561 
beyond, where they could exploit it, and you said that is very vague. 
To me it is not vague. It is our sovereignty, and we have it now. We 
might want to yield under your program some of that to an interna- 
tional body. 
My question to you is: If we decided to do so, could the great body of 
which you are a member do it by treaty or could the President of the 
United States do it by agreement or would it take a joint legislative 
document of the House and Senate? 
My understanding is that to give away any property that is under 
the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States, action by both 
the House and Senate is required. 
Senator Pruu. I think we have started from different premises, Con- 
gressman, because I don’t start from the premise that we own the total 
continental terrace down to the abysmal deep. I agree with you that 
an argument could be made stating that on the basis of the 1958 
Convention. 
Mr. Pretty. Presume then that we have ownership in some Con- 
tinental Shelf regardless of how far it goes, some territorial sover- 
eilgnty. 
Senator Pexu. If we have ownership then it would be done, I would 
think, by regular treaty, the treatymaking process, the same way we 
acquired sovereignty over Alaska by treaty. 
It would seem to me that this would be the case. 
Mr. Petty. We bought Alaska, and on the other hand, it seems to 
me that it would require an act of both the Senate and the House to 
yield any of that acquisition. 
Senator Prxt. If it belongs to us, if somebody wanted to give away 
my State of Rhode Island or yours of Washington, it would seem to 
me that it would take an act of Congress. But we did not start from 
that premise that it already belongs to us, and I think we are discussing 
an “iffy” question. 
Mr. Petry. I am thinking in terms of the Panama Canal Zone, for 
example, and I wish that the American Bar Association would, when 
it becomes their turn, address themselves to that because I would feel 
a lot safer as far as our possessions and our sovereignty is concerned, 
if it took the action of both Houses than if it did just the Senate. I 
don’t say that in a derogatory way about the Senate, but we represent I 
think more in this body the nationalistic viewpoint in some cases than 
the international sovereignty that you sort of envision. 
Senator Pex. I am absolutely sure, as I said earlier. If I had a “y” 
on the end of my name and were sitting where you are, I would com- 
pletely agree with you. 
Mr. Petty. This is a very unusual situation. 
Senator Pex. But I am not. f 
Mr. Prtuy. Well, I do think that some of us on this committee have 
been thinking in terms of yielding some sovereignty to the United 
Nations and we feel that we should have some say about it here, and I 
don’t ask you to agree with me, but I do raise it here because I think 
some of us should be thinking about that as we move forward. ' 
Senator Peru. It’s a very valid point, and one that some constitu- 
tional lawyers, I would think, would be boring in on pretty hard. 
Mr. Petuy. I have consulted the Library of Congress and some 
others. I want the American Bar Association to address itself to this 
