Page images

which I have the honor, in part, to represent, Camp Polk has been closed. At Camp Polk there are barracks facilities sufficient to house around 40,000 men. Camp Pickett, in Virginia, was closed on the same day. Camp Atterbury, in Indiana, has been closed recently. Those camps are good operating bases, having a large amount of barracks space. Congress was told that in closing those bases, great economies would be effected.

Mr. President, I am not opposing the additional $100 million for barracks merely because someone has closed Camp Polk in Louisiana. When I was chairman of the subcommittee, we removed this identical $100 million item from the bill. There is less need now for an additional $100 million worth of barracks than there was then. The military officials have dressed up the argument, but it is the same old wasteful item about which they are arguing today. Now it is said that it is believed there would be a higher rate of enlistments, that more men would be willing to sign up for a second term in the Army, if better barracks were provided for the men to live in. Whom do the military think they are "kidding"? They are going to get the manpower for the Army in the future just as they get it now, by drafting youth of the land. Young men do not intend to reenlist and to face the risk of fighting another Korean type of war, in which there is such inequality of sacrifice; a war in which they will have to go out and face the enemy on the battlefield, while so many others stay at home with their families.

Mr. President, it simply does not make sense to embark upon a program of replacing the barracks of the Nation with new barracks. This is only the first instance. Once a start is made on building new barracks across the Nation, to replace barracks already in existence, old barracks which are adequate today and will be adequate for many years to come, we shall have to replace a billion dollars' worth of barracks. No one knows exactly how many it will be necessary to build.

Better soldiers will not be developed merely by building better barracks buildings.

The construction of additional barracks would be wasteful of funds. I have alerted the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee to the wastefulness of this item, and I am pleased to say that the item has been cut by onehalf. We started with about $90 million, and it has been reduced to $45 million. However, when the bill is called up in the Senate, I intend to move to recommit it, with instructions to reduce the amount in the bill by another $45 million, having in mind that this particular item should be reduced.

I know the committee has worked diligently on the problem. I know of no Member of the Senate who is any more diligent or conscientious in trying to avoid waste of public funds than is the distinguished Senator from South Dakota [Mr. CASE], the chairman of the subcommittee. But I believe that in this instance the committee has erred in permitting this item to slip through.

The committee also wrote into the bill the provision that the cost for ware

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LONG. I yield to the Senator housing should not exceed $6 a square from South Dakota.

Mr. CASE. I appreciate the kind remarks of the Senator from Louisiana. My reason for asking the Senator to yield is that I propose to point out what yield is that I propose to point out what the Senator from Louisiana perhaps has already pointed out, namely that the bill which we hope will be taken up for consideration, H. R. 9242, does not propose to reconstruct all the barracks in the military installations of the United States. The proposal as submitted really embraces two parts, one of which is what was called the hard core program, which was in the original estimates of the Department of Defense. Subsequently there was a proposal for approximately $96 million worth of barracks replacements.

The bill as it passed the House carried both parts, the so-called hard core program, and also the provision for $96 million worth of authorizations for replacement of barracks. By the term "barracks" was meant not merely enlisted men's barracks, but bachelor officers' quarters.

The Subcommittee on Real Estate and Military Construction of the Senate ComMilitary Construction of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, in its report and recommendations to the full committee, and now to the Senate, in the bill which will be before the Senate for early consideration, cut that supplementary program approximately in two, leaving, in the recommendations on the leaving, in the recommendations on the bill, one-half of the proposal for the enlisted men's barracks, and one-half of the proposal for bachelor officers' quarters.

I merely point out that fact because, if the record is being made with the thought that it may be available for reading by Members of the Senate, they should know, before conclusion of the debate or consideration of the bill tomorrow, that the bill does not contemplate a complete reconstruction of barracks facilities in the United States, even if all the $96 million were authorized. As reported, there is provided only ized. As reported, there is provided only approximately one-half of the increment recommended in the requests of the Department of Defense.

Mr. LONG. The point I had in mind was that this is the beginning of the program. In his message, the President announced that he intended to start a program to replace barracks throughout the Nation. Here is the first increment asked for, amounting to almost $100 million. That is the beginning of the program. If this amount is granted, we are going to have to grant the rest of the requests as they come along.

I should like to compliment the committee for writing into the bill certain provisions in an effort to guarantee economies which could be effected. For example, on page 71 the committee wrote that the cost for cold storage should not exceed $20 a square foot. I hold in my I hold in my hand the Senate committee report written in 1952, at a time when I was a member of the subcommittee. I wrote the report. We recommended that the costs for cold storage should not exceed $20 a square foot.

foot. We had also written that recommendation into the committee report accompanying the Naval and Military Construction Act of 1952. The same was true of the recommendation that barracks should not exceed a cost of $1,700 a man, or $1,400 a man for lifetire barracks, and that bachelor officers' quarters should not exceed a cost of $5,000 a man.

I only wish the committee had written into the proposed low an additional provision which was contained in the 1952 act. That was a provision creating in the Department of Defense a Director of Installations. If there were a well qualified Director of Installations in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, I confidently state that the $1 billion bill would have been trimmed down by at least $200 million or $300 million.

All through the bill may be seen evidences of waste. I suspect that there is a lot more waste than just that embraced in the item on barracks.

I regret that neither the committee nor the Congress has available to it adequate advice to enable it to ascertain in what respects items in the bill involve waste. There is one item which I do not propose to touch, because there is not the time to look into it, but there is in the bill a proposed authorization of more than $235 million for additional paving.

If they study the bill, Senators will find that of the proposed item of $235 million for paving for the Air Force, about 50 percent of that amount is for parking aprons. Senators will further find that the amount of concrete used by the Air Force is excessive. The Air Force likes to build parking aprons so that there is an amount 32 times to the square of the size of the airplane. When personnel of the Air Force park airplanes, they like to be able to drive up to the rear and out front without touching any other airplanes. They like to do that, rather than have the system in effect in commercial operations. should doubt that the commercial airlines at the National Airport here in Washington have anything like the amount of parking facilities or space that the Air Force insists upon. I have never yet seen a base where the Air Force did not have adequate facilities to park all the airplanes they were using. I have never seen a base where twice as many airplanes could not be parked.


The Marine Corps used a ratio of 12, instead of 32, to the square of the size of the airplane in actual, frontline combat fields. It is possible to get by with a lot less concrete in the parking aprons than the Air Force requests.

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

Mr. LONG. I yield.

Mr. CASE. Let me say that the Subcommittee on Real Estate and Military Construction of the Senate Armed Services Committee has been very appreciative of the fact that the predecessor committee did establish some unit costs in the various categories which the Senator from Louisiana has mentioned. In the work the subcommittee has been called

[blocks in formation]

Mr. LONG. I say to the Senator from South Dakota that there never was a more wasteful act done by one stroke of the pen than there was when the President of the United States heeded the advice of high-ranking officers over in the Pentagon and abolished the Office of the Director of Installations. I say that for this reason: The Senator from South Dakota is familiar with the fact that when there was a Director of Installations in the Department of Defense, he recommended to the Secretary of Defense that the services withdraw requests for another $4 billion for defense construction on the bases. That was contained in the statement of Mr. Frank Creedon, when he appeared before the Armed Services Committee a year ago. Not only did the Secretary of Defense require the services to withdraw their request for $4 billion, but representatives of the services were told that if they wanted additional authorizations for construction, they would be authorized such facilities only if the services would surrender at least as much, in dollars, of outstanding authorizations that they could do without.

The distinguished Senator from South Dakota handled the bill in which the services surrendered $700 million of unnecessary authorizations in order to obtain authorizations of $500 million. There resulted a net reduction in authorizations of around $200 million.

I salute the Senator from South Dakota for handling the bill. He handled the bill well, and put many economies into effect. But the reason that was done was that a man named Frank Creedon was Director of Installations and he was the Secretary of Defense on the subject of military construction. He was a man who was familiar with the military construction which the military services needed.

Mr. Creedon went further and testified he saw a need for finding out where there were waste and unnecessary expenditures in military construction. When he did, the high-ranking officers set about to see that his position would be abolished.

