difficult decision to make as to land that would fall in certain areas of value. Mr. CARVER. It is going to be difficult. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Have any guidelines been set up here for this purpose? Mr. CARVER. General guidelines of those which the Congress itself gave us in the Classification Act of 1964. We have to take into account all of the statutory criteria. A refinement of that, of course, would be to bear in mind the point which is in the Secretary's letter; namely, that most of it ought to be in the States where the scrip came from, but there would be some in all of the public land States. We are supposed to do that. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. You would have to take a look at what you think would be the most available. I am wondering if I might be looking at the residue of land that the Department would not be interested in. Mr. CARVER. I think that Congress has told us in terms of the value criteria that you are not going to get some poor land. It is downtown value for it in my State, Mr. White. Mr. BARING. I would like to have this point cleared up. Did you not say that the Department determined the value in these bonds? Mr. CARVER. The Solicitor. Mr. BARING. Do you have a figure on that? Mr. CARVER. The Solicitor has in effect not only approved the legal sufficiency of the Secretary's letter to the chairman, but also, the proposed instructions that will be issued to the BLM implementing the 1964 act in this fraction. Mr. BARING. Mr. Chairman, do you have any further questions? Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Witmer has one. I have none. Mr. WITMER. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to address one question to Mr. Coote on a matter that he mentioned a little while ago. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Coote, what you said was that the 1964 act did not itself set a cutoff date for the time within which the values were to be determined. Is it not implicit in the Solicitor's opinion, however, or his decision, that the date of the act itself, even though it is not spelled out in so many words, is the cutoff date? Mr. CoOTE. That is correct. Mr. WITMER. And the period, therefore, runs from 1955 to 1964? Mr. CARVER. That is the net effect of it. Mr. WITMER. The problem is, when the act speaks of such and such a date such as 1955 is it speaking as of the date of the act itself, 1964, or is it speaking as of the time when the application is made, or is it speaking as of the time that the patent issued? Mr. CARVER. That is correct. Mr. WITMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. I want to understand whether I am correct. What we are doing, in effect, is further clarifying these points of the colloquy with respect to the cutoff date for the establishment of values. And, if I am correct, it is the sense of the committee here, is it not, that this is an attempt to have the values established as of 1955 to 1964. This is the interpretation I have myself. Mr. CARVER. I would say, Mr. White, that a better way to put it would be that this Congress and this committee has been informed as to how we are interpreting it. If they choose, on that basis, to decide that that is satisfactory with them, fine; but I do not think that their inaction would constitute any change of the original thinking. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. That is, you have so informed us, that you are going to use the dates of 1955 to 1964, as the period for establishing the average value? Mr. CARVER. That is correct. Mr. WHITE of Idaho. And you are so informing us. Mr. CARVER. What you do on it after that is all right. We have pointed out what we thought were the problems. We have now told you what we would do if you do not legislate this. If you do not legislate, you can presume that we are going to do what we said. Mr. BARING. Thank you very much. Mr. CARVER. Thank you. Mr. BARING. What is the wish of the committee to dispose of this bill? Mr. ASPINALL. I would like to ask the counsel, in light of the fact that he has read the Solicitor's opinion-have you read it? Mr. WITMER. No, sir; I have not. Mr. ASPINALL. I wish that you would read his opinion and see whether or not it does provide for the procedure by which they can take care of these problems within the area mentioned by the Secretary-by the administrative arm of the Government-as to what they stated when they were appearing before us before the passage of the 1964 act, when they said that they could not go ahead unless they informed us, or, I presume, they felt that they did not want to accept the responsibility which they found of these errors under the act which we passed. Accordingly, they sent up the bill which established the price-that is, the values-not the prices-but the values within which they could work. Now the Solicitor says that they could take this average between 1955 and 1964, and add to it 10 percent. Is that what the opinion says? Mr. WITMER. It is perfectly clear from Mr. Carver's statements that it is either what the Solicitor told them or what he is going to tell them in writing, that they can set the cutoff dates-that they can go to plus 10-percent average-plus or minus 10-percent average value and that they can exchange low-value lands, if that is what the scripholder wants. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, in further consideration of H.R. 10193, I ask unanimous consent that further consideration of H.R. 10193 be passed over without prejudice. Mr. BARING. You have heard the motion of the chairman. Is there any objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MORTON. May I suggest without objection, Mr. Chairman, that we proceed, following this unanimous consent, with the suggestion outlined by the Secretary and not come up with any other ligislation to handle this problem unless it is requested by the Department? Mr. ASPINALL. The document to which the Secretary referred from the Solicitor it seems has been mislaid or waylaid and when we have that in hand by the committee we will come up with a motion then to table the bill and notify them. I have no desire myself to pass legislation which means absolutely nothing. If they can do this job without any further action on the part of the Congress, I would like to have it done. Certainly, we would rather have them take care of the question of values than to have Congress take care of it. (Document referred to is the memorandum of Feb. 10 addressed to the Under Secretary previously included on p. 100.) Mr. MORTON. Thank you, sir. Mr. BARING. Is there any other business to come before the subcommittee this morning? If not, the subcommittee stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned.) (Committee note.-Copies of subsequent correspondence between the committee and the Department of the Interior pertaining to H.R. 10193 follow.) COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Hon. STEWART L. UDALL, DEAR MR. SECRETARY: As you are aware, this committee has considered extensively H.R. 10193, a proposal introduced as a result of a request from your Department to amend the act of August 31, 1964 (78 Stat. 751), reiating to the satisfaction of scrip and similar rights. The act of August 31, 1964 (78 Stat. 751), was also introduced at the request of your Department and, among other things, placed a minimum value limitation on land which could be exchanged for scrip. The primary purpose of H.R. 10193 was to establish a maximum value limitation on land exchanged for scrip which the act of August 31, 1964, failed to do. From testimony received by this committee, it now appears that the Department of the Interior is no longer of the opinion that enactment of H.R. 10193 is necessary, but that an equitable administrative solution is possible along the lines indicated in your letter of September 9, 1965, to this committee. Under that proposal the Department would: (1) Classify approximately 30,000 acres of land as available for selection in redemption of scrip ranging in value from the average fair market value as prescribed in section 3(a) of the 1964 act to approximately 10 percent above that average value and (2) the average fair market value of lands to be made available under section 3(a) would be based on the conveyances made from August 5, 1955, to August 31, 1964. The legality of this procedure was approved by the Acting Solicitor in a memorandum of February 10, 1966, to the Under Secretary, a copy of which was furnished this committee. In view of the opinion by your Department that an administrative solution is feasible in connection with the satisfaction of scrip rights as expressed in H.R. 10193, this committee will take no further action on this proposal. The committee is deeply concerned over the moratorium and numerous delays involved in the satisfaction of outstanding scrip rights and requests that it be kept fully informed as to your plans and progress in implementing the administrative procedures referred to herein. In the event new or amended departmental regulations or procedures are necessary, please advise this committee when they will be available. Sincerely, Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL, WAYNE N. ASPINALL, Chairman. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of March 21, concerning H.R. 10193, relating to scrip. We are endeavoring to prepare and issue proposed scrip regulations. Hopefully, the publication of these proposed regulations can be accomplished very shortly. We share your concern over the need to implement the 1964 act as soon as possible. We shall keep you informed of any significant developments in this matter. Sincerely yours, HARRY R. ANDERSON, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. BEFORE THE JUL 19 1966 SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND RECRON OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.J. Res. 678 "TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE AS A NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE MARCH 21, 1966 Serial No. 89-30 Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs . 61-475 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1966 DEPOSITED BY THE UNITED STATES OF AM |