APPENDIX A (Subsequent to the hearing the following communications were ordered printed :) Hon. ERNEST GRUENING, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, June 29, 1966. Chairman, Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish to express my most sincere thanks for your many courtesies yesterday during my testimony on the "common varieties" problem. I share your hope that the Subcommittee can take positive action to resolve this problem in the very near future, and know that the matter is in good hands. Other commitments yesterday made it impossible for me to remain at the hearings. I have, however, reviewed the statements of most witnesses, and am deeply concerned about the Administration's report and statement on S. 2281. I have never read a more incomplete or distorted statement from any Administration witness. I am enclosing for your information a copy of a letter I am sending to Acting Solicitor Thomas Cavanaugh. Again, my thanks for your kindness, and my very best wishes. [Enclosure] HOWARD W. CANNON. U.S. SENATE, Mr. THOMAS J. CAVANAUGH, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, Acting Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. June 28, 1966. DEAR MR. CAVANAUGH: After testifying today before Senator Gruening's Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials and Fuels, I was unable to remain to hear other witnesses because of commitments at another committee meeting. I have received your testimony, however, as well as the Department's report on S. 2281. In my eight years in Congress I have never read a statement from an Administration witness that more distorts a bill under consideration than the one you delivered this morning. Your statement and the official report are startling examples of incompleteness and, apparently, complete disinterest. The fact that the Department only managed to prepare a report dated today, despite the fact that Committee requested a report months ago, may explain is incompleteness. I am advised that several members of the Committee expressed their concern about the delays in obtaining a report on this bill. I concur wholeheartedly with their observations. My principal concern, however, involves your statement to the Committee. In discussing my bill, S. 2281, you said the "exclusion of sand, gravel, and rock usable for any construction purpose would come close to abrogating Section 3 and returning to the conditions existing before July 23, 1955. This does not seem to us a feasible solution. The 1955 Act was passed to correct serious misuse of the Public Domain, and there is no justification for returning to conditions in existence before that statute." Your indication that my bill would do this illustrates that you either did not read the bill or deliberately misrepresented its contents. My bill does change the definition of "common varieties" to allow the location of sand, gravel and related minerals under certain conditions specifically designed to prevent the "serious misuse of the Public Domain" you mentioned. 81 S. 2281, far from "returning to conditions in existence before" the passage of Public Law 167, includes features which demand that the land be used for mining purposes. Section 3A (h), the existence or provisions of which you did not even acknowledge in your statement or the official report, states, "Title to lands patented under this section, based upon mining claims hereafter located, shall revert to the United States if (1) within five years of the date of patent the owner has not, by substantial mining operations, demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary a devotion of the land to the production of mineral materials, or (2) within twenty-five years from the date of patent and prior to the removal of all of the minerial material 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." Since this section, designed to protect the interests of the United States against land speculation and other abuses, is contained in the bill and clearly worded, I am at a loss to understand your testimony that the bill would result in a return to conditions in existence before the passage of P. L. 167. Sincerely, HOWARD W. CANNON. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, Washington, D.C., July 5, 1966. Hon. HOWARD W. CANNON, Committee on Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CANNON: This is in reply to your letter to me of June 28, 1966, commenting upon my testimony on that date before the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels during the hearing on S. 2881 and S. 3485. Your principal concern was with that portion of my statement made in reference to Section 1(a) of your bill, S. 2281. I said in part that the exclusion of sand, gravel, and rock usable for any construction purpose would come close to abrogating Section 3 (of the Act of July 23, 1955), and returning to conditions existing before July 23, 1955. As you know, Section 3 of the 1955 Act, removed common varieties of certain non-metallic minerals, including sand and gravel and stone, from the operation of the general mining laws. It was to this aspect of the 1955 act that my remark was addressed. It seemed to me that the provisions of Section 1(a) of S. 2281 are sufficiently broad in scope as to return most, if not all, of the substances which were removed from the category of locatable minerals by the 1955 act to status of locatables. Therefore, to the extent that the status of these substances as locatable or non-locatable as determined by section 3 of the 1955 act is concerned, S. 2281 would come close to abrogating the provision of the 1955 act. However, I am in complete accord with your position that Section 3A of S. 2281 would afford protections against the misuse of mining claims which did not exist prior to the 1955 act. To this extent the change in section 3 of the 1955 act which would be brought about by enactment of S. 2281 is, indeed, a qualified change. As I indicated in my statement, we found the provisions of S. 2281 which would add a new section 3A to the 1955 act to be very interesting. However, we did not discuss these provisions in detail because we felt they were of limited application. The fact is that there are many desirable features in the proposed section 3A which, as I indicated in my statement, we would prefer to have considered as amendments to the general mining laws. Another factor which led me to the conclusion I made in connection with section 1(a) of S. 2281 was the provision of Section 3A (j) which provides that the owner of any unpatented minding claim, located prior to the effective date of the section, may elect to make his claim subject to the provisions of the section in a manner prescribed by the Secretary. Because 3A (j) is a part of 3A, it is not clear just how this provision would be applied. Some of our lawyers were of the opinion that under 3A(j) it might be possible to exclude all claims located prior to the effective date of the amendments which would be adopted by enactment of S. 2281 from the operation of the other provisions of Section 3A. Any uncertainty could undoubtedly be remedied by proper amendment. However, our report and my testimony were necessarily directed to the provisions of the bill as introduced. While it is regrettable that the departmental report was delayed until the day of the hearing, as I explained to the Subcommittee, a draft report had been prepared but was held up when it was learned that S. 3485 had been introduced. We anticipated that hearings might be held jointly on S. 2281 and S. 3485 and were hopeful that reports could be prepared on both bills which could be forwarded to the Committee at the same time. I also regret that our report and my statement gave the impression that we were in any way disinterested in the provision of S. 2281. We, of course, did not comment indetail upon all of the features of S. 2281 because we had recommended a substitute amendment which would, if adopted, limit the applicability of the protective provisions of Section 3A of S. 2281 to only a few claims in existence prior to the enactment of the amendment. The so called "common varieties" provision of the 1955 Act has presented difficulties of interpretation and, consequently, of administration. We have been deeply concerned with this problem as has been the Congress. The fact is that this concern caused us to give very careful consideration to all of the provisions of S. 2281 and should the Committee reject the proposal contained in our report of June 28 on S. 2281, and request a more detailed report on the provisions of the bill, we are fully prepared to reply. Since your letter indicates that my statement may not have been entirely clear, I am sending a copy of this letter to the Chairman of the Subcommittee with a request that it be made a part of the record of the June 28 hearing. Sincerely yours, THOMAS J. CAVANAUGH, Associate Solicitor for Public Lands. NATIONAL CRUSHED STONE ASSOCIATION, Subject: NCSA Statement on S. 3485 Chairman, Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR GRUENING: Unfortunately, I was unable to reach you yesterday afternoon by telephone after I had determined what NCSA could do in line with our Association policies to present our views on S. 3485. Enclosed with this leter is a copy of the letter that I have sent Senator Gruening setting forth NCSA's views on S. 3485, and requesting that the letter be incorporated in the record and be considered in the Subcommittee's deliberations. We request that you place a note in your files indicating the interest of the National Crushed Stone Association in all matters pertaining or applying to the crushed and broken stone industry. Your cooperation in furnishing background information so that we could submit a statement on S. 3485 is appreciated. In view of the situation, you can consider the attached letter as the only statement we will file at the present time on S. 3485. Very truly yours, WILLIAM L. CARTER, Executive Director. [Enclosure] NATIONAL CRUSHED STONE ASSOCIATION, Hon. ERNEST GRUENING, Chairman, Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels, (Subject: S. 3485 and Related Proposals Concerning Valuable Mineral Deposits.) DEAR SENATOR GRUENING: The purpose of this letter is to set forth the position of the National Crushed Stone Association regarding S. 3485 and similar proposals designed to amend the mining laws of the United States with respect to the definition of the term "common variety." This subject is a matter of vital concern to the members of the crushed stone industry, particularly so to those who are located in our western states. For this reason, NCSA has, for a number of years, worked closely with interested Congressmen to develop legislation in this area. Understandably, we regret that the Association was not afforded the opportunity to present testimony before your Subcommittee on these proposals and must therefore resort to this letter to set forth the Association's views NCSA believes S. 3485 to represent a step in the right direction toward correcting the overly-broad interpretation given by the Department of Interior to the 1955 amendments to the mining laws. Those amendments were intended by the Congress only for the very narrow purpose of putting an end to the abuse of the mining laws by speculators who had no interest in developing mining operations but were interested only in acquiring title to the surface land. They were not intended to prevent bona fide stone, sand and gravel operations from acquiring interest in such deposits under the mining laws. We are particularly pleased that the Bill recognizes cement and bituminous concrete aggregate to be a valuable mineral deposit. For this reason, while NCSA believes that deposits of stone, sand, and gravel which can be mined, processed, and marketed for still other construction uses should also be considered as val uable mineral deposits, we support the enactment of S. 3485 insofar as it represents a step toward rectifying the current misinterpretation of the 1955 amendments. On behalf of the crushed stone industry, we respectfully request that this letter be considered in your Subcommittee deliberations and be included in the record of the hearings. Very truly yours, WILLIAM L. CARTER, Mr. STEWART FRENCH, BOZEMAN, MONT., June 29, 1966. Committee Counsel, Interior Minerals, Materials, Fuels Subcommittee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. FRENCH: Pursuant to Senator Metcalf's letter, together, with this letter