392 



were exploited in this intermediate zone would be paid and in effect 

 this does, I think, dilute our sovereignty over the natural resources as 

 we understand them at least in the United Nations Convention Eegard- 

 ing the Continental Shelf. 



If I might go on to amplify, next month will be the first time that 

 this convention can be renegotiated, the United Nations Convention, 

 and there are proposals to form an international regime. 



So, as a citizen, I am concerned that we look after our own interests 

 and our own resources. 



Mr. Pelly. I may say this committee has indicated its concern and 

 we do not want to see any dilution of our sovereignty. 



We have had hearings and, indeed, legislation on this very subject. 

 We have tried to get our State Department to indicate exactly what 

 its position is and have failed completely so far as I am concerned to 

 be assured that there will not be some dilution. 



The position that I, personally, take is that we were given sover- 

 eignty up to the 200-meter contour and beyond where we could exploit 

 it. I think that is clear, and I do not believe by treaty through the 

 United Nations anyone has the right to give away that sovereignty 

 other than by action of both the House and the Senate, as required 

 under the Constitution whenever property of the United States is to 

 be given away. 



I am glad you have commented further on this and I certainly want 

 to say that you have made a very fine statement and one which I sub- 

 scribe to completely as far as private enterprise and the national inter- 

 est is concerned. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Lennon". Thank you. 



Mr. Karth. 



Mr. Karth. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the gentleman 

 from Washington that private industry and the Government ought to 

 engage in a cooperative program. 



I am not really sure I understand what Mr. Clark is proposing but 

 it seems to me that he is proposing quite a substantial departure from 

 the Commission's recommendations in terms of administration and 

 organization. 



If I understand your proposal correctly, you are suggesting that the 

 National Advisory Committee for the oceans pretty much take over 

 the responsibility that the Commission is recommending for NOAA. 

 You talk about an advisory committee to the National Advisory Com- 

 mittee for the oceans being comprised largely of private industry peo- 

 ple and to that I see no objection. 



Then you talk about that executive agency formulating and direct- 

 ing many of the important marine operations of the Federal Govern- 

 ment in the civilian sector as being that which you desire, which for 

 all practical purposes, it seems to me, replaces what NOAA is sup- 

 posed to do and what the Commission recommends they do. 



I wonder if you would clear up whatever misapprehensions I have 

 or misunderstandings I have about your suggested administrative 

 procedure. 



Mr. Clark. Yes; I would welcome the opportunity of clarifying 

 this point here. 



It IS not my intent at all to suggest that NACO take over the execu- 

 tive responsibility of directing the program. 



