Mr. FEIGHAN. May I bring this to your attention. This is the State of Texas case. It is on this page 5. This is the decision of Mr. Justice Douglas. He said:

The sum of the argument is that prior to annexation Texas had both dominium (ownership or proprietary rights) and imperium (governmental powers of regulation and control) as respects the lands, minerals, and other products underlying the marginal sea.

Without taking up too much time to go further

Mr. WILSON. The Supreme Court said they owned those things and exercised all the rights of a sovereign over those.

Mr. FEIGHAN. The Court says that that is the summation of the argument by those who represented the claim of the State of Texas, the great sovereign State of Texas.

Mr. WILSON. That is what we claim, too.

Mr. GRAHAM. Did they go further and say that these two coalesced? Mr. FEIGHAN. I do not want to take this exactly out of context. You can see it. But coming down to page 11, that is what the Justice said:

And so although dominium and imperium are normally separable and separate, this is an instance where property interests are so subordinated to the rights of sovereignty as to follow sovereignty.

In other words, they say that both dominium and imperium in this particular case are not separable, that they coalesce. For that reason it is my opinion that the Supreme Court decision means that the States do not own those submerged lands, and that the Federal Government does.

Mr. WILSON. Justice Frankfurter said in that same case that Texas owned these rights, and it is a puzzle to him how they got rid of them. Mr. FEIGHAN. That is right. He happened to be one of the minority, and the majority decision prevailed.

Mr. WILSON. That is all.

Mr. GRAHAM. Have you finished, Mr. Feighan?

Mr. FEIGHAN. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. McDonald, will you come forward, please.

STATEMENT OF ANGUS MCDONALD, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Mr. McDONALD. My name, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, is Angus McDonald. I am assistant legislative representative of the National Farmers Union. I live on a farm in Prince Georges County, Md. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed to read my statement.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here to present the views of my organization in regard to legislative proposals pertaining to so-called tideland areas adjacent to the shores of the United States. I am appearing in opposition to any and all proposals which would hand over the oil and gas resources in these areas to States to which they are adjacent. I am here also to present our views in favor of House Joint Resolutions 89 and 126.

Because of views previously presented to this committee it is unnecessary to present in detail arguments for and against these proposals. I call attention to a statement which I presented to the Senate

Interior and Insular Affairs Committee in August 1950 (p. 354, hearings before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U. S. Senate, 81st Cong. 2d sess., on S. J. Res. 195). I also call attention to a statement which I presented to that committee on October 10, 1949. This statement may be found on page 459 of the hearings held before that committee that year.

In regard to the various proposals which would quitclaim the lands of the United States to offshore areas, it is only necessary to call attention to 3 decisions of the United States Supreme Court; 1 which was handed down in 1947, and 2 in 1950. In these decisions the Supreme Court in effect declared that these offshore lands belong to the United States. In other words, the Court said that they belong to all the people of the United States. The Supreme Court in these decisions considered at length all the pretended rights of the States which are claiming adjacent oil-rich tideland areas.

In every instance where the Court considered these rights it concluded that the lands did not belong to the States, and that the Federal Government had "paramount rights" in them. It is pretended that Texas which was a sovereign government before joining the Union has a claim which deserves special consideration. The record discloses that Texas came in on an equal footing with the other States, and that the retention of the public lands in Texas by that State has no relation to the Continental Shelf controversy.

We wish to emphasize that it is contrary to the interest of the American people to overrule the Supreme Court and give what belongs to the entire Nation to three coastal States. As Senator Hill has so aptly stated, the question that should concern the Congress is not how to give the oil and gas away, but how to keep it and use it in the national interest. We feel strongly that the oil for education amendment is a statesmanlike and wise proposal in view of the situation which exists in our overcrowded public schools and in view of the need for building a strong national defense. The arguments for its immediate enactment are even more compelling than last year and the year before. We urge therefore the enactment of Senate Joint Resolutions 89 and 126 so that funds derived from offshore oil leases may be devoted to our children's education as grants-in-aid to the several States and to national defense during the present emergency. Mr. GRAHAM. Have you finished your statement?

Mr. McDONALD. Yes.

Mr. GRAHAM. Miss Thompson, do you have any questions you wish to ask?

Miss THOMPSON. No.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Wilson?

Mr. WILSON. No questions.

Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. That is all.

Mr. McDONALD. Thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM. At this point, before calling the next witness, it is my understanding that Mr. Knight of the CIO will not be present, but has asked to have his statement submitted for the record. For that purpose we will now submit it for the record.

(The statement is as follows:)

TESTIMONY BY O. A. KNIGHT BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ON BEHALF OF THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

OFF-SHORE OIL

My name is O. A. Knight. I am president of the Oil Workers International Union, CIO, and a vice president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. I am here today as chairman of the national CIO committee on regional development and conservation to give you some of the views of the CIO on the offshore oil question.

I say "some of the views of the CIO" advisedly. We have no intention of again plowing old ground, of reiterating facts and views which already are in the record of your committee. The basic question, the ownership of the land under the marginal seas, has been settled once and for all by the United States Supreme Court decisions that it is vested in the Federal Government.

But the whole question of offshore oil has been cast in an entirely new light since the Congress last considered legislation on it. Former President Truman's Executive order transferring the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf from the Interior Department to the Secretary of the Navy, to be administered as a naval oil reserve, points up crucial defense needs that have usually been obscured in the past by other considerations. We are not impressed by the recent informal ruling of the Attorney General that these lands may technically by merely under Navy control, and not in the reserves, in spite of the Presidential order, because it seems clear that the Presidential intent was to include them in the reserves, and in any case that is where we think they ought to be.

It is to this all-important question of defense needs that the CIO primarily wishes to address itself today.

The dangers that threaten our country are too obvious to be ignored or to require repetition here. CIO members are as acutely aware of these dangers as anyone else, for we are Americans before we are workers or union members. We believe firmly, and we think most Americans do, that our defenses must be kept strong. A powerful Navy, with an adequate supply of fuel, is absolutely essential to a good strong defense.

We can build the most powerful warships in the world, and we can build more of them than any other country, but they won't be a bit of use in defending our shores or those of our allies if they have to be tied up in San Francisco Bay or the Hudson River because the Navy hasn't enough fuel oil to run them.

This is not an academic fear. The United States Supreme Court recognized it implicitly, I am sure the committee will recall, in its decision rejecting the claim of the State of Texas to the submerged coastal shelf. That decision, may I remind you, turned on the national defense factor. It was, of course, the same factor that prompted Mr. Truman to issue his Executive order giving these lands to the Navy.

The wisdom of this deep concern about oil reserves and the national defense is pointed up in the report of the President's Materials Policy Commission, often called the Paley Commission after William S. Paley, its Chairman. The report was dated last June and appeared after previous congressional hearings on this issue had concluded.

The report shows definitely that the United States, so far as oil is concerned, has become a have-not nation. The United States was once the world's largest exporter of petroleum. Now the report shows, it has become one of the largest importers, taking 545,000 barrels a day from other countries in 1950. This was

8.4 percent of domestic consumption (vol. 3, p. 4). Recent Bureau of Mines figures go even farther and indicate that imports rose in 1952 to a daily average of 1,100,000 barrels a day.

The Paley report makes the heartening observation that oil is still being discovered in this country at a faster rate than it is being produced (vol. 3, p. 2). But domestic consumption, it also points out, is rising still faster and in 1950 was 3 times what it was a mere 25 years before (vol. 3, pp. 2–3).

During World War II approximately one-third of our production was channeled to military purposes. There is no doubt, the experts tell us, that the military demand will be even higher if-God forbid-we are plunged into another global war.

If the submerged coastal oil lands are left in the hands of the Navy, our traditional first line of defense will have access to a supply of oil which has been estimated by some experts as possibly 10 to 15 billion barrels.

This is postulated, of course, on the orderly development of the underwater fields, with due regard for sound conservation practices. For reserves are nothing but figures on paper until wells begin to flow. An accessible reserve, however, may well spell the difference between victory and defeat in case of war, particularly if the life line of tanker routes of imported oil is cut by submarine action. At the very least, it will help to keep the day-to-day life of a nation at war in a state of reasonable balance. It will help run our defense industries and our railroads. It will help warm our homes.

Now, where does Mr. Truman's transfer of these lands to the Navy leave Senator Hill's "oil for the lamps of learning" amendinent? This is something the CIO has strongly favored from the beginning, and we believe that the transfer does not change the situation in the slightest.

The Navy will have to develop these reserves to get any benefit from them, doing the job itself, or, more likely, by arrangement with private industry. In either event there will be income, and this income can be devoted to educational ends just as well under the administration of the Navy as it could have been under the administration of the Interior Department.

I do not need to remind the committee of how much improved education would contribute to national defense. We are all familiar with the disturbing proportion of volunteers and draftees for the armed services rejected because of educational deficiencies during the last war and since then. We know that the armed services had to spend millions of dollars and tie up badly needed manpower teaching grown men the ABC's so they could understand simple orders and carry them out.

