ney general, Mr. Madden, and by many others who have already testified before your committee. I think that our position has been very well stated to all of you. Therefore, I shall not take more than a moment of your time. I cannot help, however, but reiterate the statements which have been made here that the failure of this Congress to enact the legislation which is now pending before this committee will work irrevocable harm upon the State of Louisiana and upon its fiscal structure. Without the enactment of this legislation, I am thoroughly convinced that my State faces something mighty near chaos in the administration of its fiscal affairs. I think that the need is more urgent now than ever. The Attorney General of the United States appeared here several days ago and stated that it was the intention of the Government to institute suit against my State and against our great sister State of Texas within the very near future. And if these rights and laws are not insured to the State of Louisiana, to the State of Texas, and to the other tideland States, I greatly fear the consequences, I should like to file my statement, Mr. Chairman. (The prepared statement of Representative Boggs is as follows:) STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN HALE BOGGS, OF LOUISIANA, BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIARY H. R. 5660 is a bill designed to "confirm and establish the titles of the States. to lands and resources in and beneath navigable waters within State boundaries and to provide for the use and control of said lands and resources,” From the very inception of the United States of America, it has been consistently recognized that the ownership, control, and development of all lands beneath navigable waters and tidewaters within the respective boundaries of the individual States together with all natural resources therein was in the States and the people, and that this ownership is a major factor of State sovereignty, preserved for the respective States by the tenth amendment to the Constitution. On June 23, 1947, the Supreme Court, in a widely discussed decision issued in the case of the U. S. v. California, held that the question of ownership, control, and disposition of these respective resources and lands is inherently within the congressional area of power. The issue involves unlimited amounts of property and resources in our 48 States, inclusive of 65,000 square miles of marginal seas on our three coasts; vast areas on inland navigable streams and great lakes with its fisheries, sponges, etc., as well as all resources such as coal, iron, copper, gold, and silver. In Louisiana alone, an estimated total of the State revenues obtained so far from oil, gas, and mineral development of State-owned lands, including water bottoms, is over $58,000,000. The development of these submerged lands in the produc tion of oil, gas, and minerals is the result of much long-range planning by all of these States. Louisiana has diligently worked to develop her sulfur industry, oyster culture, and shrimping, all of which have contributed to the prosperity of our State. To shift ownership and control to the Federal Government would deprive the States of this revenue needed for roads, public works, educational institutions, and other important services. The purpose of H. R. 5660 is to settle for once and for all the States' rights to ownership of these lands, so that not only may the individual States be lawfully assured jurisdiction over that which is rightfully theirs, but also that an end may be put to endless litigations in this regard. The bill clearly states that "title to and ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States, and the natural resources within such lands and waters, and the right and power to control, develop, and use these natural re 73335-48- -66 sources in accordance with applicable State law are hereby recognized, confirmed, established, and vested in the respective States, or the persons lawfully entitled thereto under the law as established by the decisions of the respective courts of such States, and the respective grantees, lessees, or successors in interest thereof." The bill also provides that the United States "releases and relinquishes unto said States and persons aforesaid all right, title, and interest of the United States, if any it has, in and to all said lands, improvements, and natural resources, and releases and relinquishes all claims of the United States, arising out of any operations pursuant to State authority upon or within said lands and navigable waters." Enormous sums of money have been spent by the individual States in the development of the natural resources within these lands and waters, and the States have always maintained full powers of ownership and control of these lands, with full authority of the courts of the United States, without interfering with Federal rulings affecting commerce, navigation, or national security. However, in view of the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of U. S. v. California, that the Federal Government has certain powers with respect to this land, it is most urgent that this matter be finally and completely determined in the passage of H. R. 5660, or similar legislation. It would be pointed out that this legislation provides that the United States shall retain control of these lands for purposes of "commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs" (not conflicting with the powers of the States previously granted). This insures the harmonious relationship between the Federal and State Governments affecting matters of our national security, and that the law shall in no way interfere with the constitutional powers of the Federal Government. The Attorney General of the United States, in testimony before this committee a few days ago, indicated that the Government would soon file suit against Louisiana, Texas, and possibly other States. This makes doubly important the immediate consideration of this legislation. His statement that this legislation seeks to give away rights vested in the Federal Government is absurd. He knows that prior to the recent California case, the Surpeme Court had repeatedly confirmed these rights to the States in a long line of decisions. The administration bills, which he urged, represent nothing more than cheap politics a scheme to permit the sharing of these resources by inland States, in order to secure votes for passage of the legislation. If Congress fails to enact the tideland legislation sponsored by the State of Louisiana and many others, our State will be done irreparable damage, and its fiscal structure will be hopelessly damaged. Senator DONNELL. Is your brief, which you have filed here, and