Page images
PDF
EPUB

filed as aforesaid, as having an interest in the lands described in said notice under any unpatented mining claim heretofore located, such notice to be directed to such person's address as set forth in such certificate; and (2) shall file in the office where said request for publication was filed an affidavit showing that copies have been so delivered or mailed. "(b) If any claimant under any unpatented mining claim heretofore located which embraces any of the lands described in any notice published in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) of this section 7 shall fail to file a verified statement, as above provided, within 150 days from the date of the first publication of such notice, such failure shall be conclusively deemed, except as otherwise provided in subsection (e) of this section 7, (i) to constitute a waiver and relinquishment by such mining claimant of any and all right, title, and interest under such mining claim as to, but only as to, Leasing Act minerals, and (ii) to constitute a consent by such mining claimant that such mining claim and any patent issued therefor, shall be subject to the reservation specified in section 4 of this act, and (iii) to preclude thereafter any assertion by such mining claimant of any right or title to or interest in any Leasing Act mineral by reason of such mining claim.

"(c) If any verified statement shall be filed by a mining claimant as provided in subsection (a) of this section 7, then the Secretary of the Interior or his designated representative shall fix a time and place for a hearing to determine the validity and effectiveness of the mining claimant's asserted right or interest in Leasing Act minerals. The procedures with respect to notice of such a hearing and the conduct thereof, and in respect to appeals shall follow the then established general procedures and rules of practice of the Department of the Interior in respect to contests or protests affecing public lands of the United States. If at any time prior to a hearing the person requesting publication of notice and any person filing a verified statement pursuant to such notice shall so stipulate, then to the extent so stipulated, but only to such extent, no hearing shall be held with respect to rights asserted under that verified statement, and to the extent defined by the stipulation the rights asserted under that verified statement shall be deemed to be unaffected by that particular published notice.

"(d) Any person claiming any right in leasing-act minerals under or by virtue of any unpatented mining claim hertofore located and desiring to receive a copy of any notice of any application, offer, permit, or lease which may be published as above provided in subsection (a) of this section 7, and which may affect lands embraced in such mining claim, may cause to be filed for record in the county office of record where the notice or certificate of location of such mining claim shall have been recorded, a duly acknowledged request for a copy of any such notice. Such request for copies shall set forth the name and address of the person requesting copies and shall also set forth, as to each mining claim under which such person asserts rights in leasing-act minerals: "(1) the date of location;

"(2) the book and page of the recordation of the notice or certificate of location; and "(3) the section or sections of the public land surveys which embrace such mining claim; or if such lands are unsurveyed either the section or sections which would probably embrace such mining claim when the public land surveys are extended to such lands or a tie by courses and distances to an approved United States mineral monument.

Other than in respect to the requirements of subsection (a) of this section 7 as to personal delivery or mailing of copies of notices and in respect to the provisions of subsection (e) of this section 7, no such request for copies of published notices and no statement

or allegation in such request and no recordation thereof shall affect title to any mining claim or to any land, or be deemed to constitute constructive notice to any person that the person requesting copies has, or claims, any right, title, or interest in or under any mining claim referred to in such request.

66

"(e) If any applicant, offeror, permittee, or lessee shall fail to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) of this section 7 as to the personal delivery or mailing of a copy of notice to any person, the publication of such notice shall be deemed wholly ineffectual as to that person or as to the rights asserted by that person and the failure of that person to file a verified statement, as provided in such notice, shall in no manner affect, diminish, prejudice or bar any rights of that person.

"SEC. 8. The owner or owners of any mining claim heretofore located may, at any time prior to issuance of patent therefor, waive and relinquish all rights thereunder to leasing-act minerals. The execution and acknowledgment of such a waiver and relinquishment by such owner or owners and the recordation thereof in the office where the notice or certificate of location of such mining claim is of record shall render such mining claim thereafter subject to the reservation referred to in section 4 of this act and any patent issued therefor shall contain such a reservation, but no such waiver or relinquishment shall be deemed in any manner to constitute any concession as to the date of priority of rights under said mining claim or as to the validity thereof.

"SEC. 9. Notwithstanding any previous act, regulation, or decision, the reservation of minerals in lands withdrawn from the public domain for mineral purposes by Executive order, proclamation, or other administrative procedure shall be applicable only to those minerals and for the purposes expressed in said Executive order, proclamation, or other administrative procedure. The Secretary of the Interior shall retain the power and authority to dispose of other leasable minerals in said lands by leasing procedures applicable to the public domain. This section shall become effective April 1, 1955.

