23 



legislation was passed and implemented and effected, why, I think that 

 maybe we ought to take another look at it. 



Dr. Wenk. I agree that 120 days is a short time for implementation. 

 Also you are correct about the dates. The legislation was signed into 

 law in June ; the Council was activated in August ; and the President 

 appointed the Commission on January 9, 1966. There was a difference 

 in timing greater than perhaps the Congress had anticipated in terms 

 of the possible simultaneity of the two bodies. 



Mr. I^RTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr, Rogers. I might say that in some discussions that I have had 

 with members of the subcommittee, too, I think that this feeling is be- 

 ginning to take root. Aji extension of the Commission, and even per- 

 haps an extension of the Council, beyond the 120 days which was 

 originally set in the legislation might be wise, because once the Com- 

 mission goes out of being, the Council then exists only for 120 days. It 

 seems to me that it might be wise also for us to consider simply amend- 

 ing the present law to extend the Commission, say, 6 months and 

 perhaps give an extension to the Council into being until the Con- 

 gress would have an opportunity to act on the recommendations of the 

 Commission. Hence, as Dr. Wenk has pointed out, we would not have 

 a hiatus when we have a dissolution of the Commission and also a 

 dissolution of the Council before the Congress acts on the legislation. 



I think the gentleman has made a good point there. It would be a 

 very simple bill for this subcommittee to consider and I would think it 

 would have a good reception. 



Are there any other questions, Mr. Karth ? 



Mr. Karth. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Rogers. Mr. Mosher ? 



Mr. MosHER. I asked my questions at length last time, Mr. Chair- 

 man. 



Mr. Rogers. Mr. Pelly ? 



Mr. Pellt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I hate to get the committee's mind off such exciting things as presi- 

 dential elections. I think perhaps Dr. Wenk will recall that right after 

 we were interrupted to go to the floor of the House when he was here 

 before, I mentioned my feeling that we should pay more attention to 

 the international aspects of oceanography before entermg into some 

 of the more practical details, such as additional laws. 



You referred in your testimony to the framework of law that will 

 facilitate work on the Continental Shelf. I recall an international 

 agreement concerning the Continental Shelf itself, or anything that 

 touched it, excluding superadjacent waters. 



The matter of conservation of fisheries resources above the shelf is 

 certainly equally vital. We can never attain that objective until we 

 have an international understanding or convention on the law of the 

 sea. 



I know in your position you are able to press for some sort of United 

 Nations agTeement in this area. I just take this opportmiity to urge 

 you to do it. For example, yesterday during House consideration of 

 foreign aid, the matter of fish protein came up with regard to feeding 

 the world's population. Certaiiily I think there is an appreciation of 

 what the possibilities of resources of the sea can mean to mankind. 

 Yet, we had an example last year where a fleet of foreign vessels came 



