his authority was challenged. This question of his authority was carried up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said something to the effect that the Congress had been aware that the President had been doing this from the beginning of the Republic, withdrawing lands for public purposes, and said that Congress had given its implied consent to this authority. That case was about 1916.

Senator CHURCH. Then I do not think I need to retract what I have said, because it has equal force. Whether you call it inherent power, which the executive branch often does, or implied, based upon a presumed acquiescence on the part of the Congress, it really does not matter very much, because the effect of this withdrawal, as the testimony here clearly shows, is to seriously infringe upon statutory rights that the Congress has undertaken to confer through the mining laws. So, on the basis of implied powers, you are striking down statutory rights, which I think is a very serious usurpation of congressional perogative. And everything I had to say about it logically follows as much from your explanation of the Supreme Court decision as it would follow from the inherent power doctrine.

Mr. French points out to me that there is a statutory authority under the Pickett Act that could be relied upon in a case of this kind, but instead, you have relied upon the doctrine of implied authority. Why? Mr. SENZEL. The Pickett Act leaves the lands open to mining locations for metalliferous minerals if that is invoked.

Senator CHURCH. In other words, the statutory authority is not broad enough?

Mr. SENZEL. The statutory authority deals with temporary withdrawals.

Senator CHURCH. And it is not broad enough, because it would leave certain kinds of mining claims unaffected?

Mr. SENZEL. It would not be as effective as the present proposal. Senator CHURCH. Yes, it is not as broad as when you base it upon implied authority; is that not correct?

Mr. SENZEL. That is correct.

Mr. RASMUSSEN. Senator, may we finish our map presentation?
Senator CHURCH. All right, if you would like to do that.

Incidentally, on the information that I asked for earlier in the hearing, I wish that you would supply that to the committee, the total figures I asked for, and also a breakdown State by State along the same lines so we can see what has happened within each State during this period.

(The information requested is as follows:)

Reliable data on Federal land holdings were not available in any detail until the 1950's. A brief background of this, together with indications of some of the difficulties in compiling reasonable estimates, can be found in "Increase in Federal Land Ownership, 1937-1945.” (Copy included for the use of the Committee.) The publication also contains some statistical data which help give perspective to the data which follow.

The publication shows Bureau of Land Management holdings exclusive of those in Alaska, as of June 30, 1945. This figure is taken from "Federal Rural Lands," U.S.D.A., Bureau of Agriculture Economics, June 1947. Detail of the BLM 1945 data is given on page 53 of "Federal Rural Lands." The footnotes show that the total is somewhat understated since withdrawn lands outside of grazing districts are omitted.

The publications mentioned above and the following tabulations show the estimates of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management in 1945, 1956, 1960, and 1966, to be as follows:

Estimated unreserved lands, 230,000,000; reserves in aid of prosecution of war, 70,000,000 acres.
Includes 2,449,674 acres of LU lands transferred from Department of Agriculture.
Excludes naval petroleum reserve No. 4.

* Includes 2,424,568 acres of LU lands transferred from Department of Agriculture.

457, 012, 198

TABLE A.-Area of public lands under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management as of June 30, 1956

! The following types of surveyed and unsurveyed public and ceded Indian lands are included: Areas withdrawn under the Executive orders of Nov. 26, 1934, and Feb. 5, 1935 (43 CFR 297.11 et seq.); areas embraced in mineral withdrawals and classifications; areas withdrawn for resurvey; and areas restored to entry within national forests (Act of June 11, 1906, 34 Stat. 233, 16 U.S.C. 506-509), within reclamation projects (Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388), and within power-site reserves (Act of June 10, 1920, 41 Stat. 1063, 16 U.S.C. 791). These lands are not covered by any non-Federal right or claim other than permits leases, rights-of-way, and unreported mining claims.

Data are incomplete.

Does not include reclamation or forest homesteads (see table 16).

• Estimated.

TABLE C.-Public lands under exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, 1966 (in acres)

1 The following types of surveyed and unsurveyed public and ceded Indian lands are included: Areas withdrawn under the Executive orders of November 26, 1934, and Feb. 5, 1935 (43 CFR 2410.0-3 et seq.); areas embraced in mineral withdrawals and classifications; areas withdrawn for resurvey; and areas restored to entry within national forests (act of June 11, 1906, 34 Stat. 233, 16 U.S.C. 506–509), within reclamation projects (act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388), and within power site reserves (act of June 10, 1920, 41 Stat. 1063, 16 U.S.C. 791). These lands are not covered by any non-Federal right or claim other than permits, leases, rights-of-way, and unreported mining claims.

2 Data are incomplete.

3 Land utilization project lands purchased by Federal Government under title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, and subsequently transferred from jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the U.S. Department of the Interior and now administered by the Bureau of Land Management. 4 Excludes reclamation and forest homesteads.

Includes 1,033 State selection applications of 12,941,793 acres.

Excludes approximately 23,000,000 acres in Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4.

7 Includes 2,071,310 acres O. & C. lands and 74,530 acres CBWR lands.

It would be a task of major proportions to determine in detail the causes for changes in holdings during the above periods. We would have to examine all plats of survey against the tract books to determine which school sections passed to the States through survey. We would have to examine the status of all withdrawals and revocations to determine in each case whether or not the orders changed BLM holdings. For example, a revocation of a powersite reserve in a national forest would have no effect on BLM holdings. In similar fashion, we would have to check other individual transactions for their effect. For example, patents to mining claims might affect national forest holdings as would valid claims ripening into patents after a withdrawal is made. Similarly, an individual exchange could add to or subtract from BLM holdings depending on the location of the offered and selected lands. However, the tabulations which follow summarize more readily available data and indicate the magnitude of the principal causes of changes in BLM holdings.

These above references and the following tabulations show the total area of public domain for the years of 1945; 1955; 1960; and 1966 to be as follows: