ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

of several of the coastal States in an effort to devise compromise legislation which would be satisfactory to everybody. That effort was not fruitful, but there was one point on which we did tentatively agree in the process of our negotiations. The representatives of the executive branch were willing to go along with the provision in a proposed bill under which the Congress of the United States would specifically authorize the coastal States to regulate the taking of sand, gravel, kelp, and marine life from the portions of the marginal sea within their boundaries. I see no reason to withdraw from the position which I took at that time, namely, a position of willingness to go along with a legislative proposal of that sort.

Senator LONG. Do you feel that the Federal Government has the right, if it cares to assert it, to compel the States to quit removing shells, oysters, sand, and other natural resources of that type from the sea?

Mr. WHITE. Well, here is what the Supreme Court said in each of the three decrees rendered in the submerged lands cases. It said that the United States has paramount rights in and full dominion and power over the lands underlying the Pacific Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico, lying seaward of the ordinary low-water mark and outside of the inland waters, and extending seaward to the 3-mile limit in the case of California, or 28 marine miles in the case of Louisiana, or to the outer edge of the Continental Shelf in the case of Texas.

Consequently, it is undoubtedly true that the United States would have the power to prevent any coastal State from taking, or authorizing private persons to take, resources of the lands underlying those

waters.

Senator LONG. I do not have any further questions to ask, but you may care to add something else.

Mr. WHITE. I believe not, Mr. Chairman, except one thing: In your discussion with the Solicitor General earlier this afternoon, and just a moment ago in a question that you put to me, you referred to the creation of the national sovereignty by the States. I should like to close my statement by putting into the record at this point, and perhaps as a fitting historical sequel to the treaty of peace with Great Britain, which has already been made a part of the record, the substance of the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America.

It runs something like this: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Senator LONG. Well, you know, of course, that Constitution was not effected until it was ratified by the States, do you not?

Mr. WHITE. That is correct, sir.

Senator LONG. And some States withheld their ratification until the Bill of Rights was added to it which included article X, which stated that all powers not delegated by that Constitution were reserved to the States and the people.

Mr. WHITE. It is clear that the powers not delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution are reserved to the States or to the people. However, the Federal sovereignty was not created by the States, but by the people.

Senator LONG. That was created by the representatives of the States, it is true, and ratified by the States in the Constitution. Furthermore, the States did have sovereignty at the time they created that, that was created by the people. What would you say about the sovereignty that existed in the States who ratified and confirmed that Constitution?

Mr. WHITE. The States did have a type of sovereignty.

Senator LONG. They did not surrender their sovereignty in doing that?

Mr. WHITE. The States do have a type of sovereignty. I do not think there is any doubt about that.

Senator LONG. Thank you, Mr. White.

The committee will stand in recess.

(The following report from the Bureau of the Budget on S. J. Res. 20 was received subsequent to the hearings on this resolution. It is carried at this point to complete the record.)

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington 25, D. C., March 8, 1951,

Hon. JOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY,

Chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee,

United States, Senate, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR O'MAHONEY: This is in answer to your letter of January 19, 1951, inviting the Bureau of the Budget to comment on Senate Joint Resolution 20, to provide for the continuation of operations under certain mineral leases issued by the respective States covering submerged lands of the Continental Shelf, to encourage the continued development of such leases, to provide for the protection of the interests of the United States in the oil and gas deposits of said lands, and for other purposes.

This bill appears to provide adequate authority, on a temporary basis pending the enactment of permanent legislation on this subject, for the continuation of oil and gas operations and development in offshore submerged lands. This authority is important to our national defense effort in encouraging exploration and development of mineral deposits in submerged lands to meet the existing urgent needs for these resources.

It is noted that with respect to revenue derived from operations conducted under its authority, whether from continued State leases or from new leases, the bill provides that 371⁄2 percent of the moneys received from operations within the seaward boundaries of a State would be paid to that State; all other moneys from operations in the submerged lands would be held in a special account in the Treasury pending the enactment of permanent legislation dealing with the disposition of these receipts. This provision, similar to the Mineral Leasing Act which accords to a State 371⁄2 percent of the royalties obtained from leases of Government lands within its boundaries, would constitute congressional recognition of any equitable interests which may exist in the State off whose shores operations under this legislation are conducted.

In the case of existing leases, the bill would substitute the Federal Government for the States after December 21, 1948 (the date on which suit was filed by the United States against Louisiana and Texas). However, the Supreme Court decision in the California case on June 23, 1947, gave notice that the interests of the Federal Government might be involved in continued operations by the States in the submerged lands after the date of that decision. Accordingly, it is suggested that the desirability of prescribing June 23, 1947, as the cut-off date in the bill rather than December 21, 1948, be considered in evaluating the respective equities of the States and the United States Government in this matter.

Subject to the consideration by the Congress of the above general issue, the Bureau of the Budget perceives no objection to the enactment of this measure. Sincerely yours,

F. J. LAWTON, Director.

(Whereupon, at 5:20 p. m., the committee recessed, subject to the call of the chairman.)

SUBMERGED LANDS

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1951

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a. m., in room 224, Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Joseph C. O'Mahoney, James E. Murray, Ernest W. McFarland, Clinton P. Anderson, Russell B. Long, Herbert H. Lehman, Guy Cordon, Zales N. Ecton, and Arthur V. Watkins.

Also present: Robert M. Vaughan, Special Assistant to the Attorney General; Col. Wade M. Fleischer, Deputy Director, Legislative and Liaison, and Richard A. Buddeke and Frank A. Bartimo, Office of General Counsel, Office of the Secretary of the Defense.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

This session was called this morning because members of the committee desired to have a little more information of record from the Department of Defense and from the Department of State with respect to aspects of the problem of the submerged lands now before this committee.

