Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

able for high polishing or accurate shaping for monument, building plate, or surface plate purposes, or so-called block pumice, which occurs in nature in pieces having one dimension of 2 inches or more; or any material considered as concrete aggregate which will meet Federal or State or other government concrete aggregate specifications, with or without treatment or beneficiation.

These provsions should eliminate the need for uncertainty and any subjective judgments in the administration of the legislation by the Interior Department.

The bill does not, however, address itself to a problem which has been of immense concern to the Interior Department and many other parties the problem of the unscrupulous individual who whill file on sand and gravel deposits for the purpose of obtaining title to the land, so he can convert the land to uses other than mining.

Because of the reasonably widespread occurrence of sand, gravel, and other building materials, compared with other valuable mineral deposits, many persons-including officials of the Department of Interior-have expressed an interest in insuring that land on which sand and gravel claims are located and validated should, in fact, be devoted to mining purposes. Perhaps the description of special varieties in S. 3485 makes such assurances unnecessary. Perhaps, because of subjective judgments on marketability and other factors, provisions are needed. I know the committee will give this matter its most thorough consideration.

It is conceivable that a deposit of sand, gravel, or other material might be claimed near an urban area, purchased for a very small price, and then immediately developed for purposes entirely foreign to mining.

I have introduced a bill, S. 2281, which is designed to recognize that the intent of Congress, when it passed Public Law 167, was to allow the locations of special varieties, and at the same time to protect against fraudulent and speculative locations.

I introduced the bill as a vehicle for debate.

I am anxious for the committee to discuss, criticize, and improve the bill. I am well aware that there has been criticism of the bill from some quarters. Some mining organizations oppose the bill because they fear it might establish a precedent that would affect other operations.

I admit that my bill is unique. It is a unique approach to a unique problem. It would make sand, gravel, building stone, and similar special varieties used as aggregates in the manufacture of concrete or for other building purposes subject to the operation of the mining laws, provided that the claimant pay the fair market value of the surface estate; the owner demonstrates a devotion of the land to the production of mineral materials and not for purposes foreign to mining; that the lands revert to the United States if within 5 years within the date of patent the owner has not, by substantial mining operations, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary a devotion to mining, or within 25 years from the date of patent and prior to the removal of all the mineral materials which may be economically extracted the lands are devoted, without the prior consent of the Secretary, to any use other than mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto.

The bill also includes provisions for land classification prior to location and that the land may not be developed for mining purposes if such purposes are inconsistent with local zoning. Since gypsum and limestone are excepted from present definitions of "common varieties," I would offer an amendment to eliminate them from the provisions of S. 2281.

I was joined in sponsorship of S. 2281 by Senators Bible, Moss, and Simpson. I have not discussed the common-varieties problem with them since the introduction of S. 3485. I know, however, that they would support any effort to resolve a serious problem faced by sand and gravel operators who have been hard hit by the unrealistic administration of Public Law 167 by the Interior Department.

I do want to point out to the committee two printing errors in S. 2281. The first is in page 3 of the bill, beginning on line 17. It should read:

Statements pertaining to claims located on or after the effective date of this subsection shall be filed within ninety days from and after the date of location of the claim.

The second is on page 5, beginning on line 5. It should read:

Prior to the commencement of mining operations on any mining claim located after the effective date of this section, there shall be filed with the Secretary of the Interior a good and sufficient bond or undertaking to the United States in an amount fixed by the Secretary to assure adequate restoration of the surface, as determined by the Secretary. The person filing the bond on undertaking shall be relieved of his obligation thereunder upon the patenting of the mining claim or the restoration of the land to a condition satisfactory to the Secretary.

I support S. 3485 and am confident that its description of special varieties will be tremendously helpful in resolving an 11-year problem by clearly clarifying the intent of Congress.

Should it be decided by this committee that even with the description in S. 3485 of special variety locations for purposes of obtaining land for other-than-mining uses, I would respectfully suggest the full consideration of these provisions of S. 2281 which are designed to eliminate land speculation under the guise of special variety mineral location.

