Page images
PDF
EPUB

SUBMERGED LANDS LEGISLATION

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1953

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D. C.

Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on the Judiciary met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m., in room 346, Old House Office Building, Hon. Louis E. Graham (chairman of Subcommittee No. 1) presiding.

Present: Representatives Louis E. Graham, Ruth Thompson, Patrick J. Hillings, Emanuel Celler, and Francis E. Walter.

Also present: Chauncey W. Reed (chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary), Shepard J. Crumpacker, Jr., Lawrence Curtis, John M. Robsion, Joseph R. Bryson, J. Frank Wilson, Edwin E. Willis, James B. Frazier, Jr., and E. L. Forrester.

Mr. GRAHAM. The committee will come to order.

Secretary McKay, before beginning your testimony, the Chair desires to make a brief announcement. It is planned after the conclusion of Secretary McKay's testimony that we will hear from Admiral Nunn, and also from Captain Meade. The House will convene at 12 o'clock. We are not sure yet whether there will be any matters of importance that will require our presence. If not, we can continue and go on with the hearing.

There are a number of members who have submitted bills, some 33, I think, all told. Our original plan was this: First to hear the representatives of the administration and then the proponents of the bills and the opponents, and then later to throw the whole thing open for a day, or not over a day, if possible, for opposition and those in favor. So with that understanding, we will go ahead. If the bells ring, and we are called, we will have to go over on the floor.

Will you proceed, Secretary McKay.

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS MCKAY, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Secretary MCKAY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, Congress has before it a fundamental question of national policy involving the ownership of, and the production of minerals from the offshore submerged lands of the United States.

This has been a controversial problem for a number of years. The Supreme Court of the United States, in litigation involving the States of California, Texas, and Louisiana, has held that the Federal Government has a paramount interest in all of the Continental Shelf. It now becomes desirable for the Congress to determine as a matter of

policy rather than as a matter of law whether the exercise of continued Federal control in this entire area is in the best national interest.

I am not here to interpret the decision of the Supreme Court. The Court did, however, recognize in its opinion the right of Congress to establish a national policy.

We know the vital role played by oil and gas in our national economy. We are aware of the essential place petroleum has in the implementation of the Military Establishment.

The amounts of oil which may be needed by our country at any given time in our history will of necessity depend to a large part upon the problems involving our national defense. It would seem to me, however, fundamental that the petroleum to be utilized for military or civilian purposes should be thought of in terms of productible oil at a given time, rather than petroleum stores established as a reserve by limited drilling or geophysical exploration.

In other words, with respect to the oil down under the soil that we have just explored and know is there, you cannot turn on a spigot and turn it off. You have to have productive wells to be of value at the moment.

In view of the broad national policy which this Congress must establish, and in the light of the concept of petroleum utilization which I have just expressed, I am pleased to give to the committee my own opinion of the problems before it.

I should like to be very clear in saying that I am not the advocate or the opponent of any specific bill which the committee may have under consideration.

I do believe that the national interest would be best served by restoring to the various States the coastal offshore lands to the limits of the line marked by the historical boundaries of each of the respective States.

I believe that the national defense will be best served by getting more active production from these submerged lands; and that it is equally important, therefore, that the Congress should in the same legislation establish a procedure by which development may go forward on all of the lands on the Continental Shelf outside of a line marking the historical boundaries of the several States, with all of the revenues to go to the Nation as a whole.

I believe that the interest of the Federal Government should be asserted and advanced by the Congress in all of the Continental Shelf which lies outside of the line marking the historical boundaries of the States.

Due consideration should be given to problems of international Sovereignty involving the utilization of the territorial waters and the high seas which lie above the Continental Shelf.

I should like now to address myself to the administration for purposes of production and development of that portion of the Continental Shelf which lies outside the line marking the historical boundaries of the various States.

I believe that such administrative responsibility would rest most appropriately in the Department of the Interior. I am motivated in this conclusion by the traditional experiences of the Department, with particular respect to the Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land

Management, and like agencies which have long been concerned with the conservation and development of the public resources of our Nation.

The legislation should, in my judgment, empower the Department of the Interior, or such other department or agency as the President may designate, to take appropriate action to prevent waste, to provide for exploration and development, to supervise production, and to recover fair and just revenues for the benefit of the Nation as a whole. Because of always changing conditions, some of which are unforeseeable, I would hope that the legislation would grant such discretion to the Department of the Interior in management policies as is consistent with the thinking of the Congress.

Various leases to companies and to individuals are currently existent on lands of the Continental Shelf both within and without the line marking the historical boundaries of the several States. In keeping with the American tradition of recognizing the ownership of properties acquired in good faith, I do believe that the legislation should empower the Federal Government to grant new leases in exchange for State-issued leases on properties outside the line marking the historical boundaries of the States.

The legislation should as clearly as possible define with exactness the line marking the historical boundaries of the various States, but some mechanism should be provided in order to settle disputes which may arise with respect to the location of individually leased properties. It is my hope that this important problem of national policy may be resolved as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. GRAHAM. Have you completed your statement?
Secretary McKAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Secretary, before we proceed further, for your information, the group about me are the members of Subcommittee No. 1 assigned to hear this matter. We have invited other members of the Committee of the Judiciary to be present. In addition, there are several other Members of Congress who are not members of the committee. Guided by the time you have, we would like to permit those of the committee to interrogate you, and then the other members of the committee to interrogate you; and, then, if you have time, the other Members of Congress may desire to interrogate you. Then you will know by whom you are being questioned.

Secretary MCKAY. Yes, sir. My time is yours. I will be glad to stay whatever time you wish.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Hillings?

Mr. HILLINGS. I have no questions.

Mr. GRAHAM. Miss Thompson?

Miss THOMPSON. I have none.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Celler, have you any questions?

Mr. CELLER. Yes; I have a few questions.

Mr. Secretary, I believe your statement, if I may be privileged to sum it up, says that the right of disposal lies in the Federal Government concerning the land submerged under the sea seaward from the limitation of the State boundaries; is that correct?

Secretary McKAY. Yes, sir, of the historic boundaries. In most cases of these States, it is 3 miles to sea, except in Texas and Florida, where it is, of course, 3 leagues.

Mr. CELLER. So that, in a word, you feel that the Federal Government should have control of the Continental Shelf from the State boundaries seaward to the edge of that Continental Shelf?

Secretary McKAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. CELLER. Are you aware that the wording of a number of the bills before us might have the effect of negating that contention?

Secretary MCKAY. I have not read all the bills before the Congress. In fact, I stated in my statement that I am not for or against any of the bills. It is just a principle that we are trying to set forth: that I believe the history over a hundred years has been that the boundaries of our States go out to this position seaward. Then the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. So this Congress should establish that fact. Beyond that, we think the Continental Shelf belongs to the Federal Government.

Mr. CELLER. There has been testimony before the respective committees of the House and Senate having jurisdiction by one Bascom Giles, commissioner of the general land office of the State of Texas. He testified as follows:

The Gulfward boundary lines of all counties of this State (meaning Texas) bordering on the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico are hereby fixed and declared to be the Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico.

He drew attention to certain actions of the Legislature of the State of Texas. Now, if Mr. Giles claims for the State of Texas that the boundary line of Texas goes clear to the Continental Shelf, and he would maintain that, or the State of Texas would maintain that before your Department or before you, what would you have to say in the light of what you said a little while ago; that the Continental Shelf belongs to the United States?

Secretary MCKAY. If the Congress establishes that as a law, I would follow the law as Secretary of Interior. At the present time I would have to disagree with them in the light of the Supreme Court decision in entirety from the low-water mark. But if this Congress should pass a law which would establish it on this basis, then I certainly would be bound by that law.

Mr. CELLER. Could Congress pass any statute alienating or transferring the sovereignty of the United States or any part of the sovereignty of the United States?

Secretary MCKAY. I think Congress, representing the people, can pass any law they wish.

Mr. CELLER. But it is subject to the Constitution.

Secretary McKAY. Subject to the Constitution. It is subject to revision by the Supreme Court.

Mr. CELLER. Has Congress the right to pass any statute that would alienate the sovereignty of the United States and give a portion of it to the States?

Secretary MCKAY. Sir, there seems to be a difference of opinion between you and me as to that. I do not say they are taking away. I say they would be restoring.

When my own State came into the Union in 1859, the description of the property was from the southern boundary of the State following the coastline to the south bank of the Columbia River. That was the State of Oregon. There has been no occasion for the Federal Government changing that at all. But then they strike oil in California, and

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »