= 
aé 
the American Section of the International Law Association. I believe 
also it has been approved by the International Law Section of the 
American Bar Association. Your Counsel can correct me if I am 
wrong. 
I personally believe this would probably be the most appropriate 
boundary. It occurs at a depth of something like 2,000 or 2,500 meters. 
I think such a boundary would probably be a better w way of separat- 
ing the continental from the deep ocean mineral resources, and further- 
more I think it might be a little easier to accomplsh internationally 
than the Commission’s recommendation. 
Mr. Preniy. Well, I am glad to have your view. We had a rep- 
resentative here the other day from the American Bar Association. 
I personally am fearful that in time we are going to abdicate some 
of the sovereignty that we have without our even knowing it, and I 
am hopeful that the House, as well as the Senate, might have some 
say 1f we are going to settle on any giveaway whether it be the United 
Nations or anybody else. 
I was tremendously interested in your suggestions. Everybody says 
they don’t want a wet NASA. TI don’t want to pass that over without 
indicating my own belief that NASA has worked out its difficulties 
and done a remarkable job and their jurisdictional problems with 
the military and others were very difficult to start out with, but they 
worked it out. 
The problem arises here in putting al! the marine interest under 
one agency. We have been struggling as a Congress for session after 
session with similar problems. For example there was a Presidential 
suggestion during the Johnson Administration that we combine all 
forms of transportation under a Department of Transportation and 
some of us thought that 1t would be better to have an independent 
Maritime Administration. 
That issue has not been solved, and so when we start thinking of 
putting all the marine functions that you suggested, including | the 
engineering functions of the Army Engineers into a new agency, I 
think we are going to have a problem “from a political standpoint. 
Obviously you have a tremendous knowledge of the structure of 
government. I was impressed, but I thought you rather easily passed 
over some of the difficulties. As you know, in the Pacific Northwest 
we have the Corps of Engineers recommending dams which would 
destroy resources such as the beds for spawning for the salmon, for 
wildlife, and their one function seems to be to keep themselves going 
with more important jobs. Some of us doubt at times the value of the 
projects the corps proposes. Then, to think of putting the corps in 
the same agency, did you think of their marine functions as including 
the function of building a dam? 
Dr. Scuarrer. No. Perhaps, Congressman, I should clarify what 
T said. I apologize for having confused you in my testimony. I was 
advocating including only the so-called coastal engineering research 
laboratory of the Army Engineers. It used to be called the beach ero- 
sion board. That is the component of the Army Engineers that deals 
with studies of the movement of sand, and so on, and how you take 
care of it. 
I was not advocating encompassing all of the aquatic activities of 
the Army Engineers, including their dam work. Nor was I even being 
