100 



Mr. Gross. There was no intention of bringing the United Nations 

 into this statement that they would not stand for 



Mr. EiciiELBERGER. The United Nations is only an organization 

 of its members. The United Nations is not a sovereign body that could 

 object. It would be the members objecting through the United Nations. 



iVIr. Gross. Of course, I don't think the United Nations stands for 

 much of anything. It never has and probably never will, and that is 

 one of the reasons why I don't want to see any authority in this matter 

 vested in the United Nations, Mr. Eichelber^er. 



Mr. EiCHELBERGER. Mr. Congressman, this is not a frivolous remark 

 and I hope not an extraneous one. It was my privilege to speak to the 

 Lutheran College in Waverly yesterday, I believe in your constituency. 

 I spoke on the United Nations. I cannot think of anyone who has a 

 happier constituency 



Mr. Gross. Waverly, Iowa is a wonderful place and does an excel- 

 lent job of supporting me. 



Mr. EiCHELBERGER. I kuow it has. You have been here a long time. 



Mr. Gross. I appreciate it. 



Mr. Danzig, j^ou spoke of President Johnson's great concern. I was 

 here when the offshore oil bill went through Congress. He was a Mem- 

 ber of the U.S. Senate from Texas. I don't recall that he expressed 

 the same kind of concern for the landlocked States of the United 

 States when that bill went through. 



I wonder if he has changed ? 



Mr. Danzig. I am not m a position to answer your specific question, 

 but the statement that I quoted was verbatim and it was made on July 

 13, 1966, so that in point of time it was substantially subsequent to the 

 circumstances that you have described. 



Mr. Gross. Some of us, you know, thought we got a pretty raw 

 deal in the offshore oil legislation, the resources 



Mr. Danzig. Yes, I can see that that involves a complete complex 

 question in itself and, in fact, even those States that are closer to the 

 States have litigated the question. I see that Louisiana v. United States 

 is back on the Supreme Court calendar and it involves just that issue, 

 and I can understand how a State like Iowa, which incidentally is 

 also a State where I have also lectured at the Iowa Law School, might 

 be deeply concerned about something like that. 



Mr. Gross. They were not alone. There are other landlocked States 

 which have no potential from the standpoint of the offshore resources 

 of this country. We thought this might have been shared a little more 

 handsomely. I am interested to know of the President's new-found 

 concern for those foreigners who may someday participate in what 

 we are discussing here today. 



Mr. Danzig. You make an interesting point. 



Mr. Gross. It was interesting during the discussion of the offshore 

 oil bill on the House floor to learn of the 10-mile limit. I asked one of 

 the Texas Kepresentatives why Texas claimed 10 miles at sea. I sug- 

 gested to him that they, at the time when Texas became a State, were 

 interested in what was coming over the waters aside from catching 

 fish. They were interested in what was coming over the water by way 

 of an invading force, but they had no armament in those days capable 

 of reaohinir out 10 miles over the sea. 



