31 



long-range hazards, or assets either way, which is a question we just 

 don't know about at this point. 



I think because of the newness of the whole concept of an agreement 

 on the continental shelf — and certainly we don't have an agreement — 

 let's not be mistaken to think that this 200-m.eter depth is universally 

 adopted or agreed upon any more than the fishing territorial rights are 

 agreed upon, as exemplified by our friends in South America. 



As has been pointed out, we are in a very premature position to 

 start talking about any kind of sovereignty whatsoever. 



As a specific example, the Department of the Interior recently 

 issued a set of maps leasing lands as far as 100 miles offshore of 

 California, and to a depth of 6,000 feet. 



Now, the Continental Shelf agreement, the 1958 Geneva Conven- 

 tion, goes to 200 meters, so here our own Department of the Interior 

 has already involved the United States to a depth 10 times that great 

 and 100 miles offshore. 



I only point this out as a means of, perhaps — I don't mean to say 

 confusing the issue, but at least adding some ingredients to the issue to 

 justify a very independent investigation that I know this committee 

 will make. 



The James Roosevelt resolution has been mentioned. I would like 

 to simply quote one line from that resolution. It says, "Realizing that 

 the effective exploitation and development of these resources can raise 

 the economic level of peoples throughout the world, and in particular 

 of the developing countries * * *." I point that out because we all 

 know what the head count is in the United Nations now with the 

 developing countries, and if a resolution is adopted to the extent it 

 will be advantageous to those developing countries, I think the leading 

 powers of the world, the ones who have put all the money into this 

 situation, ^^'ill not really have a very effective voice when it comes to 

 the floor. I think this, too, should be recognized, that if this is the 

 direction of these United Nations resolutions, then I think they take 

 on an added burden of gravity to the best interests of the United 

 States. 



Interestingly enough, the Marine Resources and Engineering Devel- 

 opment Act of 1966, was to encourage private investment and private 

 enterprise to develop the offshores. It is inconceivable to me to find 

 anyone actively investing his own money into an area where he does 

 not know how long he will have access or right or title to gain the 

 benefits from this. We all recognize the high cost of offshore exploita- 

 tion and certainly if there is any question as to the title, no one starts 

 digging holes, or mining for minerals that may not be his once he finds 

 them. 



The coo{)eration with other nations, according to this law again, 

 is to be underlined when such cooperation is in the national interest. 

 Recognizing the international aspects of this situation, I am repre- 

 senting part of the United States and will look out for the best interests 

 of the United States. 



A point that I believe was not made is the tremendous effect on the 

 defense structure of this country. We have })laces in California where 

 the Continental Shelf, according to the Geneva Convention, is less 

 than a mile from shore. If we are to allow this to become some quasi- 

 international type of territory, I think we are allowing ourselves to 



