CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

both the House and Senate to correct

many of the abuses resulting from the

old law of 1872, and at the same time

protect legitimate mining.

No one is opposing bonafide mining

claims; all sportsmen ask is that we recognize the facts that exist about spurious

mining claims.

I want to commend the Senator from

New Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON] for introducing S. 1713 to accomplish this purpose of protecting future fishing on our

western public lands, and urge its support. Hearings are now in progress.

I have had the privilege of reading an

advance copy of an article on this subject to appear in the June issue of the

Sport Fishing Institute Bulletin. Be- cause it is a sound explanation of the issue, Mr. President, I ask unanimous

consent that this article, entitled "Mining Claims and Fishing," be printed in

the body of the RECORD. I commend it

to my colleagues for consideration.

There being no objection, the article

was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows:

MINING CLAIMS AND FISHING

The public lands in our 12 Western States

furnish some of America's finest fishing.

Of our 30 million anglers, most of those

who have never had a try at catching wild

fish in these highly scenic surroundings are

undoubtedly looking forward to the day

when they can have this pleasant and exciting experience.

If you are one of the many anglers bent on realizing this long-time ambition, you

might be in for a rude awakening when

you reach your destination. In one of the

national forests, or on some of the extensive tracts managed by the United States

Bureau of Land Management, you should

have no trouble in finding just the sort of stream you have dreamed about-a clear,

unpolluted mountain stream, well supplied

with wild trout. But, you might also find

something else. Stretched across the trail

may be a barbed-wire fence or a locked gate,

or there may simply be a conspicuous sign,

telling you to keep out.

It's quite possible that someone may have

staked out a mining claim on 20 acres of

land. This would cost him $1.25. By staking this claim across the canyon, the per- son who owns the claim can keep you out of many miles of stream simply by making access to the water above the claim virtually

impossible.

Someone may keep you from fishing on a stream flowing through land which belongs to all of us, simply by forking over $1.25. He can have his own private fishing

stream, at your expense.

All this can happen because of a mining

law adopted 83 years ago.

Actually, all a person has to do to stake

a claim is to mark off the four corners of a 20-acre tract and record it in the county

office. Any number of claims may be located

so long as the mineral deposits discovered are sufficient to justify development by a

prudent man. Along with the more valuable minerals, deposits of all the common

varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice, and

pumicite may be the basis for claims locations.

In all too many cases the claimants are

"weekend miners" and under their spuri- ous operations thousands of acres of choice

fishing streams, timber stands, homesites,

scenic camping grounds, and lake frontages

have been placed out of bounds to the

public.

As of January 1952, there were 36,000 mining patents on the national forests involving 918,000 acres of land. Although these

had gone to patent under the mining, laws,

only 15 percent are commercially successful

mines.

According to reports, there are 84,000 mining claims on these same forests involving

2,100,000 acres, with only 2 percent producing minerals in commercial quantities.

Probably no more than 40 percent would be

valid even under the weak provisions of the

law. What's more, the timber tied up on

these lands is worth more than $100 million

and would build about 800,000 5-room

houses. Since there is no time limit for

claims to be brought to patent, the land is

tied up indefinitely.

All rights to the surface uses go with the

claims. The claimant has the trump card.

Access to nearby lands and waters may be

cut off, fishing prohibited along previously

open streams, lake frontages, picnic and

campsites taken over, timber products and

grazing rights usurped.

These statutes tie the hands of the Federal

land administering agencies. It would cost

about $20 million to examine existing claims

and protest those that are invalid. Three

thousand man-years of work would be required. More than 16,000 claims are filed

each year, and nothing would prevent the

claimant from refiling once his application

for patent is rejected.

Back in 1872, when the present law was passed, there were only a few people in the

West to stake out claims. There were few users of our public lands. The law at that

time was a good one.

But conditions have changed. Thousands

of people have filed spurious claims to get a chunk of public land, and the waters and

timber on it, for their own exclusive use. Now the uranium prospecting craze is really

pointing out the need for a change in the

law.

Fortunately, some of the streams have

been withdrawn or reserved for possible

power development. But even these may be

opened to the undesirable practices which

-exist elsewhere. The House of Representatives has passed a bill (H. R. 100) which

would throw these remaining lands open to the "prospectors." Several times in the past

the House has passed such a bill, but each

time it has died in the Senate.

Fortunately, a new amendment to the

mining law is being considered by both

House and Senate. It's a bill which would correct many of the abuses resulting from

the law of 1872. At the same time, it would

protect legitimate mining. Incidentally,

some of these public lands support extensive

mining. We object to the abuses-not to

mining.

Our objection Is to the spurious mining

claims, not to the bona fide ones. Under these proposed amendments, access

to, and use of, fishing streams covered by

unpatented claims appears to be assured.

The new bill in the House was introduced

independently by several Representatives.

The first was H. R. 5561, by Congressman

WILLIAM A. DAWSON, of Utah. In the Sen- ate the bill is S. 1713, introduced by Senator

Anderson in behalf of himself and several

other Senators. What happens to this introduced bill may have a very decided effect

on future fishing on our western public

lands.

POSTAL FIELD SERVICE COMPENSATION ACT OF 1945-VETO MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 44)

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate a veto message from the

President of the United States.

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I may say, for the information of

the Senate, I have consulted with the

able minority leader. He has consulted

with the ranking minority member of the

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. I have consulted with the able

chairman of that committee. On behalf

of myself and the minority leader, I

ask that the reading of the message be

deferred until a proposed unanimousconsent agreement, which is now at the

desk, can be read and acted on.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the clerk will read the proposed unanimous-consent agreement.

The Chief Clerk read the proposed

unanimous consent agreement, as follows:

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Ordered, That on Tuesday, May 24, 1955,

at the conclusion of the routine morning

business, the Senate shall proceed to the

reconsideration of the bill S 1, the Postal

Field Service Compensation Act of 1955, re- turned by the President of the United States

to the Senate without his approval, and that on the question-"Shall the bill pass, the

objections of the President of the United

States to the contrary notwithstanding?"-

and all motions, if any be made, relating

thereto, debate shall be limited to 3 hours,

to be equally divided between the proponents and opponents of the said bill and

controlled, respectively, by the majority

leader and the minority leader (May 19,

1955.)

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is

there objection to the unanimous-consent request? The Chair hears none,

and it i s so ordered.

The Secretary will now read the message from the President of the United

States.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

To the United States Senate:

I return herewith, without my approval, S. 1, to increase the rates of basic

compensation of officers and employees in the field service of the Post Office Department. I take this action for three

reasons. First, the bill creates new discriminations or inequities which would

affect many thousands of postal employees. Second, the bill creates grave administrative problems such as the establishment of thousands of individual

pay rates. It forces awkward and unfair

administrative practices in a Government department whose operations affect every person, every enterprise, every

community In the country. Third, the

bill imposes a heavier burden upon the

taxpayer than is necessary to establish

salary rates throughout the Department

which will compare favorably with rates

for similar work elsewhere in Government and in private industry.

At the outset of this administration,

the Postmaster General began a com- prehensive study of the entire Postal

system.

The principal purpose was to discover

effective ways and means by which the

American people could be assured more speedy, certain, economical, and efficient

handling of their mail. Obviously, this

purpose can be achieved only if, first,

postal employees are dedicated and satisfied in career service because of fair

compensation, good working conditions,

adequate benefits in vacations, insurance, sick leave, and old-age security;

and second, the Department's adminis-

,trative structure, incorporating the best

management practices, is so designed

6620 May 19
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

that merit and responsibility are recognized and rewarded.

In accordance with the findings of the

comprehensive study, on January 11,

1955, by special message to the Congress,

I recommended an increase in the salaries of postal employees which would

be composed of two elements-a general

increase in postal pay and a reclassification of postal positions that would eliminate inequities. To accomplish these

purposes I recommended a 5-percent pay

raise and adjustments in classification to

bring about proper wage relationships

among the various jobs in postal service.

The cost of the reclassification proposals

would have brought the total increase to

61/2 percent, with an aggregate annual

cost of $129 million.

Those recommendations, if adopted,

would have placed the salaries of postal

employees in proper relationship to the

salaries paid for similar work in nearly

all the larger cities. The pay raises

recommended were substantially greater

than the increase in the cost of living

since the last adjustment in postal wages.

Subsequently, the House Post Office

and Civil Service Committee, by a substantial bipartisan majority, reported a

bill-H. R. 4644-which, although approximately $30 million a year more

costly than my recommendations, embodied the essential elements of a reclassification system. In the matter of reclassification, that bill, as reported by

the committee, could have been, and still can be, with certain corrections, the

basis for legislation which would establish fair relationships between the salaries of various positions in the postal

service on the sound principle of equal

pay for equal work and more pay for more difficult and responsible work.

It has always been recognized that in

the consideration of pay legislation, there

can be a reasonabl difference of opinion as to what constitutes an appropriate

increase. But there can be no com- promise with the principle of fairness,

and any pay legislation must be fair to

all to whom it applies. It must be workable administratively and not be excessive in cost.

The bill before me fails to meet these

criteria. Specifically:

First. It discriminates against large

groups of postal employees such as rural

letter carriers, special-delivery messengers, and many supervisors and postmasters. These total tens of thouands.

Second. Aside from creating new and

serious administrative problems, the

total cost of the bill, approximately $180

million a year, is substantially greater

than is necessary to adjust postal salaries to a fair level, either from the

standpoint of pay for comparable work

or from the standpoint of increase in

the cost of living.

I regret the necessity of the action

which I am taking. It is my earnest hope

and recommendation that the Congress

will quickly consider and enact postal

pay legislation that will be in the public

interest and fair to all of the half million

employees who man the postal service.

To meet this test, such legislation should

provide a reasonable increase in pay for

all postal field-service employees. It . Ci--410

should provide for reclassification of

postal positions to bring about proper

wage relationships so as to eliminate inequities. It should not discriminate

against some groups in favor of others,

and it should be administratively workable.

Because the enactment of such legislation will substantially increase the postal

deficit, I wish again to emphasize the

imperative need for postal rates that will

make the postal service self-supporting

and be based on service rendered to the

user. We can no longer afford to continue a costly deficit operation paid for

by millions of taxpayers in amounts out

of all proportion to the postal services

that they as individuals receive.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HousE, May 19, 1955.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McNAMARA in the chair). The message,

with the accompanying bill, will be printed, and will lie on the table.

Mr. JOHNSTON of South Carolina.

Mr. President, the veto by the President

of S. 1, a bill providing an 8.6-percent

increase in the salaries of th. postal employees, is shameful.

This action indicates to me that President Eisenhower is more concerned with

soothing the easily ruffled feelings and

bruised pride of Postrraster General

Summerfield than he is in the economic

problems of our postal employees.

It is shameful that these employees

should be denied for a second time by

Presidential action a pay raise which

they justly deserve. First, they were denied an increase in pay last August

because the President wanted Congress

to increase the price of postage stamps.

Now it seems to be denied because the

President feels that Congress increased

their pay per week by an amount equal

to the cost of a bottle of milk above the

amount the President's arrogant and

unyielding Postmaster General would

agree to.

The charge that the conference committee agreement created a number of new inequities should be dismissed as

pure hokum. The Senate has been skeptical all along of the position classification plan proposed by the Post Office

Department, for the reason that it provided increases of up to 58 percent to

the higher-paid employee, as contrasted with increases of only 5 or 6 percent to the rank-and-fie employee.

In spite of this skepticism, the Senate reluctantly adopted, with some changes,

the administration's classification plan,

in the hope that such a compromise

would result in an immediate pay in- crease for the postal employee. Apparently a military dictatorship does not

recognize compromise, or the prerogative of the Congress of the United States.

Mr. President, we can only conclude

that President Eisenhower and his Cabinet of millionaires do not embrace the

workingman with the same warmth of

feeling that they do the Dixons and the

Yates.

I fail to understand how the President can justify his position of requesting billions and billions of additional dollars to squander abroad, while, at the

same time, denying a decent wage to our own employees here at home.

Let me assure the good postal employ- ees of the Nation that our fight in their

behalf will continue.

Mr. CARLSON subsequently said:

Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate received the veto message from the

President on Senate bill 1, the postal

pay bill. The President used his constitutional privilege and prerogative in

connection with that measure. The

leadership has set next Tuesday as the

time when the veto message will be taken

up and considered by the Senate. I

wish to make the statement that if the

President's veto shall be sustained by

the Senate, I shall have ready for introduction a bill providing for a 7.6 percent increase in pay. It is my hope that

if the veto shall be sustained the Senate

will give early consideration to the meas- ure I shall introduce, in order that the

postal workers may have the benefit of an increase in pay.

Second, Mr. President, if such a bill is

passed by the Senate, I am in position

to introduce a bill providing for an in- crease of 6 percent for the classified

workers.

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, as Senators are aware, it is planned

to consider today Senate bill 153, proposing amendment of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. We hope an early vote

may be reached on that bill.

I desire to make an announcement, so

the Senate will be upon notice, that conferences have been held with regard to

other bills on the calendar, and the

minority leader has gone over them and

approved them for consideration by the

Senate. I should like to have Senators

who are interested in the proposed legislation know of the possibility that these

bills will be brought before the Senate

at any time which may be convenient.

First, Calendar No. 352, Senate bill

.1580, to regulate subsistence expenses

and mileage allowances of civilian officers and employees of the Federal Government. The bill was introduced by

the distinguished Senator from South

Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON].

Next, Calendar No. 354, Senate bill

1048, the so-called roads bill. We plan

to make it the unfinished business tomorrow; to have no votes taken on it

tomorrow; and to debate the bill on

Monday. I doubt that there will be any

votes on the bill on Monday.

On Tuesday, in accordance with the

unanimous-consent agreement which

has been entered into, following the

morning hour, we shall have 3 hours of

debate-with one and one-half hours to

each side-on the President's veto mes- sage of the postal pay bill. I assume

that at some time between 3: 15 and

.4: 15 p. m. on that day we are likely

to have the yea and nay vote on the

question of passing the bill, the objections of the President of the United

-States to the contrary notwithstanding.

Then we shall resume consideration of

the roads bill, and shall take as much

time as may be necessary to obtain

action.

1955 6621