This is a task for our schools, not for the armed services. But the schools can't do it because there just isn't enough money available for buildings, for decent salaries for woefully underpaid teachers, for proper training or for adequate equipment.

The use of income from these lands for education would, I am sure, quiet the fears of many that went through this business 30 years ago. The eager support the oil interests have given the claims of the States in this case, behind the scenes, inevitably reminds people of some aspects of the Teapot Dome scandal. It is making them wonder if the same type of interest that debauched our Government to the extent that a few mink coats and deep freezes seem picayune is now trying to accomplish the same end in a somewhat more legal manner.

I ask you, could anything serve better to allay these fears than retaining the submerged oil lands under Federal supervision and devoting all or a major part of the revenue to strengthening education?

The CIO is convinced by experience that the interests of all the people so far as our natural resources are concerned are better safeguarded by Federal stewardship than by State. The special interests that covet these resources always fight to give their custody to the States, because they know by experience that they can get a better deal that way. They sound off at great and impressive length about States rights, but they debase this perfectly sound principle into a cloak for their boundless greed.

The Teapot Dome situation merely demonstrates the validity of our belief. The current attempt to prosecute what the Government has described as an oil cartel is another demonstration. We do not know what is behind all the maneuvering, but it is clear something is rotten, that there is some elaborate international arrangement in the nature of a cartel which works against the interest of the citizens of many countries besides our own.

The need for Federal control of the offshore reserves in the interests of defense is also pointed up by the situation in Iran.

Unless something is done quickly about Iran and her oil, a Communist revolution there is likely to blow up right in our faces. The fact that there is a crisis can be attributed to one basic reason-the same incredible indifference to public policy and public welfare as was demonstrated in Teapot Dome and is so often shown by the corporate proponents of isolated State control of resources in this country.

The free world cannot change conditions overnight in Iran; the best solution, as we see it, would be the establishment of a United Nations corporation, set up in TVA style, to market the oil and take democratic action for the benefit of the people of Iran. But unless something is done quickly, our armed services may need the oil lying off our shores sooner than we think.

There have been suggestions in some States that legislation to give the offshore oil lands to the States include provisions also giving the States all public lands within their borders. This is nothing short of preposterous, but it shows

30869-53-24

that the oil legislation is really giveaway legislation. The CIO is as opposed to these suggested amendments as it is to the original principle.

Let me conclude by stating that the CIO urges the retention of the offshore oil land in the naval oil reserve for purposes of orderly development and devotion to the income to Federal aid to education.

Thank you.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mrs. Levering of the Friends Committee on National Legislation is next.

As a preliminary will you tell us what your organization is? Is it what we call a Quaker organization, or is it just a group of friends? STATEMENT OF MRS. SAMUEL R. LEVERING, FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION, ARARAT, VA.

Mrs. LEVERING. No; it is the national organization in the Society of Friends that deals with the problems of national legislation in which the whole Society of Friends is interested.

My name is Mrs. Samuel R. Levering. My address is Ararat, Va., where my husband and own and operate an orchard on the southwest slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

I appear here today for the Friends Committee on National Legislation to speak out for legislation which will devote the income from the oil resources of the submerged lands-perhaps forty to sixty billion dollars value-to the education of America's children and youth, our greatest national resource.

There is a very long historical precedent for using some of the national heritage of public land and resources for education. It began in my home State of Virginia in 1618 and was used notably in the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. And being a graduate of Cornell University, which has received money under that act, I speak with special appreciation of that. This use of public funds has proved wise, and should be continued, to meet our Nation's serious educational needs now and for the future.

Funds from this source should be used for education just as soon as the Congress can pass legislation governing their use. These funds will do our country much more good if used for education than if added to defense appropriations. The real strength of our Nation rests in the quality of its citizens. Education is vital in developing the kind of citizens necessary in a democracy. I would like to pause to underscore that statement.

We urge prompt acceptance by the Congress of the principle that income from this great resource is to be used for education. Delay might mean that this great opportunity would be lost forever. There is an urgent, immediate need for additional funds for education. Other witnesses have documented that need with alarming figures on the shortages of schools and teachers, and the prospective increase in school enrollment. May I illustrate the plight of the schools from the experience of my own community and family?

I live in Carroll County in the southwest Virginia mountains. Our farming country is far from wealthy. Our mountains and hills produce relatively little to sell. We have little industry. Our tax rate runs about $5 per $100 assessed value. We simply cannot tax enough to support good schols. The State helps, but there is not enough

money.