Mr. GRAHAM. Is that all, Admiral? Mr. GRAHAM. Captain Meade? Admiral NUNN. His appearance is made unnecessary by that document. Mr. GRAHAM. If that is all, I might say that we are uncertain when we will reconvene for two reasons. Mr. Brownell wants to be heard. The date is not definite. There are some 40 bills, and we have to give opponents and proponents an opportunity to be heard at a later date, and then a day open to the opposition. Witnesses will be given ample opportunity and prompt notice as to when they will appear. The meeting now stands adjourned. (Thereupon at 11:55 a. m., the hearings were recessed subject to call of the Chair.) SUBMERGED LANDS LEGISLATION TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 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 2:30 p. m., in room 346, Old House Office Building, Hon. Louis E. Graham, chairman of Subcommittee No. 1, presiding. Present: Representatives Louis E. Graham (presiding), Ruth Thompson, Patrick J. Hillings, and Emanuel Celler. Also present: William E. Miller, George Meader, Laurence Curtis, John M. Robsion, Jr., DeWitt S. Hyde, Michael A. Feighan, J. Frank Wilson, Edwin E. Willis, Woodrow W. Jones, and E. L. Forrester. Mr. GRAHAM. The meeting will come to order. A quorum is present. Mr. Brownell is present, and we will now proceed to hear his testimony. STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT BROWNELL, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ACCOMPANIED BY J. LEE RANKIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General BROWNELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in order to save your time, I have developed here a brief written statement setting forth my views in the matter that the subcommittee has under consideration, and if it meets with your approval, I would like to read that statement first. Mr. GRAHAM. That will be perfectly all right. May I make a word of explanation? At the moment they are tendering an ovation to Mr. Celler on the House floor. He has completed 30 years of service in the House. He will be here in a few moments, and also Mr. Walter. That accounts for their absence, and we will submit the statement to them when they come. So will you proceed, please. Attorney General BROWNELL. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Navy, appearing before committees last week, expressed their views concerning the nature of legislation which they favor regarding the disposition of the submerged-lands issue. In general I concur in the following policies suggested by them: The States should have the right to administer the development and removal of natural resources landward of a line running along their historic boundaries and to retain the income therefrom. The lands beyond that line should be developed under the exclusive supervision and control of the Federal Government with all income therefrom going to the benefit of the entire country. 30869-53--15 The Interior Department should act as the agency of the Federal Government to administer the Federal Government's portion of the submerged lands. Persons who have in the past obtained State leases in good faith should be protected. The entire submerged-lands issue should be resolved in one statute so that the long stalemate may be ended and the exploration and development of the mineral resources of the Continental Shelf may again go forward for the welfare of the country. Those, as I state, are the suggestions made by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Navy, with which I generally concur. There are a number of things I should like to suggest concerning the legislation which have a special importance to the Department of Justice. First: For the purpose of minimizing constitutional questions, I consider it of primary importance that any statute combine a program (a) authorizing the States to administer and develop the natural resources from the submerged lands within a line marking their historic boundaries, with (b) specific authorization to the executive branch of the Government to develop the lands outside of that line, with the income therefrom going to the entire Nation. The statutes also should reserve to the United States its powers to regulate navigation, conduct the national defense and conduct international relations in the so-called State areas. My recommendation would mean, in legal terms, that instead of granting to the States a blanket quitclaim title to the submerged lands within their historic boundaries, the Federal Government would grant to the States only such authority as required for the States to administer and develop the natural resources. I want it clearly understood that I do not thereby intend to cast any doubt upon the constitutionality of a so-called quitclaim statute, but merely to draw to your attention a method of minimizing if not eliminating altogether the constitutional point raised by other witnesses. Second: An actual line on a map dividing the two areas of submerged lands, the State and Federal, should be drawn by Congress in the bill to eliminate much expensive and unnecessary litigation. If the statute merely refers to "historic boundaries" or merely describes a line beginning at the edge of the States' inland waters or tries to describe bays and estuaries or other characteristics of the coast, unnecessary litigation will almost surely result. This suggestion of an actual line on a map as part of the bill would cure that and would also eliminate international problems that might otherwise arise if territorial ownership claims are asserted in the States or Federal Government beyond the historic 3-mile limit. Third: The statute should clearly state that the submerged lands now under inland waters, including the Great Lakes, are the property of the States and that the Federal Government makes no claim to them. Fourth: Provision should be made in the statute to make certain that all installations by the States on submerged, reclaimed, or filled or other lands inside the line; belong to the States, subject to the navigation servitude; also that all installations and acquisitions of the Federal Government within such area belong to it. Fifth: Insofar as Congress deems it prudent, latitude in management policies should be allowed to the Secretary of the Interior or such other person as the President may designate to develop the lands under his supervision, in the best interest of the country generally. Such a grant of power should reduce the controversies and litigation that might otherwise result from the many day-by-day problems involved in developing these resources. Sixth: I recommend against any reservation in the statute on behalf of claimants under the Mineral Leasing Act, since it has been the consistent position of the Department of Justice that such claims have no standing in law. In fact the Department is defending such asserted right in the courts at the present time on that ground. In summary, I have suggested that any statute (1) be drawn to minimize the possibility of any constitutional question, (2) to simplify the problem of boundaries, (3) to protect the States rights in inland waters, (4) to guard Federal installations already made, (5) _to eliminate litigation by granting latitude to the Secretary of the Interior in adopting management policies for properties under his control, and (6) using care not to prejudice Federal Government rights in pending litigation with private claimants. Mr. GRAHAM. Do you care to amplify your statement in any way? Attorney General BROWNELL. Not unless there are some questions that the members of the committee might have. I shall be very glad to try to answer them. Mr. GRAHAM. Before we proceed further, may I ask if you have any limitation on your time? Attorney General BROWNELL. None whatsoever. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Brownell, we did not know how long you would take, and so we have scheduled this afternoon, and we would get through as quickly as possible, three Members of the Congress. I want to address my remarks to you gentlemen who are going to do the interrogating, to make it brief and not drag it out too long, because you will hurt your own fellows. Next, when we adjourn today, we will meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock, and we will meet in room 327. We will continue right. through the hearing at that time. Now, Mr. Hillings. Mr. HILLINGS. Mr. Attorney General, you urge that the States should have the right to administer the development of natural resources. You say you do not favor a blanket quitclaim title to the submerged lands, but the States should have such authority as necessary to administer them. Do you maintain by that statement that the States do not or should not own the submerged lands within their historic boundaries? Attorney General BROWNELL. May I give you a little background of my thinking on that particular point before I answer the question specifically? In the three Supreme Court cases, some of the judges have taken the position, as you well know, that the elements of sovereignty and property ownership coalesce as an indivisible whole. Therefore some of the witnesses before this committee and the corresponding Senate committee have taken the position that that raises a constitutional question as to the power of Congress to grant to the States the blanket title to the lands. We do not see any reason for having that question raised. The States want, and we believe they are entitled to, all the development rights, you might say, in these submerged lands within |