2,898,459 young men. Of this number, 422,450 failed the mental examination. In other words, 14.6 percent failed. In Kentucky, from the beginning of Korea to January 1, 1953, 72,055 young men have been examined for military service. Of this number, 17,969 failed the mental examination, or a percentage of 24.9, practically one-fourth. Now the percentage runs along that line in the States where we do not have equal educational opportunities, similar to the percentage in Kentucky, where we are lagging far behind other wealthier States. It seems to me that where conditions like these exist in different corners of these United States, this Congress should take some action. We now have the opportunity to do something about these conditions throughout the Nation. Here we have some valuable property belonging to all the people. Let us not give it away. Let us give it to the schools. Perhaps this will be our only opportunity, in view of the increased tax load the people of this Nation are carrying, to do something for our schools without raising the taxpayers' tax bills one penny. You gentlemen are all lawyers on this committee, and we all know this issue has been clearly decided by the courts. I know there has been considerable misunderstanding and confusion existing. Much of it has been brought on by the press. Only the other day I read in the Washington Post where Dr. Gallup conducted a poll, and the first question he asked was: Have you heard or read anything about the tidelands oil issue? Then he followed up with this question: Under the ocean off the shores of several States are lands which contain oil. Do you think this land should be the property of the Federal Government or of those States? The only logical inference from the first question as stated by Dr. Gallup is that tidelands mean lands covered by the flow and ebb of the tides. The Federal Government makes no such claim to any of this property. The Supreme Court decided that the tidelands belong to the States. I feel that if Dr. Gallup had clearly stated the question and the location of the property involved, his percentage figure would have varied considerably. It is only from the low-water mark seaward that concerns the Congress. Our Government is making no claim on the tidelands, because the tidelands belong to the States. Mr. GRAHAM. May I interrupt, Mr. Perkins, please? Mr. PERKINS. Yes, sir. Mr. GRAHAM. At any point did he mention the submerged lands, or was it all a reference to tidelands? Mr. PERKINS. Here is the way he put the question: To find out where the voters stand on the controversy today, reporters asked two questions in a coast-to-coast survey. The first was: "Have you heard or read anything about the 'tidelands oil' issue?" A total of 47 percent said they had, while 53 percent had not. In a similar study the institute found 39 percent who had heard or read about the dispute. Each person in the survey was then asked: "Under the ocean off the shores of several States are lands which contain oil. Do you think this land should be the property of the Federal Government or of those States?" Here is the division of opinion today, compared with 7 months ago, among those persons who had previously heard or read about the controversy: Federal Government, 42 percent in July 1952; today 40 percent. This is February 24, 1953. States, 49 percent, July 1952; 40 percent today. No opinion, 9 percent; and today, no opinion, 12 percent. Among all voters questioned in the survey, including those who had not previously followed the issue, the vote on Federal versus State control follows a similar pattern, with States' rights favored, as follows: Federal Government, 33 percent; States, 45 percent; no opinion, 22 percent. Among the rank and file of voters in both parties, the weight of opinion is in favor of State control as shown in the following table: Federal Government, 26 percent Republican; 36 percent Democrat; 37 percent independent. States, 53 percent Republican, 43 percent Democrat, 38 percent independent. No opinion, 21 percent Republican, 21 percent Democrat, 25 percent independent. There is no place in the statement where I see the words "submerged lands" used. So I just point that out to show how misleading this question has been presented to the people throughout the Nation, and the press in many instances unintentionally have not distinguished between tidelands and offshore oil. I think for that reason it has been very misleading. We have all the precedents we need to make available the royalties from this mineral for the benefit of the Nation as a whole for educational purposes. The Congress of the Confederation set aside public lands for school purposes. All up through the years the Congress set aside public lands for educational purposes. Income for the schools from the public lands was obtained in several ways-principally from sale or rental of the lands or from investment of funds obtained from the sale of them. Some of our finest universities, such as William and Mary, Yale, and Princeton, came into existence through the foresight of our forefathers in endowing them with public lands or the income from such lands. In all instances where the Congress has supported Federal aid to education in the past, such investments have paid high dividends in the form of greater national security and progress. The offshore oil lands for educational purposes would likewise pay high dividends. Secretary of State Jefferson in a note to the British Minister in 1793 pointed to the nebulous character of a nation's assertions of territorial rights in the marginal belt, and put forward the first official American claim for a 3-mile zone which has since won general international acceptance. (Reprinted in H. Ex. Doc. No. 324, 42d Cong. 2d sess. (1872), 553, 554. Quoted from p. 33, United States v. California, United States Reports 332.) I have with me the letter that Jefferson wrote, which I want to make a part of the record, a photostatic copy, procured from the Library of Congress on this date. TO EDMOND C. GENET GERMANTOWN, November 8, 1793. SIR. I have now to acknowledge and answer your letter of September the 13th, wherein you desire that we may define the extent of the line of territorial protection on the coasts of the United States, observing that governments and jurisconsults have different views on this subject. It is certain that, therefore, they have been much divided in opinion, as to the distance from their sea coast to which they might reasonably claim a right of prohibiting the commitment of hostilities. The greatest distance to which any respectable assent among nations has been at any time given, has 30869-53-22 been the extent of the human sight, estimated at upwards of twenty miles : and the smallest distance, I believe, claimed by any nation whatever, is the utmost range of a cannon ball, usually stated at one sea league. Some intermediate distances have also been insisted on, and that of three sea leagues has some authority in its favor. The character of our coast, remarkable in considerable parts of it for admitting no vessels of size to pass the shores, would entitle us in reason to as broad a margin of protected navigation as any nation whatever. Not proposing, however, at this time, and without a respectful and friendly communication with the powers interested in this navigation, to fix on the distance to which we may ultimately insist on the right of protection, the President gives instructions to the officers acting under his authority, to consider those heretofore given them as restrained, for the present, to the distance of one sea league, or three geographical miles, from the sea shore. This distance can admit of no opposition, as it is recognized by treaties between some of the powers with whom we are connected in commerce and navigation, and is as little or less than is claimed by any of them on their own coasts. Future occasions will be taken to enter into explanations with them, as to the ulterior extent to which we may reasonably carry our jurisdiction. For that of the rivers and bays of the United States, the laws of the several States are understood to have made provision, and they are, moreover, as being landlocked, within the body of the United States. Examining by this rule the case of the British brig, Fanny, taken on the 8th of May last, it appears from the evidence that the capture was made four or five miles from the land; and consequently, without the line provisionally adopted by the President, as before mentioned. I have the honor to be, with sentiments of respect and esteem, Sir, your most obedient, and most humble servant. Mr. PERKINS. The principle of the 3-mile seaward limit on sovereignty has been established and maintained by Federal action in the field of international relations. This, of necessity, is accompanied by jurisdictional rights. Protection and control of this area has become universally recognized as a function of national sovereignty. States are not equipped in our constitutional system with the proper facilities for exercising responsibilities which would accompany the dominion the States seek. The three decisions of the Supreme Court clearly set forth these facts. Paramount power over the submerged lands arises from the Federal Government's sovereign duty to regulate commerce, conduct foreign affairs, and provide for the national defense. At the time the American colonies won their independence from England there was no settled international custom or understanding among the nations that each owned a 3-mile belt along its borders, consequently the Thirteen Original Colonies did not own their marginal seas either. I think the letter from Jefferson is good evidence along that line that the National Government while Jefferson was Secretary of State first asserted jurisdiction over the 3-mile belt limit. Of course, we have over there in the old countries, Spain and England, but as I understand nothing definitely was ever decided upon as a limit. Some of them I do think did claim 3 miles, but there was nothing definite about it. There was nothing definite about it among the colonies. Jefferson was the first to put into practice this national pattern. The National Government has asserted and acquired national dominion and control over the marginal sea. Its protection has been and is a function of national external sovereignty, because of the area's close relationship to national defense and conduct of foreign affairs, as stated above. It is best that the petroleum resources of the Continental Shelf be developed uniformly and administered in the national interest, and these decisions clearly back up that statement; that is, the majority opinions. Any legislation at this time vesting ownership in the States would constitute an outright gift of property owned by 48 States to a chosen few, an act of discrimination contrary to the national interest. State ownership of offshore lands and their resources would deprive the Federal Government of minerals necessary for the national defense. All of the States since the original 13 were admitted on an equal footing. Those 13 States never possessed any ownership rights in the marginal sea. Historically, this is a right established in international law by national action. To permit certain States to have the right to the offshore lands would controvert the provisions of the Constitution that all States should be admitted to the Union on an equal footing. To do so would permit extension of State sovereignty into the domain of United States sovereignty, from which other States have been excluded, and any other ruling would create inequality among the States. Assertion of Federal rights over the area in question would not result in any hardship for those operating under previous arrangements with the States. In fact, I think all the bills introduced provide for the equities of lessors who leased from the various States. I do know the bill I introduced takes care of those equities, and I think all the other bills do. The power of the Federal Government to hold its public lands and deal with them in such manner as the Congress may determine to be in the public interest has been long sustained and cannot be questioned. Public land belongs to all of the States and should be held in trust for all the people. Mr. Chairman, after I introduced House Joint Resolution 89, I noticed that the President of the United States issued an Executive order transferring the Nation's offshore oil deposits from the Interior to the Navy Department. Oil, as we all know, is the lifeblood of the Navy. Today we are importing oil by the millions of barrels monthly. We are no longer an exporting nation, but an importing nation, insofar as oil is concerned. Something could happen within the next few years where we will need this oil as much as some of the European countries are needing oil today. It may be like looking back over the folly of a misspent youth, required to turn right around and buy this oil back at handsome prices after we haye given away this valuable mineral. The national defense of this country today, from the standpoint of national interest, will not permit any such gift to anyone. I am hopeful that this committee will concern itself with the main issue-that we intend to keep the oil, and decide how to use it best for the national interest. My bill was introduced before the President made the transfer. I am in favor of amending the bill to provide that House Joint Resolution 89 shall take effect as of the date the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf are withdrawn from the status of a naval petroleum reserve. Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. Miss Thompson, have you any questions? Miss THOMPSON. Mr. Perkins, I wonder if you can give us the total amount of Federal aid to education? Mr. PERKINS. I cannot right offhand. That runs into the billions. for this reason. Considering all of the money spent in the federally impacted areas throughout the country, and all the money expended for the education of our soldiers after they have been inducted into military service, and after their discharge under the GI bills, and the construction programs that have been or that are now being carried on in and around the defense areas throughout the Nation, and considering all the revenue that has been derived from these land grants and so forth, that would require some considerable study which would be impossible for me to answer at this time, Miss Thompson.. But considerable sums of money have been spent for Federal aid to education, considering the amount that has been spent by the military forces and Veterans' Administration. That is the reason I say it would run into the billions. Miss THOMPSON. Mr. Foley, do you have that figure? Mr. FOLEY. As of last year, current revenue from land grants, both State and Federal, ran about $23 million a year, and the estimated Federal aid to education, as to need, runs about $300 million annually. Mr. PERKINS. You are not considering the aspects of Federal aid that I mentioned here before the committee at all. The $300 million that you have in mind there is an estimated need for paying the school teachers additional money and providing facilities for a minimum foundation program throughout the Nation, and not taking into consideration the construction money that has been spent by the military forces or the Air Force or any of those. Miss THOMPSON. Which, as you say, will run into the billions. Miss THOMPSON. Do you have any idea what the income from the submerged lands is? Mr. PERKINS. I do not. I think that is impossible for anyone to give you an acurate figure along that line. I come from an oil- and gas-producing territory, and I have seen good wells in a good territory and I have seen within 200 or 300 yards of this good well in good territory-I will say within a quarter of a mile-turn out to be almost a dry hole. It is hard to estimate. Of course, this territory should be explored and developed orderly from the standpoint of national defense. But as a general rule in proven territory the majority of the wells come in good. But in many instances, I have seen dry holes come in in proven territory in my home county. Miss THOMPSON. Of course, we are interested in Texas, Louisiana, and California. Do you have the latest figures on those, Mr. Foley, of the income? Mr. FOLEY. The income from rentals, leases, and royalties on these lands of Texas, Louisiana, and California have been estimated to have been collected as approximately $110 million. Mr. PERKINS. But as I understand from reading the Supreme Court decisions here-I think that is the best authority-the issue did not present itself as to the public until about 1938, when the oil was discovered from the low-water mark seaward off the coast of California, and I think perhaps in Louisiana along about that time, and very little of this territory has been explored. For that reason no one can |