Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

The association's program reflects the industry's awareness of our obligation to the public to conserve the use of land, and to improve our operations by the adoption of performance standards. This program has elicited many commendations and led to the eloquent address by the Under Secretary of the Interior to which I have already referred. If the legislation now before you is enacted with appropriate changes, according to our suggestions, I give you our pledge that public lands will not be exploited by our industry, that they will be used to provide for the public an invaluable but nonetheless exhaustible natural resource, and will permit us to make an even greater contribution to the total economy of the country and to the communities in which our operations will be located.

I would now like to hand to your committee publications of the association which exemplify our industry's concern with the program so widely supported throughout the United States for the conservation of land and for the inauguration of rehabilitation practices which will preserve natural beauty and establish a valuable residual purpose. Thank you very much, and I will be happy to try to answer any questions.

Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much, Mr. Henderson, for an excellent statement.

Do you think that the sand and gravel industry will be able to meet the requirements in the year 2000?

Mr. HENDERSON. We sincerely trust we will, if we have the right to obtain the sand and gravel.

Senator GRUENING. Your estimate is that we will have 350 million people at that time. Some of the hearings I have been conducting indicate that our population will have doubled by that time, and that it will be 400 million. Have you any thoughts on that subject? Mr. HENDERSON. I am sorry, sir, I am not an expert in that field. Senator GRUENING. Senator Metcalf?

Senator METCALF. No questions. Thank you very much.
Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is Mr. Thaddeus S. Snell, of Chicago, representing the Gypsum Association. We are happy to have you here, Mr. Snell.

STATEMENT OF THADDEUS S. SNELL, ON BEHALF OF THE GYPSUM

ASSOCIATION

Mr. SNELL. Thank you, sir. My name is Thaddeus S. Snell, and I am an attorney with offices at 134 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Ill. I am appearing today on behalf of the Gypsum Association in support of S. 3485. The 13 members of the Gypsum Association are manufacturers of gypsum building products.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the time, unless you have a suggestion to the contrary, I would be very happy to have my statement reproduced in the record without reading it.

Senator GRUENING. That is very cooperative. We would appreciate it. The statement will be printed in full, and if you would like to summarize it or touch on the highlights, we will be glad to have you do that, also.

Mr. SNELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to point out we have a suggestion at the end as to one minor amendment to the bill for clarification purposes which I believe is self-explanatory. I simply call that to your attention.

Senator METCALF. Do you think the bill takes care of gypsum as it is written at the present time?

Mr. SNELL. Yes, Senator Metcalf, it does, but I would like to add a few other comments in view of the previous testimony today, if I may. Senator GRUENING. Please do.

Mr. SNELL. I was involved in this entire common varieties problem from the time it first arose in 1955 when Senator Metcalf, then Congressman Metcalf, was also vitally interested and extremely helpful in trying to straighten up this difficult problem.

We raised the question of what the effect of the proposed legislation on gypsum would be and the very question that Mr. Lonergan mentioned today as to the construction of the word "stone."

We were very much concerned about that. Fortunately, first Members of the House of Representatives, and then Members of the Senate recognized the peculiar characteristics of gypsum and in their report specifically stated that gypsum was not a common variety.

I happen to be of the opinion personally as a lawyer that there was no equivocation in that statement and that it was quite clear. But unfortunately that was not the view of the administrative branch of the Government. And I say this and what I have to say with high regard also for members of the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service. They have a different opinion, or some of them have a different opinion from what I understand Congress expressed back in 1955 and has consistently expressed since that time.

My view and my understanding is that Congress said we are not going to change the mining laws as to the mining industry; we are going to continue supporting the mining industry as we have before, but we are going to attempt to avoid and to stop the misuse of the mining laws by nonmining people; that is, misuse of surface rights and so forth, as Senator Cannon suggested earlier today.

This was not a change in the mining laws or the approach to the mining laws and the report specifically so stated.

Now, I think what happened is that those who have a contrary view of the mining laws seized upon this legislation to use it for a different purpose-basically, to change the approach to the mining laws.

Just in view of the earlier comment today, I pulled a file that I have which includes in it a copy, I understand it is a copy, of a letter written by the Solicitor's Office of the Department of the Interior to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management and was released back in July of 1961. It deals with the question of limestone used in the manufacture of portland cement, which was one of the items specifically excluded from the definition of common varieties in the bill, The letter quotes a section of the report of the Senate, that is Senate Report No. 554 of the 84th Congress, to the effect-"Deposits located under the mining laws were excluded if the deposits were commercially valuable because of distinct and special properties"-and this is underlined-"such as, for example, limestone suitable for use in the production of cement"-end of underlining-"metallurgical or chemical grade limestone, gysum, and the like."

The letter goes on to state that the legislative history, and I am quoting

of an act of Congress cannot be drawn upon to establish a meaning or intent which is contrary to the clear language of the statute. It is our opinion, therefore, that the above underlined portion of the Senate Report No. 554, supra, must necessarily be disregarded in considering the question you have posed.

In other words, it was the position of the Solicitor's Office of the Department of the Interior that the committee report, the purpose of which was to clarify the meaning of common varieties, should be disregarded in interpreting the law and that the bare bones of the language itself should be used from which they concluded that large segments of minerals should be excluded from the concept of the mining laws and should no longer be locatable and subject to the obtaining of patents.

Senator METCALF. I believe Mr. Cavanaugh has revised that part of his opinion.

Mr. SNELL. I think Mr. Cavanaugh is entitled to his opinion, and I say this with high regard for his legal ability. I think that there is a basic difference of opinion, and I think that it is important that the Congress recognize this and call a spade a spade. If it is the desire of Congress to revise the mining laws, then certainly it is the prerogative of Congress, but it should be done in a straightforward, forthright manner, and I understand this whole question is now under study. But the common varieties question is a separate question. This was not intended as a major revision of the mining laws, but was intended to take care of a different problem, and I think that this is the objective that should be pursued.

Now, it concerns me that in Mr. Cavanaugh's statement today he that since July 23, 1955, there has been great dispute as to just what is a distinct and special value, and recognizes the problems they have had. He proposes an amendment which would eliminate the common varieties concept and would provide that there will be no locations made in the future for any deposit of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, pumicite, clay, cinders, or petrified wood.

Now, the word included there that bothers me is the word "stone," and I just happen to have a little sheet of paper that I prepared, I think, back in 1955 on this question, and if you will permit me to be 11 years old, Mr. Chairman, Webster at that time was defining stone as in part "concreted earthy or mineral matter, rock, or rocklike matter as a material, especially for building," in an old case in 13 Federal 525 and it said "stone is early or mineral matter condensed in a hard state."

As a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, I must suggest that that definition is extremely broad, it is not even limited to nonmetallic minerals, and if stone is rock and rock is mineral, and we exclude stone from the mining laws, I suggest that we have repealed the Mining Act of 1872.

This is of serious concern to the gypsum industry because we feel that we are making a substantial contribution as a result of the mining laws to the economy of the Western States particularly. We are mining in 8 of the 11 Western States, refining in 9 of the 11, and the future application of the mining laws to our industry is essential to the continuation and prosperity of that industry.

I must also comment on the statement of Mr. Greeley. I must respectfully disagree with the suggestions contained therein for

changes of the leasing concept in this law. The idea that building materials should not be treated as valuable minerals subject to the mining laws is wholly inconsistent with the history of the building industry and the contribution it has made and the high regard, I believe, it has had for the basic philosophy underlying this law.

I know of no instance in which the gypsum deposits have been misused where surface rights have been obtained through a claim of a gypsum deposit.

I did not come fully prepared to comment on S. 2281, and I was very happy because of that to hear Senator Cannon's remarks earlier S. 2281 the gypsum and limestone industries. In view of those remarks, I think it is unnecessary that I comment on the general provisions of that bill, except to say that the proposed new section 3A in S. 2281 does propose a rather comprehensive amendment to the mining laws and it would be our position that this whole concept should be treated separate from the concept involved in the common varieties legislation.

Senator GRUENING. Thank you very much, Mr. Snell.

Senator Metcalf, do you have any questions?

Senator METCALF. No; your statement has been very helpful.

Senator GRUENING. Your full statement, as previously stated, will be printed at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF THADDEUS S. SNELL ON BEHALF OF THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, my name is Thaddeus S. Snell; I am an attorney with offices at 134 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois. I am appearing today on behalf of the Gypsum Association in support of S. 3485. The 13 members of the Gypsum Association are manufacturers of gypsum building products.

The principal products of the industry include wall plaster and various gypsum board products, such as lath over which plaster is applied, gypsum wallboard and gypsum sheathing. Roof decks on fireproof buildings are also made of gypsum in many cases and one of the principle uses of gypsum today is for fireproofing the beams and columns in structural steel buildings. Gypsum is one of the truly fireproof materials.

Gypsum is a nonmetallic mineral. Its chemical formula is CAS04.2H20. There are two molecules of water of crystallization combined with each molecule of calcium sulphate. The peculiar characteristic of gypsum is that when the gypsum is heated, the water of crystallization is driven off as steam. The product thus produced is plaster of Paris and when water is added it will recombine with the gypsum triggering a reformation of the original crystals. The crystals then harden with a result comparable to the original rock. This makes it possible to use the plaster of Paris for plastering or to make it into the various board products by fabricating at the mill.

Members of the Gypsum Association have their own sources of raw materials which are usually located adjacent to or relatively near the manufacturing plants. Because of the low value of gypsum as a raw material, it is uneconomical to transport it any great great distance. The finished products are also relatively low in value compared with their weight and it is also relatively uneconomical to transport the finished products great distances. For these reasons and other normal competitive factors, there is a constant search for new sources of gypsum, strategically located either with relation to existing producing points or major markets. Gypsum deposits presently are being worked in 8 of the 11 Western States. The demand for gypsum wallboard, plaster and other gypsum products in this Western area is supplied entirely from more than 20 plants which are located in 9 of these 11 states. Another major use of gypsum is as an ingredient in the manufacture of Portland Cement. Many of the members of the Gypsum Association sell gypsum to cement companies. There are also a number of companies who specialize in mining or quarrying gypsum solely for sale to the cement companies. These latter companies are not members of the Gypsum Association because the Association is primarily concerned with products manufactured out

65-450-66-6

of gypsum as distinguished from products where gypsum is only one of several ingredients used in the manufacturing process.

Historically, claims to gypsum deposits on public lands have been located and patented under the Mining Laws of the United States. To the best of my knowledge, and my investigation dates back to the early days of the industry, gypsum deposits are not the cause of any serious problems incident to the application of the Mining Laws. Gypsum is a relatively soft mineral. It is not used for road building purposes; it is of no value for building blocks. In fact, its principle use depends upon the peculiar characterisics which I have described. Claims to gypsum deposits are filed only because gypsum is desired for use as gypsum in one of the various uses which I have previously mentioned. I know of no instances, and have heard of no occasion, when gypsum has been the basis for acquisition of title to land so that that land may be used for some other purpose. Those who have filed claims and applications for patents have proceeded to obtain the patents with a minimum of difficulty. In recent years, however, this situation has changed.

In 1955 when the "common varieties" concept was introduced into Mining Law legislation, the gypsum industry, of course, was curious as to its application and effects upon the gypsum industry. Appropriate inquiries were made of the committees dealing with the Bills. We learned that the Congress was concerned with a growing number of abuses of the Mining Laws whereby persons were acquiring claims and ultimately title to property in the public domain although their primary interest was not in mining the minerals on these lands. At the same time we were assured that the legislation would faithfully safeguard all of the rights and interests of bona fide prospectors and mine operators. As to gypsum, which the Congress recognized as an unusual, uncommon mineral in itself, we were further assured that any legitimate claim to a gypsum deposit could be located and patented under the Mining Laws. For good and valid reasons best understood by members of the committee, we were told, however, this could best be accomplished by the vehicle of the committee report rather than by clarifying language in the legislation itself.

These assurances were faithfully carried out by the Congress. Both Senate report No. 554 accompanying S. 1713 and report No. 730 of the House of Representatives accompanying H.R. 5891 in the 84th Congress First Session had language specifically indicating that gypsum was not to be considered as a common variety of mineral and was to remain under the Mining Laws rather than subject to disposition pursuant to the Materials Act of 1947. On the basis of this background and with this Congressional history behind the amendments to the Mining Act which were adopted in 1955, the Gypsum Association members continued to locate and patent claims to gypsum deposits, as theretofore, until 1961. In that year, representatives of the gypsum industry were advised by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of Interior, that they were in the process of writing new regulations under which claims to gypsum deposits could no longer be located and patented under the Mining Laws unless the gypsum deposit had some distinct and special property not generally found in other gypsum deposits. Since the gypsum in one deposit differs in no way from the gypsum in another deposit, the effect of this proposal was to slam the door on the gypsum industry. Future development and use of gypsum deposits on public lands would be impossible. The multi-million dollar investment required of a gypsum plant could not be justified if the raw material supply was dependent upon short term leases, nor could a company justify its exploration expenses if the anticipated end result could not be a claim subject to patenting under the Mining Laws.

The gypsum industry commented on the published proposed regulations and extensive discussions were held over a period of several months with representatives of the Bureau of Land Management. It was apparent that within the Bureau there was substantial difference of opinion as to the Congressional intent behind the law.

Suffice it to say that on September 14, 1962, the controversy at least as to gypsum was resolved by publication of regulations which flatly stated that "gypsum" was not a "common variety." (43 CFR Sec. 3511.1).

Again the gypsum industry believed the matter was settled, and as far as I know, the Bureau of Land Management since 1962 has raised no objection based on the "common varieties" concept to applications for patents on claims to gypsum deposits. Not so the Forest Service, however. In at least one case recently, the same arguments raised in 1961 and 1962 by the Bureau of Land

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »