Attorney General BROWNELL. We believe that would be constitutional, but we believe our job over at the Department of Justice is as far as possible to foresee legal problems that may arise in connection with legislation. We practice preventive law, in other words. We believe we can prevent some litigation here and save the Government the cost of the litigation by taking this other route.

Mr. CELLER. Did you say that it was constitutional or there is some doubt about it?

Attorney General BROWNELL. We believe that the blanket quitclaim legislation would be constitutional.

Mr. CELLER. Despite the decisions of the Court?

Attorney General BROWNELL. Naturally.

Mr. CELLER. Which has the last word, the Attorney General's office or the Supreme Court?

Attorney General BROWNELL. The Supreme Court.

Mr. GRAHAM. You are not going to press it?

Mr. CELLER. So I wonder whether or not the Supreme Court would adhere to its view or its own view?

Attorney General BROWNELL. Would it not be a better way to say whether it would adhere to my view or your view, and we are both trying to interpret the same opinion.

Mr. CELLER. My view, I think, is the Supreme Court's view. You would also agree that the Congress could not chip away or alienate or transfer any of the sovereignty of the Nation. You agree with that, do you not?

Attorney General BROWNELL. Yes.

Mr. CELLER. That would be utterly unconstitutional?

Attorney General BROWNELL. I do not think any Congress would endeavor to do that.

Mr. CELLER. I do not know. There are some in Congress who may want to do that in effect. They do not realize what they are doing. But that in effect is what they would be doing.

Now, I sympathize completely with what you are trying and striving to do. In other words, I take it that the reason you do not want to have the rights of the Federal Government impaired as far as the Continental Shelf is concerned is because if we pass legislation concerning the Continental Shelf and give portions of that Continental Shelf and the treasure under it to the States, we would be alienating and transferring and quitclaiming a portion of the sovereignty of the United States, is that not correct? That is what you are trying to drive at?

Attorney General BROWNELL. No, I could not go along with that

statement.

Mr. CELLER. Why do you put it the way you do? Why do you eliminate the Continental Shelf?

Attorney General BROWNELL. You are speaking now of that portion outside the historic State boundaries.

Mr. CELLER. Yes.

Attorney General BROWNELL. We believe in the policy that has been laid down here by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Navy with respect to that. That is not a legal matter primarily. It is a policy matter. We happen to believe that it is the right policy, that the exclusive jurisdiction over the part of the Continental Shelf

outside the historic State boundaries should be in the Federal Government, and that it should have the power to administer it and to retain the income therefrom. That is a sensible policy for this country to adopt.

Mr. CELLER. Is it sensible to have it administered by the Government because it refers to our external security, our international relations and our foreign affairs and general welfare? Is that not correct? Attorney General BROWNELL. I would not adopt that particular way of saying it, but there is no doubt there is some particular relationship there.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Brownell, before we close-I think everyone has exhausted themselves, and probably you, too-we want to thank you very much for your courtesy in coming before us and appreciate deeply what you have contributed. I am speaking on behalf of the committee when I say that we would appreciate any suggestions you have in drafting this legislation.

Now, if there is no further work for him to do, we will excuse him, and begin with the Congressmen.

Attorney General BROWNELL. Thank you very much for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GRAHAM. We will now hear from Mr. Yorty. Mr. Yorty is in support of H. R. 2478. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAMUEL W. YORTY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. YoRTY. Mr. Chairman, H. R. 2478 is practically the same as the Walter bill, and the Wilson bill, except for one provision, section 11, which was the main reason I introduced the bill. That section simply provides that the Secretary of the Interior have permissive authority to contract with the proper State agencies to do the leasing and the exchange of leases, and the other administrative acts, that he will have authority to do, the State, then, acting as the agent of the Federal Government to carry out the wishes of the Federal Government.

I thought in that connection if you had 1 agency handling the entire area instead of having 2 agencies with a straight line drawn between their areas, sometimes perhaps right over an oil structure, that it would be a little easier to administer the area.

I took this up with the Secretary of the Interior and as the chairman and members of the committee know, he told me that he had no objection to it. Therefore, since he speaks for the administration, I would say that so long as we adopt the provision as I drafted it, a merely permissive power, I would think that it would cause no objection to the bill.

