CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE October 22, 1966

Last year Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, to finance pilot

projects in the most modem police techniques. Today, I am signing into law a

substantial-and well deserved-pay increase for District policemen.

Better police organization is part of the

answer. Last year I appointed a District

of Columbia Crime Commission and

asked its members to recommend better

ways of reducing crime in Washington.

Many of the Commission's recommendations are designed to make the organization of the District Police Department

a model for the Nation. Most are already

being carried out. And the District of

Columbia Commissioners have informed

me that they have signed and are putting into effect the reorganization plan

for the Police Department recommended

by the District of Columbia Crime Commission.

Better staffed courts axe part of the

answer. This year, five new judgeships

were added to the court of general sessions. They will help eliminate the delays which have impeded swift and effective Justice.

Each of these steps has the same goal:

more effective prevention, detection, and

punishment of crime in the District of

Columbia.

The problem of crime outside of the

District of Columbia must primarily be

dealt with by local officials. I havo promised them the complete cooperation of

the Federal Government within its proper

sphere. We have already begun that

cooperation with the Law Enforcement

Assistance Act. We are prepared to expand our cooperative efforts. I will act

promptly on the recommendations of the

National Crime Commission, which I appointed in July of 1965, when they are

received.

We know that criminal behavior, and

the conditions out of which it springs,

will not yield easily to our efforts. But

we have given the highest priority to an

intelligent, relentless fight to make the

streets of the District of Columbia safe

for law-abiding people-and we shall

make them so.

I renew my pledge to pursue every

avenue, use every tool, support any law

that holds promise of advancing us in

our drive against crime. In doing so I

will need the cooperation of every man

and woman whose commitment-as is

mine-is to a capital where civic order

and social justice prevail.

GEOTHERMAL STEAM ACT OF 1966

I am withholding my approval from

the Geothermal Steam Act of 1966.

I am taking this action because many

of the principles embodied in the bill

violate the public interest.

Geothermal steam is produced by the

internal heat of the earth. It is well

known to every schoolchild in America

under other names. Old Faithful at Yellowstone is one example of a geothermal

steam spring.

We know very little about how extensive or valuable our geothermal resources

are. They may be an inexhaustible supply of energy. Today, for example, the

steam from a single geothermal spring

is generating enough electricity to serve

a community of 50,000 people. Geothermal springs may also hold untapped

mineral wealth-such as gold, lithium,

and silver.

These circumstances dictate a policy

of prudence and reason in the leasing of

Federal lands to develop this resource.

S. 1674 does just the opposite.

It ignores the basic lessons we have

learned much to our sorrow-that our

natural resources are priceless treasures

which must be developed with wisdom

and foresight.

The bill is flawed by six major provisions which run counter to sound public

policy:

First. It provides for unfair and unlimited "grandfather" rights. The holders of mineral or mining leases on Federal lands as of September 7, 1965, would

be automatically entitled to convert them

into geothermal leases. This amounts to

a free gift of valuable public property

rights to these developers, and gives them

an undue advantage over other prospective developers.

Second. It provides for maximum

leases of 51,200 acres-an area four times

greater than our experts say is needed for

economical development. This could result in a single developer monopolizing

the geothermal resources of entire States.

Third. It provides that royalties are

payable only on steam "sold or utilized."

This could encourage the wanton waste

of a precious natural asset.

Fourth. It fails to provide specific and

clear authority for the Government to

readjust the lease terms and conditions

at suitable intervals. The public deserves

this protection because we still know so

little about our geothermal resources.

Fifth. It provides for perpetual leases

to the developer if steam is produced in

commercial quantities. As a result, future generations of Americans will have

lost their stake in the formulation of

policies for a natural resource which

may be inexhaustible, and whose potential we are only beginning to appreciate.

Sixth. It gives the developer 20 years

in which to begin production. Our scientists and engineers say that this is too

long a period and will encourage speculation.

In short, I have withheld my approval

because this bill does not sufficiently

protect the interests of the American

people.

If these were only technical flaws in a

measure providing for the necessary development of geothermal energy, I would

gladly sign the bill. For I believe we

must move vigorously to make use of

this promising national asset.

But they are more than technical flaws.

They represent a serious failure to protect the people's interest.

When we consider landmark legislation of this sort, dealing with a vast and

little-known natural resource, we must

remember that we are acting-not just

for today or 5 years from today-but for

decades to come. Once we have given

away the people's interest in the wealth

of their land, we cannot easily retrieve

what has been lost. We must understand that we are trustees for 200 million

Americans. All that we do must protect

their interest-and the interest of their

children and grandchildren-in the rich

legacy with which nature has endowed

us.

This bill does not do that. And because it does not, I will not give it my

approval.

This- does not mean we should delay

the development and use of these resources. Wise and prudent trustees do

not lose opportunities to increase the

value of the estate they manage. But we

must assure ourselves that we have first

protected the people's interest before we

make our geothermal springs available

for productive development.

I have directed the Secretary of the

Interior and the Acting Attorney General to prepare a new proposal to accomplish our objectives-one that eliminates the pitfalls of the present bill.

Next year we will ask Congress for legislation to transform the potential of this

national treasure into a reality. We will

ask for legislation that will protect the

public interest, encourage economic and

efficient development with a fair and just

return to the developer, and conserve the

benefits of that development in coming

generations. When that legislation

comes before me, I shall sign it enthusiastically.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 14, 1966.

ESTABLISHING THE PAST AND PRESENT LOCATION OF A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE COLORADO

RIVER

I have withheld my approval from H.R.

13955, "Establishing the past and present

location of a certain portion of the

Colorado River for certain purposes."

This bill would have the effect of conveying 2,100 acres of public lands to a

group of 19 individuals and corporations

without payment of compensation. This

bill comes at a time when the U.S. District Court in Arizona has, under active

consideration, the complex and legal

factual issues involving the ownership

of these very lands. The bill comes after

the Government's ownership has been

established with respect to almost 1,000

other occupants of land in this area.

In-the late 1950's investigation by the

Department of the Interior disclosed that

more than 1,000 persons were illegally

occupying public lands along the lower

Colorado River. Subsequently, the Department initiated actions under which

most of these occupants either vacated

the land or explicitly recognized Federal

ownership. Other occupants were removed following successful legal action

by the Government. Litigation in regard

to others is still pending.

The courts are the traditional forum

for determining legal questions relating

to landownership and I see.no reason for

making a special exception here and interfering with the orderly judicial process. If the case is resolved in favor of

the claimants, they will receive title to

the land without the present bill. If the

case is resolved against the claimants and

the Congress believes that the equities

were so compelling that relief should

have been granted, the Congress can act

after the factual issues have been fully

litigated and a complete record has been

assembled. LYNDON B. JOHNSON.

THE WHITE HOUSE, November 14, 1966.

28904