72 



sovereignty (or, if you will, control) over the resources of the sea bed beyond the 

 Continental Shelf. 



I know there are those within this Administration and within the Congress 

 who favor such a proposal. I also know there are a few in the private sector of 

 our economy who favor it. 



But I believe there are far more in the Congress and in the private sector who 

 favor a "go-slow" approach regarding the disposition of these under-sea resources, 

 and I am among them. 



There is far too much at stake, Mr. Chairman, for hasty action to be allowed 

 or even contemplated. And there is far too little known as to the eflfect such a 

 move would have on our future economy and, indeed, on the economies of the 

 other nations of the world. 



The sea has always been one of the great mysteries of the world and conjec- 

 ture as to the treasures it might hold has always challenged the imagination 

 of man. And, after centuries of speculation, man is just now beginning to probe 

 the depths of the sea in his quest for concrete knowledge of what lies beneath 

 well over half of the world's surface. 



This thrust was given impetus just last year by passage of the Marine Resources 

 and Engineering Development Act of 1966 to study undersea resources. To negate 

 these studies now by turning over to the United Nations control over the sea's 

 wealth is, to say the least, premature. 



Other implications of this proposed surrender are more far-reaching, affecting 

 the very sovereignty of the United States. They speak in terms of the conti- 

 nental "shelf, and of giving to the UN control over the sea bottoms beyond it. 

 But where does the continental shelf end? Does it not, at points, come within 

 a mile or two of our coast line? Would, then, the United Nations assume juris- 

 diction at those points? How would it be administered? Who would administer 

 it? This is a field in which great expertise is needed. Does the United Nations, 

 of itself, have that expertise? If not, where would it get it? 



There are too many troublesome questions to be answered, Mr. Chairman, 

 before we should consider— if we should ever consider— divesting ourselves of 

 the opportunity and means of enhancing our own economic welfare and allowing 

 other peoples the same privilege. 



However, apart from that, the United Nations has shown itself all too fre- 

 quently in the past of being utterly incapable of handling problems of far lesser 

 scope to be allowed to assume complete control over a matter which may ultimately 

 prove to be of more importance than the conquest of space. 



I am unalterably opposed, Mr. Chairman, to the Malta and similar proposals. 

 I urge passage of H.J. Res. 816 or one of its companion bills. 



I thank you for the opportunity of presenting this statement on a subject on 

 which I feel very strongly. 



National Oceanography Association, 



Washington, D.C., September 22, 1967. 

 Hon. Dante B. Fascell, 



Chairman, House Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, 

 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 



Dear Mr. Chairman: The National Oceanography Association is pleased 

 that the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements is now 

 holding hearings on H.J.R. 820, introduced by Congressman Richard T. Hanna, 

 and similar resolutions which oppose giving the U.N. control of deep-sea resources 

 at this time. 



NOA sincerely hopes that you and your committee will act favorably on these 

 resolutions and will recommend adoption. 



NOA first publicly opposed a suggestion for U.N. control of deep-sea resources 

 last May. At that time we issued a statement pointing out that "the granting of 

 lease rights to the deep ocean mineral resources presents varied and complex 

 problems which the United Nations was not created to manage." The statement 

 also said that "giving the U.N. an independent source of income and international 

 police powers, as implied in the suggestion, raises issues warranting the most 

 serious consideration of the United States Congress." 



As the result of certain recent pressures to internationalize the deep-sea resources 

 immediately, NOA again publicly opposed U.N. control on September 13, 1967. 

 On that date we stated that "conferring title to mineral resources on the deep 

 ocean floor on the United Nations or any other group at this time would be prema- 

 ture and ill-advised." 



Among the reasons for NOA's position are these: 