"SEC. 10. The Atomic Energy Act is hereby amended as follows:

66 6

"(a) Section 5 (b) (5) is revised to read: '(5) Acquisition: The Commission is authorized, to the extent it deems necessary to effectuate the provisions of this act, to purchase, take, requisition, condemn, or otherwise acquire

"'(A) supplies of source materials or any interest in real property containing deposits of source materials; and

"(B) rights to enter upon any real property deemed by it to have possibilities of containing deposits of source materials and to conduct prospecting and exploratory operations for such deposits.

'Any purchase made under this paragraph may be made without regard to the provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. C., title 41, sec. 5) upon certification by the Commission that such action is necessary in the interest of the common defense and security, or upon a showing that advertising is not reasonably practicable, and partial and advance payments may be made thereunder. The Commission may establish guaranteed prices for all source materials delivered to it within a specified time. Just compensation shall be made for any property or interest in property taken, requisitioned, or condemned under this paragraph.'

"(b) Section 5 (b) (6) is revised to read: *(6) Operations on lands belonging to the United States: The Commission is authorized, to the extent it deems necessary to effectuate the provisions of this act, to issue leases or permits for prospecting for,

exploration for, mining, or removal of deposits of source materials (or for any or all of these purposes) in lands belonging to the United States.'

"(c) Section 5 (b) (7) is revised to read: "(7) Public lands: No individual, corporation, partnership, or association, which had any part, directly or indirectly, in the development of the atomic bomb project, may benefit by any location, entry, or settlement upon the public domain made after such individual, corporation, partnership, or association took part in such project, if such individual, corporation, partnership, or association, by reason of having had such part in the development of the atomic bomb project, acquired confidential official information as to the existence of deposits of such uranium, thorium, or other materials in the specific lands upon which such location, entry, or settlement is made, and subsequent to the date of the enactment of this act made such location, entry, or settlement or cause the same to be made for his, or its, or their benefit. In cases where any patent, conveyance, lease, permit, or other authorization has been issued, which reserved to the United States source materials and the right to enter upon the land and prospect for, mine, and remove the same, the head of the department or agency which issued the patent, conveyance, lease, permit, or other authorization shall, on application of the holder thereof, issue a new or supplemental patent, conveyance, lease, permit, or other authorization without such reservation.'

"(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, and particularly section 5 (b) (7) thereof, prior to its amendment hereby, or the provisions of the act of August 12, 1953 (67 Stat. 539), and particularly section 3 thereof, any mining claim, heretofore located under the mining laws of the United States for, or based upon a discovery of a mineral deposit which is a fissionable source material and which, except for the possible contrary construction of said Atomic Energy Act, would have been locatable under such mining laws, shall, insofar as adversely affected by such possible contrary construction, be valid and effective, in all respects to the same extent as if said mineral deposit were a locatable mineral deother than posit a fissionable source material.

"SEC. 11. As used in this act 'mineral leasing laws' shall mean the act of October 20, 1914 (38 Stat. 741); the act of February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 437); the act of April 17, 1926 (44 Stat. 301); the act of February 7, 1927 (44 Stat. 1057); and all acts heretofore or hereafter enacted which are amendatory of or supplementary to any of the foregoing act; 'Leasing Act minerals' shall mean all minerals which, upon the effective date of this act, are provided in the mineral leasing laws to be disposed of thereunder, 'Leasing Act operations' shall mean operations conducted under a lease, permit, or license issued under the mineral leasing laws in or incidental to prospecting for, drilling for, mining, treating, storing, transporting, or removing Leasing Act minerals; 'mining operations' shall mean operations under any unpatented or patented mining claim or millsite in or incidental to prospecting for, mining, treating, storing, transporting, or removing minerals other than Leasing Act minerals and any other use under any claim of right or title based upon such mining claim or millsite; 'Leasing Act operator' shall mean any party who shall conduct Leasing Act operations; 'mining operator' shall mean any party who shall conduct mining operations; 'Atomic Energy Act' shall mean the act of August 1, 1946 (60 Stat. 755), as amended; 'Atomic Energy Commission' shall mean the United States Atomic Energy Commission established under the Atomic Energy Act or any amendments

thereof; 'fissionable source material' shall mean uranium, thorium, and all other materials referred to in section 5 (b) (1) of the Atomic Energy Act as reserved or to be reserved to the United States; 'uranium lease application' shall mean an application for a uranium lease filed with said Commission with respect to lands which would be open for entry under the mining laws except for their being lands embraced within an offer, application, permit, or lease under the mineral leasing laws or lands known to be valuable for minerals leasable under those laws; 'uranium lease' shall mean a uranium mining lease issued by said Commission with respect to any such lands; and 'person' shall mean any individual, corporation, partnership, or other legal entity.