I know of no one in the Congress more knowledgeable in this area than the chairman of the committee, and I am encouraged about these hearings. I am hopeful that this is the first step toward prompt resolution of a matter of mutual concern, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today, Mr. Chairman.

I might add, it was rather interesting in our floor debate on the mine safety bill a few days ago, there was an attempt to remove sand and gravel from the implications or the effect of the Mine Safety Act, and this amendment was defeated. So, we now have a situation where the mine safety laws apply to a mine for sand and gravel, and yet the Department, on the other hand, says that you cannot have a mineral location for sand and gravel, and it seems to me that they are trying to carry water on both shoulders.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to try to answer any questions.

Senator GRUENING. Senator Cannon, it would seem to be indicated that the best features of both these bills well might be combined. Then we could have a sort of wedding of these two pieces of legislation

and work out a bill that will satisfy the particular problem that your bill very properly raises and the other situation which Senator Metcalf's and my bill raises.

I think that can be worked out.

Senator CANNON. It would seem to me that it could, Mr. Chairman. I would say that I would wholeheartedly support your bill. I think that the administration's position, because of the abuses that did exist in the past, is that protective features are necessary. I would admit that the protective feature written into my bill is really a precedent, and it

Senator GRUENING. It is very desirable.

Senator CANNON. It may not be the absolute answer, but I think that this committee could work out a satisfactory solution there if it were incorporated into your bill, to make it absolutely clear that we are not trying to help anybody here except a legitimate mine operator that wants to mine sand and gravel for use in the construction industry.

Senator GRUENING. Well, we had the example in the Al Sarena case of which your bill aims to prevent recurrence. I think your provisions are very desirable. Speaking for myself, I am hoping we can combine these two and attain the result that both bills desire. Senator Moss, do you wish to comment or question the witness? Senator Moss. I have no questions. Just by way of comment, I think it is a very fine presentation of the problem. I was happy to join Senator Cannon as a cosponsor of this bill. As you have observed, Mr. Chairman, we well could take in the best parts of both; certainly the thing we ought to do is provide against abuse but at the same time not throw the baby out with the bath water.

We should not eliminate entirely the ability of people to file and utilize the minerals of sand and gravel, the same as they do other hard minerals.

Senator GRUENING. I have no further questions at this time, but as we try to combine these two bills we would appreciate your cooperation.

Senator CANNON. I would be very happy to work with the committee, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GRUENING. Fine. Thank you very much.

I am happy to recognize at this time the very knowledgeable Senator from Montana, Senator Lee Metcalf, who surely is one of the best friends in Congress of our American mining and minerals industry. Senator Metcalf, although not a member of the Minerals, Materials, and Fuels Subcommittee such are the vagaries of subcommittee assignment has been of invaluable assistance to the subcommittee, especially at our field hearings in Butte last June.

Senator, we are hearing your and my bill, S. 3485, and have had the testimony of Senator Cannon on the related bill, S. 2281. The evidence so far indicates that there is considerable merit in both bills and possibly the two can be wedded and thus we will have the best features of each.

Senator Cannon's bill has as one of its specific purposes prevention of fraudulent use of the mining laws, such as we had in the Al Sarena case. I think this provision would be desirable without being inconsistent in any way with the legislation you have proposed.

[blocks in formation]

Senator METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have my statement on S. 3485 put in the record, and then I will make some comments on it.

Senator GRUENING. If it is agreeable to you, I think it would be useful if you read the statement for the benefit of the executive agencies representatives and those of the industry.

STATEMENT OF HON. LEE METCALF, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator METCALF. What we have here today is a problem that constantly plagues any legislative body. That problem is the gap that occurs between the adoption and the implementation of a law. No matter how carefully we select words intended to direct a governmental agency, the action taken by such agency often fails to correspond accurately with the legislative intent.

That is the case with the Common Varieties Act of 1955. The implementation of portions of that act has not, to my mind, followed the intent of Congress. As a result, hardships have been worked on certain legitimate interests and segments of society. S. 3485 should correct the situation by more precisely defining the action we wish carried out under the law.

