178 



Dr. Cain. I think probably the central question here is the seabed, 

 the deep ocean seabed. I do not believe that it has been confined to that. 

 In other words, the frame of reference and guidelines have not become 

 clear. 



Mr. Fascell. Dr. Cain, if it isn't clear and we are going to have to 

 examine that language, then by this generous gesture we will have 

 opened more Pandora boxes than we have tried to close by holding 

 these hearings. Nobody has even mentioned these studies before, which 

 obviously are subject to the kind of interpretation that Mr. Freling- 

 huysen and I see as a possibility [security deletion]. 



Mr. Frelinghutsen. Unless there is some assurance that we are not 

 giving away something in this recognition of international respon- 

 sibility, sorne assurance that there will not be interferred with our 

 potential for development of these resources ourselves. Otherwise wo 

 are going to get into a lot hotter water than we are now. 



Mr. Fascell. The question now seems to be, Dr. Cain — because we 

 don't have the exact concept as it is going to be presented — the ques- 

 tion seems to be one of Interior's significant interests with respect to 

 marine research now being carried on, and certainly with respect to 

 the continental shelf. It seems to me tliat no statement which amounts 

 to a policy position and which would be subject to several interpreta- 

 tions or misunderstandings should be issued or submitted without 

 Interior's absolute concurrence. 



Dr. Cain. The idea of such studies — let me give you one that is 

 simpler first — which has been given the name "Ocean Acre." "We are 

 not talking about an acre, however, but about a column of water of 

 whatever dimensions somewhere in the open ocean, which would be 

 studied from the surface to the seabed, hydrologically, biologically, 

 and physically. 



The ocean studies that have gone on have not gone on with respect 

 to this kind of profile information in place as conditions change with 

 time. What they have done has been on a geographic spread rather 

 than this. We have no objections to this concept and the kind of re- 

 search that would be participated in by many nations according to 

 their capabilities. 



In the first place, it is hard to see where this runs into any questions 

 of jurisdiction or ownership. As research which could involve any and 

 all kinds of exploration and data-gathering with respect to the nature 

 and conditions of the sea, the objectives in terms of science are un- 

 objectionable. But it is obvious that as information is gained about 

 the sea, and people see advantages or benefits that can be derived as a 

 consequence of the increase of knowledge, then the question naturally 

 arises : Where is this something or other that is valuable and how do 

 you get ahold of it ? 



With respect to open ocean fisheries, the principle of the freedom 

 of the sea has always operated and a common good in the economic 

 sense is reduced to ownership when it is taken into possession. It is 

 because of this that international agreements which have limited the 

 action of individual nations for some purpose of conservation have 

 come about. 



If the same principle applies to seabed resources, then you have 

 a territorial problem immediately. What we have, of course, is a 



