Mr. MORRIS. Again referring to exhibit 11, this particular exhibit lists nine applications that have been filed in satisfaction of scrip, and these applications have been approved by the Bureau of Land Management's district office, and these applications presently are awaiting action here in Washington, D.C.

I would like also to note in the record that the estimated value of the land on all nine of these applications which have been approvedthat is, the land has been approved out in Nevada as satisfactory for scrip application-the value or estimated value appearing on the applications is from $1,500 to $2,500 per acre.

Mr. RIVERS. You said the land had been classified for scrip redemption?

Mr. MORRIS. The land has been approved by the district Bureau of Land Management office; otherwise the applications would not have been sent back here to Washington where they presently lie.

Mr. RIVERS. Has the classification occurred yet of their availability to be used for scrip redemption?

Mr. MORRIS. That is tantamount in the fact, Congressman Rivers, that the Bureau of Land Management district office has approved these applications and sent them back here. That incorporates into it the land upon which these applications apply is suitable for scrip. Mr. RIVERS. This establishes the date they were approved at a lower level and thereby showing the length of time that has expired since they were sent back here?

Mr. MORRIS. That is correct.

Mr. RIVERS. And that is a substantial length of time?

Mr. MORRIS. That is correct.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask that exhibit 11 be admitted to the record.

Mr. BARING. Without objection, it is so ordered. (Exhibit No. 11 follows:)

Mar. 16, 1964 and May 6, 1964. January 1965.

Mr. MORRIS. I feel it has been documented that the Department has a plan for processing applications for satisfaction of scrip claims without regard to the value of the land. It is to be emphasized that the value of the land was not a criteria under existing laws and policies of the Bureau of Land Management. We are perfectly satisfied with the act of August 31, 1964, but we are not satisfied with the Department's interpretation placing a value criteria on the land selected immediately without notice. And by doing this, through interpretation of the existing law-I am referring to the act of August 31, 1964-there is a violation of procedural due process because of the basic lack of notice. I call attention to Congressman King's inquiry on this point, and further elaborate that it is not only a violation of procedural due process but a violation of substantive due process, in that this action has arbitrarily and capriciously terminated a contractual right between the Federal Government and the assignees or the heirs of the original beneficiaries of Federal legislation, such as Girard and Valentine. By abrogating this contractual right, it would be violation of the basic concept of substantive due process, and we will be headed for the courts if this interpretation is adopted and promulgated through regulations by the Bureau of Land Management.

Again calling the attention of this committee to their own hearing held on H.R. 4149, where the Department conclusively stated that no change in present procedures would come about until June 30 of 1966, and with the established policies and procedures, stating that value is no criteria, to change the rules in the middle of the game, without proper notice, would certainly be in violation of due

process.

There is no need for this amendatory legislation. The Department is merely asking the Congress to interpret its own act of August 31, 1964. But I am submitting that, in attempting to iron out the Department's difficulties in interpreting their own legislation which they requested, this committee adhere to the basic guarantees of due process accorded to each citizen in the Constitution, and that they do not invoke this value criteria, or interject this value criteria immediately into the land selected for satisfaction of scrip claims.

I am not saying that this committee or the interpretation of the act of August 31, 1964, cannot curtail the rights of the scripholders. They can curtail them, and the act does curtail them. But I am saying that the act provides that the scripholder can select lands of his own choosing prior to July 1 of 1966 without regard to value, because value was never a criteria in the policies and procedures of the Bureau of Land Management. But after July 1, 1966, they lose that right; they are curtailed as to the land that they can satisfy their scrip claim from. So we have no argument whatsoever, although you will see listed as exhibit 12 a proposed amendment that perhaps will iron out some of these difficulties. You will also note that that proposed amendment has no reference to any ceiling of value. The reason for that is that it becomes next to impossible to obtain a ceiling value on the basis of the Department officials' own testimony. They state that they want a maximum of $500 as the ceiling, and then they turn right around and tell this committee that the average minimum value of Valentine scrip is $1,250 per acre. Therefore, they want the maximum below the minimum, and it becomes incon

gruous for any type of figure to be picked out of the air and place a value ceiling. There is no necessity for a value ceiling, because the Department of the Interior has never placed a value criteria on land selected in satisfaction of scrip_claims. So all the Congress should do is to direct the Bureau of Land Management to follow the act they requested, of August 31, 1964, and to go ahead and continue to process these applications without regard to value, because they have never utilized value as their criteria in classifying lands.

Mr. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that exhibit No. 12, which contains the proposed amendment-which you are submitting; is that correct

Mr. MORRIS. That is correct.

Mr. RIVERS (continuing). Be included in the record.
Mr. BARING. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(Exhibit No. 12 follows:)

PUBLIC LAW 88-545

AMENDED AS PROPOSED BY SCRIPHOLDERS

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, except for military bounty land warrants, all claims and holdings recorded under the Act of August 5, 1955 (69 Stat. 534, 535), which are not satisfied in one of the ways hereafter set forth, shall become null and void on the later of the two following dates: (a) January 1, 1970, or, in the case of soldiers' additional homestead claims, January 1, 1975; (b) at the termination of any transaction initiated pursuant to this Act.

SEC. 2. Prior to July 1, 1967, holders of claims recorded under the Act of August 5, 1955, may apply to the Secretary of the Interior to have conveyed to them, in satisfaction of their claims, such lands as they may, in their applications, designate. Such lands may have a value less than the average fair market value prescribed in section 3 of this Act. The Secretary shall thereafter convey the selected lands if he finds them to be proper, under existing law, for such disposition, and if the claim upon which an application is based is determined to be valid. As used in this Act, the terms "lands" and "land" include any rights or interests therein.

SEC. 3(a). Prior to January 1, 1967, the Secretary shall classify, for conveyance and exchange for each type of claim recorded under the Act of August 5, 1955, public lands in sufficient quantity so as to provide each holder of such a claim with a reasonable choice of public lands against which to satisfy his claim. The public lands so classified shall be of a value of not less than the average fair market value, determined by the Secretary as of the date patent issued, of those public lands actually conveyed in exchange for each type of claim from August 5, 1955, to and including August 31, 1964.

(b) Holders of recorded claims may apply for reasonably compact area of land so classified, and, upon his determination that the claim upon which an application is based is valid, the Secretary shall convey such lands to the applicant.

SEC. 4. Prior to January 1, 1968, the Secretary shall, by registered mail or certified mail sent to the address of record of each person having an unsatisified claim, offer in satisfaction of such claim lands of a value of not less than the average fair market value of those public lands actually conveyed in exchange for each type of claim from August 5, 1955, to and including August 31, 1964. Fair market value shall be determined in the manner prescribed in section 3 of this Act. Upon acceptance of the offer, the Secretary shall convey the lands to the claimant, if he determines that the claim is valid.

SEC. 5. In respect of any type of claim recorded under the Act of August 5, 1955, not more than three conveyances of public lands in exchange for which have taken place since that date, the Secretary shall determine the type of claim which it most nearly resembles, and at least four conveyances in exchange for which has taken place since August 5, 1955, and shall, for the purposes of this Act, treat it in all respects as if it were such type of claim.

SEC. 6. Prior to January 1, 1970, or, in the case of soldiers' additional homestead claims, January 1, 1975, any person who has a claim recorded pursuant to the Act of August 5, 1955, by written notice to the Secretary of the Interior, or any