is enclosed a copy of a letter to Senator Gruening dated August 13, 1965. I would appreciate it if you would include both of these letters in the hearings on Senate Bill 3485. I have read the bill and believe that it will sufficiently take care of the problem of our company concerning travertine and marble. However, I do have some misgivings as to the general law in the following incidence as set out in my letter of August 13, 1965, as it still does not particularly state whether or not Section 161, Title 30 of the U.S. Codes is repealed. Assuming that Section 161, Title 30, U.S. Codes, is not intended to be repealed by this act nor by the 'common varieties act,' we then have the proposition that a placer claim located under Section 161 will be honored as not being within the purview of the 'common varieties act'. In this vein, other building stones which can be sawed such as sandstone will present a similar problem which I think will conflict with Section 161. This perhaps could be alleviated by inserting the words "or other building stone" after the word "gabros". It is my hope that this bill will be passed in order to clarify the 'common varieties act'. However, I do think some thought should be given to the other possibilities of other building stone becoming a problem as marble, limestones and granite have in the building stone field. Further, I believe that Senate Bill 3485 would greatly lessen the confusion that has grown out of the present interpretation placed upon the 'common varieties act' by the administrative branch of the government. I can say for myself and for my company that this bill has our full support. If there is any other help that we can give you in this matter, please advise us, and thank you for the opportunity to be heard upon this bill. Very truly yours, MCKINLEY ANDERSON. [Enclosure] AUGUST 13, 1965. Re Public Law 167, Hearing Butte, Mont., June 18, 1965. Hon. ERNEST GRUENING, U.S. Senate Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR GRUENING: I am sending you this letter in regard to the abovecaptioned matter as I feel that action on the law known as Public Law 167 is greatly is conflict with Title 30, Section 161 of the U.S. Codes. As you know, these sections are as follows: "Any person authorized to enter lands under the mining laws of the United States may enter lands that are chiefly valuable for building stone under the provisions of the law in relation to placermineral claims. Lands reserved for the benefit of the public schools or donated to any States shall not be subject to entry under this section. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to repeal section 471 of Title 16 relating to the establishment of national forests." Title 30, Section 601, U.S. Code Annotated provides as follows: "The Secretary, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, may dispose of mineral materials (including but not limited to common varieties of the following: stone . . ..) on public lands of the United States, if the disposal of such mineral . . . (1) is not otherwise expressly authorized by law, . . . . and the United States mining laws, and (2) is not expressly prohibited by laws of the United States, and (3) would not be deterimental to the public interest. Such materials may be disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of this sub-chapter and upon the payment of adequate compensation therefor, to be determined by the Secretary: . . . ." Title 30, Section 611, US. Code Annotated provides as follows: "No deposit of common varieties of . . . . stone . . . . shall be deemed a valuable mineral deposit within the meaning of the mining laws of the United States so as to give effective validity to any mining claim hereafter located under such mining laws: Provided, however, that nothing herein shall affect the validity of any mining location based upon discovery of some other mineral occurring in or in association with such deposit. 'Common varieties' are used in sections 601, 603, and 611-615 of this title does not include deposits of such mineral which are valuable because the deposit has some property giving it distinct and special value...." (This was passed July 23, 1955) Also, Public Law 167 conflicts with Title 43 of the Codes of Federal Regulations as set out in circular No. 2149 of the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, dated July 10, 1964. This was the last publication that I have received from the Bureau of Land Management in Billings, Montana, concerning the regulations in regard to the mining laws of the United States. On page 7 of the said circular, it stated as follows: "The act of August 4, 1892 (27 Stat. 348; 30 U.S.C. 161), extends the mineral land laws so as to bring lands chiefly valuable for building stone within the provisions of said laws." Also, it is provided in the circular at page 25, the following: "Limestone suitable for use in the production of cement, metallurgical or chemical grade limestone, gypsum, and the like are not common varieties." This subsection does not relieve a claimant from any requirements of the mining laws." Also, there appears to be a conflict on page 21 of the circular wherein under Section 3470.3 it is provided: 3470.3 Data to be filed in support of application, (a) ... "If it be a building stone or other deposit than gold claimed under the placer laws, he must describe fully the kind, nature, and extent of the deposit, stating the reasons why same is by him regarded as a valuable mineral claim" I also wish to point out that "common varieties" as defined in Sub-Part 3511, Common Varieties, 40 Code of Federal Regulations and Public Law 10 State: "(Common varieties) includes any deposits which, although they may have value in trade, manufacturing, the sciences, or the mechanical or ornamental arts, do not possess a distinct, special economic value for such use over and above the normal uses of the general run of such deposits." This conflicts with the law set down in the case of Northern Pacific Railway Company versus Sedeberg, 47 Lawyer's Edition 575, wherein the Supreme Court stated: "The rulings of the Land Department, to which we are to look for the contemporaneous construction of these statutes, have been subject to very little 65-450-66- -7 |