There are just 1 or 2 thoughts that I would like to leave with the committee. I appreciate what the Attorney General is trying to do in getting around the constitutional question that he foresees. Having studied this problem and the legislation pretty thoroughly, it is my opinion that he would not get around the constitutional question. He would merely bring it up in a different form. I would go along 'with the sentiment expressed by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Wilson, that we should go ahead and affirm the States' title releasing any

claims the Federal Government has in a proprietary way to these lands beneath the navigable waters within the historical boundaries of the States.

I am in agreement with the gentleman from New York, Mr. Celler, that the word ownership was stricken out of the decree, and whether or not the Federal Government has ownership is unimportant, so long as it releases whatever rights it has in a proprietary capacity and makes it clear that such rights shall be vested in the State insofar as the Federal Government is concerned.

Now, in that connection, I just wanted to make one point here, and that is that if you merely granted the right to the States to develop, say, the oil resources in the area, you might leave up in the air this question of the filled lands. The previous Attorney General-rather the Solicitor-made many statements in public to the effect that filled lands were not affected by the California decision and the Texas and Louisiana decisions. I just want to read a paragraph here from the brief filed by the Federal Government in the California case, in which they dealt with these filled lands. I am reading from page 100 of their brief before the special master. The title of this paragraph is "The Effect of Artificial Changes." [Reading:]

It is the position of the United States that artificial changes through such harbor development as breakwaters, although they may make waters useful for anchoring ships by protecting an area from the sea, do not result in vesting title to submerged lands in California unless they existed at the time California entered the Union. This position is based upon the accepted rule of law that artificial changes in the shore, either in the nature of reclaiming land or constructing barriers which enclose water areas, do not change the title to the land affected by the improvements.

I think it is fairly obvious that they are stating quite a sound position of law, in accord with the old common law rules of land titles, that by artificial fills you could not change the title. Therefore, as far as Florida, as well as some of the other States are concerned, they are exactly right when they say that the title to all these filled lands on which many apartment houses and hotels and other structures are built are clouded by the assertions of the Federal Government in this case, and need to be cleared up by something more than giving the States merely the right to develop the resources in the submerged lands.

The other point which the committee showed considerable interest in was the boundary question. I might call the attention of the committee to the fact that in the California case they still have not been able to determine the exact location of the seaward boundary of the inland waters. It is in that case, of course, that the Federal Government is trying to push this boundary very close into the shore by claiming that some of our bays are not actually bays. Although they admit they are geographically recognized as bays, they deny that they are legally bays. They are relying upon alleged rules of international law which they have been forced to admit are not settled rules of international law. In this connection they claim that the Federal State Department is the agency that must make the assertions as to seaward boundaries on behalf of the United States, and, therefore, they put the defendant State in the position of opposing a plaintiff able to rely for establishing the position of the plaintiff on their own self-serving declarations. In other words, they claim in court the exclusive power

to speak for the United States. Next they state what the position of the United States is, for instance, with reference to a bay in California. Then they claim that their statement proves it is not a bay, and, therefore, the submerged lands in the bay are not under inland waters.

I hope the precise boundary drawing will be left out of this legislation and reserved to a later time, because it is very complicated, and may require lengthy study.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Yorty. Do you plan to submit a statement in addition to this?

Mr. YORTY. No, thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Boggs, we are ready for you.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, while Mr. Boggs is coming around there, I should like to place in the record a statement by William E. Welsh, secretary-manager of the National Reclamation Association. Mr. GRAHAM. Very well.

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY WILLIAM E. WELSH, SECRETARY-MANAGER, NATIONAL RECLAMATION

ASSOCIATION

My name is William E. Welsh. I am secretary-manager of the National Reclamation Association, an organization founded 21 years ago at a meeting in Salt Lake City called by the then Governor Dern of Utah. This association is very active and has strong membership in each of the 17 Western States comprising the western half of the United States. By far the largest segment of our membership comes from representatives of water users' organizations-officers and directors of irrigation farmer organizations. Its interests lie primarily in the water resources of the West, including development, conservation, and utilization of these waters.