"SEC. 12. If any provision of this act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances, is held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforcible, the remainder of this act or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforcible, shall not be affected thereby."

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. President, the Mining Act of 1872 provided for the location of mining claims on public lands. It was contemplated under that act that the minerals of the country would be disposed of completely and exclusively under its provisions. The first radical departure from that system came about through the passage of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. That act provided that, save for valid claims then existing, oil, gas, coal, phosphate, sodium or oil shale could be disposed of only under that legislation. That act also provided that lands which were known to contain those minerals or which were under lease to develop such minerals were not subject to location under the mining law of 1872.

From the passage of the Leasing Act the conflict between the Mining Act system and the leasing system increased with the years. The basic principles of the mining law, with its exclusiveness and entirety of disposition, was wholly inconsistent with the limited method of disposition under the Leasing Act. And so, Mr. President, the conflict between these two distinct but entirely opposite systems for public land usage and disposition grew with expansion under each method until the situation became not only both acute and intolerable to everyone concerned, but against the public interest as well.

STATUS OF URANIUM CLAIMS IN DOUBT

When it was found last year that hundreds of very valuable uranium claims on the Colorado plateau were in a very doubtful legal status because of the conflict between the two systems it was found necessary to do something. Stopgap legislation was enacted. Then and there advocates of each system determined that, as a matter of public policy, a sincere effort should be made to find a compatible system of land use under both the Mining Act and the Leasing Act.

To my way of thinking, Mr. President, representatives of each system are to be congratulated for their sincere efforts to rise above narrow self interest of their separate industries and to look upon the problem from the standpoint of the broad public interest. Their sole desire was

to find remedial legislation that would permit maximum utilization of our mineral resources.

Their objective was to find a method under which the utilization of one resource would not unduly interfere with the utilization of another resource. So, we have proposed legislation before us today that is approved largely by mining men, including uranium miners, and by the oil and gas industry as well. This bill makes provision for concurrent and multiple usages of our natural resources under both systems. The bill has the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, approval of the Secretary of the Interior, the Bureau of the Budget, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy of the Congress.

SIXTY MILLION ACRES OPENED TO MINE LOCATION

This bill will open to location under the mining laws about 60 million acres now withdrawn under the Mineral Leasing Act. So, Mr. President, the search for uranium will benefit immeasurably if this legislation is enacted.

The stopgap legislation of last year provided a cutoff date of December 31, 1952. The first three section of the bill

are designed to protect equities created as a result of last year's legislation.

Section 1 gives a preference to any mining claimant who attempted to validate his claim under Public Law 250. This section brings forward the cutoff date of Public Law 250 to February 10, 1954, in order to protect those who acted in good faith in prospecting between January 1, 1953, and the issuance of AEC circular No. 7 which outlined procedures for uranium leases.

Section 2 gives priorities to claimants having equities as a result of Public Law 250. Where conflicts develop claims located during the period of last year's law have preference to those located after the cutoff date. Also, preference is given to those claims located before February 10, 1954, and those located after that date.

Section 3 gives the owner of an AEC lease the right to file a mining claim on the same lands subject to a mining claim filed before February 10, 1954, and valid.

PROVISION FOR MULTIPLE USE

Sections 4 and 5 establish a basis for multiple use of the same lands under the mining laws and the Mineral Leasing Act. All future mining claims and patents are to provide for the reservation of Mineral Leasing Act minerals. Also, mining claims can be located on lands leased under the Mineral Act, or known to be valuable for Leasing Act minerals.

Section 6 establishes the basic principles of operation which are to be followed under multiple use of the same lands. It establishes the general principle that each operation shall be conducted in a manner compatible with any other mineral use insofar as reasonably practicable. This is a reciprocal section, and calls upon the miner and the lessee to act in such a manner as not to unreasonably interfere with the operations of each other.

DORMANT CLAIMS

Section 7 provides an in rem procedure where those who claim rights in the

Leasing Act minerals under an unpatented mining claim can be called upon to come forward and assert those rights. It is based upon the procedure known to mining people under patent application. It has been held that one who has an unpatented mining claim has certain possessory rights as may be found valid by the Secretary of the Interior. Under the procedure established by this section a mining claimant is called upon to assert his rights to Leasing Act minerals or upon failure to do so his claim shall become subordinate to lessee under Mineral Leasing Act. This section provides procedure under which lessees may obtain determination of rights under unpatented mining claims affecting lands under which oil- and gas-lease rights are asserted. The purpose is to eliminate title uncertainties which follow from possible existence of unidentifiable mining locations and from uncertain status of inactive locations. It does not affect the rights of a mining claimant in minerals other than those mentioned in the Leasing Act.

