Ill 



made to internationalize the resources involved and to reserve them for the future 

 benefit of mankind. The real threat in both cases is that technological advance will 

 bring with it national rivalry and the threat of conflict because of competitive 

 efforts to appropriate these formerly inaccessible resources. 



In space, that specter has been lifted by the recent treaty forbidding national 

 appropriation of any heavenly body. The case for similar internationalization of 

 "inner space," the sea bed, is equally valid. 



Mr. Fascell. The Treasury riiliii«i- tliai ocean Iwtlom resources are 

 within the jurisdiction or sovereignty of the United States raises a 

 real question, if we get to the point that Mr. Christy was making earlier 

 regarding the language of the Convention. 



^Ir. Daxzig. Mr, Chairman, isn't the implication of tliat rule, which 

 I regret I have not had an opportunity to see, but relying on your 

 summary of it, the implication of that ruling is that if profits derived 

 from mining operations outside of the continental shelf would be 

 taxed as an import, then those areas would be deemed outside of the 

 jurisdiction of the United States and consistent with an interpreta- 

 tion that they are not subject to our sovereignty. 



Mr. Fascell. That is an interesting point. It would seem to me that 

 it raises a question whether one agency of this Government has already 

 placed an interpretation on the language of the Convention which may 

 extend beyond the intent of the signers of the Convention. 



It would be interesting for us to determine sometime in the future, 

 whether the sigTiers of the Convention intended sovereignty — or simply 

 exploitation rights — to be conferred by that document. 



Mr. Christy. May I quote from a paper given by former Under 

 Secretary Charles Luce at the American Bar Association National 

 Institute on Marine Resources, in which he says : 



And the United States has taken action consistent with a claim of sovereign 

 rights to the sea bed and subfloor some distance from its coasts, by the granting of 

 a i)hosphate lease some 40 miles from the California coast in the Forty-Mile Bank 

 area in 240 to 4,000 feet of water ; by the granting of oil and gas leases some 30 

 miles off of the Oregon coast in about 1500 feet of water: and in the threatened 

 litigation aganst the creation of a new island by private parties on the Cortez 

 Bank, about 50 miles from the San Clemente Island off the coast of California, 

 or about 100 miles from the mainland. Each of the California areas is separated 

 from the coast by troughs as much as 4,000 to 5,000 feet deep. The Department of 

 the Interior has published OCS leasing maps indicating an intent to assume 

 jurisdiction over the ocean bottom as far as 100 miles off the Southern California 

 coast in water depths as great as 6,000 feet.^ 



Mr. Fascell. That interpretation seems to be in direct contravention 

 to the Treasury Department decision. Since we discussed that earlier, 

 we might as well put the letter in at this point. It is dated May 18, 1967, 

 from the Director of the Division of Tariff Classification Rulings and 

 is addressed to United Aircraft Research Laboratories. 



(The letter referred to follows :) 



Treasury Department, 



Bureau of Customs, 

 Washington, May JS, J967. 

 Mr. J. Leslie Goodiek, 



f^enior Research. Engineer, United Aircraft Research Laboratories, 

 United Aircraft Corp., East Hartford, Conn. 



Dear Mr. Goodier : Your letter of April 24, 1967, inquires as to whether products 

 mined from the ocean floor are subject to the duties imposed on the imjxtrtation 

 of merchandise imported into the United States. 



' For complete text of address, see appendix p. 2.31. 