Throughout the years since it was organized, it has been intensely and actively interested in the preservation of the integrity of State water laws. In fact, one of the accomplishments of the association was the publication of a comprehensive report prepared by a special committee on that subject in 1943. It has always been actively and intensely interested in maintaining State participation, State control, and the protection of the States rights over the resources, and particularly the water resources of the States of the West.

Recent activities of the Federal Government in claiming a paramount right to the waters of the streams of the West in such cases as the Santa Margarita River case in California and the Alpine case of the Carson River in Nevada have greatly alarmed our members. They feel that the water rights of the West, which have been acquired under State law and upon which the economy of the entire West depends, are in jeopardy. They feel that the Federal Government, in claiming jurisdiction over the submerged lands of the marginal sea belt as well as the resources under these navigable waters, is taking a dangerous step toward Federal control over all of the navigable waters of the Nation and the resources lying under the same.

At each annual meeting of our association for the past 6 years, beginning in 1947 at Phoenix, Ariz.—all 6 of which have been exceptionally well attended-we have adopted a resolution on the subject Title to Submerged Lands. Following is the resolution which was adopted at our last annual meeting in Long Beach, Calif., during November 1952:

RESOLUTION NO. 6-TITLE TO SUBMERGED LANDS

"Whereas in the cases of U. S. v. California, U. S. v. Louisiana, and U. S. v. Texas, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that the States do not own lands submerged under the marginal sea belt within their boundaries, nor the resources therein, and has based its decision on the need of the United States to exercise its powers under the Constitution to handle international affairs and national defense; and

"Whereas the United States, under the decisions in said cases, may raise claim to the beds of navigable inland streams which are owned by the States: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by the National Reclamation Association, That, reaffirming its Resolution No. 14 adopted in 1947, its Resolution No. 8 adopted in 1948, its Resolution No. 16 adopted in 1949, its Resolution No. 24 adopted in 1950, and its Resolution No. 20 adopted in 1951, said association urges that the Congress promptly adopt legislation recognizing or vesting in the several States the absolute title to the submerged lands within their respective boundaries, as recognized when annexed or admitted to the Union, subject only to the paramount rights granted the United States by the Constitution to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and intercourse with other nations, but expressly excluding any claim of the United States to any proprietary rights in any such lands or resources except upon payment of just compensation and under due process of law."

STATEMENT OF HON. HALE BOGGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the committee, and I shall certainly only take a minute of your time at this late hour.

As far as my bill is concerned, it is practically identical to the Walter bill. That bill has been passed by the House of Representatives to my knowledge twice.

I would not venture at this late hour to try to tell this committee of the tremendous significance to our State and the people whom I have the high privilege of representing, of this legislation. You know of our interest and concern. In addition to that, my State is very ably and very competently represented on this committee by the Honorable Ed Willis from our Third Congressional District.

I must say, however, that the position taken by the Attorney General is quite contrary to the position enunciated in the Walter bill which the House has passed on two or three occasions.

As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I have never been particularly impressed by the doctrine that a decision of the Supreme Court is sacrosanct. I am more impressed by the theory of government that we have three separate and distinct entities of government under our constitutional system, and as a member of the tax-writing committee of the Congress, our committee and subcommittees have frequently been called upon to, if you will, override Supreme Court decisions, and we have very frequently done so. And the Congress has agreed on the policy that we have adopted.

So that the position taken by the Attorney General here, which, as I understand it, is not changing the doctrine of paramount right, but interpreting the doctrine of paramount right and sustaining the position of the Supreme Court, from the point of view of the people I represent, I find it entirely unacceptable. From my point of view, the idea of granting us a license or a permit or a privilege or a right. whatever you may want to call it, to develop resources which lay within our boundaries in reprehensible and is not acceptable. We maintain, and have maintained, that those rights are our rights, that they belong to the States. The doctrine which has been set forth here this afternoon, while it be a rather unique doctrine, and one which seeks to uphold the Supreme Court and at the same time attempt to satisfy what we consider the very just claims of the States involved, to my way of thinking not only would not solve this problem, not only would not eliminate litigation, but as Congressman Willis has so ably pointed out, would institute and bring about further litigation.