H. R. 10380, and H. R. 10384 contain a similar exception, but the other bills do not. Its basic provision is a requirement that withdrawals of more than 5,000 acres in the aggregate be made only by act of Congress. Section 3 sets forth in detail the information which must be given in any application for a withdrawal or reservation of more than 5,000 acres filed by or on behalf of any agency of the Department of the Defense. The agency would be required, in addition to giving other information, to say whether, and to what extent, the proposed use would affect continuing full operation of the public land laws and Federal regulations relating to conservation, utilization, and development of mineral and material resources, water resources, and scenic, wilderness, and recreational values. Moreover, if the area which the agency is seeking to withdraw or reserve involves the use of water in any State lying in whole or in part west of the 98th meridian, the agency would be required to state whether it, subject to existing rights under law, has acquired or intends to acquire rights to the use of the water in conformity with State laws and procedures relating to the control, appropriation, use, and distribution of water. Under section 4 the head of each military department or agency controlling any military installation or facility created in whole or in part through withdrawal or reservation of public domain lands would in the future be directed to require that all hunting, trapping, and fishing be in accordance with the fish and game laws (including laws requiring licenses) of the State or Territory in which the withdrawn or reserved lands are located and to afford adequate access to State and Territorial fish and game representatives for the purpose of affecting measures for the management, conservation, and harvesting of fish and game resources. The hunting, fishing, and trapping rights of Indians would be protected. Section 5 would amend the definition of "property" found in section 3 (d) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 378), as amended (40 U. S. C., sec 472 (d)). The proposed amendment of the section would continue to exclude the public domain from the definition of property. There would be deleted the present parenthetical provision by which there is excluded from the definition of property "lands withdrawn or reserved from the public domain which the Administrator, with the concurrence of the Secretary of the Interior, determines are suitable for return to the public domain for disposition under the general public laws because such lands are not substantially changed in character by improvements," but instead a somewhat similar provision applicable only to lands withdrawn or reserved by any agency of the Department of Defense would be inserted. Furthermore, in the amended version the determination as to the return of lands to the public domain would be made by the Secretary of the Interior with the concurrence of the Administrator of General Services. From the revised definition of property would also be deleted the exception relating to "records of the Federal Government"; this last deletion seems to be an oversight. Finally, section 6 would protect all valid rights to the beneficial use of water originating in or flowing across lands withdrawn or reserved under the bill initiated under the laws of the State in which the lands are located.

Although all the subsequent provisions of H. R. 10371 refer solely to the Department of Defense, both section 1 and section 2 speak of withdrawals and reservations "for defense purposes." Since we assume that this bill is intended to apply only to withdrawals or reservations for the Department of Defense, we suggest that the words "reservation and utilization" at page 1, line 7, be deleted and the words "and reservation for, and utilization by, the Department of Defense" be substituted therefor. For the same reason the words "by the Department of Defense" should be inserted after "used" at page 2, line 4, if section 2 is not amended as suggested hereafter.

The precise meaning of section 2 is unclear. We assume that its intention is to prohibit the withdrawal or reservation of more than 5,000 acres by one action. Even if the section is read in that manner, its provisions would permit the making, for one defense project, of an indefinite number of withdrawals, each for less than 5,000 acres. We recommend that in lieu of the present section 2, at page 2, lines 1 to 5, there be substituted the following:

"SEC. 2. No public land, water, or land and water area shall, except by Act of Congress, hereafter be (1) withdrawn from settlement, location, sale, or entry for the use of the Department of Defense for defense purposes or (2) reserved for such use if such withdrawal or reservation would result in the withdrawal or ie ervation of more than 5,000 acres in the aggregate for any one defense project or facility of the Department of Defense since the date of enactment of this Act or since the last previous Act of Congress which withdrew or reserved

public land, water, or land and water area for that project or facility, whichever is later."

If such a revision is made, it will be necessary to amend page 2, lines 6 to 10, to read as follows:

"SEC. 3. Any application hereafter filed for a withdrawal or reservation the approval of which will, under section 2 of this Act, require an Act of Congress shall specify ***".

Certain changes in language appear desirable in the list of items which section 3 states must be included in any application for withdrawal or reservation. We assume that the terms "gross" and "net" are use in item (3) in the same manner as they are used by the Bureau of Land Management of this Department, i. e., the term "gross" being used with reference to all land within the exterior boundaries, while the term "net" is applicable to the public lands within those boundaries. It may be desirable to clarify the terms by inserting the word "public" before the word "land" in both places in which it occurs at page 2, line 19. Item (4) might be changed for obvious reasons to read as follows: "(4) the purpose or purposes for which the area is proposed to be withdrawn or reserved, or, if the purpose or purposes are classified for national-security reasons, a statement to that effect."

The present text of item (7) distinguishes between timber resources and material resources. In order to avoid casting any doubt on the practice of the Department of including timber among the material resources and to provide for other values which are not listed in item (7), we suggest that all at page 3, lines 8 to 11, be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "utilization, and development of mineral resources, timber and other material resources, grazing resources, fish and wildlife resources, water resources, and scenic, wilderness, and recreational and other values; and".

