Montana and in Washington under the chairmanship of the present chairman of the subcommittee. Numerous specific cases were described for the subcommittee showing how the law was producing results never intended by Congress.

S. 3485 should rectify the administration of the law.

It would provide that the use of a material for a common purpose shall not by itself form a test of whether the material is a "common variety" under the law.

And it would provide that "common varieties" shall not include certain specified classes of limestone, travertine, marble, granite, gabbros or concrete aggregate.

If I may resort to the word once more, the bill is responsive to the most common legitimate complaints about the administration of the Common Varieties Act. It should help us accomplish what we thought we were accomplishing in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, several individuals unable to testify in person at this hearing have submitted written statements and have asked that their views be entered in the record in this matter.

I would therefore respectfully request your permission to submit these materials for the record: Statement of Robert Matson, statement of L. H. Larison, a wire from Mr. Norman Rogers. All of those people testified at our hearing. There is also a statement from Uuno Sahinen, a letter from E. D. Lovick, a letter from W. G. Maloney, and a letter from William M. Hand. Mr. Maloney represents the Mining Association of Montana.

May I read a couple of paragraphs from the statements?

Senator GRUENING. Please do. I will direct that the full text of the communications you have received as well as that of several addressed to me, appear in the record at the conclusion of the oral testimony. Senator METCALF. One paragraph from the statement of Robert E. Matson, geologist with the Montana State Planning Board, reads:

I believe that the Departments of Interior and Agriculture in their interpretation of "common varieties" under Public Law 167 have discouraged exploration and development of new nonmetallic mineral deposits by requiring unrealistic lease arrangements and royalty payments. In addition, I believe that the decision of the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to classify any stone used for building purposes as "common variety" is completely arbitrary.

Then if I may read a further paragraph from the statement of Mr. L. H. Larison, who is the president of the American Chemet Corp. American Chemet mines, processes, and sells unusual stones such as arragonite-type onyx, black and gold marble, red granite, green quartzite, and black gabbro :

The black and gold marble is made into terrazzo chips and can also be sold as polished wall panels. This product is similar to one that is imported from Italy.

The black gabbro is located on public domain. It is mined and processed for use as exposed aggregate for buildings and is used in filtration beds in oil refineries. In this latter use it is superior to any other known mineral, and according to Uuno M. Sahinen, associate director of the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, there is no other known deposit in the United States.

So you see, this arbitrary decision on the end use and the prudent man theory has resulted in the fact that very valuable and scarce stone products have been classified as common variety and as these miners of Montana and of other areas have said, has discouraged

development, discouraged exploration, and prevented the development of these new nonmetallic industries.

I was impressed when Senator Cannon pointed out that recently in this mine safety bill we said that part of the mine safety program was going to be the inspection of sand and gravel pits and quarries, and yet, on the other hand, we say in the Secretary of Interior's and in the Secretary of Agriculture's interpretation that these sand and gravel pits and quarries are not mines.

So, I think we should be consistent. I supported the inspection in the mine safety bill and I believe that we should permit these very valuable minerals which are not common at all to be locatable under the mining laws, as is traditional in the West.

Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much for a very effective statement, Senator Metcalf.

Senator Jordan, do you have any questions?

Senator JORDAN. No; I have no questions, only commendation to Senator Metcalf for a fine statement that would clarify and correct some abuses of which we are all aware.

Senator GRUENING. Senator Allott?

Senator ALLOTT. I have a couple, if I may.

Senator GRUENING. Please do.

Senator ALLOTT. I want to compliment you on your statement, Senator. I have a letter here I want to refer to in a moment. But I wonder if your statement would not apply equally well to a stone which we find in some places in Colorado called rhyolite.

I do not know whether you are acquainted with it or not. We will get the Department of Interior up here and get them to identify it. It is a very beautiful building stone, but it seems to me that it should come within the concept of this bill also.

Senator METCALF. We have not mentioned it in section 2.

Senator ALLOTT. You have not mentioned it and I did not know what bill was being considered when I came down here.

But, in this letter Mr. Joseph Cowan, of Canon City, Colo., refers to the quarrying of marble and travertine both and the new interpretation of the law which heretofore they had had under the minerals, and I think we intended it to when we passed the Common Varieties Act in 1955.

Senator METCALF. Not only did we intend to, but we admonished both the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior that we intended to carry out the traditional intent of the mining law.