Section 8 permits the owner of a min

ing claim to release Leasing Act min

erals.

Section 9 limits the effect of Executive

withdrawals of public lands for mineral purposes to particular minerals, and leaves all others open.

the Atomic Energy Act so as to eliminate Section 10 amends certain portions of

the reservation of fissionable source materials to the United States. It also preserves the validity of otherwise valid uranium claims because of reservation. 1872 MINING ACT-1920 OIL AND GAS LEASING ACT

Mr. MALONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BARRETT. I yield.

Mr. MALONE. First, I wish to compliment the distinguished Senator from Wyoming on the work he has done on the subcommittee of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, of which I am a member.

FEE SIMPLE TITLE

It was necessary to adjudicate the claims and to take a forward step in the manner of development of some of the rare minerals without undue injury to the mining claim owners or to the operators under the 1920 Oil and Gas Leasing Act.

Would it be possible under the provisions of the bill for a locator of a mining claim under the 1872 Mining Act to gain title in fee simple to his mining claim through a patent under the proposed legislation, as has been possible up to now?

Mr. BARRETT. I will say to my distinguished colleague from Nevada that the future mining locator will get the title to the surface. He will get title to the minerals enumerated in the Mineral all the minerals under the surface except Leasing Act of 1920, namely, coal, oil, gas, phosphate, and oil shale.

Mr. MALONE. The locator of a claim on an unoccupied piece of ground would obtain his patent in fee simple under the 1872 act in the usual manner as it now stands, providing he proved $500 worth of work on the claim necessary for a

patent on his 20-acre claim, or fraction thereof, he would obtain his patent.

However, if this bill should become law in the future, a patent might issue under the 1872 act, the same ground would always be subject to leasing under the 1920 Leasing Act, as amended, with respect to oil, gas, phosphate, and sulfur, including the minerals which the Senator has already mentioned.

Mr. BARRETT. The Senator is correct. The bill provides, however, that while the reservation will be to the United States for the minerals enumerated under the Leasing Act of 1920, together with the right to prospect for such minerals, nevertheless, the lessee for any of those minerals would be obliged to respect the rights of the mining claimant, and would not be permitted to interfere with his improvements and facilities on the land.

The bill also provides that the mining claimant, if he feels aggrieved, may go into court to protect his rights in case there is any violation. However, this is a reciprocal piece of legislation. As I stated a moment ago, the rights of the mining claimant are as extensive as those accorded to the oil and gas industry, if not more so. As the Senator knows, there are thousands of uranium claimants in the western section of the country, and they can now go upon the lands leased for oil and gas, file mining claims, and recover certain minerals.

Mr. MALONE. Land lease under the 1920 Oil and Gas Leasing Act can be located under the 1873 Mining Act for minerals not reserved under the act and the locator could, through doing his location work annually, patent it when the required work has been done, and owns the minerals not reserved under the Leasing Act. Is that correct?

Mr. BARRETT. The Senator is right, with the exception of one item. Under Under this proposed legislation, a claimant can file on presently existing oil and gas leases, as well as on oil and gas leases that may be issued in the future, and acquire the right to the minerals under the Mining Act of 1872.

Mr. MALONE. Do I correctly understand that on any lease already granted, that in the future, after this act passes, a location of a mining claim under the 1872 Act is legal?

Br. BARRETT. That is correct. Mr. MALONE. The land could also be leased for oil and gas on mining claims that had already been located prior to the passage of this act.

Mr. BARRETT. The Senator is now touching on a rather technical point. I should say that if the mining claim were valid and if all of the assessment work had been done on it which had been required to be done, and if the mining claimant had observed all the requirements of the law, the oil and gas leases could not come in ahead of the mining claim.

On the other hand, if the mining claim had been abandoned for years and if the mining claimant had not done the assessment work which he is required to do under the law, a different problem would be presented. That is what I spoke about a little while ago when I said that the mining claimant would be required

to show that he is entiled to the Leasing Act minerals in that property, and he could proceed to go to patent if the Secretary found that he was correct in his assumption.