We were particularly desirous that the Defense Department should discuss with us the problem of the oil supply from the point of view of the national defense.

Mr. William T. Van Atten, Vice Chairman of the Munitions Board, has come here at the direction of the Department of Defense to testify this morning.

Are you prepared to proceed, Mr. Van Atten?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM T. VAN ATTEN, VICE CHAIRMAN FOR STAFF MANAGEMENT, MUNITIONS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Mr. VAN ATTEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Very good, sir.

Mr. VAN ATTEN. I would like your permission, Mr. Chairman, first to say that I am testifying for Mr. John D. Small, or I am making this statement for Mr. Small, Chairman of the Munitions Board, who, because of a previous engagement, with which I think you are familiar

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; he telephoned me yesterday.

Mr. VAN ATTEN. Was unable to come. He wanted me to express his regrets to you and the members of this committee because of the fact that he would not be able to attend this meeting. He has pre

pared, however, a paper which, with your permission, I would like to read for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. You may.

Mr. VAN ATTEN. Briefly, the bill, S. 940, raises for the consideration of this committee problems as to scope, purpose, and extent of Federal legislation with respect to so-called tidelands oil.

I am informed that the position of the executive branch of the Government has been outlined to this committee by the Secretary of the Interior and the Solicitor General of the United States.

The position of the executive branch with respect to plans and programs for the development and use of tidelands oil has been carefully considered over the last 4 years by the three most interested executive departments of the Government: Interior, Justice, and Defense. The views that have been reflected by administration spokesmen in these years have been developed jointly and designed to provide the Congress with the best advices that those three most interested departments have to offer on this subject.

The Department of the Interior is the agency of the executive branch of the Government primarily concerned with the scientific development, conservation, and exploitation of United States mineral resources, including petroleum, and is the principal executive adviser and operating agency on such matters. I think, perhaps, I should apologize to you gentlemen for stating something in this statement which you are thoroughly aware of and with which you are thoroughly familiar.

I understand that Secretary Chapman has explored these aspects of the problem with the committee. The Department of Defense would like to emphasize that it is not primarily responsible, nor the bestinformed agency with respect to the legal, planning, or operating aspects of this subject. It has, however, reviewed the materials submitted by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice and concurs therein.

Senator LONG. Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt at this point, so far as I can see, this is the only committee that does not rate the testimony of a Cabinet officer or the officers directly involved.

Here we have a statement for Mr. Small being presented by his representative. We have had testimony of the Attorney General presented by Mr. Perlman, and the testimony of the Secretary of Interior presented by Mr. White for the Secretary of Interior, and, so far as I can see, this is the only committee that cannot have the testimony of a Cabinet officer.

I would like to know why this committee is of less stature than other committees I have served upon. I served on the Post Office Committee, and any time we wanted to talk to the Postmaster General he was there; I now serve on the Small Business Committee, and we can see anybody we want to see, and we do not need to have any legislative authority; and with respect to the Banking and Currency Committee, we could see anybody we want to.

I do not see why we cannot talk to any one of the Cabinet officers on this particular business. Why do they send a representative for them, an attorney or solicitor for them, or something of that sort, if we want to know the views of the department?

The CHAIRMAN. Because we did not request the Cabinet officer to me, and the suggestion was never made.

When these conferences were held, when they were opened, with respect to S. 940, the chairman announced, and it was announced by members of the committee, before the conferences began, that we wanted the testimony of the law officers.

If I am not mistaken in my recollection, Senator Long, it was your suggestion that you wanted to examine Solicitor General Perlman with respect to his views.

Senator LONG. I wanted to examine him when he came here, Mr. Chairman; but I will say that the procedure I have observed in the other committees has been that if we wanted the views of the department, that Cabinet officer came down and had his advisers here. If he wanted an attorney around, he had an attorney to advise him, but he usually spoke for his own group.

When the Justice Department goes before the Judiciary Committee the Attorney General has to be there with the Solicitor General or if he goes before a committee to testify on antitrust matters he has his Antitrust Division man there; but usually the Attorney General presents a statement and testifies on his own behalf.

I know this, that with regard to any policy—after all we are being told that these departments have a policy against these things—well, certainly the policy spokesman is the Cabinet officer himself; and certainly if there are any shades of policy, any attorney he sends here cannot give us what the shade of policy may be, other than to speak for the department, and without going back and checking with his secretary or his boss and see if he told him what he wanted him to do. Now, it is fine to have this statement presented here, but so far as I am concerned, you might as well just put it in the record. I don't see how, in the cross-examination, the witness can speak for Mr. Small, when Mr. Small is not here; and I consider Mr. Small to be a very able witness. I have had the honor of listening to Mr. Small, as a member of the Committee on Small Business, and cross-examining Mr. Small, and getting his views with respect to these things; and it just seems to me that when a witness has read that statement, he cannot add one thing to it that I might want to know so far as the views of the Munitions Board are concerned, certainly not without checking with Mr. Small, and without that his views would not be binding upon him.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, I can only say that the chairman must assume full responsibility for the procedure here this morning. I can assure you that this committee will summon any Cabinet officer, request him to come or otherwise, whenever it would seem to be necessary.

Yesterday Captain Small called me and explained that he had had a long-time engagement to appear before a group of industrialists and newspapermen this morning, and asked me if I would object if he would send the Vice Chairman instead, and I said I was sure there would be no objection, because I knew that the testimony to be elicited from Mr. Van Atten is the testimony with respect to the need for oil. Now, any time we want to open up this question, the committee will, of course, be very glad to do it.

Senator WATKINS. May I make an observation?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator WATKINS. It has been my experience since I have been here that when we do have the Cabinet officers they usually have to have someone along to tell us what they know about it. I do not mean

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »