Page images
PDF
EPUB

ing the limits of Louisiana, constitute our title, our historic limits, and those are the documents which constitute the historic limits of Louisiana, just as in the case of Texas and in your case, is that not correct?

Secretary MCKAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. There has been some talk here this morning about 3 miles. The principle, though, that I think you and I agree on is that we have to go to the documents to find out what our historic boundaries are?

Secretary MCKAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. I might call your attention to the fact incidentally that nowhere in those documents is 3 miles mentioned. But that is not the point. The point is that the act of Congress admitting Louisiana, the treaty between France and the United States, and existing maps and so on, are the links in our chain of title delimiting the historic limits of Louisiana, which, of course, become the historic limits of the United States coextensively. Is that not correct?

Secretary MCKAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. Now, can you conceive how at this late date Congress, say in the case of Texas, if those documents say her limit is 10 miles, can undertake to say that it should be 2 or 3 miles or 4 miles or more or less than that? What we have to do is restore our historic title, whatever it may be; is that not correct?

Secretary McKAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. CELLER. Mr. Secretary, getting back to the historic boundary, in most of the bills that have been offered-notably by our distinguished chairman, Mr. Graham, of Pennsylvania, in section (4) headed "Seaward Boundaries"we have the following phraseology:

Any claim heretofore or hereafter, any claim in the future, asserted either by constitutional provision, statute, or otherwise, indicating the intent of a State so to extend its boundaries, is hereby approved and confirmed without prejudice to its claim, if any it has, that its boundaries extend beyond that line.

You notice the words "any claim heretofore or hereafter" by, say, the legislature of the State, or by amendment of its constitution, or otherwise, is approved in advance by Congress. Would it not be possible, therefore, for the State to extend its boundaries in any way it sees fit and we in advance give approval to what the State may do in the future? Is not that inconsistent with your statement then? Secretary MCKAY. That bill is not my statement in the first place. Mr. GRAHAM. That is Graham's statement.

Secretary MCKAY. That is his statement.

Mr. CELLER. That is in almost all the bills before.

Secretary MCKAY. I did not come here to advise Congress, I do not believe.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I interrupt just a moment?

Mr. CELLER. I would like to get the advice again. We are trying to get help from the administration. What help can you give us on that?

Secretary MCKAY. Shall I answer it?

Mr. GRAHAM. Will you hold for just one moment? It is now 25 minutes after 11, and there are two officers here from the Navy. I want to consult their convenience, and also the members of the subcommittee whether they can sit.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. GRAHAM. With this condition: that you will make it brief and allow the Secretary to come up for air, you may continue, Mr. Willis. Mr. WILLIS. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CELLER. May I get the testimony and the advice and counsel and the help from the representative of the administration as to what we shall do with reference to this particular phrase?

Secretary MCKAY. I believe that the written statement covers that, because it says "historic." You and I seem to differ on "historic" and "claims." The claims have only been made since the Federal Government claimed title for some 15 years. I do not think that is historic. That is just about current news.

Mr. CELLER. "Historic" refers to the past, does it not?

Secretary MCKAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. CELLER. But this language I read to you refers to the future. Secretary MCKAY. I am neither supporting nor opposing any bill before the Congress. I will stand on my statement.

Mr. GRAHAM. You are not responsible for what I put in that bill. Secretary MCKAY. Furthermore, I think that bill said "claim heretofore."

Mr. CELLER. It says both, "heretofore" and "hereafter."

Secretary MCKAY. I am not supporting or condemning. I will stand on my statement.

Mr. CELLER. Is that consistent with your statement about historic boundaries?

Secretary MCKAY. Yes, sir. My statement is on historic boundaries. His statement in the bill is on claims.

Mr. WILSON. To try to clarify that point with the Secretary and Mr. Celler, Mr. Gossett had quite an argument when this bill was passed out of the committee 2 years ago or a year and a half.

Mr. CELLER. That is right.

Mr. WILSON. That language refers back to the 3-mile limit of the States, and the 1012-mile limit of Texas and Florida; the purpose of the language is that if there is any State in the Union which does not and cannot prove conclusively that it had claimed historically its 3-mile limit, this will let them in the future bring their limit out to 3 miles. It is limited to 3 miles. It does not mean they can go out to the Continental Shelf.

Mr. CELLER. I wish the gentleman in the future would say exactly that and strike the language out.

Mr. WILSON. You cannot pick out one sentence in the bill and say it is inclusive.

Mr. CELLER. My State of New York under this provision could go out 60, 70, 80, or 100 miles and say it has the right to all minerals under the sea 100 miles from the watermark.

Mr. WILSON. We disagree. We say they can go out 3 miles, and 3 miles only.

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Secretary, you say it is your view that presently the historic boundaries of the several States are coextensive with the present historic limits or boundaries of the United States as a whole. Referring now to the third portion of the Daniel bill and the Walter bill, which deal with the Continental Shelf, your view is that the historic limits of the States are not coextensive with the limits of the Continental Shelf, and it is in that area seaward of the

historic limits of the States you say that action must also be taken at the same time.

Secretary MCKAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. Dealing with that subject is a legislative function as you admit in your statement?

Secretary MCKAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. I take it that you realize that it is up to Congress, speaking of the area of the Continental Shelf beyond the historic boundaries, to determine whether 100 percent of the revenues shall go to the United States or 100 percent to the States, or, as in the case of the Walter bill, and the Daniel bill, 372 percent shall go to the States, and 6212 percent to the Federal Government.

Secretary MCKAY. Yes, sir. That is Congress' right.

Mr. WILLIS. You are familiar as Mr. Wilson pointed out that the Walter bill and the Daniel bill do not depart from, but spell out a policy of Congress adopted in 1920 in the Federal Mineral Leasing Act. In other words, in that act as to development of Federal property within the States, 372 percent of the returns remain in the States. You are familiar with the fact that that is the pattern that the Walter bill and the Daniel bill sought to follow?

Secretary McKAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILLIS. And you know also that the House twice resolved its will on that proposition and determined that such is the policy we should follow with respect to the disposition of the oil development returns seaward of historic boundaries. I say you know the House twice acted on that.

Secretary McKAY. I did not know it, but I know it now.

Mr. WILLIS. You are not necessarily asking the House to backtrack on that, and if the House resolves its will in the same fashion as it did in the past, as you say, you would go along and administer that law?

Secretary MCKAY. Yes, sir. I do not necessarily agree with that theory set up, but if that is the law, I am a public servant.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Secretary, I think all of the members have exhausted themselves, and practically exhausted you at this point. Secretary MCKAY. I am in good shape.

Mr. YoRTY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Secretary one question? Mr. GRAHAM. All right.

Mr. YoRTY. Mr. Secretary, you and I have communicated relative to one provision in my bill which I think is the only provision that differs with the bill introduced by Mr. Wilson, Mr. Walter, and the others, and that is I have provided that the Secretary of the Interior shall have discretionary authority to contract with the existing State agencies to handle the leasing of the property outside of the historical boundaries for the Federal Government should you decide that is the best way to handle it. It is purely discretionary. It does not require you to do it. It permits you to do it if you see fit. Do you have any objection to that provision?

Secretary MCKAY. No, I would not have any objection to it because I think in some cases the State has better machinery to do it than the Federal Government.

Mr. YoRTY. I thought it might help you where you would have to draw this line perhaps right over the top of an oil pool, and the ad

ministration, it just seems to me, would be easier if one agency handled it.

However,the State, pursuant to its contract, would be carrying out will in the matter anyway.

your

Secretary MCKAY. Yes. Ordinarily I do not like to give too much discretionary power to the Secretary of the Interior or any other public official, but in this case, I would agree, because I think there are extenuating circumstances where some cases would work out better.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. McKay, first of all, we want to thank you for your appearance here today, and if you desire to submit any additional things, we will be glad to receive them, and later on if you care to be heard, you will be heard again. We are anxious to hear the two gentlemen from the Navy.

From now on the questioning will be conducted only by members of the subcommittee.

Secretary MOKAY. Mr. Chairman, I am at your service, but I believe I have nothing further to add.

Mr. GRAHAM. The committee will now hear Admiral Ira H. Nunn, Judge Advocate General of the Navy.

Proceed, Admiral Nunn.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. IRA H. NUNN, JUDGE ADVOCATE

GENERAL, UNITED STATES NAVY

Admiral NUNN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Ira H. Nunn. I am a rear admiral in the United States Navy, and at present serving as Judge Advocate General of the Navy.

I appear here in the place of Mr. Robert B. Anderson, the Secretary of the Navy, in view of the fact that his appearance today before the Committee on Appropriations prevents his appearing in person. The statement which I am about to make reflects his views and bears his approval. The views which are contained in the statement reflect also the views of the Department of Defense.

It would be superfluous for me to review here the controversial history of the ownership of the offshore lands since it is well known to all members of the committee.

The Department of Defense believes that the Congress has before it a matter of broad national policy which can rightly and properly be determined only by congressional decision. It will be our purpose here to review for the committee only some of those factors which we believe should be taken into consideration in arriving at your conclusions.

There can be no doubt as to the importance of petroleum and its products to all phases of the military services. Any shortage of petroleum products which, in an emergency, would result in the curtailment of naval and other military operations, would be reflected as well in industry and transportation, equally essential to the support of the war effort.

The national requirement of petroleum products is constantly increasing both in terms of civilian and military requirements. In connection with these studies of petroleum needs I should like to invite your attention to the fact that the Department of Defense relies upon

the Petroleum Administration for Defense, an independent agency of the Government administered by the Secretary of the Interior. Should the committee require additional information regarding these studies, it is suggested that detailed information of these studies be obtained from that agency. For reasons which are apparent to you this detailed information and study is highly classified.

The Department of Defense has been asked to provide information with reference to the history of the Navy's naval petroleum reserves including discoveries of oilfields and the production therefrom. I have brought here a pamphlet which has been prepared by the Director of the Naval Petroleum Reserves, Capt. Robert H. Meade, Civil Engineer Corps, United States Navy, which will provide the committee both with the historic background of the naval petroleum reserves and the current production figures.

I might say parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, that the submission of this pamphlet obviates, I believe, the necessity of Captain Meade appearing here. He is also before the Armed Services Committee this morning in naval petroleum reserve matters, and the information which he could give you is in this book.

Mr. CELLER. May I ask whether the captain recommends any particular legislation in that pamphlet?

Admiral NUNN. No, sir. This is an engineering study.

Mr. GRAHAM. You now submit that for the record?

Admiral NUNN. I offer it for the record, sir.

Mr. GRAHAM. It may be inserted at this point.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

THE NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES

PART I-HISTORY TO JUNE 1944

I. CREATION OF THE RESERVES ORIGINS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

In the years circa 1900 the public lands of the United States throughout the West were fast being transferred to private ownership. This steady disappearance of the public domain was taking place primarily through the exercise of rights created by legislation which enabled private persons to enter upon the Government's lands and to locate claims which ripened, on the fulfillment of certain conditions, into full private ownerships. Other tracts, of course, had earlier been ceded directly by the United States as subventions of various kinds, such as grants to the States in aid of school programs and to the railroad companies as subsidies for construction.

The turn of the century coincided with a growing realization of the tremendously important role which oil was destined to play in the years ahead. This was particularly apparent to the Federal Government, charged as it is, constitutionally, with the national defense and the waging of war. It had become clear that the navies of the world were in the future to be powered by oil, and the United States Navy itself had in prospect a complete changeover from coal to petroleum and an expensive new ship-construction program based on this principle.

Because of this obvious future need of the Government for oil for the Navy, the suggestion early was made that probable oil-bearing lands in the public domain should be permanently withdrawn from the areas upon which entry could be made and claims staked out. President Theodore Roosevelt directed the United States Geological Survey to inquire into and to report upon those parts of the public lands believed to contain oil.

The Geological Survey's inquiry was not completed until after President Roosevelt had left office, but early in the administration of President Taft its recommendations were made. As a result thereof President Taft on September 27, 1909, signed an order which in terms purported to be in aid of proposed legislation covering the use and disposition of oil lands on the public domain and

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »