Opinion ID: 107057
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the house legislative history.

Text: The hearings and debates in the House were less extensive than those in the Senate, but the intention of the legislators there to restore to the States all submerged lands within their historic boundaries was no less explicit. Forty different bills, of which one [74] was identical with the Senate Joint Resolution passed by both Houses the year before and with the Senate bill introduced by Senator Holland, were considered by the House Subcommittee and Committee. The Committee chose the latter bill and with minor perfecting amendments reported it favorably to the House. [75] Typical of the testimony at the hearings was the statement by Attorney General Brownell that: The States want, and we believe they are entitled to, all the development rights, you might say, in these submerged lands within their historic boundaries. [76] The House Committee Report on the bill said: Title II confirms and establishes the rights and claims of the 48 States, asserted and exercised by them throughout our country's history, to the lands beneath navigable waters within State boundaries and the resources within such lands and waters. [77] In explaining the bill to the members of the House, Congressman Willis of Louisiana, a member of the Committee and a supporter of the bill, said: First, it restores to the States complete title to the submerged lands up to the limit of their historic boundaries. [78] And on the floor Congressman Wilson of Texas, also a Committee member and supporter of the bill, explained its purpose in the following exchange: Mr. WILSON of Texas.. . . Bear in mind that this is title II, the title that returns or restores this seaward boundary within the historical boundaries of the States to the States . . . . ..... Mr. HALLECK. If we stick to the provisions of the bill, then we are just being consistent with respect to the title to the land within the historic boundaries? Mr. WILSON of Texas. That is true. [79] The House bill, passed with this intention, was then sent to the Senate, which at that time was considering Senator Holland's bill, a virtually identical measure. After the Senate passed the Holland bill, with the two changes which the Court deems fundamental, Congressman Reed, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which had reported the House bill, asked the members of the House to accede to their bill as amended by the Senate. He prefaced his remarks by saying: Mr. Speaker, I trust that 3 minutes will be sufficient for me to say all that I deem necessary about this resolution. [80] He then proceeded in these words to tell the members of the House what had happened to their bill as adopted by the Senate: Titles I and II of the original bill, H. R. 4198, are now before us. There have been no substantial changes made by the Senate in these titles. They are practically the same as when passed by the House except in a few instances where a few words and phrases here and there have been changed or deleted for clarification. About the only thing that is substantially new in this bill is a reassertion by the Senate in section 9 which confirms the rights of the United States to the jurisdiction and control of the lands under the Continental Shelf outside of State boundaries. [81] Relying on these assurances by Chairman Reed that there had been no substantial changes made in the bill by the Senate, the House without further discussion of the portions of the bill here involved proceeded to adopt the Senate version, which after being signed by the President became the Submerged Lands Act of 1953. This, then, is the legislative history of the Submerged Lands Act, both in the Senate and in the House, which, according to the Court, shows that the sponsors and supporters of the Act completely altered their intention of restoring to the States the submerged lands within their historic boundaries, and instead left the States with what the Court allows them today. I think that the statements and actions of the supporters of the bill show on the contrary that the intention of restoring all submerged lands under all waters within historic state boundaries was plainly and explicitly stated and understood by all from the beginning, and, despite attacks from opponents of the bill, never varied. Time and time again the Senators and Congressmen repeated that the bill had not been changed in any way to diminish the rights granted to the States in the bill as originally introducedrights which, as the Court does not dispute, included the right to all submerged lands under all waters within historic state boundaries. I would follow the understanding of the authors and supporters of the bill, and I would take them at their word.