lands of the Continental Shelf which in the future became filled-in, made, or reclaimed lands as a result of authorized action taken by any such State, political subdivision thereof, municipality, or public agency holding thereunder for recreation or other public purpose, is hereby recogized and confirmed by the United States.

I think those actions would clarify this very well. For further protection of the rights of the States, you might wish to give consideration to the following:

The United States consents that the respective States may regulate, manage, and administer the taking, conservation, and development of all fish, shrimp, oysters, clams, crabs, lobsters, sponges, kelp, and other marine animal and plant life within the area of the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf lying within the seaward boundary of any State, in accordance with applicable State law.

With these three additional provisions there should not be any danger (if there ever was any such danger) that what the States now hold in the way of inland waterways and other factilities are in any sense in jeopardy.

The Celler bill, House Joint Resolution 15, is generous in its allocation of the royalties from offshore oil resources to the States which are nearest to them. The 3.75-percent allocation of such bonuses, payments, rents, and royalties in the operations in submerged coastal lands lying within the seaward boundary of any State to such State would provide a substantial income to the States of California, Louisiana, and Texas. Right at the moment the delay in developing these resources has been a loss to both the States and the Federal Government. The further allocation of part of the oil royalties back to each of the 48 States for use in education as provided by the Feighan and Perkins bills would provide additional revenue to those 3 States. The payment of 3.75 percent is actually based on the precedent of payment in lieu of taxes for earnings on federally owned property on which the State has no power to place a tax.

Of paramount interest to our members as consumers and citizens, however, is the question of the use of oil royalties from the Nation's underseas oil resources for national defense and support of primary, secondary, and higher education in all of the States.

Witnesses who are well versed in this field have outlined the plight of education in this crisis period. With economy as a prime consideration of the Congress at the present time, the opportunities for additional aid to education are fairly small unless something like the proposed oil-for-education legislation is adopted.

As this committee is aware, the royalties from the offshore oil resources under these proposed bills would go into a special account in the Treasury of the United States. It could be used during this critical period for national defense purposes, and thereafter should be devoted to our children's education as grants-in-aid of primary, secondary, and higher education. This policy is a continuation of one of America's oldest and wisest national policies—namely, the use of revenues from public lands for educational purposes. Many of us here today have been educated in part, at least, as a result of income to our school systems from public lands. And we all are deeply grateful to that policy established so many years ago.

Devotion of our greatest unexplored and undeveloped physical resource in the interests of our greatest human resource, the children of our country, is a natural and highly commendable public policy.

As of today we not only face a shortage of school facilities, but we are also losing the race in the provision of adequately trained teachers to take care of our children. It has been pointed out that low teachers' salaries result in hardships to both teachers and school children, and we cannot afford to compound this wrong by throwing away the very resources which can be used to alleviate the original problem.

As Senator Douglas has so aptly pointed out, the average income for teachers of $2,576 per year is shamefully low compared with the average income of skilled workers of $3,105 per year, and for engineers and technical employees, $4,554.

An even more startling figure is that for 1951 which shows the contrast of three professions. Teachers in the public schools had an average income for that year of $3,095; lawyers, $9,375; and doctors, $13,432. These figures are from the Survey of Current Business and the National Education Association.

The New York Times which supported General Eisenhower in his campaign for the Presidency and cannot be said to be prejudiced on this issue for partisan political reasons, has restated its position on this in very succinct language in an editorial which appeared March 3. I would like to read to you only two paragraphs from that editorial:

While we regret that the new administration does not share our view on this subject, we still believe that it is a disservice to the Nation and a dangerous precedent to hand this property over to those States that happen to border the underwater areas where the oil has been found.