They abolished the position; and in the place of the man who had been Director of Installations, they appointed an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Properties and Installations. With all due respect to that good man, I say he did not know what the services were up to; he did not know how the old Army game, the old Navy game, and the new Air Force game operate. So it is that we now see recommended for inclusion in the military and naval construction bill many of the same items that Congress

If we had in that position someone with the good, sound, judgment and fortitude that Mr. Kyes had when he was there to advise the Secretary, and with the bold independent judgment of Mr. Creedon, we would not now see the Secretary of Defense recommending the expenditure of $1,100,000,000 for this purpose.

had the good judgment to turn down activities, and one that had contracts, I in the past. think, along the Mississippi, and at one time in the State of Louisana. In any event, he had construction experience with that firm, and was an experienced businessman. He obtained a law degree from Harvard University Law School, Although I do not know that he ever practiced law, at least he combines the background of practical knowledge as the managing head of a large construction firm and a knowledge of law and a knowledge of banking and finance, and a knowledge of business, as the head of a large business firm at Des Moines, Iowa, for a number of years. Those qualifications of Mr. Floete are combined with the military knowledge and knowledge of military construction held by Admiral Jelley, who for many years was head of the Bureau of Yards and Docks.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield to me?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CARLSON in the chair). Does the Senator from Louisiana yield to the Senator from South Dakota?

Mr. LONG. I yield.

Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I had not expected that we would enter upon`a free-wheeling debate on the military and naval construction bill, in advance of its consideration by the Senate. However, in view of the presentation the Senator from Louisiana has made, I think the RECORD should contain some additional statements in connection with the matter.

First of all, let me say, regarding Mr. Creedon, that it was our privilege to Creedon, that it was our privilege to have the services of Mr. Frank Creedon for the guidance and counsel of the committee a year ago; and I worked with Frank Creedon for 4 or 5 months. So I join the Senator from Louisiana in paying high tribute to Mr. Creedon's ability, integrity, and desire to remove from the estimates any water, so to speak. He did an excellent job, and we had the benefit of his services in connection with the bill which was presented to the Senate a year ago. I would not detract one iota from what the Senator from Louisiana has said respecting Mr. Creedon's ability. However, the fact that Mr. Creedon is an able man and was a very valuable assistant to the committee does not mean that the committee is entirely devoid of help at this time.

The Senator from Louisiana has made a statement regarding the present Assistant Secretary of Defense for Properties and Installations; but I doubt that the Senator from Louisiana would have made the statement if he had had an opportunity to work with the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Franklin G. Floete, who, in that capacity, has proven himself to be a very able and conscientious person. It is true that he came to the position without the background of military construction that some other persons might have had. However, during his tenure of that office he has had the benefit of the counsel, technical advice, and military knowledge of Admiral Jelley, who has been the righthand man to Mr. Floete during the period when Mr. Floete has been Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Admiral Jelley came to that position after several years as head of the Bureau after several years as head of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, of the Navy. So, in that team, we have coupled together the desires for economy of Mr. Floete and the benefit of his experience in the construction business, when he was the active head of Wood Brothers, of Lincoln, Nebr., a firm engaged in construction

So the Assistant Secretary of Defense and his office have not been without knowledge of military defense and its requirements; and as a result of their combined application in connection with the original requests of the Department of Defense, approximately $500 million was cut from the requests of the Department of Defense, as they went to his office, before the requests came to the Congress.

In addition, let me point out that in House bill 9242, as reported by the Committee on Armed Services, we propose the reapplication or reprograming of approximately $435 million of prior authorizations. So this bill is not one which is entirely confined to requests for new funds or new authorizations; but if the Senator from Louisiana will examine the hearings, which fortunately are available to all Members of the Senate-I refer to the green-bound books which now are on the tables beside the pages-he will note that in the hearings on the bill, in every instance the amounts for reprograming or reapplication of funds are set forth. For that matter, they are also stated in the bill itself.

So a total of $435 million, as carried under various items in the bill, is for reapplications or reprograming of funds previously authorized, but not used, and which we believe can be applied to projects of higher priority, in connection with this bill.

Mr. MAYBANK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield to me? Mr. LONG. I yield.

Mr. MAYBANK. Let me inquire whether we are to understand that the military and naval construction bill is to be voted on at any time during the session today. I ask the question because the Appropriations Committee is in the process of considering the deficiency appropriation bill; and, in addition to having to attend the Appropriations Committee in connection with its consideration of that bill, I must also attend the conference committee in its meeting on the banking bill. Obviously it will be impossible for me to be in all three places at the same time.

Mr. LONG. Let me state that the military and naval military and naval construction bill, House bill 9242, is not pending at this time. However, I wish to address myself to the bill at this time, in order to have

this discussion of it available in the RECORD, So that other Senators may be able to examine it tomorrow.