which we have not had the opportunity yet of reading, on the legal subjects or on factual matter? Representative BOGGS. It is more factual than legal, although there are some legal references, Senator. Senator MOORE. We will stand now in recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:25 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. this same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Senator MOORE. The committee will be in session now. Mr. COVERT. Mr. Chairman, before starting with something else I was asked to present this package of material with the accompanying letter from Miss Grace. It is the material that was requested by Senator Donnell for the committee when she was here. I think the letter should be put in the record and the remainder of the material filed for the record. Senator MOORE. Very well. (The matter referred to is as follows:) Hon. ED. MOORE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, STATE LAND OFFICE, Baton Rouge, March 5, 1948. United States Senator, Oklahoma, Chairman of Subcommittee of Joint Judiciary Committee, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MOORE: As requested by Senator Donnell, I beg to enclose herewith the following: (1) A list of companies bidding on State leases since the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the California case. (2) A statement showing the amount paid by the successful bidders. (3) Certified photostatic copies of the leases made by the State mineral board since the California decision; execept 28 leases awarded but not yet executed. I wish to state, that, if Senator Donnell asked or inferred in his questions that these copies be submitted to the committee in order that the leases would show whether the area involved is within or without the 3-mile limit, let me emphatically state that said leases would not show such as being the case, nor could that be shown in these leases or any others for the reason that Louisiana does not now, nor has she ever, recognized such a line of demarcation. Louisiana owns and has always owned the lands in the marginal waters within the State's maritime belt; and to further substantiate this fact, I herewith enclose a copy of Act 55 of 1938, which declares Louisiana's position in this matter. With best wishes, I am Yours very truly, LUCILLE MAY GRACE, Register. (The material above referred to was filed for the record.) Senator MOORE. I have a letter here to submit for the record from Governor Dewey and also a statement from Harold Stassen, candidate for President on the Republican ticket. I also have a statement and an accompanying letter from Walter S. Hallanan, which he has heretofore announced that he would present. These will be put in the record at this point. (The matter referred to is as follows:) Hon. E. H. MOORE, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, Albany, February 28, 1948. DEAR SENATOR MOORE: I delayed answering your wire of February 12, inviting me to the subcommittee hearings on submerged lands because it was my hope that I might be able to be there. As things worked out, it was just impossible and with our legislature approaching its final 2 weeks of the session, we have reached a stage where we are working 7 days a week, day and night. I appreciate the courtesy of your invitation and hope I will have the pleasure of seeing you soon. With kindest personal regards. Sincerely yours, THOMAS E. DEWEY. STATEMENT OF HAROLD E. STASSEN AT BROWNSVILLE, TEX., ON THE TIDELANDS QUESTION ON FEBRUARY 27, 1948 It is my view that one of the important safeguards for individual rights is to avoid too great a concentration of centralized power in the National Government and to respect the rights of States. I consider the challenging by the Federal Government of the long-understood State title to tidelands to be a wrongful invasion of the rights of the States. Any instances in which the States have not made wise and proper use of their tidelands rights should be exposed and corrected. But this is not a sound reason for upsetting the multitude of State and contract property rights in submerged land. Legislation should be enacted correcting the uncertainties that have arisen from recent actions of the Federal Government. WASHINGTON, D. C., March 5, 1948. Hon. E. H. MOORE, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR MOORE: On February 26 I wrote you that in response to your suggestion that the joint subcommittee considering Senate bill 1988 should have the benefit of testimony from representatives of the oil industry, I would be glad to appear before the subcommittee at its convenience. Due to the fact that the hearings have continued longer than anyone anticipated and to the further fact that prior commitments made it impossible for me to remain in Washington after today, I am submitting herewith a statement which I would appreciate having made part of the record of these hearings. Thanking you for your consideration and that of the subcommittee, I am, Sincerely, WALTER S. HALLANAN. STATEMENT BY WALTER S. HALLANAN, PRESIDENT OF THE PLYMOUTH OIL CO. My name is Walter S. Hallanan. I am president of Plymouth Oil Co., an independent producer of crude oil. I am submitting this statement to your committee in response to your chairman's request for information from representatives of the oil industry as to the many practical questions involved in the determination of a national policy with respect to submerged lands. May I say in the beginning that Plymouth Oil Co. has a substantial interest in leases acquired from the State of Texas through competitive bidding and covering approximately 120,000 acres of tidelands off the coast of Texas. The oil industry is exerting every means at its disposal to assure our Nation an adequate supply of oil in times of peace and war. This it did in both World War I and World War II in a way that brought victory to us and our allies more quickly. Both wars were oil wars-and our superiority in oil was a vital weapon. It is the belief of the petroleum industry that the prompt exploration, development, and operation of the oil possibilities in submerged lands of this continent will greatly assist us in meeting the greatly increased demands for petroleum and its products. The action which the Congress takes with respect to these submerged lands is of the greatest importance to our national economy and security. Entirely aside from the questions of law and equity, which have been extensively discussed by those qualified to do so, I would like to discuss the question of policy. I take it that in weighing the effect of possible oil resources in these submerged lands upon the policy which the Congress will adopt, this committee will give primary consideration to our petroleum problems as related to the national defense and security. I urge the enactment of Senate bill 1988, not only as confirming to the States their historic rights to these lands but also as serving best the public interest. The opinion of the Department of National Defense as to what America now faces in the matter of petroleum requirements for military purposes, in the unhappy event of another war, has recently been stated very forcibly by Secretary of Defense Forrestal. In testifying before the special Subcommittee on Petroleum of the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives, on January 19, 1948, he said: * "Petroleum is the primary source of motive power for military forces. It is the lifeblood of a war machine. In World War II our armament depended on oil. Without oil, our Army could not have marched, our Navy could not have sailed, and our Air Force could not have flown to final victory. * With respect to the future, it is not anticipated that any new source will soon replace petroleum for military motive power. Indeed, rather than writing down the military value of oil, our future strategic needs of oil must be calculated on the basis of a greater rate of oil consumption than we had during the last war. The maximum military requirements of petroleum in the event of a war emergency are now estimated nearly to double the requirements of World War II.” This warning is staggering in its full implications. In the recent war the oil industry established production, refining, and transportation records that had theretofore been regarded as fantastic, and now, in peacetime, it is producing crude oil at the rate of 5,370,000 barrels per day-an increase of 617,000 barrels per day over the peak production during World War II. This increased volume of crude oil is equal to twice the current production of the great east Texas field and more than double the present output from the 28,000 producing wells in the State of Kansas. The increase in national crude oil production of over 600,000 barrels daily is equivalent to the total quantity now being supplied from the States of Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Illinois, combined. We are now on notice that our military petroleum requirements, should another emergency arise, will be twice those of World War II. The oil to fight that war must be found now. It must be developed now. When the emergency is upon us, that will be too late. Oil fields cannot be developed overnightneither can the facilities to transport and process their products. The problem is twofold: First, to discover as many new fields of oil as possible; second, to develop them in order to put us closer to the ideal position of having an excess efficient productive capacity that can be made available in the event of another emergency. The closer and the sooner we can get to that cushion of safety, the more secure we shall feel. As for discovery of new fields of oil, it is my opinion that with a sufficient supply of material, and freedom from restraints in exploratory work, many new fields will be found. In the words of Secretary Forrestal: "In the commercial field, it is believed that exploration for new pools still represents great potential for increasing our productive capacity." I do not subscribe to the defeatist philosophy that America is running out of oil. That is an old story that we have been hearing for 40 years. Whenever the greatly increasing consumption equals or temporarily exceeds the rate of production, that old prophecy is dusted off and revived. In every instance the prophecy has been disproved by the daring and genius of the American wildcatter. He has never failed to find the oil to carry our country through any crisis. You probably have heard it said recently that at the current rate of production our total proven reserves will last only 12 or 13 years. That, gentlemen, is simply not true. Such a conclusion ignores that which constitutes the lifeblood of our industry-namely, discoveries of new fields, and development and extensions of existing fields. The fact is that at end of 1947, after we had come through the greatest war in history with its tremendous demands for oil for our military and that of our allies, and after a postwar demand exceeding that of the war effort, we still had the largest proven reserves of oil in our history. Such a conclusion ignores the fact that as a practical matter our existing oil resources could not be produced in less than 40 or 50 years even if we never found another drop of oil. The statement that we have only 12 or 13 years' supply is a misuse of the ratio of current reserves to current production which for 1947 was 12.5 to 1. Its sole purpose is to supply a figure for comparison with similar ratios for previous years. In the past 30 years the highest ratio of proven reserves to annual production was 17.7 to 1 in 1919. The lowest ratio was 10.4 to 1 in 1923. The average annual ratio for the 30-year period is 13% to 1. If it were correct to assume that we now have only 12 or 13 years' supply, then in retrospect we would find that we had run out of oil in 1934, because in 1923 we had only 10%1⁄2 years' supply. Total estimated reserves in the United States at the end of 1947 were 24,741,000 barrels. (American Petroleum Institute Report, Committee on Petroleum Reserve, March 2, 1948.) This is an increase of 704,881,000 barrels over the reserves at the beginning of the year, despite the fact that 1947 production was 2,011,227,000 barrels. (American Petroleum Institute Report, Committee on Petroleum Reserve, March 2, 1948.) This was the greatest in history. In other words, we found during the year almost three-quarters of a billion barrels more than we produced. Despite this enormously increased production, we have not been able to provide any cushion of safety to meet an emergency because consumption has kept pace, and in some instances outstripped the increased productive rate. This factor of safety, as represented by excess productive capacity, is the key to petroleum security in national defense. There is no shortage of crude oil production in this country, but there is very definitely and ominously a shortage of a historical surplus of oil in relation to our vastly expanded demand. It is urgent that we find and develop new fields to provide that surplus. While no estimates are yet available, I may say at this point that new discoveries since the first of this year are running at a higher rate than in any comparable period for many years. Because of the time required for development, the production from these new fields will not be reflected to a great extent in terms of a larger supply of crude oil for another year or two. Important and |