Senator ANDERSON. I am reading from a statement by Mastin White which Senator Murray inserted in the record yesterday, trying to find out whether or not the turn that had been given to this letter by the Attorney General was correct. The newspaper headlines Senator DANIEL. May I have a copy of that? I want to follow you. Senator ANDERSON. If I had one, I would be glad to furnish it. I will come around and sit with you. (A copy of the statement was furnished to Senator Daniel.) Senator ANDERSON. I am reading at paragraph 3: Relating to the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf and setting them aside as a naval petroleum reserve, none of the lawyers who participated in the discussions ever expressed any doubt concerning the power of the President to set the lands of the Continental Shelf aside for the future use of the Navy under the designation of a naval petroleum reserve. However, some of the lawyers did express the view that, in the event of the issuance of such an Executive order, the reserves so created would not be subject to administration under the provisions of section 524 of title 34, United States Code. This view was based upon indications in the legislative history of section 524 tending to show that Congress, in the enactment of this provision, intended to legislate only with respect to the naval petroleum reserves already in existence. With regard to this point, the prevailing sentiment among the lawyers participating in the project seemed to be that it was unnecessary to decide whether, if the President should set aside the lands of the Continental Shelf as a naval petroleum reserve, the reserve so created would be subject to administration under section 524 of title 34, United States Code. Even if it were assumed that the new reserve would be subject to the provisions of section 524, it would still be necessary, under the provisions of that section, to secure the approval of the Congress in the form of a joint resolution before any expansion of existing production from the reserve could be accomplished. Therefore, legislative action by the Congress would be essential, in any event, before any expansion of existing production from the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf could be undertaken, irrespective of whether such expansion should be attempted under section 524 or under some new provision of law enacted by the Congress in the form of a joint resolution or an act. I hope it will be quite evident when we get all this material before us that the answer of the Attorney General to the Secretary of Defense is in reply to that question as to whether the Navy can proceed to administer them. Senator DANIEL. I believe you will agree with me on this, Senator Anderson, that the total effect of the President's order setting this aside or attempting to set aside these lands as a naval oil reserve was to give the Navy exactly what powers over the land the Secretary of the Interior has had since 1945, no more and no less. Senator ANDERSON. I think that is correct. Senator LONG. Senator Daniel, the effect of these Supreme Court decisions has been discussed by you and Senator Anderson. Did the courts ever hold that the States had no rights with regard to the submerged land within their boundaries and along their shores? Senator DANIEL. No, sir. They just said they did not have title, did not own them. Senator LONG. As a matter of fact, has it not been suggested even by representatives of the Truman administration that the States definitely have rights, and that the Federal Government did not care to take an interest in other resources except oil? Senator DANIEL. I am not sure about that, sir. Senator LONG. I believe if you check Mr. Perlman's testimony when he was appearing on behalf of the Truman administration, he so testified. He felt the States ought to administer the marine life and the sponges, kelp, sand, gravel, and things of that sort, and that the Federal Government should not take any interest in that; that the Federal Government should take an interest only in the oil. Senator DANIEL. But, Senator Long, I do not think the important thing is what Solicitor General Perlman thinks the Federal Government should take. The important thing, to me, is what he says that, under these decisions, the Federal Government can take when they want to. Senator Anderson, you wanted this quotation from Mr. Perlman as to the fact that the Federal Government, under "paramount rights," could claim fish, kelp, and everything. In this hearing of 1951 on Senate Joint Resolution 20 before this committee, at page 414, Senator Long asked Mr. Perlman: As I understand your answer, it is that with regard to sand, gravel, coal, clay, oysters, shell, kelp, and matters of that sort that lie in the marginal sea, the Federal Government could claim all those resources under its paramount right if it wanted to, but you do not anticipate that it will claim them. Is that your answer to that question? I just wanted to get the answer in one place where we could all understand just what your opinion is on that question. Mr. Perlman's answer: Well, my answer to that would be "yes." I do desire to make one reservationConcerning kelp, he said. Senator ANDERSON. No; he said more than that. I do desire to make one reservation, Senator, if I may. You included kelp, and I am not certain about things that are not affixed to the soil, and that would include fish and other marine life. Senator ANDERSON. That is right. Senator DANIEL. I will get you one where he says that the Federal Government has the right to take complete control of the fishing industry below low tide. I see this one is not the one, but I will have it for you in just a little while. Senator ANDERSON. All right. Senator DANIEL. He makes the reservation on kelp, not knowing whether it is floating around, but with that reservation, with that exception, his answer is "Yes," that they can take all these other things. I will bring you the one on fish in a little while, because I remember it quite well. Of course, under the tidelands decisions the Federal Government has the right to take the fish below low tide if they want to. The Supreme Court has already said that South Carolina could not pass laws below low tide concerning fisheries if the Congress of the United States, in the exercise of its rights, passes conflicting legislation. I refer to the case of Toomer v. Witsell (334 U. S. 385 (1948)). dive mun Senator LONG. Senator, I want to explore further this question. Even if the States did have those rights-as a matter of fact, even the Truman administration testified they did have certain rights with regard to this property-if they had no rights, would there not still be a fair question as to what the Federal policy should be with regard to such property? Senator DANIEL. Definitely. Senator LONG. As to whether or not the States should receive some contribution with regard to it? Senator DANIEL. Definitely. Senator LONG. Twenty-three percent of the land area of the United States, as I understand it, is federally owned. Is it not true that where that land is located, the States in that general area receive practically the full benefit of all minerals produced from that land, from the revenue point of view? Senator DANIEL. Almost all of it. Senator ANDERSON. Are you sure of that? Have you amended the law? Senator LONG. Might I ask a question first? Is it not true that 3712 percent of the revenues from minerals produced go directly to the States? Senator DANIEL. That is correct. Senator LONG. And by and large, that land is located in States that have large area and small population? Senator DANIEL. That is right. Senator LONG. Which are reclamation States. And the other 5712 percent goes into the reclamation fund. Senator DANIEL. Fifty-two and a half percent, is it not? Senator LONG. Fifty-two and a half. Senator DANIEL. Goes into the reclamation fund to be spent in States west of the Mississippi. Is that right? The Western States; the reclamation States. Senator ANDERSON. I just hope that California is not put into that category of States with small population. It is a public land State. If the Senator from California does not want to defend its population, I will. Senator LONG. There is another 10 percent that goes into administration. Senator DANIEL. Yes. Senator LONG. The point I had in mind is that as far as a State like my own is concerned, it is more a philosophic question what happens to minerals produced in those States. Generally it has gone to the development of those great States, and I am happy to see it used to develop those States. But the Federal Government has been most generous with regard to the minerals produced on Federal land located within the various States of this Nation. The historic Federal policy has been that such land should be progressively reduced to private ownership, so far as I can determine. Senator DANIEL. That is correct. Senator BARRETT. Will the Senator yield? I disagree with the position taken by the Senator from Louisiana, if he takes the position that the Federal Government has been generous with the public-land States of the West in the disposition of the proceeds from the minerals. As a matter of fact, the public-land States of the West are the only States in the Union wherein the Federal Government has asserted the title to the minerals under the soil of the sovereign States. It seems to me that it could more properly be said that the Federal Government has been very niggardly as far as the disposition of the income from the minerals produced in the public-land States. As a matter of fact, we do not get 372 percent of the minerals produced. The Congress has set aside 3712 percent of the amount it receives, which is 372 percent of 122 percent. The income is mainly used to support the schools in the Western States. I cannot see any Senator LONG. I am not asking for it, but would you inform me what Louisiana gets out of that, for example? Senator BARRETT. Louisiana has full title to the minerals under its soil; and, if you are going to have States in the West admitted on a free and equal basis with the other States, then they should have full rights to the minerals produced from their own soils. Otherwise Senator LONG. Senator, the point I am making is that, as far as Louisiana and the other States that are not interior States are concerned, we derive no revenue from the minerals produced in those States and are not asking for it. Senator BARRETT. The people of your State derive the income from the minerals produced under the soil of your own States. That is a cinch. How are we ever going to become a free and equal State of the Union when the Federal Government maintains as a permanent policy the ownership of 70 percent of the minerals produced in our States, as they do in Wyoming? Senator LONG. The point I am making, Senator, is that the exercise of Federal power in your State, particularly as it relates to minerals, is of no benefit to the people of my State that I can determine. Perhaps that bureaucratic exercise of power does us some good in Louisiana. What it is, I am unable to detect. Senator ANDERSON. Can we not help him out by pointing out that, in the State so ably represented by the present witness, there are reclamation projects in the State of Texas. Senator DANIEL. Very few, sir. Senator ANDERSON. The number does not count, does it? Kansas is getting a very nice showing of reclamation projects. I think they even have them in Nebraska, I am happy to say. Senator DANIEL. It is not because Senator ANDERSON. I understand Louisiana is a member of the Arkansas-Red-and-White River program. Senator LONG. No, sir; we just fought like the very dickens to keep out of that outfit, you will find, and we have succeeded up until now. Senator DANIEL. Senator, it is not because the Reclamation Bureau will not come into Texas. They have offered to and have been mighty nice about wanting to come there and spend a lot of money, but the people of our State thus far have not seen fit to take on their kind of programs, with all of the Federal controls that are involved. May I go ahead? I have to come back tomorrow on the Continental Shelf, and I would like to try to get off the stand. Senator LONG. Might I make this additional point. Is it not true that the Federal Government has over the years exercised a policy of turning land over to the States which has in many cases eventually resulted in its being turned over to private ownership? Senator DANIEL. Yes, sir. That is the way our country has been built up. Senator LONG. I have a chart here with regard to the State of New Mexico, for example, showing the Federal land there over to that State. (The chart submitted by Senator Long is as follows:) And New Mexico, too! Her “gifts” include And, furthermore, the United States still owns 23 million acres (round figures) in New Mexico from which the State, directly or indirectly, is receiving the full benefit. In addition to the foregoing Federal acreage in New Mexico, there are 10 million acres in Federal forestry lands. Senator LONG. There were 12,789,916.20 acres turned over to the State of New Mexico for various and sundry purposes, all of which, so far as I am able to determine, were good purposes. The State needed that land, and that property was turned over to those States. How many acre are there inside your belt there in Texas? Senator DANIEL. I will say this to you: That figure of 12 million that has been given to New Mexico is more than the tideland belt within original boundaries of both your State and My State put together, I believe, but let me check it for sure [referring to papers]. Senator ANDERSON. If you are going to get into that question, was there any difference when Texas came into the Union as to whether it got its public lands and New Mexico did not? Am I not correct in saying that California came into the Union without 1 acre of public lands, but it has some public lands today, does it not? Senator KUCHEL. If I recall the manner in which California was admitted to the Union, I am sure that the school lands were set aside, Senator, at the time our State was admitted. Senator HOLLAND. One section? Senator ANDERSON. I do not believe that. Senator LONG. What is more, there are still 23 million acres in the State of New Mexico, for example, where 37% percent of all revenues go directly back to that State, and 522 percent of the rest of it goes |