so that we can work along with you and come out with a joint recommendation which will have unanimity of support, as far as you can get unanimity in a legislative and administrative group.

I feel it is a good bill from that point of view. If you want to extend it to 18, I would have no objection to that. I think 18 is a

little bit unwieldy; but if Congress, in its own wisdom, feels that they ought to have 18, I would have no objection to it, at all. I have a feeling that more efficiency could be obtained if you limited it to a 9- or 11-member Board.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you one or two questions about the general objectives?

Secretary CHAPMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You have presented some important information here, in capital form. I have been running over the tables that you have laid before each member of the committee.

I am looking now at table 1 and table 3. It is shown in table 3, for example, that back in 1910-or let's go back to the first year, 1905— the net per-ton production of coal in the United States was 315,062,785; that in 1929, before the crash, production of coal had increased to 534,988,593; during the period from 1923 to 1929, coal production ranged from 564,564,662, in 1923, to 534,988,593-the figure I just gave-in 1929.

During the depression, coal production fell off. In 1931, it was only 382,089,396; in 1932, 309,709,872; 1933, 333,630,533; 1934, 359,368,022; 1930, 372,373,122.

It was during that period that the Guffey Coal Act was passed, which was, of course, an attempt to provide a general plan for production and the distribution of coal, and to prevent what was called excessive competitive factors from making it completely unprofitable. Secretary CHAPMAN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Strikingly enough, though the production increased very rapidly during the war, the production in 1949, which is an estimated figure, was 435,000,000 tons less than the production during the period from 1923 to 1929. While that is considerably less, it is more than the production during the depression.

If you look at table 2, the percentage of contribution of coal to the total national energy problem, total national energy output, has been decreasing steadily. In 1910 it constituted 85 percent of the total; in 1929-and there the production was very high, if you recall— it constituted only 63.4 percent; and in 1949 it was down to 39.3 percent.

Secretary CHAPMAN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. That variation is explained by the last column on table 1, which shows the grand total of energy output in the United States. In 1910, that was measured at 15 trillion, 378 billion British thermal units; in 1920, it was 21 trillion, 956 billion; in 1929, it had risen to 25 trillion, 70 billion. And now, for 1949, it is estimated at 31 trillion, 786 billion.

These statistical figures I have recited merely as a preliminary to the question whether or not, as Secretary of the Interior, you contemplate, as a part of national fuel policy, that there should be any attempt to assign, let us say, part of the total energy, the total market for energy, to a particular kind of fuel?

Secretary CHAPMAN. At the present moment, Senator, I neither have the law nor the inclination to do such a thing.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, you have no law to do it; but would that be embraced in your objective study?

Secretary CHAPMAN. That is right; that would be embraced in the policy study. At the moment competitive forces take their course.

That is why I think a law is needed and a study upon which a law might be passed is likewise needed. I don't know. At least, you need a study to know the reasons why these trends have taken the course they have taken.

When you speak of the percentage that coal energy supplied to the total energy supply in 1910, as compared with the amount of energy it supplied in 1949, there is shown a tremendous drop; but in that period you must look at the figures that show what the increase of business was in this country. There was a tremendous increase in all business in this country. Consumers went to new fuels for their supply of energy. They went to the new oil fields; they went to the gas fields, and hydroelectric power, for their energy.

Senator ANDERSON. Has the shift in the location of industry made any difference the transfer of industry to the west coast, where these fuels, water power, and oil are easily obtainable?

Secretary CHAPMAN. I suppose, if you checked, you would see that it made some difference in the amount of energy supplied by hydroelectric in that area.

Senator ANDERSON. Also, oil and gas.

Secretary CHAPMAN. Oil and gas, too; all three of them.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, this is a problem that affects the whole Nation?

Secretary CHAPMAN. It is the whole Nation. You cannot talk about the public-land States, alone, or the Southwest, or the Northwest, on this question, because any program that we set up affecting one section of this country is going to affect the whole national economy.

The CHAIRMAN. I was going to ask you, however, if you would be good enough, Mr. Secretary, to have a table provided, for inclusion in the record, of the total production of coal on public-land leases and the total royalties which the Government has derived?

Secretary CHAPMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. The figures for 1949, as I have them here, show that the Interior Department now has under lease, for the production of coal, 85,665 acres, and that total royalties received in 1949 amounted to $805,527.65.

Secretary CHAPMAN. We have those figures available, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. So, coal production, like oil production, forms a substantial part of your revenue?

Secretary CHAPMAN. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. You might include, also, the figures on petroleum and natural gas, if you will.

Secretary CHAPMAN. Yes. I have that information broken down. How far back would you like to take that, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Since the beginning of the Leasing Act.

Secretary CHAPMAN. We have that available on an annual-report basis, and we can pull it out of the files for you. You will want revenues from natural gas, and coal, and other minerals?

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Secretary CHAPMAN. And oil, particularly.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Secretary CHAPMAN. You also want the revenues for hydroelectric; they ought to go into that figure.

The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to receive them.

Secretary CHAPMAN. I want to give them to you, because they are very important. It fits into the total picture.

As an example, Bonneville power last year alone produced $33,000,000 to be turned into the Federal Treasury.

The CHAIRMAN. And the production of energy, too.

Secretary CHAPMAN. Yes; I can supply the production-of-energy figures.

(The information requested above was subsequently furnished by Secretary Chapman, as follows:)

1 Includes Bonneville Power Administration, Bureau of Reclamation, Southwestern Power Administration, and Southeastern Power Administration.

2 Estimated.

Receipts under the Mineral Leasing Act,1 Feb. 25, 1920, to June 30, 1949

Total

22, 990.47
3,948.00
60, 244.60

2,932, 245.87

85, 320, 705. 27

179.41 922. 20 758, 658. 66 70.00 19, 713. 50 2,099, 903. 85 27, 371.08 6, 299. 10 2,093. 25 6, 596.00 559, 366. 06 3, 391. 43

856, 615. 07 100.00 20, 212. 50 3, 782, 641. 05 32, 220.77 9, 624. 24

296.50 9, 981.00 660, 495. 21 2, 771. 07

$1,000. 50

52, 440. 41
1,299.61

7, 545, 071. 40|
4, 266, 081. 57

210.00
201, 018. 48
33, 091.86

$211, 005. 69

1, 291. 25 106,880. 18

4,676. 61 75, 240, 192. 09 13,042, 609. 36

240.00

309, 909. 23 186, 384.30

32, 383. 45

778, 453.74

5, 211.09

1, 329. 25 1, 145, 229. 91 60.00 16, 939. 75 3,832, 698. 41

4, 265. 18

17, 490. 69

8, 581. 50 3,495.00 974, 487. 73 1,378. 21

10, 827, 412. 38

16, 624.03

3, 437.45 7,968, 392. 18

1,080.00 117, 968. 27

22, 900, 198.34

688, 681.09

63, 770.36

16, 455. 75

87, 100. 51

5, 430, 443. 14 91, 500. 13

113, 493, 567.75

2162, 285, 677. 26 10, 031, 247. 59, 15, 121, 740. 66 24, 351, 029. 56 328, 971, 166. 384 240, 760, 861. 45

1 Act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 437, 30 U. S. C. sec. 181 et seq.). These figures are not adjusted for refunds and other corrections. For receipts from other mineral-leasing acts, see table 96.

2 Adjusted to eliminate potash receipts, 1930-35.

From oil and gas, $28,162,860.77; from coal, $776,727.52; from sodium, $1,023; from phosphate, $30,555.09.

From oil and gas, $228,537,982.69; from coal, $12,007,627.02; from sodium, $24,720.67; from phosphate, $190,531.07.

Receipts under miscellaneous Mineral-Leasing Acts1 July 1, 1918, through June

2 Act of Aug. 7, 1947 (61 Stat. 913).

Coal-leasing Act of Oct. 20, 1914 (38 Stat. 741; 48 U. S. C.. sec. 432 et al.).

4 Executive Orders 9087 and 9632 and various public-land orders.

Potash-Leasing Acts of Oct. 2, 1917 (40 Stat. 297), and Feb. 7, 1927 (44 Stat. 1057; 30 U. S. C. sec. 281). Silica-Sand Leasing Act.

"Potash-Leasing Act of 1927, supra.

Act of Mar. 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1448).

Act of June 26, 1926 (44 Stat. 1261).

10 From oil and gas, $763,157.05; from coal, $43,273.61; from other minerals, $58,180.76.

Summary of receipts under various mineral-leasing acts, 1918-49