If the States' rights have their appetites whetted by success in obtaining offshore oil, we fear attempts might be made to pry other valuable national properties loose from Federal control. For instance, there are those who want to give to the States the minerals (notably oil) under the federally controlled public domain. Efforts have long been afoot to consolidate private rights in national grazing lands. Longing eyes are cast at the national forests. It is reassuring to hear Secretary McKay specifically reject any extension of the offshore oil principle to federally owned lands in the interior; but Secretaries change and a precedent will have been established too close for comfort. We would like to see the administration reconsider its position on offshore oil.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to present our point of view on this. We know that it differs from that of several members of your committee, but we feel that the public interest demands all these positions should be stated and restated.

Mr. GRAHAM. We can assure you that will be done, and we want to thank you for appearing. Before you depart, we always afford an opportunity to other members of the committee to ask questions. Miss Thompson of Michigan, have you any questions?

Miss THOMPSON. No.

Mr. WILSON. No questions.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much.

Mr. GRAHAM. We will now hear from Mr. Feighan.

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. FEIGHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am very glad to have this opportunity to discuss this question of so-called tidelands, better referred to as submerged lands extending seaward from the low-water mark. It has been my privilege

to serve on this subcommittee, and to deal with this problem directly, and for that reason I have no prepared statement. I just want to state briefly the situation as it appears to me and to try to boil it down to what I consider to be the crux of the situation.

In my opinion it is just this: The Supreme Court has held in the three cases of Louisiana, California, and Texas that first, the States do not own the marginal belt. I think that is very definite in each of the three cases. Secondly, in the California case, the Supreme Court has held that the United States has paramount rights and full dominion of land within the belt.

Now, with reference to the words "imperium" and "dominium" as you well know, imperium has been defined by the Court as jurisdiction or governmental powers of regulation and control. It has defined dominium as ownership or proprietary rights. Thirdly, in the Texas case, the Supreme Court has held that imperium and dominium coalesce in the national sovereign. So I think we can start with the premise that the States do not own the submerged lands seaward from the low-water mark, but that the United States Government has imperium and dominium, meaning jurisdiction and ownership. I think that possibly the reason that the Supreme Court did not spell out title and use proprietary language is because the lands underlie the ocean where international law and not merely local law must be considered. In other words, that the Court in rendering its decision used its language very carefully to designate that the United States not only had title, proprietary ownership or imperium and dominium, but it had that plus something else which is even beyond what we ordinarily consider in common law. In other words, it has superior interest or paramount rights that supersede anything that we have even known in common law, because international law is even older than common law.

Mr. GRAHAM. May I interrupt?

Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Then your belief is that in using the term "paramount rights," they were not only coining a phrase, but ascribing to it a new power and meaning never heretofore existing. Is that your thought?

Mr. FEIGHAN. Not a meaning or power heretofore never existing, but heretofore never specifically defined. It had been in existence all the time, though. That being my premise, the United States has paramount interest, and all that goes with it, and dominion over these submerged lands.

Now, the question is whether Congress under article 4 has the power to appropriate these lands. This question is before Congress not in my opinion as a question of overruling the Supreme Court, because their decision is the law of the land. The question is, Has the United States Congress, under article 4, the power to appropriate or give away that submerged property which the United States Supreme Court has said belongs to the Federal Government, to all of the 48 States? Are we going to retain it and develop it? It should be developed for our national security. Are we going to retain it for the benefit of all the 48 States, or are we, under legislation that has been proposed, going to try to appropriate or give away that which the Supreme Court has said belongs to the 48 States to those States off whose shores submerged lands contain large mineral deposits?

In the Supreme Court decision it was very patently made clear that matters affecting inland waters, lakes, bays, rivers, and streams were absolutely not under consideration. The subject matter referred only to submerged lands running seaward from the low-water mark. I think that the crux of the situation is whether Congress is going to retain for the benefit of all 48 States that which the Supreme Court says belongs to the 48 States, or whether it is going to dispose of it as it sees fit if it has the power.

If all we are dealing with is a mere fee-simple title, there is not question that the Congress can dispose of it without consideration. If, on the other hand, the United States holds its interest in the bed of the marginal seas, as an attribute of national sovereignty, it is subject to the possible argument that it is an inseparable attribute of national Sovereignty. If this is so, then a quitclaim might be unconstitutional.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a bill which I feel is a good one. Briefly, it provides that the Federal Government shall have jurisdiction and control of these submerged lands seaward from the low-water mark and that they shall develop them under rules and regulations to make proper provision for conservation and national defense. The States which have offshore submerged lands that have mineral deposits shall be given 3712 percent of the royalty received from deposits within the 3-mile belt. That is in line with the old Mineral Leasing Act which came into being around 1920, and just why it was 3712 percent, I do not know, but I think that would be fair to the States.

Of course, the remaining 6212 percent of the royalties received would be distributed to the Federal Government under a fund for national defense, or for distribution to the various States for educational purposes. It is not a question here as to whether or not these funds that belong to the United States should be given to education. I think they should. But they could well be given for any other purpose. I think that aid to education is a very laudible and very necessary purpose for which they should be appropriated.

Now, I have just one more thing, and I am through. I will not go into the details of the bill. One has to agree with me before one would even consider a bill such as mine.

Mr. GRAHAM. Have you finished your statement, Mr. Feighan, or have you anything further to say on this point?

Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, I shall not go into the geologist's estimates of how much money should accrue to the various States, but I am willing to attempt to answer any questions with reference to this problem because I have endeavored to study it as thoroughly as possible.

Mr. GRAHAM. Miss Thompson, have you any questions?

Miss THOMPSON. No; I do not think so. I went into that the other day, too, and it is pretty hard to determine. We do know approximately how much goes into the Federal budget for education. It goes into the billions.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Feighan, I have read your bill, and of course agree with some parts of it. You took the 371/2 percent from the precedent created by the Federal Leasing Act on the Federal public domain within the boundaries of the various, mostly western, States.

Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. When oil or any other mineral is struck on that land, the State in whose boundary it is located gets 371⁄2 percent of the revenue?

Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. In your opinion, could words be found that would transfer title to the historical boundaries of the States other than a quitclaim or a delegation of authority from the Federal Government?

Mr. FEIGHAN. Of course, that is a question that I think probably ultimately would have to be settled by the Supreme Court, so my opinion would be just a curbstone one.

Mr. WILSON. As a lawyer, you do not think there is any question about the right of Congress to pass such a bill, any bill, disposing of this property?

Mr. FEIGHAN. I think they can dispose of it if the property is owned in a proprietary capacity.

Mr. WILSON. Just like they can dispose of an unused army camp or an installation of the Navy?

Mr. FEIGHAN. I think so, providing ownership is in a proprietary capacity.

Mr. WILSON. Which is done many times a year.

With respect to an abandoned Army camp, the Congress passes a special bill permitting the Army to declare it surplus, and they declare it surplus, and it is sold to a city or private person.

Of course, your statement with regard to paramount rights, that is the first time, I believe, any court ever used that term in connection with the title of property. Is that your understanding of the matter? Mr. FEIGHAN. I would not say that exactly because I think the State of California in some of its supreme court decisions has used that same phraseology, paramount rights. But as far as I know, in these three cases, this is the first time the United States Supreme Court has used that particular expression.

Mr. WILSON. But your interpretation of the Supreme Court use of the term "paramount rights" is that it is a higher term than title. It carries not only the sovereignty but all rights as deep in the ground as they wish to go, and as high in the air?

Mr. FEIGHAN. I have proposed that question, Mr. Wilson, with no attempt to assert a final answer. That may be the reason they use that verbiage, because this was a matter affecting international law.

Now, another reason why the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Government has dominium and imperium over these submerged lands is because such lands are a necessary part of the national external sovereignty of the United States Government. So I just posed the question that they may have used that phraseology because this was something that was far apart from inland waters and uplands. This was something that was strictly in the international domain.

Mr. WILSON. And yet paramount rights, as used by the Supreme Court, and as apparently was intended by the decision, did not include title because the Supreme Court intimated, at least, and I think said in pretty definite words, that it was up to the Congress to dispose of these rights. Did they not say that in their opinion?