The Common Varieties Act of 1955 itself was adopted with the idea of correcting abuses of the Federal mining laws, the basic statute of which went on the books in1872. These laws permit anyone to go out on the public lands of the United States to look for minerals. If the explorer makes a discovery of a valuable mineral in place, the law permits him to "make a location" on the site of his discovery. The deposit he has discovered thereby becomes his property. He is allowed to develop it without going through the process of obtaining fee simple title, or he may become the owner of the land itself by complying with certain statutory requirements.

The mining law of 1872 and its subsequent additions played a major role in opening the West to the mining industry. But over time, abuses began to occur. As land became more scarce, more unscrupulous persons-persons with no interest in or knowledge of mining-used the law as a vehicle through which to obtain valuable tracts of public lands.

Spurious claims were filed as a subterfuge for the purpose of acquiring free land for summer homes, private hunting preserves, commercial enterprises or for surface values. Many people were making filings under color of the discovery of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite or cinders, all of these being minerals within the meaning of the Federal mining laws, and, Mr. Chairman, may I comment on Senator Cannon's statement at this point.

These are abuses that we intended to prevent when we passed the Common Varieties Act. I was a Member of the House of Representatives and participated enthusiastically in the passage of that legislation. The chairman of this subcommittee has mentioned the notorious Al Sarena case.

I can recall when we built Hungry Horse Dam, Mr. Chairman. There was only a little bit of land up through that steep and precipitous canyon. If somebody wanted to open up a bar or rooming

hours, they filed a mining claim and by the time they had it all litigated, the dam was built and they were off the property.

Collier's magazine, I remember, had a series of articles on the notorious abuses and it is not the intention of anyone of this committee to return to that sort of a situation, and if Senator Cannon's bill is better than S. 3485 in correcting the abuses, it certainly should be wedded to S. 3485 so that we are sure that we are not going back to the "bad old times" that we had before the passage of the Common Varieties Act.

But we must also remember that may I skip down a paragraph. Obviously, in acting to stop abuses of the mining laws, Congress desired in no way to impair the rights and activities of bona fide mineral prospectors and mining operators. Senate Report No. 544, which accompanied the Common Varieties Act, stated explicitly:

In no way would it deprive them (bona fide prospectors and mine operators) of rights and means for development of the mineral resources of the public lands of the United States under the historic principles of free enterprise and private ownership of the present mining laws.

I do not see how we can be any more explicit than that as to the legislative intent.

Unfortunately, the hope and intent expressed in this regard has been frustrated by the administration of the act. We have, in fact, interfered with the rights and interests of those who wish to make wholly proper use of the mining laws.

The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have imposed standards, requirements, and tests not envisioned by supporters of the 1955 act. For example, in determining whether a mineral has a "distinct and special value," the Forest Service and BLM have applied a test of the "end use" to be made of the material.

Under this test, if a rare and valuable material such as travertinea stone resembling fine Italian marble-is to be used to decorate the lobby of a building, it is considered to fall outside the law's exemption for material with "distinct and special value." The stone clearly possesses such value. But because its proposed use is common, the agencies have judged the stone itself to be a common variety within the meaning of the law.

Moreover, the Interior Department has chosen to apply an uncommon meaning of the word "common." Members of Congress, I believe, used that word in the act to mean types of stone found in abundance in a number of places. But the Interior Department has chosen to consider as "common" minerals which are common within their own category.

For example, neither travertine nor limestone is found in great quantity in a great number of location. But the Interior Department disregards that fact, and tests a particular deposit of travertime according to whether it is a common type of travertine, or a deposit of limestone according to whether it is a common type of limestone. Such a test kills what, in effect, are bona fide mining claims held by substantial mine operators for years and in which substantial sums have been invested in good faith.

Complaints about the narrow and excessively restrictive administration of the Common Varieties Act prompted this subcommittee last June to hold hearings on the problem, both in my home State of

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »