It is our understanding that under this proposed amendment, the Secretary of the Interior would have authority to establish necessary regulations to carry out its purposes including the right to require filing fees or other similar charges to compensate the United States for the administrative expenses entailed in adjudicating the various applications for concurrence that would be presented to the Secretary or his duly authorized representatives.

Based on this understanding and for the reasons set forth above we do not object to enactment of the bill if amended as proposed.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours,

JOHN A. CARVER, Jr., Assisant Secretary of the Interior.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO H.R. 6630

(Revised August 16, 1961)

Strike all after line 5, page 1, and substitute:

"SEC. 2. Any railroad company to which a grant for a right-of-way through the public lands or a site for station grounds has been made by Congress, or its successor in interest or assign, may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, convey any portion of that right-of-way or station grounds, except any right, title, or interest of the United States in and to the oil, gas, and other minerals underlying such right-of-way or station grounds, which traverses or occupies a legal subdivision of the public land surveys, title to which is no longer in the United States except for a reversionary interest in the right-of-way or station grounds, to the patentee or purported patentee of the portion of the legal subdivision occupied by such right-of-way or station grounds or to the patentee's successor in interest, or to the State, county, municipality, or other political subdivision containing that legal subdivision. No conveyance under this section shall have the effect of decreasing the width of any right-of-way to less than fifty feet on each side of the centerline of the main track or tracks of railroad as established and maintained upon the date of approval of this section, and every conveyance made under this section shall be subject to any right, title, or interest of the United States in and to the oil, gas, and other minerals in the land conveyed, with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove those minerals. A copy of each instrument of conveyance, other than for a public highway or street, proposed to be executed and delivered under authority of this section 2, and a verified statement of the amount of compensation which has been or will be paid to the railroad company for the same shall be filed in the Land Office of the United States in the district in which the land described in the conveyance is located. The Secretary shall not concur in any proposed conveyance with respect to which he concludes that the grantor has received or will receive compensation in excess of the administrative costs and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of such conveyance nor shall he concur in any proposed conveyance which will, in his judgment, adversely affect the interests of the United States."

(Subsequently the Committee received the following report from the Department of Justice :)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

June 29, 1961.

Hon. WAYNE N. ASPINALL,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice concerning identical bills (H.R. 3229 and H.R. 3346) to provide for the disposition by the Secretary of the Interior of lands within abandoned and forfeited railroad rights-of-way, and for other purposes, and H.R. 6630 to amend the act of May 25, 1920, relating to conveyances of certain parts of rights-of-way by railroad companies.

The bills, H.R. 3229 and H.R. 3346 would empower the Secretary of the Interior to sell upon payment of not less than fair market value or to lease for a term not to exceed 10 years land within rights-of-way granted by the United States to the railroad or a predecessor in interest for railroad purposes (1) to the party to whom the railroad has purported to convey the land or (2) to an occupant of such land for 6 years, after the occupant has notified the railroad to show cause before the Secretary of the Interior why the land should not be declared forfeited to the United States and cause has not been shown. Certain exceptions are provided. Nothing in the bills is to be construed as a waiver by the United States and its right to recover rents, profits or damages from, presumably, grantees from the railroads or occupants of right-of-way who do not apply to the Secretary within 3 months for the sale or lease to them of the land. Nor is anything in the bills to be construed as a waiver by the United States of the right to recover from a railroad company the consideration which it received from conveyance or lease of the land (sec. 6(a)). The bills would repeal the act of March 8, 1922 (43 U.S.C. 912), which, in general, provides for the transfer of the interests of the United States in abandoned railroad rights-ofway reserving mineral interests.

H.R. 6630 would amend the act of May 25, 1920 (43 U.S.C. 913), to give general authority to the railroads to convey any portion of the right-of-way "which traverses or occupies a legal subdivision of the public land surveys, title to which is no longer in the United States except for a reversionary interest in the rightof-way." The rights of the United States to oil, gas, and other minerals would be excepted.

The bills would obviate the need for special bills to authorize or validate conveyances to certain parties of portions of railroad right-of-way. In connection with consideration of a special bill in the 86th Congress, the view was voiced on the floor of the House that grantees should pay the United States fair market value for the land granted. (See Congressional Record of June 24, 1960, pp. 13187 and 13188 concerning H.R. 6721.)

The subject of this legislation is not a matter for which the Department of Justice has primary responsibility and, accordingly, we make no recommendation as to the enactment of the bills.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours,

BYRON R. WHITE, Deputy Attorney General.

Mrs. ProST. The subcommittee this morning has before it a number of bills involving the use and disposal of lands within rights-ofway granted by acts of Congress to railroads over public lands of the United States. Without going into detail, I think it is sufficient to state that there have been a number of interpretations and situations that have arisen requiring attention of both the courts and the Congress.

One of the situations that has presented itself on a recurring basis was the need for Congress to validate conveyances made by a railroad company in order to clear the title of the purported owner. Two such bills, by Representatives Saund and McFall, were favorably reported by this subcommittee in the 86th Congress but were not enacted; those bills have been reintroduced and are before the committee this morning, and have been printed in the record.

In addition, we have bills that have been introduced by the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Aspinall, who spoke a moment ago about the H.R. 3229 group as well as the others he enumerated. Further, a third private bill, introduced by Congressman Moss, has been referred to the committee. Therefore, I shall not go into any further detail.

I am sure that the testimony will develop the differences between the approaches of the bills.

Our first witness this morning will be Congressman Saund of California.

STATEMENT OF HON. D. S. SAUND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. SAUND. Madam Chairman, as you stated earlier, my bill was reported favorably by the subcommittee. This is the case of a piece of property which was conveyed by the railroad company to a private individual in 1866. The title has been clouded because of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1914 and now that property is to be used for building a highway, and this just to clear that title.

Mrs. Prost. Thank you very much, Judge.

Our next witness is Mr. Harold T. Johnson, author of H.R. 6630. STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD T. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I introduced H.R. 6630 along with the identical bill by Congressman Cunningham from the State of Nebraska, H.R. 6945, dealing with the problem of railroad rights-of-way that is before us this morning. In consideration of H.R. 6630, I think it pretty much follows the pattern that Congress has adhered to over the years.

The subject of railroad rights-of-way acquired under acts of Congress now being considered by this subcommittee is a very interesting one because of the major contribution the railroads have made in the development and growth of the United States. Such railroad rightsof-way were granted across public lands by the United States to encourage and make possible the settlement and development of its frontiers, especially in the West. The statements submitted to this subcommittee by the railroad companies point up the important role that the railroads have played in the development of this Nation.

Over the years, the rights-of-way have been used for various purposes. In many instances, these rights-of-way have been abandoned; in others, they have been put to use by various people along the rightof-way and in some they have come to the Congress and have asked for approval of the conveyance of certain parts of the right-of-way. Many of these railroads, in the West, particularly, have guarded these rights-of-way very carefully, but I know that in my State, where they have a great number of railroads involving a great many of these rights-of-way, there have been many uses made by leasehold interests along these railroad rights-of-way.

The legislation proposed in the bills we are considering deals with the disposition and use made of the railroad rights-of-way which have been acquired by acts of Congress. On previous occasions, Congress has dealt with the subject of abandonment of the granted railroad rights-of-way and the disposition of surplus portions thereof.

The act of Congress of March 8, 1922 (43 U.S.C. 912) provides that abandonment of such rights-of-way shall be established by declaration of Congress or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, and upon such abandonment the interest of the United States, except in the minerals, in the legal subdivision occupied by the right-of-way shall

be vested in its patentees or their successors. By the act of May 25, 1920 (43 U.S.C. 913), railroad companies are authorized to convey to any State, county, or municipality, for highway purposes, portions of such rights-of-way, provided that the conveyance shall not diminish the right-of-way to a lesser width than 50 feet on each side of the centerline of the main track of the railroad.

A similar grant of authority is made by an act of Congress of November 9, 1921 (23 U.S.C. 17), which authorizes a railroad company to convey to the highway department of any State any part of its right-of-way in that State acquired by grant from the United States.