Mr. MALONE. That is the point the junior Senator from Nevada wanted to make. Any claimant who is in good standing under the 1872 Mining Act up to now could always get title in fee simple by following through to patent. That provision has not been changed.

Mr. BARRETT. That is correct. The claimaint would not lose anything under the proposed legislation.

Mr. MALONE. So far as proving his work is concerned, when he does his assessment work, he must file notice of that fact with the county clerk of the county wherein the claim is located, and if that has been done in the regular manner, what additional proof if any would be required under this act?

Mr. BARRETT. No additional proof is required. Under present law, of course, he must prove discovery, and perform his assessment work. This bill provides that a claimant could come forward and assert his right and say, "On this claim in 1950 I have done the assessment work."

Mr. MALONE. And show his receipts. Mr. BARRETT. That is right. In other words, make whatever proof would be required to be made.

Mr. MALONE. In other words, show his receipts for the assessment work. If he has done his $500 worth of work the claim could be patented in the regular way and he would receive the title in fee simple.

Mr. BARRETT. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MALONE. I should like to ask I should like to ask further if the distinguished Senator from Wyoming feels that this change in the Wyoming feels that this change in the Leasing Act and the modification of the 1872 Mining Act might be an entering wedge or a foot in the door to extend to all public lands the Leasing Act and to abolish the simple location process that has been required since 1872. The location of a mining claim is the only method left applying to public lands whereby a man without any capital at all and with nothing but a sack of grub could go out and own something and go to work.

I should like to say that for 20 years, 8 of which the junior Senator from Nevada has spent on the floor of the Senate, many bills have been introduced in Congress, and many approaches have been made trying to force through a leasing system that would take the place of the location system with the lease holding at the discretion of the Government, or at least the Government bureau would be the judge of his work.

Mr. BARRETT. My answer is that this proposed legislation was introduced by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN], and he was joined in its introduction by the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], the senior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MUNDT], the junior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], the Senator from Utah [Mr. WATKINS], the Senator from California [Mr. KUCHEL], and myself. We are all from the western section of the country, and

we understand the development of our minerals under the Mining Act of 1872. I know that none of us has in mind an extension of the leasing provisions to other minerals which are not included under the Oil and Gas Leasing Act.

Mr. MALONE. The junior Senator from Nevada has been all through this matter, and I should like to have the RECORD show that this modification of the 1872 act is for the specific purpose, and for that purpose alone, of allowing prospecting and mining on existing oil and gas leases on lands covered in the Oil and Gas Act, and, as the Senator from Wyoming has stated, is reciprocal to the point that there are some modifications on both sides. Therefore, it opens up the situation for both of them. However, it is particularly for prospecting and the production of oil and gas and coal and phosphate on mining-claim lands and minerals on oil and gas leases.

Mr. BARRETT. The Senator is entirely correct. As I said, there would be opened up about 60 million acres on which mining claimants could file for the mining of minerals such as uranium.

Mr. MALONE. Does the Senator say that 60 million acres now under lease would be opened up?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes; which are withdrawn, so far as mining claimants are concerned, at this time.

Mr. MALONE. That is the interest of the junior Senator from Nevada. There is no intention of opening up the subject for further modification later or for a Federal leasing system.

Furthermore, I should like to say at this time that the Senator from Wyoming has served with the junior Senator from Nevada on the Minerals, Materials, and Fuels Subcommittee which has just completed a report showing, among other things, that the production of uranium, within the foreseeable future, could be made adequate in the United States for all our needs, if the tax situation is adjusted and a proper protective policy laid down by Congress, so that we need not be dependent for uranium-for our nuclear energy-on any outside country beyond a major ocean.

Mr. BARRETT. I thank the Senator. In all honesty, I must say that the Senator did practically all the work in the committee, and I may say, further, that it was a very splendid job and was in the public interest. public interest. It will prove to be a great boon for the mining industry in the years ahead.

Mr. MALONE. I thank the Senator. Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wyoming yield?

Mr. BARRETT. I yield.

Mr. CASE. First of all, I should like to express my appreciation to the Senator from Wyoming and to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs for reporting this bill. It seeks to meet a very real need in the mining field by making it possible for the development of claims which have rested on a very uncertain base up to this time, particularly with respect to fissionable materials which have been found in certain areas. In my own State and in States immediately west of South Dakota there are many

claims which this measure - benefit.

should the homestead claim to be filed, reject the application, or grant a restricted patent.

Mr. BARRETT. There are thousands upon thousands of uranium claims filed on what is known as the Colorado Plateau which extends over parts of the States of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, as well as Colorado. This fact is one of the reasons why this proposed legislation is absolutely necessary. The claims were filed on lands covered by oil and gas leases, and legislation is necessary to validate them.

Mr. CASE. The prior legislation took care of the situation up to a year and a half ago.

Mr. BARRETT. That is correct. Mr. CASE. I should like to ask 2 or 3 questions, so that I may be in a position to answer letters which I know I shall receive from holders of mineral entries. First, in respect to so-called hard-rock claims, lode claims, will persons who already have filed lode claims find that this measure affects the title to oil and gas deposits they might get if they patent their land?

Mr. BARRETT. I would say that if they have performed all the acts required by the 1872 mining law, and if they assert their rights, they will be protected. If they have not complied with the mining law of 1872, if they have abandoned their claim, or if their claims are invalid for any reason, then, of course, they are not protected.

Mr. CASE. The claim would not be a valid one.

Mr. BARRETT. That is correct.

Mr. CASE. As I recall, the certificate which a locator files recites that he lays claim to all the minerals. Assuming he complies with the law, he will be able to receive a patent which will entitle him to any royalties that might later be forthcoming because of oil and gas developments?

Mr. BARRETT. So far as the past is concerned, yes; but not as to future claims.

Mr. CASE. When the Senator uses the word "past," does he refer to the date of the location or the date of the patent?

Mr. BARRETT. I refer to the date of location, because if the claim was located at that time and if the claimant has observed all the requirements of the law, then the patent issued pursuant to that would date back to the time when the claim was originally filed.

Mr. CASE. Assuming the claim was duly filed and the work on it had been

kept up.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Mr. BARRETT. That is correct. Mr. CASE. But there are some entries where final proof has not yet been made. Would this measure in any sense injure any right a bona fide homestead entrant thought he had, if entry was made prior to this time, assuming that he has complied with all the requirements of homesteading?

Mr. BARRETT. I would say "No." Mr. CASE. With respect to location for placer mining-the Senator lives close to the Black Hills, where there are still entries for placer mining

Mr. BARRETT. The same principle would hold true, if everything was done that was required to be done under the mining laws.

Mr. CASE.

Then this measure would

not take anything of that nature away from the existing claimant?

Mr. BARRETT. No.

Mr. CASE. Would the same hold true with respect to Indian trust lands?

Mr. BARRETT. I will say to the Senator that it is my opinion that the Indian trust lands are in a wholly different category from so-called public lands of the United States. They are leased under different legislation for the benefit of the Indians, I believe. The Senator, however, is as well informed on that question as I am, as is also the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON].

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wyoming yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRIPPA in the chair). Does the Senator from Wyoming yield to the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. BARRETT. I yield. Mr. ANDERSON. First, I congratuFirst, I congratulate the Senator from Wyoming on the excellent job he has been doing in answering questions. We have a situation in New Mexico in which the Navaho Indians are leasing lands for uranium and also for oil and gas. They would not be affected by this measure; would they?

Mr. BARRETT. It is my opinion that they would not be affected.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wyoming yield further? Mr. BARRETT. I yield.

Mr. CASE. It can be safely asserted, then, that this measure does not forfeit any rights the Indians may have in trust lands; is that correct?

Mr. BARRETT. That is correct. Mr. CASE. Of course, it follows out the principle which the Senator has already mentioned with respect to the

other entries under various laws.

I wish to thank the Senator, and I sincerely hope the bill will pass and will receive consideration in the other body, and that there will be no changes which will interfere in any respect with the protection of the rights covered in this discussion.

Mr. BARRETT. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wyoming yield? Mr. BARRETT. I yield.

Mr. LANGER. What would be the effect if 4 or 5 years ago someone filed on a mining claim, if the necessary assessment work has been done?

Mr. BARRETT. There would be no change in the rights of the man who filed if he observed all the requirements of the law.

Mr. LANGER. Suppose that on the mining claim there is some very fine timber. Would the timber rights be affected in any way?

Mr. BARRETT. No; the timber rights would not be affected. If he has done his assessment work, observed the requirements of the law, assert his rights, if they were questioned, and applied for a patent, he would receive a patent which would give him a fee simple title.

Mr. LANGER. Is there any limitations on an individual or a corporation applying?

Mr. BARRETT. In the case of lode claims, there is a limitation of 20 acres. In the case of placer claims, the limitation is 160 acres for 8 persons. That is 20 acres to a person also. So far as I know, that is the only requirement. That has been the law since 1872. Mr. CASE. Of course, one may file for more than one lode location. Mr. LANGER. I desired to ascertain what the limit is.

