delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question in this case, arising under our original jurisdiction, is whether California or the United States has dominion over the submerged lands and waters within the Channel Islands National Monument, which is situated within the three-mile marginal sea off the southern California mainland.1 For the reasons that follow, we hold that dominion lies with California and not the United States.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the President to reserve lands “owned or controlled by the Government of the United States” for use as national monuments.2 Pursuant to this Act, President Franklin Roosevelt in 1938 issued Presidential Proclamation No. 2281, 52 Stat. 1541. This Proclamation “reserved from all forms of appropriation under the public-land laws” most of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Is*34lands, which were then federal lands,3 and set them aside as the Channel Islands National Monument.4 As the Proclamation recognized, these islands “contain fossils of Pleistocene elephants and ancient trees, and furnish noteworthy examples of ancient volcanism, deposition, and active sea erosion . . . .” Ibid.

The two large islands and the many smaller islets and rocks surrounding them also shelter a variety of marine life, some rare or endangered. Prompted by a desire to protect these species 5 and other “objects of geological and scientific interest,” President Truman issued a Proclamation in 1949, enlarging the Monument to encompass “the areas within one nautical mile of the shoreline of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands . . . .” Presidential Proclamation No. 2825, 63 Stat. 1258. It is undisputed that the islets and protruding rocks *35within these one-mile belts have long belonged to the United States and, as a result of President Truman’s Proclamation, are now part of the Monument.6 It is equally clear that the tidelands of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, as well as of the islets and rocks, belong to California.7 What is disputed in this litigation is dominion over the submerged lands and waters within the one-mile belts surrounding Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands.8

When President Truman issued Proclamation No. 2825 in 1949, the submerged lands and waters within these belts were under federal dominion and control, as a result of this Court’s decision two years earlier in United States v. California, 332 *36U. S. 19. That case had held that the United States was “possessed of paramount rights in, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals and other things underlying the Pacific Ocean lying seaward of the ordinary low-water mark on the coast of California, and outside of the inland waters, extending seaward three nautical miles . . . United States v. California, 332 U. S. 804, 805.

There can be no serious question, therefore, that the President in 1949 had power under the Antiquities Act to reserve the submerged lands and waters within the one-mile belts as a national monument, since they were then “controlled by the Government of the United States.”9 Thus, whether Proclamation No. 2825 did in fact reserve these submerged lands and waters, or only the islets and protruding rocks, could be, at the time of the Proclamation, a question only of Presidential intent, not of Presidential power.

In addressing the controversy now before us, the parties have devoted large parts of their briefs to canvassing this question of intent: What did the Proclamation mean by the use of the word “areas”? 10 We find it unnecessary, however, *37to decide this question. For even assuming that President Truman intended to reserve the submerged lands and waters within the one-mile belts for Monument purposes, we have concluded that the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., subsequently transferred dominion over them to California.

The very purpose of the Submerged Lands Act was to undo the effect of this Court's 1947 decision in United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19. In enacting it, Congress “recognized, confirmed, established, and vested in and assigned to,” § 6 (a), 67 Stat. 32, 43 U. S. C. § 1314 (a), the States “(1) 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 (2) the right and power to manage, administer, lease, develop, and use the said lands and natural resources . . . § 3 (a), 67 Stat. 30, 43 U. S. C. § 1311 (a). The submerged lands and waters within one mile of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands plainly fall within this general grant.11

*38The United States contends, however, that the Submerged Lands Act did not operate to relinquish these submerged lands and waters to California because of an exception to the broad statutory grant that Congress provided in § 5 (a) of the Act.12 The final clause of § 5 (a), upon which the United States relies, exempted from the grant “any rights the United States has in lands presently and actually occupied by the United States under claim of right.” 13 The legislative history shows that this “claim of right” clause was added to preserve unperfected claims of federal title from extinction under § 3's general “conveyance or quitclaim or assignment.” 14 In the words of the Acting Chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and *39Insular Affairs, the clause “neither validates the claim nor prejudices it,” but merely “leaves it where we found it” for eventual adjudication.15

The entire purpose of the Submerged Lands Act would have been nullified, however, if the “claim of right” exemption saved claims of the United States based solely upon this Court’s 1947 decision in United States v. California. Not surprisingly, therefore, the legislative history unmistakably shows that the “claim of right” must be “other than the claim arising by virtue of the decision in [that case] . . . 16 Thus, this exception applies to the submerged lands and waters in controversy here only if the United States’ claim to them ultimately rests on some basis other than the “paramount rights” doctrine of this Court’s 1947 California decision.

The United States has pointed to no other basis for believing that the submerged lands and waters in question were owned *40or controlled by the United States in 1949. The crucial question, then, is whether the 1949 reservation of the submerged lands and waters for Monument purposes (assuming that was the intent of the Proclamation) somehow changed the nature of the Government’s claim. If it did not — if the ownership or control of these areas by the United States in 1953 existed solely by virtue of this Court’s 1947 decision in United States v. California — then § 3 (a) of the Submerged Lands Act transferred “title to and ownership of” the submerged lands and waters to California, along with “the right and power to manage, administer, lease, develop, and use” them. 67 Stat. 30, 43 U. S. C. § 1311 (a).

We have concluded that the 1949 Proclamation did not and could not enhance the strength of the Government’s basic claim to a property interest in the submerged lands and waters in controversy. Reservation of federally controlled public lands for national monument purposes has the effect of placing the area reserved under the “supervision, management, and control” of the Director of the National Park Service. 39 Stat. 535, 16 U. S. C. §§ 1-3 (1976 ed.). Without such reservation, the federal lands would remain subject to “private appropriation and disposal under the public land laws,” 78 Stat. 985, 43 U. S. C. § 1400 (c), or to continued federal management for other designated purposes, see, e. g., ibid.; 78 Stat. 986, 43 U. S. C. § 1411. The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits the President, “in his discretion,” to create a national monument and reserve land for its use simply by issuing a proclamation with respect to land “owned or controlled by the Government of the United States.” 34 Stat. 225, 16 U. S. C. § 431 (1976 ed.). A reservation under the Antiquities Act thus means no more than that the land is shifted from one federal use, and perhaps from one federal managing agency, to another.17 *41A reservation for a national monument purpose cannot operate to escalate the underlying claim of the United States to the land in question.

Congress was well aware of its power to transfer to the States as much or as little of the submerged lands in which the Government held “paramount rights” as it deemed wise. With that knowledge, Congress expressly “emphasize [d] that the exceptions spelled out in [§ 5] do not in anywise include any claim resting solely upon the doctrine of 'paramount rights’ enunciated by the Supreme Court with respect to the Federal Government’s status in the areas beyond inland waters and mean low tide.” S. Rep. No. 133, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 20 (1953). A plainer statement of congressional intent would be hard to find.

Because the United States’ claim to the submerged lands and waters within one mile of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands derives solely from the doctrine of “paramount rights” announced in this Court’s 1947 California decision, we hold that, by operation of the Submerged Lands Act, the Government’s proprietary and administrative interests in these areas passed to the State of California in 1953.18

*42The parties are requested to submit an appropriate decree within 90 days. So ordered.

dissenting.

Although the majority lucidly states the issue in this case, it plainly errs in deciding it.

Section 5 (a) of the Submerged Lands Act excepted from its general cession of land to the States those “rights the United States has in lands presently and actually occupied by the United States under claim of right.” 1 Actual title to the lands was not required; lands to which the United States held title were already excepted by the previous language in § 5 (a). The reference to claims of right was critical for the United States’ stake in submerged lands, since United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19 (1947), and 332 U. S. 804 (1947), did not actually vest the United States with title to the submerged lands. While specifically denying California title, the Court fell short of declaring title in the United States, recognizing instead the federal “paramount rights” in the lands. Id., at 805.

Section 5 (a) was added at the suggestion of the Attorney General. His purpose was to guarantee “that all installations and acquisitions of the Federal Government within such area [as was to be ceded] belong to it.” 2 Senator Holland’s original Joint Resolution No. 13 had provided:

“There is excepted from the operation of section 3 of this Act—

“(a) all specifically described tracts or parcels of land *43and resources therein or improvements thereon title to which has been lawfully and expressly acquired by the United States from any State or from any person in whom title had vested under the decisions of the courts of such State, or their respective grantees, or successors in interest, by cession, grant, quitclaim, or condemnation or from any other owner or owners thereof by conveyance or by condemnation, provided such owner or owners had lawfully acquired the title to such lands and resources in accordance with the statutes or decisions of the courts of the State in which the lands are located ....” Hearings 14.

The Attorney General’s substitute read as follows:

“There is excepted from the operation of section 3 of this Joint Resolution:

“(a) all tracts or parcels of land together with all accretions thereto, resources therein, or improvements thereon, title to which has been lawfully and expressly acquired by the United States from any State or from any person in whom title had vested under the law of the State or of the United States, and all lands which the United States lawfully holds under the law of the State; all lands expressly retained by the United States when the State entered the Union; all lands acquired by the United States by eminent domain proceedings; all lands filled in, built up, or otherwise reclaimed by the United States for its own use; and all lands presently occupied by the United States under claim of right. . . Id., at 935.

The clearest, most observable difference between the original draft and the language proposed by the Attorney General is this final statement about “lands presently occupied by the United States under claim of right.” 3 The conclusion is that *44some lands to which the United States did not possess outright title might be part of federal installations, and, if so, they were to be preserved in federal control. This inference is strongly supported in further legislative history.

The Acting Chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs explained to the Joint Resolution's author why the Committee had added the phrase concerning claim of right:

“I should like to add that the last language quoted, namely, 'any rights the United States has in lands presently and actually occupied by the United States under claim of right,’ came into the bill at the request of the Department of Justice. It was presented to the committee and explained by the Department of Justice as being for the purpose of reserving to the Federal Government the area of any installation, or part of an installation — and I use the term 'installation' to distinguish a specific area, used for a specific purpose, from any vast area that might be claimed under the paramount right doctrine — actually occupied by the Government under a claim of right.” 99 Cong. Rec. 2619 (1953) (Sen. Cordon).

The resolution’s author, Senator Holland, asked the Acting Chairman:

“Am I correct in understanding that under that particular provision the mere fact that the Supreme Court might have held that the United States has paramount rights in submerged lands beyond mean low water, and within State boundaries, would not in any way give the United States the right to claim exceptions of such lands from the joint resolution, in view of the fact that such *45lands ivould not be ‘'presently and actually occupied by the United States’? Am I correct in that understanding?

“Mr. CORDON: The Senator is correct in his understanding.” Ibid, (emphasis added).

Hence, the test is whether the lands held under some claim of right are “actually occupied” by the Federal Government. If so, they are not relinquished.

The same issue arose in the hearings, with identical resolution. The Acting Chairman explained:

“[A]ny land occupied by the United States under claim by the United States that it has a right there, is excluded from this conveyance or quitclaim or assignment. . . . It is general language that . . . protects every installation of every kind.” Hearings 1322.

Senator Long summarized, to the Acting Chairman’s agreement:

“That, in effect, says that this act does not at all affect any land which the United States is actually occupying. And that means that a representative of the United States Government in one capacity or another is occupying that land.” Ibid.

Senator Long was concerned that the definition of occupied lands might be stretched to include submerged lands over which the Federal Government had been given dominion in United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19 (1947), by reason of the fact that the United States Navy from time to time might sail across them. It was in response to that suggestion that the Acting Chairman made the statement quoted by the majority that “ 'the claim of right’ [is] 'other than the claim arising by virtue of the decision in [that case] ....’”4 Such a construction was, of course, barred, for it would eviscerate the purpose of returning any sub*46merged lands. Ante, at 39. But this ignores the much narrower meaning of “submerged lands occupied by the United States under claim of right” which was intended: the submerged lands that were actually occupied as part of a federal “installation,” meaning “a specific area, used for a specific purpose.” The distinction is between a general claim under United States v. California to paramount rights, and a very specific claim associated with a federal installation actually occupied. Recalling the Acting Chairman’s words: “Occupancy to me is some type of actual either continuous possession or possession in such way as to indicate that the individual claims some special right there different from a vast unoccupied area.” 5 “[The language is] for the purpose of reserving to the Federal Government the area of any installation, or part of an installation — and I use the term 'installation’ to distinguish a specific area, used for a specific purpose, from any vast area that might be claimed under the paramount right doctrine . .. .” 6

The Channel Islands National Monument includes the submerged lands within a one-mile radius of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands.7 The parties have stipulated that “the United States 'presently and actually occupied’ the areas within one nautical mile of the shoreline of Anacapa and Santa

*47Barbara Islands for purposes of Section 5 of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U. S. C. § 1313.” 8 The federal occupation is to fulfill the specific purpose of providing for “the proper care, management, and protection of the objects of geological and scientific interest located' on lands within the said monument.” Presidential Proclamation No. 2825, 63 Stat. 1253. The federal occupation is under claim of right, since only federally “owned or controlled” property can be made into a national monument. 16 U. S. C. §431 (1976 ed.).

The majority opinion stresses that the United States’ occupation of the submerged lands within the Channel Islands National Monument9 was originally premised on federal control of those areas as granted in United States v. California, supra. This is true. The paramount rights of the United States to these submerged lands, and the absence of California title to them, were recognized in that 1947 decision. In 1949, President Truman allocated a small portion of all the submerged lands within the Federal Government’s paramount rights to become part of the Channel Islands National Monument. And in 1953, all the submerged lands not actually occupied by the Federal Government were ceded to the States. But the Channel Islands National'Monument remained.

Submerged lands for which the federal claim rested “solely upon the doctrine of 'paramount rights’ ”10 were given up by the Federal Government. The majority’s quotation of that statement comes from that part of the Senate Report explaining why the Attorney General’s language was accepted, the language that included for the first time’ “rights ... in *48lands presently and actually occupied by the United States under claim of right It says “any claim resting solely upon the doctrine of 'paramount rights' ” (emphasis added) is lost to the Federal Government, but the majority holds that any claim originating in the doctrine of paramount rights is lost. The majority does not recognize that some rights can originate in the paramount-rights doctrine, yet rest on actual occupation under claim of right as part of a federal installation, annexed before the doctrine of paramount rights was waived in 1953.

That, I respectfully submit, is an erroneous interpretation of even that one bit of legislative history.11 It is also contrary to the dominant theme in the legislative history that general, amorphous paramount rights claims were lost, but specific claims coupled with actual occupation of an installation were not. And most critically, the majority view is without support in the statute's plain language that “all lands presently occupied by the United States under claim of right” were preserved. It is stipulated that the lands were occupied, and a claim of right certainly arises when a President treats property in a manner to which only United States property is subject.12

I respectfully dissent.