Senator ALLOTT. Let me read you a couple of paragraphs from Mr. Cowan's letter, because it is right along the line. It says:

Now we are anticipating of opening a new quarry in Garden Park District on Rocky Ridge. It is on open land

That means he is referring, of course, to public land—

so we went to take it up as you used to do, found out the new land law has changed it so we cannot operate marble quarry under new regulations.

It takes at least five years for a small operation like ours to get into operation. New law say we have to pay $1,000 for two-year lease and so much a ton, and after we open it up at end of two years somebody could bid a few cents more and take it away from us, and besides we have a man out of Bureau of Land Management over us, no soap.

This letter clearly illustrates how widespread this problem has become.

I also had occasion to get into the travertine situation in another. instance and found that they had decided that travertine was not subject to location any more.

We have to straighten this situation out. Somehow, somebody seems to have gotten the idea that if anybody prospects and locates minerals on the public domain or ore or rock deposits, it is a steal from the Government. If this were true, I think you would agree with this statement: We would never had had any mining development in the West. Would we have?

Senator METCALF. No; I think that the greatest single factor in the development of the West was the mining law of 1872 when people were permitted to come out and locate upon the public domain, explore and try to develop the minerals. Montana and Colorado and Idaho those great mines in the Cordilleras and mines in Buttewould never have been developed or discovered under the present philosophy of our Interior Department.

Senator ALLOTT. As a matter of fact, in Colorado it had other situations, because out of the early mining laws and the locations in Colorado came the water doctrine of prior appropriation

Senator METCALF. The same is true in Montana.

Senator ALLOTT (continuing). Which is generally used in the Mountain States as the basis of water law, as distinguished from old riparian rights.

So I get a little concerned when some of our people who are unacquainted with the facts become obsessed with the idea that any location of mineral rights or anything of that sort is a robbing of the public. If the West is going to continue to develop, we are going to have to continue to be forward looking in our laws.

The same thing is true in Wyoming, Idaho, and Colorado. There are far, far more minerals underground that can be used for the development of this country than have ever been taken out so far.

Senator METCALF. Again I want to refer to the analogy made by Senator Cannon. We have the Coal Mine Safety Act that takes care of minerals that are not locatable, nonmetallic minerals and their leases, and then we had this Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act that takes care of all the others except coal and petroleum, and it would seem that we could carry that analogy right through into other mining, including sand and gravel, very unusual kinds of stone that are beautiful building stone and equal to anything we can import from Europe are called "common varieties."

In your State and in my State this is true. Also it is true in Idaho, California, and elsewhere in the West. And it is strange that we can say a mining inspector from the Federal Government or a mining inspector from the State will go out and inspect a copper mine and a quarry and a sand and gravel location, but I cannot locate on the sand and gravel and you cannot locate the travertine or gabbros, if rhyolite is in the same class and should be included.

Senator ALLOTT. It is not the same chemical classification.

Senator METCALF. The same classification as being a very unusual kind of stone.

Senator ALLOTT. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Senator GRUENING. We have a number of witnesses on this proposed legislation. After today's hearing is concluded, I am going to suggest

that you, as the sponsor of this bill, S. 3485, and Senator Cannon, as sponsor of S. 2281, get together and work out a happy wedding of the two. Then we will try to get an executive committee meeting before we go in recess because of the urgency of the subject matter of this bill. We do not know how long the Congress will last, but if we could get action by reporting this bill to the full committee before the recess and proceed with favorable action by the committee after the recess, I think we would expedite what we all agree is an important piece of legislation.

If that is agreeable to the members of the subcommittee, we will try to do that.

Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The documents referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. MATSON, GEOLOGIST, MONTANA STATE PLANNING BOARD

The State Planning Board is the official economic development agency of the State of Montana. As such, the Board works toward the development and expansion of industry within the State including the mining industry. Montana has great metallic and non-metallic mineral wealth and the State is just now beginning to realize its potential in increasing the mining and processing of this wealth to the economic advantage of the State and the nation.

For the past three years I have been working with the Mining Association of Montana and several mining companies who have experienced difficulties due to the interpretation of "common varieties" under Public Law 167 (Section 3, 84th Congress, Chapter 375, First Session) by the Departments of Interior and Agriculture and their administrative decisions and policies concerning this law.

I believe that the Departments of Interior and Agriculture in their interpretation of "common varieties" under Public Law 167 have discouraged exploration and development of new non-metallic mineral deposits by requiring unrealistic lease arrangements and royalty payments. In addition, I believe that the decision of the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to classify any stone used for building purposes as "common variety" is completely arbitrary.

Claimants who have contested ruling that their claims were on "common variety" material have found themselves facing a situation requiring large expenditures of time and money at a time when both of these items were most crucial in starting and maintaining a new industry.

I have been involved in the preparation of S. 3485 and believe it is a good bill and that the definitions included therein will obviate further controversy between the Departments of Interior and Agriculture and the mining industry as to what constitutes "common varieties".

I believe that the only expedient way of correcting the problems which have arisen through the administration of Public Law 167 can only be solved by an amendment of Section 3 of Public Law 167. Therefore, I urge the Interior Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels to render a favorable decision regarding S. 3485 as introduced June 9, 1966.

STATEMENT OF UUNO M. SAHINEN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, MONTANA BUREAU OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

Senate Bill 3485 (89th Cong. 2d Sess.) is certainly a step in the right direction in the clarification of the meaning of "Common Varieties" as used in P.L. 167 (Act of July 23, 1955, Ch. 375, 69 Stat. 368). If passed, it will serve to relieve distressing bureaucratic interference with legtimate mining operations engaged in producing building stone and other varieties of commercial stone in Montana. I would have liked building stone defined as a locatable mineral commodity in this bill thus reiterating the validity of Title 30, sec. 161, U.S. Code which authorizes location of building stone "under the provisions of the law in relation to placer mineral claims." Building stone as here used refers to stone used in the construction of buildings occupied by man or used by him in

business, governmental or social activities, in contrast to stone used in massive construction such as bridges, dams, and highways. The term could be inserted on page 2, line 15, as follows: "(2) building stone, such as travertine, marble, limestone, granites, or gabbros, etc. etc." "Use or usefulness for a common purpose or application shall not classify a material as a common variety;" may be misleading. I did not grasp the real significance of it at first. I would say, "Use or usefulness for a

Page 2, lines 8 and 9.

lower grade purpose or application... etc."

I am a little dubious of Item 3 beginning on line 21, page 2, pertaining to exclusion of concrete aggregate from common varieties. However, if the specifications mentioned are rigid enough, such exclusion might be justified.

It is my sincere hope that at least Items 1 and 2 are retained and passed by Congress.

STATEMENT OF L. H. LARISON, PRESIDENT OF AMERICAN CHEMET CORP. OF HELENA, MONT.

My name is L. H. Larison. I am president of American Chemet Corporation and Montana Manufacturers Association.

American Chemet mines, processes and sells unusual stone, such as Arragonite type onyx, black and gold marble, red granite, green quartzite and black gabro. The onyx, and black and gold marble are on public domain, and are sold in the form of terrazzo chips for polished floors and wall panels. The by products of the onyx are roof chips and calcium carbonate for feed, fertilizer and paint pigment.

The black and gold marble is made into terrazzo chips and can also be sold as polished wall panels. This product is similar to one that is imported from Italy.

The Black Gabro is located on public domain. It is mined and processed for use as exposed aggregate for buildings and is used in filtration beds in oil refineries. In this latter use it is superior to any other known mineral, and according to Uuno M. Sahinen, Associate Director of the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, there is no other known deposit in the United States.

This testimony was recorded at a Senate Sub-Committee hearing in Butte, Montana, June 18, 1965.

On July 29, 1965, the Bureau of Land Management conducted a hearing, identified as contest #1764 Montana.

The decision rendered from this hearing was that the mining claim on black gabro was invalid.

I strongly urge approval of S-3485 as a means of clarifying the true meaning and intent of Public Law 167.

Under present circumstances, persons engaged in mining stones and minerals must continually face harassment from employees of the Department of Interior. These Interior Department employees also need a clarification and change in public law 167, so that they can fairly administer the law.

It is a definite hardship on the small mine operator and prospector to continually have his right to mining claims questioned and be ordered to hearings with expert witnesses at considerable expense.

The mining industry in Montana and many other Western States has depended a great deal on mining in the past. Mining activity in the past few years has declined. The present method of administering Public Law 167 is discouraging to the miner and determintal to the mining industry.

It is my firm belief that passage of S-3485 wil be helpful to the mining industry.

MINING ASSOCIATION OF MONTANA,
Butte, Mont., June 24, 1966.

Senator ERNEST GRUENING, Chairman, Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR GRUENING: The Mining Association of Montana wishes to place itself on record as strongly supporting S. 3485, introduced by Senator Lee Metcalf and yourself as co-sponsor.

We believe it is apparent from the factual information received by your committee at the hearings held in June of 1965 in Butte, Montana and Wash