Mr. BARRETT. The law has not been changed in that respect since 1872.

Mr. CASE. I think an individual can file for six mineral claims or lode locations. That is my understanding; I do not undertake to say that that is the law.

Mr. LANGER. Can the Senator from Wyoming state the number of witnesses who appeared at the hearings?

Mr. BARRETT. I would say that about 20 or 25 witnesses were heard. In addition, there were present 25 or so representatives of the industries affected, and they voiced no real objections to the measure.

Mr. LANGER. Did representatives of the Department of the Interior testify?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, indeed, they did, including including Assistant Secretary Felix Wormser.

Mr. LANGER. That was in connection with the 40 million or 50 million acres of land they have. Did they testify in regard to the public lands?

Mr. BARRETT. They aggregate about 150 million or 160 million acres. Mr. LANGER. Yes. They are not in any particular locality.

Mr. BARRETT. Oh, no; they are spread over a considerable area.

Mr. LANGER. Was there any opposition to the bill?

Mr. BARRETT. There was no real opposition to the bill, that I observed. The bill has been approved, as I have said previously, by the Secretary of the Interior, the Bureau of the Budget, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, by mining associations, and by oil and gas associations. So far as I know, there was no opposition registered to the bill.

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BARRETT. I am delighted to yield to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. ANDERSON. I started to say, a moment ago, when the Senator from South Dakota was discussing the question, that I wished to congratulate the Senator from Wyoming. I most certainly wish to congratulate the distinguished junior Senator from Colorado [Mr. MILLIKIN], whose bill this is. We were privileged to join with him in inI think it is an extroducing the bill. cellent measure and should prove to be very useful.

When the distinguished junior Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE] was speaking a while ago on the subject of unpatented mining claims, I noticed, on page 4 of the report, the following paragraph:

Section 8 provides that the owner of an unpatented mining claim heretofore located may relinquish all rights under the claim to the oil and gas and other leasing act minerals. This provision would assist in the negotiation of settlements and the avoidance of conflicts.

This bill would make it possible for a person who has a still unpatented mining claim, on which he has filed location, to go ahead and make an agreement, a settlement, or a contract of some kind for the oil and gas rights, which he previously had difficulty in doing.

Mr. BARRETT. The Senator is entirely correct. Furthermore, it ought to be pointed out that the mining claimant, when he relinquishes all minerals under the Leasing Act, can still go ahead and perfect his claim under the mining law of 1872, and get service on all the other minerals.

Mr. ANDERSON. Again, I wish to congratulate the Senator from Wyoming upon his explanation of the bill. He has done an excellent piece of work. Mr. BARRETT. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the report of the committee printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the report (No. 1610) was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3344) to amend the mineral leasing laws to provide for multiple mineral development of the same tracts of the public lands, and for other purposes, having considered the same report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Extensive public hearings were held by the committee at which spokesmen for mining industry, oil and gas operators, uranium producers, and other interested persons appeared in support of the measure. The Department of the Interior and the Atomic Energy Commission also testified and have reported favorably on the measure.

No appropriation of Federal funds is involved.

PURPOSE OF MEASURE

The intent of the bill S. 3344 is to resolve conflicts between the mining laws of the United States and the Mineral Leasing Act which have prevented mineral development of the same tracts of the public lands from going forward under both systems. Land on which mineral locations have been made under the mining laws has not been open to leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act, and on the other hand land covered by an oil and gas lease or a permit, or an appli

cation or offer for the same, under the Mineral Leasing Act, or known to be valuable for oil and gas or other Leasing Act minerals, could not be located under the mining laws.

S. 3344 would permit the development of mineral resources of the public lands, including uranium, to go forward on the same tracts of land under both systems. It would thus be a step forward in the development of the natural resources of the Nation. An immediate effect would be the opening of some 60 million acres of the public lands, now under oil and gas lease, to location for uranium and other minerals. At the same time, it would stimulate oil and gas development on the public lands by authorizing operations for leasable minerals on lands open to location under the mining laws, and by establishing a means for determining the validity of any rights claimed for Leasing Act minerals under patented mining claims located prior to the effective date of this act.

BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION

The problem which S. 3344 seeks to solve has existed since the passage of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, setting aside all leasable minerals in the public lands of the United States for disposition under that act. the critical needs of the Nation for supplies of fissionable materials within our borders, however, and the consequent great impetus given to exploration for uranium, the situation has become urgent. For example, the Colorado Plateau, extending over parts of the States of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado, has perhaps the greatest uranium reserves of any known area under the American flag, yet much of the area is covered by oil and gas leases, thus, in effect, withdrawing it from all mineral development other than oil and gas.

Your committee faced the problem at length last year in its consideration of S. 1397, which became Public Law 250, 1st session, 83d Congress (act of Aug. 12, 1953; 67 Stat. 539). This act permitted the validation, under the procedures set forth, of mining claims located between August 1, 1939, and December 31, 1952, which might otherwise have been invalid by reason of having been located on lands included in a permit, lease, application or offer under the Mineral Leasing Act or known to be valuable for minerals subject to disposition under that act. In recognition of the need for multiple mineral development of the public lands the validation afforded by the act of August 12, 1953, was made subject to the reservation to the United States of all Leasing Act minerals, together with appropriate rights of entry and operation.

The act of August 12, 1953, was a limited and temporary measure and it was realized that in the interest of multiple mineral development of the public lands further legislation of a general scope was necessary. The report, Mining Claims on Oil Lands of the Senate Interior Committee on S. 1397 (S. Rept. 593, 83d Cong., 1st sess.), pointed out this need, setting forth in this connection a report from the Department of the Interior, urging adoption of legislation which would permit lands leased for oil and gas or other minerals under the Mineral Leasing Act, or known to be valuable for such minerals, to be also utilized for mineral development under the mining laws, and which, conversely, would reserve Leasing Act minerals from future mining claims and patents under the mining laws.

POSITION OF MINING INDUSTRY AND OIL

OPERATORS

As a result of the committee's findings and action with respect to Public Law 250, the Department of the Interior subsequently requested both the oil and gas industry and the mining industry to consider the problem jointly with a view to assisting Congress to work out a solution on a permanent basis.

Responsive to this request the National Petroleum Council made a report to the Secretary recommending legislation which "would adequately reconcile the conflicting scope and operation of the mining laws and the Mineral Leasing Act for the purpose of the oil and gas industry and the mining industry, and in the best interests of the United States, and would result in increased development of the oil and gas resources of the public lands without infringing any of the proper benefits now accorded the mining industry by the mining laws or retarding development of mineral resources under those laws."

The American Mining Congress at its 1953 meeting adopted the following declaration of policy:

"We recognize that the coexistence of two systems for acquiring rights to prospect for and remove the mineral resources of the public domain-one under the general mining laws and the other under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920-has resulted in conflicts. We believe that the conflicts in these two systems should be carefully reviewed and an effort made to remove them, so as to eliminate, insofar as possible, any restriction of opportunity for development of our mineral resources, while leaving intact the basic principles and fundamental benefits of our system of mining locations."

EXPLANATION OF THE PROVISIONS

The first three sections of S. 3344 are technical in nature, and are designed to protect equities which were created in part as a result of consideration and enactment of Public Law 250 last year. Public Law 250 provided a cutoff date of January 1, 1953, for validation of mining claims made on lands under oil and gas lease. Enactment of the law did not of course cause prospecting for uranium to stop, after that date, nor was it the intent of the law that it should stop.

In both the hearings and the committee report on S. 1397, establishment of leasing procedures by the Atomic Energy Commission were envisioned. These procedures were in fact set up on a general basis by AEC Circular No. 7, issued January 29, 1954, and generally understood by prospectors to be effective February 10, 1954. Prospecting for fissionable source materials continued on the Colorado Plateau and elsewhere, and such activity was not discouraged in any way either by the Atomic Energy Commission or the Department of the Interior.

As pointed out, enactment of S. 3344 would open to location under the mining laws vast areas now withdrawn from such location under the mineral leasing laws. Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the bill would establish preference categories in order to protect mining claimants on such lands who have heretofore proceeded in good faith. Unless this were done, there would be a mad scramble to relocate such areas in an effort to capitalize on the title uncertainties inherent in the present situation. Serious conflicts, controversies and possible injustices would result.

Accordingly the sections grant (1) protection preference to any person who had located a claim prior to January 1, 1953, and who attempted to validate the claim under Public Law 250; (2) subject to (1), protection to any person who located a claim after December 31, 1952, and prior to February 10, 1954 (the effective date of AEC's Circular 7); and (3) subject to (1) and (2), a preference right to any person who, prior to the enactment of the bill, has posted notice of or filed application for or has secured a lease from the Atomic Energy Commission.

The committee believes that both equitable and national considerations warrant the relief accorded covered by the sections.

Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the bill deal with the basic problems of conflict between the mining laws and the Mineral Leasing Act.

« PreviousContinue »