l n 8 /

/ 3

v{ INTERIOR NOMINATK

GOVER NMENT

Storage

*

— t r

_____ rA 

' <t

H E A R IN G

BEFO RE TH E

COMMITTEE ON

INTER IOR AND INSULAR AEEAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

N1N E’l l ETII C<)XGi: ESS

SE CO ND SE SS IO N

ON

NO MIN AT IO N OF ED W ARD W EIN BERG TO BE SO LI CI TO R 

OF TH E D EPA RTM EN T OF T H E IN TERIO R

A PR IL 25, 1OGS

Printed for the use of the

Com mitt ee o n In te ri o r an d In su la r Affai rs

93-448

U S. GO VE RN ME NT PR IN TING OF FICE 

WASHING TON : 1968
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFF AIRS

HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman

CLINTO N P. ANDERSON, New Mexico

ALAN BIBLE, Nevada

FRANK CHU RCH, Idaho

ERN EST GRU ENING , Alaska

FRANK E. MOSS, Utah

QUE NTIN N. BURDICK , North Dakota

CARL HAY DEN, Arizona

GEORGE McGOVERN, South Dakota

GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin

LEE METCA LF, Montana

Jerky T. Verkler, Staff Director

Stewart French, Chief Counsel

E. Lewis Reid, Minority Counsel

THOMAS II. KUC HEL, California 

GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado 

LEN B. JORDAN, Idaho 

PAUL J. FAN NIN, Arizona 

CLIFFO RD P. HANSEN, Wyoming 

MARK O. HATFIELD , Oregon
N O M IN A T IO N OF E D W A R D W E IN B E R G TO BE S O L IC ITO R OF T H E D E P A R T M E N T OF T H E IN T E R IO R

THU R SD A Y , A P R IL 25 , 19 68

F.S. S enate,

Committee on Interior and I nsular Affairs,

Washington, !>.('.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a.m., in room 3110, New 

Senate Office Building, Senator Henry M. Jackson (chairman of the 

committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Henry M. Jackson (Washington), Alan Bible 

(Nevada), Frank E. Moss (U tah ), I^en B. Jordan (Idaho ), and Clifford P. Hansen (Wyom ing).

Also prese nt: Jerr y T. Verkler, stall' director: Stewart French, chief 

counsel; and James II. Gamble, professional staff member.

'Phe Chairman. The committee will come to order.

This is an open hearing on the nomination bv the President of the 

I nited States of Mr. Edward Weinberg to be Solicitor of the Department of the Interior.

As we all know Mr. Weinberg is a career public servant and is certainly well and favorably known by every member of this committee. 

He has been particularly helpful, I may say, to this committee and to 

our legislative program in regard to the many different problems in 

the area of natural resources with which we deal.

Mr. Weinberg has served as an attorney with the Federal Government, beginning in 1943, I believe, with the Office of Price Administration (the old O PA). Since 1944, he has served in the Department of the 

Interior. At this point 1 will place in the record a biographical sketch 

of Mr. Weinberg.

Biogr aphic al Ske tc h of E dward Weinb erg

Bor n : W hitew ate r, W isc on sin , Se ptem be r 5,1 91 8.

E du ca tion : W hit ew ate r High Sch ool, cl as s of 1935: W hit ew ate r S ta te T ea ch er s 

Colleg e, 1935 -193 7; U ni ve rs ity of W isc on sin , 1937-19 41: B.A. (w ith honors ), 

U ni ve rs ity of W isco ns in, 1939, econ om ics m ajo r; L.L.B. , U ni ve rs ity of W isc on sin , 

1941; Mem ber of B oa rd o f E ditors , U ni ve rs ity of W isc on sin L aw Re vie w, 1940 -41.

1941—42 : P ri v a te p ra ct ic e, Milw au ke e, W isc on sin .

194 3: Office of P ri ce A dm in is tr at io n.

Jan u ary 1944: Jo in ed lega l st af f of B ur ea u of Rec la m at io n, D ep ar tm en t of th e 

In te ri or, se rv in g first as att o rn ey an d la te r as A ss is ta nt Chief Co un sel, B ur ea u 

of Rec lam atio n. Upon co ns ol id at io n of depart m enta l leg al se rv ices in Office of th e 

So lic ito r in 1954, be ca me A ss is ta nt So lic ito r, Bra nc h of P ow er.

1961-19 63: Assoc iate So lic ito r, W at er an d Po wer , D ep ar tm en t of th e In te ri or.

1963 to p re s e n t: Dep uty So lic ito r. D ep ar tm en t of the In te rior.

P art ic ip ate d in ne go tiat io n of Co lum bia R iv er T re aty w ith Can ad a, 1959- 

19(50; part ic ip ate d in ne go tiat io n of pr otoc ol th ere to and arr angem ents fo r sale 

in U ni te d S ta te s of C anada's p ow er ent itle m en t th er eu nder , 1961-19(54.
n

Received numerous commendations throughout career in Department of the 

Interior.

In Jul y 1963 received the Distinguished Service Award of the Department of 

the Interior—the Departme nt’s highest aw ard.

Adm itted to prac tice in Wisconsin, Distric t Court of the District of Columbia, 

and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Member of the Order of the Coif, honorary legal fra ter nit y.

Member of Artus, honorary economics frat ern ity .

Member of th e Federal Bar Association.

Member of th e Masonic Order.

Married to former Anne Goldsmith of Genesee Depot, Wisconsin, Jun e 10, 1943. 

Children: Mark, age 22, gra duate student, Urban Studies, American University, Washington, D.C .; B.A. (with honors) DePauw University , Greencastle,

Indiana. Robert, age 18, underclassman, Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin.

The Chairman. The Chair would like to congratulate you. the 

President, and Secretary Udall on your nomination for this high 

office. I have also found you not only to be an able public servant 

but an outstanding lawyer and a man of high integrity.

Having said that, the Chair will be glad to have you outline briefly 

your professional background, your background in general, and then 

if any of the members would like to ask questions, they may do so.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD WEINBERG , NOMINEE FOR SOLICITOR 

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTE RIOR

Mr. Weinberg. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I am deeply touched by 

the kind words that you have had to say on this occasion this morning.

I am deeply honored by the confidence which President Johnson 

has evidenced by nominating me as Solicitor of the Department of the 

Interior. 1 am equally gratified at the compliment rendered me by 

Secretary Vdall in recommending my nomination to the President.

As a career employee with over 25 years of Federal service. I believe 

I can say also that the President's action is testimony to his continued 

support of the career service.

As for my background, I am a native of Wisconsin, and for almost 

25 years have been a legal resident of the State of Maryland. For the 

past 18 years I have resided in Silver Spring, Aid.

During my children’s elementary school years, I was active in the 

PTA movement, serving in various offices, including the presidency of 

Broadacres School PTA, Silver Spring.

I have two sons—Mark, 22, who received his B.A. degree with 

honors in political science from De Pauw University, Greencastle, 

Ind., in Ju ne of 1967, and is now a graduate student in urban affairs 

at American University here in Washington; and Robert, 18, in his 

first year at Beloit College in Beloit. Wis.

Mv wife is an active member of the Montgomery County, Md., 

League of Women Voters. Her most recent position in the organization was first vice president.

I received my bachelor of arts degree with honors from the University of Wisconsin in 1939, majoring in economics. I graduated 

from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1941. While in law 

school, I was a member of the board of editors of the Wisconsin Law 

Review. I am a member of Artus, a national honorary economics 

fraternity, and of the Order of the Coif, a national honorary legal 

fraternity.
3

Almost my entire professional career has been in the service of the 

Department of the Interior. Before joining the legal stall' of the Bureau of Reclamation in January 1944 I spent 1 year with the Office of 

Price Administration.

Within the Department I came through the ranks, serving first as 

an attorney and later as an assistant chief counsel in the Bureau of 

Reclamation. When all agency legal staffs were consolidated in 1954. 

I became Assistant Solicitor for Power, and in 1961 I became Associate Solicitor for Water and Power. In 1963 I succeeded the late 

Edward Fisher as Deputy Solicitor.

I am admitted to practice law in the State of Wisconsin, the District 

of Columbia, and before the Supreme Court of the United States. 

I am a member of the Federal B ar Associat ion.

In my career in the Department of the Inte rior I have served in 

a legal capacity under every Secretary of the Interior beginning with 

ITarold L. Ickes in 1944. This includes both Republican and 

Democratic administrations.

It, h as been my effort to advise my client agencies upon the legal 

problems within my sphere of responsibility fairly, honestly, and to 

the best of my ability.

As a career attorney I have endeavored to carry out the policies of 

the Secretaries under whom I have served with loyalty and fidelity. 

Through my service in the Department, I have developed a deep and 

abiding interest in resource development and conservation.

The Department now is truly national in scope and faces a new 

challenge in making America a better place to live and work. I am 

proud to have had a role in its great programs of reclamation and resource development and I hope that with the approval of this committee and the Senate I may continue to serve our Nation.

That concludes my statement and 1 shall be glad to attempt to 

answer any questions you may have.

Senator Moss. Thank you.

May I echo the statements of the chairman about the fine relationship t hat we have had in this committee with you during the time that 

you have been serving in the Department of the Interior. You have 

indeed always responded and assisted this committee in every way possible. I would like to add my words of congratulations to you and to 

the administration for your nomination to this very important office. 

1 know of no one that would be better qualified to take over the 

position.

Indeed the Department has grown. We just got the press release that 

you are going to have a new seal now because the old buffalo no longer 

depicts the Department of the Interior. Although I am not sure I 

understand that new one—I have been puzzling about it—I guess that 

is the price of progress. We must learn to read new marks on the 

wall.

Mr. Weinberg. I have a little trouble with that. It is the new symbolism and we have to learn a lot of new symbols now.

Senator Moss. I have had a number of occasions to visit with you 

on problems as they have come up. I would like to ask you a few questions this morning on the problem of land selection. I have been quite
4

concerned about that. As you undoubtedly know, as of January 30, 

1967, which is the latest tabulation I have here, there were still 268,430 

acres of school land to which the State of I’tab is entitled that it has 

not been able to acquire as yet. Utah has been a State now for nearly a 

hundred years.

The only State I see on this list I have—Alaska is not on this list— 

shows Arizona to have more land unselected than does Utah. We two 

States are far behind all the others; several hundred thousand acres, 

in fact. Therefore, the problem is particularly pressing for us.

To what extent have you had direct supervision on this selection, 

the legal problems arising out of the selection process?

Mr. Weinberg. 1 hate to begin my testimony before the committee 

by answering a question in the negative. I am familiar with the Utah 

selection problem but I did not participate in the legal decisions tha t 

were rendered in connection with the produceable question.

Senator Moss. There was a problem about the Cain Creek land selections as to whether the area was producing or produceable.

Mr. Weinberg. Yes.

Senator Moss. This was finally solved by an opinion of the Attorney 

General. That part does not concern me quite as much as the policy 

that lias been adopted on comparability of value and this point does 

concern me greatly. Are you familiar with the legal situation there?

Mr. Weinberg. Yes; I am. As I recall it, in connection with the 

opinion on Cain Creek, the Department of Justice indicated that the 

Secretary had discretionary authority to withhold classification of the 

lands for selection purposes.

Shortly thereafter it is my recollection that the Department requested legislation to provide a legislative base for meeting this problem of disparate values. 'The legislation did not pass. I cannot recall 

now to what extent the committee took action on it. I know the legislation did not pass. It is my understanding that that is where the 

matter rests at this p artic ular time.

Senator Moss. The problem of classification is also pressing because 

at the present time the Bureau of Land Management is classifying all 

of the lands in my State and. as you indicated, some of them by classification are effectively removed from the area from which selection 

may be made. We still have 268,000 acres to select, so this heightens 

the problem, of course.

This matter of comparability was presented in legislation and it 

went before the House Interior Committee and they held hearings 

on the matter.

Mr. Weinberg. That is my recollection: yes.

Senator Moss. After the hearings they simply tabled the bid and 

said in the report, in effect, that they liked the law as it is and they 

didn’t believe that comparability should be required—that is, comparability in classification, mineral for mineral, nonmineral for nonmineral—but the evaluation section is what they set aside. They said 

this should not be applied, but I know it is still being applied. That is 

the point that bothers me and it is a matter on which I think you will 

have to decide for the Department on a legal basis.

What is the adm inistration policy when the Department says it will 

apply the evaluation criterion anyway?
o

Mr. AAeinberg. I think the question comes hack to a view of what 

the statute means. As I indicated, it is my recollection that the D epartment of Justice, at the time it issued the Cain ( ’reek opinion, indicated 

this avenue was open to the Department under (he law as it stands 

at the present time.

Senator Moss. As I recall the opinion on Cain Creek, it said the 

Department might seek legislation. They interpreted the law to mean 

that they might seek legislation. This, the Department did, and it was 

turned down by the 1 louse.

Mr. AV einberg. Yes, hut as 1 recall it, at the same time there was 

advice that the classification route was also open to the Department.

Senator Moss. Yes. I know that there was a discussion at the time 

that the classification route could he taken. But as I read II.IL 16— 

that is the number of the hill introduced by Chairman Aspinall by 

request, and came up from the Department—it would have provided 

for the comparability on value.

This is the point the I louse turned down flatly. This is what concerns 

me now and this procedure is what I think holds up new selections.

Air. AYeinberg. AA’hile I have not been directly involved either on the 

legal or policy decisions, it is plain that there is a problem here and I 

am sure that the Department would he interested in exploring with 

the State whatever means of reconciliat ion of this problem there might 

he. I do know that the Department has continued to hold the view that 

the classification authority is available on the comparability problem.

Senator Moss. It has always been my view, and 1 think it is the view 

of the committee, that, if there is any weighing of the equities, the balance should be toward the State. But the equities have been balanced 

the other way for some St) years now. AA'e have been denied the rights 

to which we are entitled—rights set forth in the Constitution for the 

support of the public schools of this land.

This fact does give me great concern. I would hope, Mr. Weinberg, 

since you have not been working directly with land selection problems, 

that you could turn your attention to this urgent problem as you assume your position as Solicitor. I certainly will be calling on you for 

help to see if we can cut this Gordian knot and see if we can get this 

matter settled.

It is my understanding that there is a special appropriation by the 

State of Arizona and the State intends to have a crash program to 

resolve this issue, because Arizona, too, is very far behind in land selection. I probably should seek a special appropriation for Utah since 

we are the two laggards that have not been able to get our lands.

The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moss.

The Chair wishes to state that in accordance with the rule of the 

committee, Mr. AAeinberg has submitted a financial statement that 

shows evidence of a very modest estate. The ( ’hair would say that there 

is nothing in his reported assets that either directly or indirectly represents anything remotely connected with a possible conflict of interest.

Senator Hansen, do you have any questions you would like to ask 

Mr. Weinberg?

Senator H ansen. I don't think I do. thank you.

The Chairman. AVe can take a minute i f you do.
The Chair would like to be able to report the nomination today.

I thin k possibly we should poll the committee, as we do not have a 

quorum present today. Then we could get prompt action on reporting 

the nomination.

We will go off the record for just a moment.

(Discussion off the record.)

The Chairman. The committee will resume.

The Chair is happy to yield to Senator Hansen.

Senator H ansen. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to add my congratulations to Mr. Weinberg 

and I would like to say in my experience with you. sir. and in the 

few times I have been privileged to hear you testify before this committee, tha t I have been particularly impressed with your knowledge 

and objectivity. I call particula r attention to matters relating to oil 

shale development and matters relating to water, both of which are 

of grea t importance to my State of Wyoming.

I think on numerous occasions you have been involved in explaining 

to the committee matters very complex in nature ami I have been 

impressed by your ability to recall facets of the law. I suspect that 

has somewhat set you apart from what I consider to be the typical, 

average lawyer. T don't think you are typical or average at all, you 

are way above that and I am delighted with the nomination the 

President has made. I have every confidence you will be objective in 

your treatment of matters.

1 have had called to my attention a Supreme Court decision that 

I would like to invite your comments on. On Monday, April 22, the 

Supreme Court handed down its opinion in the Coleman case (Z7.A. v. 

Coleman, No. 630), in which it upheld the legitimacy of the so-called 

marketability rule as a logical complement of the prudent man test.

The lands in issue are in California in the vicinity of Los Angeles 

and had been located for quartzite building stone. A paten t was applied for and Interior brought an action in ejectment, contending 

tha t the quartzite deposits were subject to the Common Varieties Act, 

despite Ihe provisions of the Building Stone Act (30 U.S.C. 161).

The Court s aid:

T he S ecre ta ry ’s det er m in at io n th a t th e q u art zit e ston e di d no t qua lify as a 

va lu ab le m in er al de po sit be ca us e th e ston e co uld no t he m ar ket ed a t a profit 

do es no violence to th e st atu te . In de ed , th e m ark et ab ility te st is an ad m ir ab le 

ef fo rt to id en tify w ith gre ate r pr ec isio n and ob je ct iv ity th e fa cto rs re le van t to 

a dete rm in at io n t h a t th e m in er al d ep os it is “va lu ab le .”

I think Solicitor Barry argued the Government’s case in the Supreme Court, r would just invite your observations on the effect that 

you believe this administration’s adopted marketability rule might 

have had on the development of the West, say, for the last two decades, 

if you care to.

Mr. Weinberg. Yes. F irst, let me thank you for the kind words that 

you have said about me, even though 1 don't always live up to them, 

nevertheless they sound good and give me a warm feeling.

We are happy that the Supreme Court, in deciding the Coleman case, has confirmed the construction of the mining law the Dep artment has used and we are p artic ularly pleased that the decision came 

from a unanimous Supreme Court.
/

The decision deals with a fundamental rule of property. It is, therefore, in my view, highly important that there be no uncertainties in 

these matters and a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, at a 

time when unanimity on the Supreme Court is a very rare occurrence 

indeed, underscores the firmness with which this rule is w ritten into 

the mining laws.

As to what I think its impact on the developments of the West would 

have been had it always been in effect, T think that one of the reasons 

perhaps that led to the litigation in the Coleman case, which came as a 

surprise to the Department, was the fact that it has not always been 

understood that the marketability rule is not a new rule.

The marketability rule was first given expression in those specific 

terms, I believe, in the thirties. The rule was challenged once before in 

the District of Columbia circuit back in Secretary Seaton's time and 

upheld.

As to the requirement of economic feasibility or profitability, while 

the Supreme Court did not refer to those cases in its opinion, it apparently considered the matter open-and-shut and really not worth 

delving into. The fact of the matter is there are Supreme Court decisions going back into the nineties and eighties in which the Supreme 

Court spoke about profitability and in those cases they spoke in terms 

of hard-rock metals, not building materials.

These cases spoke of the fact that underlying the right given to 

occupy and purchase public lands of the United States under the mining laws was the element of profitability. The purpose of the mining 

law, as the Supreme Court expressed in the Coleman case, is tha t the 

mining law represented an exercise by Congress of its powers over the 

public domain for the purpose of encouraging the actual mining of 

the minerals in the public lands. The Supreme Court, in the Coleman

case, said that these lands are available under the mining laws for the 

purpose of extracting the mineral and for no other purpose.

So actually. Senator Ilansen, I think the court dealt with something 

that has been in the mining law continuously. The Supreme Court has 

stressed it in the past and the West has developed under a rule which 

in its application to hard-rock minerals is not really fundamentally 

different from the marketability rule in relation to sand, gravel, and 

building stone.

Senator Hansen. Thank you very much. Mr. Weinberg.

I know there have been some expressions of concern about the possible effect of th is rule on the development of oil shale. Do you see any 

threat posed to the development of oil shale lands?

Mr. Weinbekg. One of the problems brought out in the oil shale 

hearings, one of the tilings the Government is going to have to do— 

perhaps it should have started long ago—is to remove the title clouds 

on the oil shale land and get them decided one way or the other. Eithe r 

the Government has to have clear title or the mining locators have to 

have clear titles. This never-never land, in which the lands are public 

lands yet they are plastered with old mining locations is something 

that has to be cleared up or it will be a formidable impediment to development of an oil shale program.

Any light the Supreme Court can shed on the mining law which 

will help resolve these problems I think is a plus in enabling an oil 

shale program to get underway.
8

The Chairman. Senator Bible?

Senator Bible. T hank yon, Mr. Chairman.

I am very happy to see a longtime friend of mine, Edward Weinberg, 

moving up the ladder of the Department of the Inte rior and being 

nominated for another position. I have worked closely with Mr. Weinberg on many, many problems that have come over our desk in the 

field of rural land management—land problems, water problems, power 

problems; you name them and I think we have them. He has always 

been very helpful and very knowledgeable. I am only going to ask you 

about one problem that has bothered me personally for a longtime and 

that is the attitude of the Department of the Interior on the geothermal steam bill.

I know you are acquainted with it because my staff people have contacted you about it. This is a bill that did pass the Congress of the 

United States and it was vetoed with what I thought was a very unleasonable Executive veto.

'Fhe Department does have viewpoints on it but we are tryi ng to 

i*each some type of accord whereby we can give some type of preference—and I think deserved preference—to the early founders and 

early pioneers in the industry. This is something that has been called 

to your attention, and I am wondering if you have any viewpoints 

on it.

Mr. Weinberg. Well, it has been some months now since I have even 

thought about geothermal steam.

Senator Bible. I am advised my staff people talked to you on it 

sometime after March 28; namely. Stewart French.

Mr. Weinberg. Not that I recall on geothermal steam. We had a 

meeting in the Department on a facet of geothermal steam th at does 

not involve the pending legislative problem.

Senator Bible. Not to be mysterious about it, the question asked 

of you is whether or not there is any possibility of working out an 

area of accord between the hard line of the executive branch, including, of course that of the Interior Department, which I think is a 

wrong line, and the position of the legislative branch. I think our 

position is the correct one, in that we are trying to work out some 

type of recognition of, and protection for, the early pioneers in geothermal steam development. We are willing to adopt a limitation of 

some 25,000 acres or so for all of the States. 'This amount would be 

the maximum to be available for (he preference right, with a limitation of something like, say, 0,000 acres in each of the States; that is, 

not to exceed 0,000 acres in any one of the States.

I am told by Mr. French th at he personally talked to you about this. 

Maybe I am in error?

Mr. Weinberg. I can only say if Stewart says we had a conversation, then we did, but my mind is blank on it.

Senator Bible. You say you had not looked at this for a long period 

of time and I was advised by Mr. French that he did talk to you about 

it. 11 is memorandum to me shows he did. In any event, all I am interested in is your position on this new compromise proposal.

Mr. Weinberg. The Department is willing to explore any possibility 

with an open mind.
9

Senator Bible. That is not a very good answer. The point is, have 

you taken any look a this proposal or have you not? I understand 

from what you are telling me is tha t you have not looked at this new 

suggestion.

Mr. Weinberg. I have not.

Senator Bible. Whether or not Mr. French talked to you, he is right 

here. 1 won't burden this hearing with whether you did or didn't, but 

when this hearing is over I wish Mr. French would talk to you about 

this problem and point out what the suggestion is and then have 

you give us a reply very quickly. It was indicated to me that the 

pro| >osal had been put before you some weeks ago.

The problem is a complicated one, I am frank to say. I thought, 

by reaching a plateau where you would put a restrictive limitation 

on the amount of acreage which could be picked up by the pioneers 

of not to exceed some 6,000 acres in any one of the States, we m ight 

find a basis for an agreement between the legislative and executive 

branches.

Mr. Weinberg. I will endeavor to explore this proposal and see what 

the departmental position would be on it.

Senator Bible. It is very important to me. The purpose of the constant questioning is: It doesn't make much sense to pass another bill, 

which I think we could do in the Congress of the United States, and 

then have it vetoed. I want to pass something that will not be sulnect 

to veto.

Mr. W einberg. I agree with that. There is certainly no point in 

having another head-on collision with the executive.

Senator Bible. I will have Mr. French go into it. The problem is 

primarily legal, as well as one of policy and of fact. It will take a 

little study and research. I had hoped this would have been done. A pparently it has not and I will ask him to go over it with you and ask 

you to come back with a reply at an immediate, early date.

The Chairman. Senator Jordan.

Senator J ordan. 1 have no questions. I have known Mr. Weinberg 

for 20 years. I know him to be conscientious. We don't always agree 

and probably won’t always but I am voting for his confirmation.

'fhe Chairman. An further questions?

If not, the C hair will entertain a motion to support the nomination.

Senator Bible. I will make that motion.

Senator Hansen. I second the motion.

The Chairman. A motion has been made and seconded to report the 

nomination. All in favor say “aye.”

[A chorus of “ayes”.]

The Chairman. Any “nays” ?

I hear no “nays” so the nomination is reported.

Those members not here will be polled.

Senator I Iansen. I have Senator Hatfield's proxy.

The Chairman. Good, that will not need to be checked. 1 will ask 

that Senator Allott and those other Members on the minority side be 

reached so that we can repo rt this nomination out today.

The committee will stand in recess.

(Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee proceeded to other 

business.)

o