Mr. MAYBANK. I thank the Senator from Louisiana.

some public-spirited citizens come to see me from a town which had a base. Those people, after listening to me discuss the various reductions and savings which had been made, running to approximately $700 million, said, "Inasmuch as the service is going to waste so much money anyway, why can you not get it to waste some of it in our home town?" Senators are familiar with that problem.

Mr. LONG. The Senator from South proximately $700 million, said, "InasCarolina is very welcome.

Mr. President, I should like to comment on the statement that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Properties and Installations has had experience and has the benefit of the advice of Admiral Jelley.

Admiral Jelley was head of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, and he made various proposals of items to be included in the 1952 authorization bill for the Navy. In that bill we found a number of items that should have been reduced in amount, and we did reduce them.

I dislike to criticize the admirals and generals of the armed services. However, I point out that over a long period of time they have found ways and means to obtain the things they wanted for their services. It is the job of the civilian officials of the Government to find ways and means by which those amounts can be reduced. I say with regret that,

all too often, the Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries become mere attorneys for the admirals and generals, in seeking to obtain for them what the officers want, rather than in working for the public, in trying to save as much money as can possibly be saved.

Mr. President, it seems to me that two things should be very clear. First, if we wish to prevent the making of unnecessary appropriations and the wasting of public funds, we need to have in the Department of Defense some persons who cannot be controlled by the

One Senator came to me and told me that the reductions which were made were going to give him some very special problems. The citizens of a community where a particular base was located were going to be resentful of the fact that we had taken out every cent, to the extent of millions of dollars, of the money proposed to be spent on that particular base during that year.

The easiest way to effect economies is not for the Congress to find where excessive funds have been requested and take them out, but for the services not to request such funds in the first place. The best way to prevent that situation from arising is to place a man in the Office of Secretary of Defense to advise him where

economies can be effected.

I recall that about 2 years ago, when I was serving on the Armed Services Committee, I was engaged in holding up construction funds for the North African airbases. Since that time the Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States have shown good judgment in not permitting those additional bases

to be constructed. The net saving was in excess of $100 million.

At that time a letter was written by one of the under secretaries. Senators would read that letter with interest. It

military, some men who will exercise contained the implication that the junior

civilian control, as the Constitution and laws of this country intend, and some men who will see to it that authorizations and appropriations are not requested unless they are absolutely necessary. I say that because I know it is very difficult for Senators to vote against major appropriations if they are to be spent in their own States.

For instance, House bill 9242 calls for the authorization of appropriations in the total amount of $1,100,000,000, some of it to be spent in every State. I know the problem that confronts a member of the committee. When he recommends a reduction in the amount of an item

of, let us say, $8 million or $10 million, to be spent in a particular community. He realizes that that item represents prosperity and payrolls in that community, and that if that amount is made available, more money will be in circulation there. Of course, Mr. President, almost all the people of a community so involved will ask their Members of Congress to fight for every last dime of such items, even though the items might be very wasteful ones. In short, Senators will find that their constituents are strongly in favor of economy, so long as it does not affect their communities. When they find that the economy affects them, many of them say, "Senator, here is a vital item which we must have."

I recall that after working to try to trim down one of these installation bills

Senator from Louisiana, in taking the lead to hold up some of the funds which the service desired released, was undermining the defense of the country. The Under Secretary was saying, in effect, that he must decline to take the responsibility for what might happen if war should break out the next day. Those are the pressures to which Members of Congress are subjected when they try to insist on economies in the services.

Upon the advice of Mr. Creedon, Mr. Lovett, who was then the Secretary of Defense, proceeded to tell the services that they need not come back after an additional $4 billion authorization which they had informed us they would request in 1953. Mr. Lovett was fully convinced, after the Director of Installations had made a study, that the additional authorization was not necessary. Mr. Creedon came before the Armed Services Committee and gave us a very well-prepared statement showing that, far from needing more money, the services had enough money to carry them in some instances for as many as 4 years, so far

as authorizations were concerned.

The then Secretary of Defense realized that those expenditures were excessive, that the appropriations were excessive, and that the authorizations were excessive. He informed Congress that he would not ask for more of them, except when he could surrender back unused authorizations of equal or greater amount.

When the new Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wilson, went into office he proposed approximately $5 billion of economies in the Air Force; and approximately $1,400,000,000 of those economies were the economies which Mr. Creedon had already been studying and recommending to Mr. Lovett, while Mr. Lovett was Secretary of Defense.

It seems to me that our committee has worked hard on this bill. I know that if it were the will of Congress that some additional items be taken out of the bill because the bill was believed to be excessive, the committee would do a workmanlike job in trimming the bill down, to the extent of eliminating many unnecessary barracks buildings authorized.

The Congress should add an amendment to recreate the Office of Director of Installations, and require, just as Congress required 2 years ago, that the person who holds the office of Director of Installations should have the qualifications which would make him familiar with military construction, and give him some familiarity with the method of operation of the military. Such a man should be in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, not under the thumb of the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the Secretary of the Air Force. He should owe no greater loyalty to one service than another. He should have a small staff, as Mr. Creedon had. Mr. Creedon had a staff of 23 men, and they kept up with a program running into billions of dollars every year.

I believe that Congress should further write into the legislation a provision which would not only recreate the Office of Director of Installations, in an effort to keep down unnecessary expenditures for our military construction, but provide that this office shall not be abolished by a reorganization plan. We should stop the practice of members of the Armed Forces using their influence first in one direction, and then in another, until they finally abolish the position of one whom they find it most difficult to move when they want to spend money unnecessarily.


The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2380) to amend section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. President, the Leasing Act of 1920 was enacted for the purpose of promoting in an orderly manner the development of mineral resources, particularly oil and gas, in the public-land States of the West. When the Congress passed the Leasing Act it was an experiment in that field of legislation. Many changes have been made over the years as indicated by experience in the administration of the act. The last major revision of the act took place in 1946.

Senate bill S. 2380 is designed and intended to bring the provisions of the Leasing Act into line with present day conditions. S. 2380 has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior and by

the Bureau of the Budget. Hearings were held and attended by various of ficials of the Government agencies concerned and by all segments of the oil and gas industry, including small independent operators. Many of the changes in existing law were proposed by the Department itself, and policy-making of ficials of the Department of the Interior, as well as by spokesmen for all groups active in oil and gas production on the public lands, testified as to the need for this legislation.

The bill in its final form, together with the report and the printed hearing, was widely distributed, and no opposition to the legislation has come to my attention. According to the testimony from all the witnesses, including those from the Department, the strict construction of some of the provisions of the Leasing Act has caused undue hardship on oil and gas operators and has tended to retard oil and gas development operations on the public domain.

I can best explain the bill, Mr. President, by summarizing its provisions section by section.


(A) Makes it clear that a lease upon which production ceases will not expire if drilling operations are commenced within 60 days and carried on continuously until oil or gas is encountered.

This provision is necessary because of a ruling by the solicitor that a lease will terminate whenever production ceases during the secondary term of the lease unless drilling operations are being carried on at that time. That harsh position is changed by giving the operator 60 days within which to commence actual drilling operations.

(B) If the lease has a well capable of producing but shut in it must be placed on a producing basis within 60 days after notice or the lease will be terminated. If a discovery is made during the secondary term and the well is shut in because of lack of transportation or market under the solicitor's rule, it is subject to termination. This section gives the operator 60 days after notice to put his well on a producing basis.


This section provides that if the lessee applies for an extension of his lease within 90 days of its termination he shall be entitled to an extension (A) for 5 years if on termination date it is found that the lease is not within a known geologic structure or (B) 2 years if within a known geologic structure. This provision is necessary for the reason under existing law the Government could declare on the last day of a lease that it covers land within a known geological structure and the operator could not perform and would lose his lease. Under the bill the operator would have 2 years within which to drill his well.


This section extends the term of a lease as long as compensatory royalties are paid and 1 year thereafter, and as long as there is production. This section is made necessary by reason of a ruling that a lease terminates during the secondary term when compensatory royalties are discontinued. Under the bill the

operator is given 1 year to drill and get production in order to maintain lease. Compensatory royalty is paid when oil or gas is drained by wells on lands adjacent to United States lands.


Under present interpretation of the law noncompetitive leases in a unit will be extended if production is encountered in the unit during the first 5 years of the lease. Under this provision all leases within the unit will be extended during the secondary term, when production is encountered within the unit; also 2 years to drill upon lands outside the unit when segregated.


This section applies mainly in New Mexico. The Secretary of the Interior may approve a special drilling contract, and the lands are excluded from acreage limitations. Under rulings only the operator can take advantage of this arrangement. Accordingly this provision makes it possible for the lessees not a party to the contract to also take the same advantage and provides that their acreage shall not be charged in the limitation.


Under present law assignments of partial interests can be made during the secondary term only when the lease is extended by reason of production. This provision makes it possible, no matter what the reason, to extend the lease.


Under present law the Secretary is required to give 30 days notice of cancellation for failure to pay rental (A) 90 days in advance of the date the rentals are due if there is no bond, or (B) 30 days before if covered by bond.

This provision simply provides for cancellation without notice if rentals are not paid when due.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the committee amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and passed.

The title was amended so as to read: "A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended."



Mr. CARLSON. Mr. President, I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of calendar 1622, Senate bill 2381.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CRIPPA in the chair). The Secretary will state the bill by title for the information of the Senate.

The CHIEF CLERK. A bill (S. 2381) to amend section 27 of the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended, in order to promote the development of oil and gas on the public domain.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Kansas.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs

with an amendment, to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

That section 27 of the act of February 25, 1920, as amended (30 U. S. C. 184), is further amended as follows:

(1) Strike out all of the language preceding the semicolon of the second sentence of section 27, and insert the following in lieu thereof: "No person, association, or corporation, except as herein provided, shall take or hold at one time oil or gas leases exceeding in the aggregate 46,080 acres granted hereunder in any one State, except that in the Territory of Alaska no person, association, or corporation, except as herein provided, shall take or hold at one time oil or gas leases exceeding in the aggregate 100,000 acres granted hereunder;".

(2) Strike out sentences 5 and 6 of section 27 and insert the following in lieu thereof: "The interest of an optionee under a nonrenewable option to purchase or otherwise acquire one or more oil or gas leases (whether then or thereafter issued), or any interest therein, shall not, prior to the exercise of such option, be a taking or holding or control under the acreage limitations provisions of any section of this act. No such option shall be entered into for a period of more than 3 years, without the prior approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and no person, association, or corporation shall hold at one time such options of more than 200,000 acres in any one State.".

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. President, the purpose of S. 2381 is to modernize certain provisions of the Leasing Act of 1920 in order to conform with changing conditions affecting oil and gas exploration on the public domain. This bill has been approved by the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of the Budget. Hearings were had and spokesmen for the oil and gas industry representing every segment including the small independent operators appeared and supported the bill. Fourteen or fifteen witnesses appeared before the committee. Officials of the Department appeared in support of the bill and in fact, the committee has not been advised of any opposition to the bill.

This bill would make the following changes in the Leasing Act:

First. Increase acreage holdings any one person could hold under lease in any one State from 15,360 to 46,080 acres. In Alaska the figure is set at 100,000 acres.

Second. It would increase the area held under option from 100,000 to 200,000 acres in any one State.

Third. It would extend the terms of options from 2 to 3 years.

It amends the law to permit options to be taken for any legitimate purposes.

Let me call attention, Mr. President, to the fact that about 300 million acres of public lands in the West are subject to the provisions of this bill. And, furthermore, it must be remembered that only 3 percent of the Federal lands presently under lease are on a producing basis and that production from these leases account for only 5 percent of our total production.

It is significant to note there is no limitation on the acreage that may be held on State lands and that there is no longer any limitation on Indian lands that may be held under lease. Of course, there is no limit on the acreage one can

hold in those States where the Federal Government does not own the minerals. One might think that the liberalization of acreage limitations might benefit the large operator only. Such is not the case. The small operator has a limited force and facilities and needs more time to make his geological studies or arrange for financing and conducting exploratory work. An independent who is planning an expensive wildcat well for a deep test that may cost upward of a half million dollars will need sufficient acreage to justify such a venture.

Conclusive evidence was presented at the hearings showing that under presentday conditions and modern methods of oil exploration liberalization of the laws governing the leasing of the public lands is necessary for fuller development of their resources. Depths to which drilling must be carried to make new discoveries are constantly increasing with a tremendous corresponding rise in costs. Modern exploration and drilling equipment also is far more expensive. Under present-day conditions increased acreage and more time are necessary to protect the huge investments now needed to maintain rates of discovery.

The Secretary of the Interior stated the case for increasing the acreage limitation in a very forcible manner in his report on this bill, as follows:

The proposal to increase the maximum acreage which may be held under oil and gas lease in any one State would, if enacted, undoubtedly encourage many lessees of public lands who are in a position to explore and develop larger areas than can be held under the existing statutory limitations. With the passage of time in the country's history of mineral development, it has become increasingly difficult to discover undeveloped mineral resources of the Nation and increasingly expensive to conduct up-to-date exploratory and developmental operations. Because of the importance of minerals to the Nation's economy, it is very important that every feasible measure be adopted to encourage the discovery of new sources for minerals and their development.

Mr. President, I favor unit agreements because I believe the end result generally is the conservation of our oil and gas resources.

However, acreage committed to a unit agreement approved by the Secretary of the Interior is exempt from the acreage limitations of the Leasing Act. It is a notorious fact, Mr. President, that many operators are forced to file unit agreements merely because of the present restrictive acreage limitations on leases and options. To administer these applications for unit agreements costs the Government thousands of dollars. This legislation would correct that situation.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. President, the case for this bill has been stated in an admirable manner by been stated in an admirable manner by a spokesman for the industry in the following language:

The industry is able to handle a larger volume of acreage in the public-domain States than it is now handling, as is evidenced by its greater activity in other areas, but it is prevented from doing so by the present acreage limitations. These limitations put a ceiling on the total effort which any one operator may expend by limiting the amount of acreage which he may have under lease or under option at any one time. Thus, with industry's present potential for exploratory activity, acreage limitations are actually retarding development of the public domain.

The successful and continual exploration and development, which is the only insurance against depletion of underground reserves, depends on a reserve of prospective drilling acreage. The ratio between dry holes. and successful wildcat wells is too great to gamble with single-shot operations; that is, taking one prospective block and confining all efforts looking toward production on such block before blocking up another prospect.

The purpose of the Leasing Act, as explained in its title and reemphasized in every amendment thereof, is to promote the development of the oil and gas resources of the public domain. The present limitations are having exactly the opposite effect.

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

Mr. BARRETT. I am glad to yield to the distinguished Senator from Florida. Mr. SMATHERS. I should like to ask the Senator why it was necessary to increase the limitation on the number of acres which any one operator may hold, from 15,360 to 46,080 acres?

Mr. BARRETT. I may say to the distinguished Senator from Florida that the tinguished Senator from Florida that the conditions with respect to the production of oil have changed materially in the past 20 years. All the structures which were discernible from the surface of the ground have been drilled, and it is now necessary to drill very, very deep wells, sometimes 2 or 3 miles deep, in order to get production. It is much more expensive today. It calls for a great deal of work, and the average costs are $200,000, $300,000, or $500,000 for the drilling of a well, depending on the depth to which it is necessary to go. Therefore it is essential to have a much larger area, so that if any mistake is made in the geophysical work an operator will still have a chance to recovering his expenditure.

Mr. SMATHERS. Did the committee give any consideration to whether such an amendment might result in a concentration of oil leases in the hands of only a few big concerns, or in the hands of 2 or 3 individuals?

Mr. BARRETT. I may say to the distinguished Senator from Florida that

New bill: 1 operator may hold

that question was considered very carefully by the committee. I should like to give the Senator some figures on that point. In the State of Wyoming, the Federal Government owns outright 32 million acres. In addition, it owns the minerals under at least 10 million more acres. Considering only the relationship between the 32 million acres and the 62 million acres, which comprise the area of Wyoming, I should like to give the Senator another figure.

A single individual or company, if either could get a lease for the maximum acreage under the bill, would have only 0.0015 of 1 percent of the public land area of Wyoming.

Therefore the Senator can see how infinitesimal it is.

I should like to give the Senator some other figures. At the present time, we have production on about only 3 perAbout 300 cent of the Federal land. million acres of public land are in the Western States. Less than 5 percent of our total production comes from Federal lands.

If the Senator wishes, I can show him that the leases and the options that could be granted under the pending bill would take only an infinitesimal portion of the area of any of the Western States.

Mr. SMATHERS. I thank the Senator. The Senator himself is satisfied, then, that the amendment would not result in a monopoly or in any kind of concentration of oil rights and mineral rights in the hands of 1 or 2 individuals or 1 or 2 corporations. The Senator is satisfied that that will not be the case?

Mr. BARRETT. I am satisfied that that will not be the case. I may say that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Orme Lewis, testified that that would not be the case.

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

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

Mr. ANDERSON. Is it not true that in the Western States there are large areas of State-owned lands on which there is no restriction whatever? Mr. BARRETT. That is correct. Mr. ANDERSON. They have found no difficulty because of that fact.

Mr. BARRETT. That is correct.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point in my remarks a computation showing the effect of the proposed legislation with reference to the percentages that might be held by any one operator in any one State.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »