21 



The second question is as to whether or not we will deny national 

 exploitation by putting it in the U.N. I certainly don't take that posi- 

 tion. However, I think there is a dampening that will occur because 

 the necessary mechanisms that must derive and the handling ol the 

 kinds of problems that imniediately come to mind do not lend them- 

 selves to solutions within what now is the U.N. 



I think, in terms of this point I brought up to you about the distinc- 

 tion of the areas of the sea — bed of the sea, surface of the sea, and so 

 on — these are not divisible although they might be in our minds. 

 Actually they are not divisible. 



You put a structure at the bottom of the sea. What are you doing? 

 You are penetrating the body of the sea with that structure. 



Now you get into questions of overflight by a submarine coming 

 over somebody who has something on the bed of the sea just as you 

 get questions of overflight on land when you put up a structure. 

 These kinds of problems have not yet been thoroughly investigated so 

 that you cannot turn over at too early a stage a determination of 

 what will happen at the bed of the sea when you know you immediately 

 will be involved with what happens in the body of the sea, and, perhaps 

 because it must have some lifeline to the upper air, what happens on 

 the surface of the sea. 



Until these things are carefully thought out and how they inter- 

 relate, I suggest we are in no position to turn over sovereignty to 

 anybody. 



This is the important part of your second question. 



Mr. Fraser. You are not necessarily asserting that the right 

 course to follow is tliat there should be national preemption of such 

 beds as technology will make available. What you are saying is that 

 this whole question needs to be studied. 



Mr. Hanna. Exactly. 



Mr. Fraser. You think the U.N. has an important role to play as 

 the dialog unfolds. 



Mr. Hanna. Exactly, and they should not try to unfold it any 

 quicker than it does unfold of its own machinations. To try to deal 

 with this in the abstract is only to lay up headaches ^\'hen the abstract 

 becomes concrete in an entirely different form than the abstraction 

 indicated it was going to be. Most of the time that is true about ab- 

 stractions; they just don't turn out that way. 



Mr. Fraser. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I again want to express my appreciation to our colleague. I think he 

 is helping to stimulate what I hope will be a very constructive discus- 

 sion of this whole problem. 



Mr. Fascell. I would like the record to indicate that because of the 

 intense interest in this matter we have been joined by a member of 

 this subcommittee who is also serving at present as a member of the 

 United States Delegation to the 22d Sessi(»n of the of the U.N. 

 General Assembly. I am referring to our colleague, the Honorable 

 L. H. Fountain. We are delighted to have him here. We know of his 

 great interest in this subject. We are also extremely pleased to have 

 the ranking minority member of the full committee, who is always 

 very interested in the matters coming before this committee. We are 

 delighted to have Mrs. Bolton of Ohio here this morning. 



As ranking minority member of the subcommittee, we will allow 

 her to ask questions if she wishes at this point. 



