307 



Therefore, I personally want, to accent the point that Mr. Ch)tworthy 

 made there. I like the sense of ur<^ency in his statement. I think it is 

 imperative that wo move for reor<2;anization. 



I notice in the })eo-innin<>; of his statement that he does raise two 

 very important cpu^stion marks concerning; the >Stratton (>)irnnission 

 report. Particularly he raises some donhts ahoiit the international law 

 recommendations. I don't think we should allow any such question 

 marks as to detail, I don't think we should allow any such doubts, 

 to take us otf on tangents and divert our attention from the bi^ job 

 which is the uroency of this reor^-a nidation matter, and I iiO|)e, Mr. 

 Clotworthy, that I have ri<^htly intei-preted your statement in that 

 respect. 



Mr. Or.oTwoirriiY. You have, sir. 



Mr. Hathaway. Mr. Pelly. 



Mr. PicLLY. I would like to indicate my admiration for your forth- 

 rightness and the fact that you are very specific in your recommenda- 

 tions. I think that is what we need in this committee, to have represen- 

 tatives of industry and individuals s|)eak ri<>-ht out. 



I i)articularly appi-eciated your callinn; attention to the fact that 

 the Navy has never had proper recoo-nition for the way it carried on 

 when other agencies of the Governmejit were unable or unwillino- or at 

 least failed to recogni/.e the needs of oceanography. I think the Navy 

 has done a magnificent job and we should all be grateful to it. 



I want to ask you to be a little more specific, however, on this matter 

 of intei-national law. You say on page 4, quoting, that "* * * the 

 T'J'nitod States should continue imj)lementatiou of the principles of the 

 convention. * * *" 



What are the principles of the International Convention on the law 

 of the sea that you refer to there? 



Mr. Clotwortjiy. Well, the interpretation of the outer bounds of 

 the shelf, of course, has been a subject of much discussion since the 

 contention. T am rel'en'ing licreto the 20()-meter isobath. 



Mr. Pklt.y. Do you think this provision is vague the way it is written 

 into the international convention of 1058? 



Mr. Ci,o'rw()inMiY. Yes. 1 think it is vague, but perhaps pur|)osely 

 vague. I think that as a Nation we liave ciiosen a more liberal inter- 

 pretation of it and go out beyond the '200-mcter isobath, and that is 

 what I was (pioting from. 



Mr. Pelly. I think the members of (his coinmittec ha\(' indicated 

 theii- concei'n that through some international arrangement we might 

 yield the sovei-eignty which was given us in that coin'ention. AVe do 

 have sovereignty over the Continental Shelf and beyond where we can 

 exploit it. I am not ((ulte sure fr-om youi- statement whei-e the Na- 

 tional Oceanogi'apliy Association stands so far as, for exanq)le, the 

 action which h:us been taken in the United Nations is concerned. 



Mr. C/LOT WORTHY. If I may comment on the domestic situation first, 

 I believe leases to (;ontinental Shelf teri'itory have been gi-anted beyond 

 the 200-nieter isobath so in ell'ect I am saying we endorse the |)i-actice 

 of Government thus fai- to go beyond the 20()-meter isobath where it 

 api)ears to be in our best intei'ests and within our technical ca[)al)ility 

 to do so. 



Mr. Pellv. Do you think that is \ague? 