The apparent objectives of section 4, namely, the preservation of wildlife and the coordination of enforcement and the conservation measures, are highly desirable. We suggest, however, that the procedures may raise serious jurisdictional questions.

The apparent objective of section 5 is to amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to grant the Secretary of the Interior a greater degree of control then he possesses at present over the disposition of public domain lands which are found to be excess to the needs of the Department of Defense. To achieve this objective, however, we believe that it will be necessary to revise section 5 of H. R. 10371 in several respects. To begin with, the existing definition of "property" in section 3 (d) of the 1949 act has been broadened so as to exclude from its terms only those lands withdrawn or reserved from the public domain which were withdrawn or reserved by the Department of Defense and which are found suitable for return to the public domain. The existing definition excludes lands of similar type withdrawn or reserved by any agency. We submit that the latter is preferable. Furthermore, as the definition is now phrased, and also is it would be rephrased by H. R. 10371, withdrawn or reserved lands can only be returned to the public domain with the approval of the Administrator of General Services. We submit that all such lands should be returned to the public domain unless the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of the Administrator of General Services, determines otherwise. Finally, it should be noted that section 3 (d) of the 1949 act is silent as to whether minerals in excess withdrawn or reserved lands are to be included in the term "property." Our position is that, in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, such minerals should be disposed of under the appropriate public land laws. All these objectives may be achieved by redrafting lines 7 to 18 of page 5 as follows:

"(d) The term 'property' means any interest in property of any kind except (1) the public domain; lands reserved or dedicated for national forest or national park purposes; minerals in lands or portions of land withdrawn or reserved from the public domain which the Secretary of the Interior determines are suitable for disposition under the public land mining and mineral leasing laws; and lands withdrawn or reserved from the public domain other than lands or portions of lands so withdrawn or reserved which the Secretary of the Interior, with the concurrence of the Administrator, determines are not suitable for return to the public domain for disposition under the general public land laws Decause such lands are substantially changed in character by improvements; (2) naval vessels of the following categories: Battleships, cruisers, aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines; and (3) records of the Federal Government."

81471-56-12

As the bill is now written, its provisions are applicable solely to public lands. If it is desirable to make the bill's terms applicable to the outer Continental Shelf, as you indicated in your letter of April 30, we suggest the inclusion of the following proviso at the end of section 1:

"Provided, That, for the purposes of this Act, the term 'public lands' shall be deemed to include, without limiting the meaning thereof, Federal lands and waters of the outer Continental Shelf and Federal lands and waters off the coast of the Territory of Alaska."

Although legislation may not be necessary in this respect, we suggest that, if legislation is considered desirable to assure the retention of control by the Secretary of the Interior over minerals in the lands withdrawn or reserved for defense purposes, there be added to the bill a new section, reading as follows: "SEC. 7. All withdrawals and reservations of public land for the use of any agency of the Department of Defense, heretofore or hereafter made by the United States, shall be deemed to be subject to the condition that all minerals in the lands so withdrawn or reserved are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and no disposition shall be made of minerals in such lands except under the applicable public land mining and mineral leasing laws: Provided, that nothing in this section shall apply to lands withdrawn or reserved specifically as naval petroleum, naval oil shale, or naval coal reserves."

It should be noted that under this section it would continue to be a matter of discretion with the Secretary whether the minerals in the lands in question would be made subject to disposal and the Secretary would not open the mineral deposits to disposition if such action would be contrary to the public interest, including national security. This grant of authority would be consistent with such recent legislation as the act of August 11, 1955 (69 Stat. 682; 30 U. S. C., Supp. III, secs. 621-625), which opened lands in power site withdrawals to mineral development.

The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

Sincerely yours,

[Unsigned] Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. ABBOTT. The committee also has before it the report of the Department of Defense on 10371 and related bills, in which they express opposition in their original report to section 4, which deals with fishing and hunting, and opposition to section 6, dealing with water rights under State law in the States lying west of the 98th meridian. Subsequent to that a letter was received over the signature of the Secreary of Defense, Mr. Wilson, and a copy of that letter is before the committee members, which letter suggests a modification of the position of the Department of Defense with respect to the fishing and hunting provisions.

The General Services Administration was asked in the second week in April to report on the legislation. We have not as of this morning received a report from them, and the report of the Department of the Interior does make reference to that portion of the bill which deals with the matters coming under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 which this legislation proposes to amend. The chairman has asked what amendments have been suggested on a section-by-section basis.

On page 2 of the proposed report before the committee, in the next to last paragraph is this statement:

Although all the subsequent provisions of H. R. 10371 refer solely to the Department of Defense, both section 1 and section 2 speak of withdrawals and reservations "for defense purposes." Since we assume that this bill is intended to apply only to withdrawals or reservations for the Department of Defense, we suggest that the words "reservation and utilization" at page 1, line 7, be deleted and the words "and reservation for, and utilization by, the Department of Defense" be substituted therefor.