There have been a large number of special acts enacted by Congress confirming conveyances to adjoining landowners of portions of congressional grant rights-of-way made by railroad companies, such as the act of March 14, 1915 (38 Stat. 1198), ratifying conveyances by the Central Pacific Railway Co. of portions of its right-of-way in certain cities in the State of Nevada, the act of April 28, 1904 (33) Stat. 538), validating conveyances made by the Northern Pacific Railroad Co. of portions of its granted rights-of-way, and the act of June 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 138), confirming conveyances made by the Union Pacific Railroad Co. of portions of its congressional grant rights-of-way. On many occasions, the special acts have been adopted confirming conveyances from a railroad company to adjoining land

owners.

Under other statutes, the policy of Congress has been to confirm the vesting in its patentees and their successors, and in State and local governments for highway purposes, of the Government's interest, except its mineral interest, in the land traversed by granted rightsof-way. In order to relieve Congress of the inconvenience and burden of considering private bills in connection with the conveyances made to adjoining landowners, the Department of the Interior drafted a bill in its report on a private confirmation bill in 1960, authorizing the railroad companies to convey outside portions of the granted railroad rights-of-way to adjoining landowners, such conveyance to be effective to convey the interest of the United States in such property, other than its interest in the minerals.

Upon review of this matter, I have concluded that the enactment by this Congress of general legislation as proposed in the bill drafted by the Department of the Interior is consistent with the past practice and policy of Congress, is fair and equitable so far as all parties interested are concerned, and is in the interest of the public welfare. Accordingly, I have caused a bill to be introduced in this session of Congress which has been assigned H.R. 6630. An identical bill, H.R. 6945, has been introduced by Representative Glenn Cunningham serving on this subcommittee.

In order for a railroad company to have acquired a grant or rightof-way under an act of Congress, the land upon which such right-ofway is located must have been unreserved public land as of the effective date of the grant. The patents issued by the United States conveying the legal subdivision traversed by such rights-of-way do not expressly exclude the strips of land occupied by the rights-ofway and, in those instances where the subdivisions were sold by the Government to its patentees, payments were made for the strips of land occupied by the rights-of-way at the same rate per acre as were

7419261 --2

charged for the remainder of the legal subdivisions. In other words, the United States was paid in full by its patentees for the land occupied by such granted railroad rights-of-way.

I recognize that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the executive department was not authorized by Congress to convey to such patentees the Government's interest in the lands occupied by the rightsof-way, at least under some of the acts of Congress. However, it is a fact that the United States did receive the full amount of the purchase price of the land occupied by the railroad rights-of-way in those cases where the land was sold to its patentees and the patents issued do not expressly except such strips of land.

On all occasions in which Congress has dealt with this situation, it has consistently recognized and affirmed the equitable interest of its patentees in the land occupied by such rights-of-way and has vested in such patentees the interest of the United States, except its mineral interest upon the abandonment, or conveyance of outside portions, of the right-of-way by the rialroad companies.

I am informed the major portion of the rights-of-way acquired by the railroad companies under the acts of Congress are occupied by portions of their main lines. These railroad companies have faithfully performed the conditions attached to the grants under the acts of Congress and have performed service of immeasurable benefit to Federal, State, and local governments and to the general public, both in time of peace and time of war.

Because of their past record of performance and my confidence in the ability of the railroad companies to determine what portions of the rights-of-way, if any, can be disposed of in the future consistent with the public's transportation requirements, I urge that general legislation be adopted by this Congress as proposed in H.R. 6630 and H.R. 6945 to deal with the subject of disposition of the railroad rights-of-way acquired under acts of Congress.

Now these three private bills, involving tracts of land within rights-of-way, are to clear title or give title to certain individuals and should be solved if H.R. 6630 or H.R. 6945 were enacted. This particular bill differs considerably from that introduced earlier by the chairman of this committee and by the ranking minority member, Mr. Saylor, of Pennsylvania.

My bill, and the companion bill, is a very simple bill. It grants a particular right to the railroads. I think, at the same time, it protects the interest of the U.S. Government.

Thank you.

Mrs. PrOST. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. DOMINICK. Will the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.

Mr. DOMINICK. On page 3 of the report of the Interior Department, and in your statement, I believe also, Mr. Johnson, you refer to the interest of the United States in these rights-of-way. It seems to me that under the act of 1922-and I am simply asking a question on this that when there is an abandonment or forfeiture of a right-ofway, the right-of-way as such, together with whatever diffusable interest the United States may have had before, automatically goes to the landowners owning the property on each side.

Mr. JOHNSON. That is right.