562 
question and get some concensus. All I get are answers from our State 
Department that everything is very fuzzy. I want to say that we own 
this or we don’t own it, and if we do own it then it would require the 
acquiescence of both bodies to give it away. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Lennon. Mr. Karth. 
Mr. Kartu. Mr. Chairman. 
Pursuing that line, Senator, you expressed great concern about this 
Continental Shelf limit business, and I think properly so. After all, 
our somewhat authoritative State Department is involved, the Depart- 
ment of Defense is involved, private industry, literally all nations I 
guess, and therefore there seems to exist a substantial conflict between 
the settlement of that question and passage of this legislation or any 
other since a good part of the total field of oceanology involves exploi- 
tation of the oceans in terms of mineral wealth and whatnot. 
Are you really saying to us that in your judgment until such time as 
these Continental Shelf limit questions are resolved that we probably 
will not get legislation to deal with this problem ? 
Senator Prrz. No. I don’t think there is any relationship between the 
idea of NOAA and the regime or the limit of the Continental Shelf. I 
don’t see a conflict there. 
Quite honestly I do not believe that we will reach a decision on the 
Continental Shelf boundary until we know what sort of regime will 
come along because the two are absolutely intertwined. If the regime is 
one that we don’t like, we will then go along with the National Pe- 
troleum Council’s definition and maintain the continental territories 
right down to the abysmal deep. 
If it is a regime along the lines of the World Bank, one in which we 
play a role and in which we believe we can work and be helpful to it 
and it to us, then we will accept a narrower definition. 
Mr. Kartu. I am happy to have that clarification. I can see in the 
future somebody probably opposing the bill on the basis that we might 
well hold this in abeyance until that other rather knotty question is 
resolved, but I agree that it need not be in conflict with that. 
Senator Prix. Personally, as you know, I am moving ahead as far as 
I can because I think there is the necessity for some force, some pres- 
sure to move from the dead center position we are on. It is not only 
in the United States that we have a no-policy policy. You find around 
the world that the same thing happens. I don’t mean to drop names, 
but in going around the world I sought to lobby some of these ideas a 
bit, too. I talked to members of the British Government; to Mr. 
Kosygin: to Mr. Rebré in France; and I found that the leaders around 
the world have not focused on these problems as much as we have, and 
one of the reasons that we have focused on this problem is due to the 
kind of discussions which we are having here today, discussions which 
on the Senate side we have had for a couple of years. 
Mr. Karru. Thank you very much. 
Mr. Lennon. Thank you. 
Mr. Dellenback ? 
Mr. Drtienzpack. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join in 
welcoming you, Senator. May I follow a little bit on your colloquy 
with Mr. Karth. 