That would be the first recommended amendment, Mr. Chairman, on page 1, line 7.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment which has just been read by the counsel, line 7, page 1, so that it would read: reservation for, and utilization by, the Department of Defense for defense purposes of the public lands of the United States ***

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to. The next amendment.

Mr. ABBOTT. The next amendment. If you will refer to the last page of the departmental report before you, at the top of the page is this comment:

As the bill is now written, its provisions are applicable solely to public lands. If it is desirable to make the bill's terms applicable to the Outer Continental Shelf, as you indicated in your letter of April 30, we suggest the inclusion of the following proviso at the end of section 1—

which would occur on page 1, line 9, following the word "Alaska": Provided, That, for the purposes of this Act, the term "public lands" shall be deemed to include, without limiting the meaning thereof, Federal lands and waters of the Outer Continental Shelf and Federal lands and waters off the coast of the Territory of Alaska.

The members are aware, I believe, that following certain testimony by witnesses for the Office of Naval Petroleum Reserves, a letter was addressed to the Secretary of the Navy expressing some concern about the interpretation of the laws governing the exploration and prospecting for oil and gas on naval reservation lands reserved for naval purposes other than 4 naval petroleum reserves which have been established by Executive order, and the 3 oil-shale reserves which have been established by Presidential Executive order.

As to the 4 petroleum reserves, 3 were actually established by Executive order by the President, one by a public land order where the President's authority had been delegated to the Secretary of the Interior.

In response to a letter sent to the Secretary of the Interior by the chairman asking whether it was within the Secretary's authority to require that all of the mineral estate of military reservations or withdrawals be declared to be held for the United States for disposal under the three basic laws-and they are, of course, the mining law of 1872, as amended, which applies to metalliferous minerals; the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, which applies, of course, to oil and gas, and oil shale, coal, phosphate, sodium, and potash; and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953-the Secretary expressed doubt under present procedures that he could issue a general land order reserving the mineral estate for disposition under the three named laws and to include, as the law clearly does not, Outer Continental Shelf land as public lands, for the purpose of the legislation only.

Under present procedures and the 1952 Executive order of the President designating the Secretary of the Interior as the reviewing agency for withdrawals, if a requesting agency files an application with the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Interior, the designated reviewing agency by the President, opposes the proposed withdrawal, then the matter must be referred to the Bureau of the Budget.

The letter from the Secretary of the Interior in response to the chairman's letter following the naval petroleum hearings, as I have indicated, expressed some doubt that he could by general order make it clear that these minerals could be disposed of under the three named

acts.

The proviso which is suggested by the Department of the Interior here, among other things, would take care of the question that has been raised with respect to Outer Continental Shelf lands in the Gulf of Mexico.

We have been advised by several witnesses during the course of the 4 months of hearings preceding and since the introduction of this legislation, that the Navy and Air Force propose or have made application for airspace reservations over the Gulf of Mexico, the Outer Continental Shelf, amounting to something in the neighborhood of 35 million acres.

The CHAIRMAN. Say that again; 35 million?

Mr. ABBOTT. Thirty-five million acres; yes sir.

The Department of the Interior, according to my understanding, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense have conferred on several occasions and the matter is now in the Executive office of the President for consideration to final decision.

If the arguments and legal approach presented by the Office of Petroleum Reserves of the Department of the Navy were to be logically pursued, the withdrawal of these Outer Continental Shelf lands by the Navy for air-to-air gunnery purposes would carry with it--I believe the record reflects this accurately-in the view of the Navy, it would carry with it a mandate, dormant mandate, if you please, to explore for petroleum. By the same token, those lands would be closed to the type of development under the Outer Continental Shelf Act, which, in the first 12 months of operations, brought about a quarter of a billion dollars into the Federal Treasury.

The Department of the Interior has expressed some concern about shutting off prospecting and exploration for oil in an area which contains such valuable resources.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask a question there?

Mr. ABBOTT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The Continental Shelf is certain public lands of the United States; is it not?

Mr. ABBOTT. Mr. Engle, by reason of the history of several matters that are founded on international law, the land lying seaward of the 3-mile or 10-mile limit, the 1 marine league or 3 marine leagues, that were covered by the so-called Tidelands Act, have been a subject, of course, of continuing international dispute. The Outer Continental Shelf. that portion lying seaward of the tidelands, was declared by Congress in the Outer Continental Shelf Act of 1953 to carry with it the soil and seabed for administration by the United States under the Outer Continental Shelf Act, and that responsibility was placed in the Secretary of the Interior. But the Department of Justice and the legislative history of the Outer Continental Shelf Act make it clear that for purposes of the hundreds of statutes that deal with public lands the Outer Continental Shelf are not public lands. It is perhaps a distinction without a difference insofar as there is involved sovereignty or domain of the United States. The Outer Continental Shelf Act