STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCLURE HEARING ON S. 30 AND H.R. 2392 MONDAY, JULY 31, 1989 SINCE ENACTMENT OF THE MINERAL LEASING ACT IN 1920, THERE HAVE BEEN A WEALTH OF CONFLICTING ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL AND CONGRESSIONAL DECISIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO OIL SHALE CLAIMS WHICH WERE GRANDFATHERED UNDER THAT ACT. MOST RECENTLY, SECRETARY LUJAN HAS ESTABLISHED AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROHIBITION ON THE ISSUANCE OF OIL SHALE PATENTS THROUGH CALENDAR YEAR 1989. FRANKLY, I AM CONCERNED THAT THE RIGHTS OF CLAIMHOLDERS, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO HAVE FILED PATENT APPLICATIONS, ARE BEING VIOLATED BY THIS MORATORIUM AND THOSE WHICH THE CONGRESS HAS IMPOSED IN RECENT YEARS. THOUGH I AM QUITE AWARE OF THE CONTROVERSY ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CLAIMS, IT IS MY VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO CARRY OUT THE LAW AS IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED BY THE COURTS. THIS MORNING'S HEARING FOCUSES ON TWO MEASURES, S. 30 AND H.R. 2392, WHICH ADDRESS THESE UNPATENTED OIL SHALE CLAIMS. IN THIS SENATOR'S VIEW, BOTH PIECES OF LEGISLATION FALL FAR SHORT OF RESOLVING THE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE CLAIMS IN A FAIR AND EQUITABLE MANNER. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO FASHION A COMPROMISE LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL WHICH WILL SERVE TO END THE CONTROVERSY OVER THESE CLAIMS, AND NOT JUST INVITE FURTHER LITIGATION. I AM AWARE OF THE EFFORTS OF THE OIL SHALE LANDS CLAIMS COMMITTEE, A GROUP MADE UP OF VOLUNTEERS REPRESENTING DIVERGENT VIEWS ON THE OIL SHALE ISSUE, WHICH -2 HAS MET SEVERAL TIMES IN COLORADO TO TRY TO CRAFT SUCH A COMPROMISE PROPOSAL. I COMMEND THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN THAT GROUP FOR ESTABLISHING A DIALOGUE WITH ONE ANOTHER AND FOR WORKING TO FIND A REASONABLE RESOLUTION TO THE OIL SHALE ISSUE. CONCERNS. WITH RESPECT TO S. 30 AND H.R. 2392, I HAVE A NUMBER OF SPECIFIC FIRST, BOTH MEASURES FOREVER PROHIBIT CLAIMHOLDERS WHO HAD NOT MET ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR A PATENT PRIOR TO THE DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE LEGISLATION FROM PATENTING THEIR CLAIMS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE 1872 MINING LAW THE LAW UNDER WHICH THEY WERE LOCATED. I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT A WINDOW SHOULD BE PROVIDED WHICH WOULD PRESERVE THE RIGHT OF A CLAIMHOLDER TO COME FORWARD AND SEEK A PATENT FOR A LIMITED TIME AFTER ENACTMENT OF THE LEGISLATION. I AM ALSO EXTREMELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASED ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN BOTH MEASURES FOR THOSE CLAIMANTS UNREASONABLE. TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, H.R. 2392 ALSO PROVIDES THAT -3 MOST, IF NOT ALL, CLAIMANTS WOULD BE FORCED TO RELINQUISH THEIR CLAIMS LONG BEFORE THE SECRETARY WOULD CANCEL THEM DUE TO LACK OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION. UNFORTUNATELY, I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE UNSTATED GOAL OF THE HOUSE-PASSED LEGISLATION. I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE $2000 PER ACRE FEE CONTAINED IN H.R. 2392 WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED OF CLAIMHOLDERS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR A LIMITED PATENT ON THEIR CLAIMS (OIL SHALE AND ASSOCIATED MINERALS ONLY). THIS AMOUNT IS AN INSULT TO THOSE CLAIMANTS WHO HAVE IN GOOD FAITH PARTICIPATED IN DISCUSSIONS ON COMPROMISE LEGISLATION AND HAVE AGREED TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO PATENT THE SURFACE AND OTHER RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR CLAIMS. THEIR CONCESSION OF SURFACE RESOURCES SHOULD SEND A STRONG MESSAGE TO THOSE WHO CONTINUE TO ACCUSE OIL SHALE CLAIMANTS OF ASPIRING TO CREATE SKI RESORTS OUT OF LANDS THEY ACQUIRE FOR $2.50 PER ACRE. FINALLY, S. 30 CONTAINS A PARTICULARLY DISTURBING PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS HOLDERS OF OIL SHALE CLAIMS FROM OBTAINING ANY OTHER FEDERAL MINERAL LEASES. THIS IS VERY OFFENSIVE IN LIGHT OF THE BILL'S $1000 ANNUAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENT WHICH THESE CLAIMANTS MUST COMPLY WITH IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO HOLD THE CLAIMS. IN CLOSING, I WELCOME THE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS OF THOSE INVOLVED IN THE OIL SHALE ISSUE TO COME UP WITH COMPROMISE LEGISLATION WHICH WILL IN MY VIEW, NEITHER S. 30 OR H.R. 2392 BE EQUITABLE TO ALL CONCERNED. REPRESENTS SUCH A REASONABLE COMPROMISE. Malcolm Walls STATEMENT OF SENATOR WALLOP GIVEN AT THE HEARING ON S. 30 AND H.R. 2392 31 JULY 1989 MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE TWO THE BILLS CONSTITUTE A LEGISLATIVE TAKING PRIMARY AMONG THOSE REASONS IS THAT THESE BILLS LEGISLATIVELY I FIND IT IRONIC THAT THERE WAS A POINT IN TIME WHEN THE NOW, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS DOING ALL IT CAN TO TAKE BACK UNFORTUNATELY, THE GOVERNMENT HAS AN ENORMOUS APPETITE FOR TAKING IF EITHER OF THESE BILLS WAS ENACTED INTO LAW, THE PENDING CLAIMS LIKEWISE, S. 30 WOULD LEGISLATE AN UNCOMPENSATED TAKING FOR THOSE WYOMING CLAIMHOLDERS LOSE THEIR RIGHTS IN WYOMING, WE HAVE 340 OIL SHALE CLAIMS COVERING 54,400 ACRES. THE BILLS FORCE CLAIMANTS TO ABANDON THEIR CLAIMS THAT'S RIGHT, TEN OR FIFTY TIMES THE COST. UNDER THE SCHEME ESTABLISHED BY S. 30, THOSE WHO HAVE NOT COMPLETED, OR FILED, PATENT APPLICATIONS BY THE ARBITRARY DATE OF 25 JANUARY 1989 MUST ELECT TO TAKE A LEASE AND PAY A ROYALTY OF 12 1/2 PER CENT, OR MAINTAIN THE CLAIM PURSUANT TO A REQUIREMENT TO PERFORM $1000 WORTH OF LABOR EACH YEAR, VERSUS $100 A YEAR AT PRESENT. UNDER H.R. 2392, THE CLAIMANT WHO HAS YET TO FILE FACES THE SAME THIS TRUE INTENT IS CONFIRMED BY ANOTHER PROVISION IN S. 30, WHICH PREVENTS ANY ENTITY HOLDING AN OIL SHALE CLAIM FROM OBTAINING ANY OTHER TYPE OF LEASE UNDER THE MINERAL LEASING ACT. OBVIOUSLY, CLAIMANTS ARE GOING TO ABANDON THEIR CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPABLE OIL SHALE CLAIMS IN FAVOR OF DEVELOPABLE LEASES ON COAL OR OIL AND GAS. THE BILLS ARE NOT REVENUE RAISERS THEY PROPONENTS OF THE BILLS JUSTIFY THEM AS "REVENUE RAISERS." ESTIMATE THAT PURCHASES OF THE LIMITED PATENTS WILL GENERATE ABOUT $50 MILLION, AND THAT THE DILIGENT DEVELOPMENT FEE WILL GENERATE ABOUT $6 MILLION PER YEAR. AS I SAID BEFORE, NO REVENUES WILL BE RAISED BECAUSE CLAIMANTS WILL ABANDON THEIR CLAIMS. WHAT THE PROPONENTS ALSO FAIL TO CONSIDER IS THAT THE BILLS WILL CREATE A FLOOD OF LITIGATION REQUIRING HUGE EXPENDITURES BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO DEFEND AGAINST THE JUST COMPENSATION CLAIMS. THE BILLS REPRESENT A SUBTLE ATTACK ON THE 1872 MINING LAW FINALLY, BY INCREASING THE ANNUAL WORK REQUIREMENT AND THE PATENT FEE, THE BILLS INDIRECTLY AMEND THE 1872 MINING LAW. EVEN WORSE, ENACTMENT OF EITHER BILL WOULD CONSTITUTE A BAD PRECEDENT TO BE CITED WHEN DIRECTLY CONSIDERING REFORM OR REPEAL OF THE 1872 MINING LAW. MR. CHAIRMAN, OURS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, THANK YOU. |