= “NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1969 fo PART... _ HEARINGS BEFORE THB “SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY or THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES _ -NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS _ FIRST SESSION ON e4 f e aa Resources entitled, “Our Nation and the — JUNE 3, 1969 ‘ Bo - Serial No. | 91-5 Rs Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries ii: canon by ‘the Cominiasion on Marine Science, Engineering and — “JANUARY 27, APRIL 29, MAY 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 20, ay 22, 27, 28, ES rsp Wei A ews i O 0301 OOb541L 2 ACE ARTA AR NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1969 PART 1 HEARINGS BEFORD THH SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON A report by the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources entitled, “Our Nation and the Sea” JANUARY 27, APRIL 29, MAY 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, JUNE 3, 1969 | Serial No. 91-5 Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries as U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 26-563 WASHINGTON : 1969 COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Maryland, Chairman LEONOR K. (MRS. JOHN B.) SULLIVAN, WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD, California Missouri THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington FRANK M. CLARKE, Pennsylvania CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio JAMES R. GROVER, JR., New York JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan HASTINGS KEITH, Massachusetts ALTON LENNON, North Carolina G. ROBERT WATKINS, Pennsylvania THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia HENRY C. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin: JAMES A. BYRNE, Pennsylvania JOHN DELLENBACK, Oregon PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida HOWARD W. POLLOCK, Alaska FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Kentucky PHILIP E. RUPPE, Michigan JOHN M. MURPHY, New York DANIEL E. BUTTON, New York WILLIAM L. ST. ONGE, Connecticut GEORGE A. GOODLING, Pennsylvania JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota WILLIAM G. BRAY, Indiana WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine PAUL N. McCLOSKEY, Jr., California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LOUIS FREY, Jr., Florida RICHARD T. HANNA, California —_ ——_ ROBERT L. LEGGETT, California MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN, Ohio FRANK ANNUNZIO, Illinois SPEEDY O. LONG, Louisiana MARIO BIAGGI, New York JOHN M. DREwRY, Chief Counsel BERNARD J. ZINCKE, Cownsel NED P. EVERETT, Counsel Gus Bakas, Counsel Rospert J. McEtroy, Chief Clerk ARTHUR PANKOFF, Jr.,* Minority Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY ALTON LENNON, North Carolina, Chairman PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia HASTINGS KEITH, Massachusetts JOSEPH E. KARTH, Minnesota HENRY G. SCHADEBERG, Wisconsin WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine JOHN DELLENBACK, Oregon FRANK M. CLARE, Pennsylvania HOWARD W. POLLOCK, Alaska WILLIAM L. ST. ONGE, Connecticut PHILIP E. RUPPE, Michigan WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina GEORGE A. GOODLING, Pennsylvania RICHARD T. HANNA, California WILLIAM G. BRAY, Indiana ROBERT L. LEGGETT, California MICHAEL A. FEIGHAN, Ohio * Resigned effective Apr. 11, 1969. Richard N. Sharood appointed minority counsel on Apr. 14, 1969. (11) CONTENTS Hearings held— Page January 27, 1969_-_.------------------------------------------ 1 April 29, 1969-.._--------------------------------------------- 51 May 7, 1969__.-_--------------------------------------------- 89 May 8, 1969_-_-----+----------------------2-------+--=------- 129 May 13) 196002. . 2222202. Selec eee de eee See doseee 159 May 14, 1969_..-.----=-=-------=+-++----------- 3-2-5 54=--=-4- 175 May 15, 1969__22L_L222-22--21+-----+-+-------2 25-25 -- 25 -- 197 May 20, 1969_.-.-2--- --=+-----< 22-3 $n oe 223 May 21, 19692.--2-22-_ LLL 42b 22-22 50----2 2-2-5 -+ 22 - 257 May 22, 1969__-_.------------------==+-------==-===542-----~ 299 May 27, 1969____.-.----_------------------------+--------+=---- 337 May 28, 1969__...---------------------------------4---------- 373 June 3, 1969__..--==---------=-----------------------=+--------- 429 Statement of— Adams, Dr. David A. senior staff, Marine Sciences Council_-_______- 25 Anderson, Hon. John B., a Representative in Congress from the State Pe aUA UID rr oy Ts tome oan ee a ee ee 90 Baird, Charles F., vice president, International NickeliC ols t 2atee ss 53. Bauer, Paul S., consulting engineer, adjunct professor of earth sciences, (Gane UNTO ACIRSTN eee ee es ee Oe eee ie laa 99 iBiosraply Gol? OinOL. eine saes eh) eee Saeed oe 98 Beckmann, Walter C., president, Alpine Geophysical Associates, Inc-- 338 Biography -__--------------------------------------------- 338 Burcher, Eugene 8., program director for Tektite for INAS AG fo eee 204 Calhoun, Dr. John C., Chairman, Committee on Oceanography, NationaleNcadem iol Selences ss Sekt LT? Set eas ae eee 257 Bioeraphy 5.22.2 22 ssssSsenss 4225-24525 = Ee 258 Clark, Robert L., vice president, Hayden, Stone, Inc., New York City eas SOE SSG es ais See wo ERS ee 388 Avo carecayp any ee eee oe ee yan oer ee ee eee eee 288 Clifton, Dr. Edward, Geological Survey, Department of the Interior. 209 Clotworthy, John H., president, National Oceanography Association. 299 Biography = -=-252 525 55===252 022-25 - 55 2S Lee ala Sis ee 299 Colmer, Hon. William M., a Representative in Congress from the SHS rE AVINSISIISSI 0) Oye ee eS Boe ES ee Ate ste 175 Crutchfield, James A., professor of economics, University of Washing- Ta = ee ee NE See aie ot ene ere ete 53 Culver, Hon. John C., a Representative in Congress from the State of TOWee ns Se ORIOL SRT 10 ABS BEE dh ORR LOSS _ ae 373 Drake, Dr. Charles L., Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Columbia Umiversitys2 {S280 5 SoS ho oe a lee Sa Sos 273 Bio gTapp hye ees OT Be ee Soe ee Sees SA OO 2a Fye, Dr. Paul M., president, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution__ 224 Broenapiny= £2 oa So aS a a a re rm Re 223 Galler, Dr. Sidney R., marine biologist, Baltimore, Md_---_____---- 363 Bro saci Se Sa Fe ae A a a a rer eg SE, 362 Geyer, Richard A., head, Department of Oceanography, Texas A. & M. WHAT VSTS ity Se AT NS Se EE 2 53 Halstead, Dr. Bruce W., Director, World Life Research Institute, Colton, Califigu wee, 10.07925 SOCIOU Had REL TOON OT AOieUt 466 BiGeraphiy _2h01d Sena Fe OUT e eins Cee rls | eed 465 Hargis, Dr. William J., Jr., director, Virginia Institute of Marine SIC IETNC CM tee ee a ae ata ene eA a os ee a De 2 ea 3 ek os Na hs 431 BO era ply ee aaa eee Se Rees See ere oe ee Se 429 IV Statement of—Continued Kavanagh, Dr. Thomas C., chairman, Committee on Ocean Engineer- Page 1G oS oo ae ee ee eee ne ee 177 Biographye 2.4.22 te eek Re oe 176 Keim, Dr. 8. Russell, executive secretary, Committee on Ocean Engi- _neering, National Academy of Engineering______________________ 177 Kirkbride, Dr. Chalmer G., vice president, National Security Indus- trial Association. 2% 3e¢ (Sf AZE GN EVR, oe) ia eee 144 Biography so a. eee ee DE ee ts 2 a 142 Knauss, Dr. John A., dean, Graduate School of Oceanography, Uni- versity of Rhode dsland® (422. S22222 2. 0. eo eee 23, 53 Lawrence, Dr. Samuel A., executive director, Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources_________________24-2-2-_4= 35; 08 Lord, Douglas R., Deputy Director, advanced manned missions program, National Aeronautics and Space Administration_______- 203 Mahnken, Conrad, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of the Interior 2 28s EN BC en 209 Morton, Hon. Rogers C. B., a U.S. Representative from the State of Maryland - 09) ee 129 O’Neal, H. A., Director, Ocean Science and Technology Division, Office-of Nayal Research... 2.) 50 8 Be. See 201 Paulik, Dr. Gerald J., College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle. Washes oo Te BOE Oe Se a 276 Biography. <) eet - PR EL SL CLUS RE ee 274 Perry, John H., Jr., president, Perry Publications, Inc_______-__--- 22, 53 Pierce, Roger J., president, Hydrospace Systems Corp., Cedar Rapids, OWES 10h prey welwele!) erb gor ta tues e EE a. 18 lta 1 yl 2 eee 374 eRe Bio oraplnyye See 2 ees San ed ee 374 Pritchard, Dr. Donald W., director, Chesapeake Bay Institute, the Johns) Hopkins "University 22222 54_ 2522 2u- sab iaeeee — See 279 Biopraphyes.- 2 koe ee 2 ae pea 278 me Edward, manager, Ocean Systems Division, General Electric ong h eatiar bh Tonigrielucunt wails jerome |) eel | os SE ee 206 Reedy, George, president, Struthers Research & Development Corp_ 32, 53 Rigby, Richard N., Jr., executive director, National Oceanography Associationact). 262 ssotjieude beware eee 299 Roberts, Dr. Walter Orr, president, University Corp. for Atmospheric Research. 2.2. sh. sss sce seco sek ee eee 324 Biography eal _ soe. _sobesbleaeh ieee aoe eee 323 Royce, William F., associate dean, University of Washington__-____ 488 Stephan, Rear Adm. HE. C., U-S. Navy @etired)—=s- __ = 54-2 aes 161 Biography. 20 t99922ue el — =) ae eee Chairman of National Academy of Sciences, etc., John Calhoun-__- Communications submitted by— Adams, David A., National Council on Marine Resources and En- gineering Development, letter dated May 16, 1969, concerning testimony of Prof) Paul|S. Bauer .-2_-__-__ > eee Agnew, Hon. Spiro T., letter to Congressman Lennon, dated April 10, 1969 ee ee fo eee eee Anderson, Hon. John B., letter dated May 9, 1969, re personal com- ments on testimony of Prof. Paul S. Bauer___-_- —--_2+__--=_=___ Baird, Charles, vice president, International Nickel Co., letter dated June 13, 1969, concerning testimony of Prof. Paul Bauer___________ Brekhman, Dr. I. I.: Letters to Dr. Bruce W. Halstead dated— July Sly VOGSe 82 vo oneness April: 29,\ 19692 ts 2 eae ee Burns, Hon. John A., Governor, State of Hawaii, letter dated May 22, (OOO ee ee tn ea ee ek, oi el ee Burt, Wayne V., NAS/NRC Committee on Oceanography, letter dated? May U7, 19692. ser De a Calhoun, Dr. John C., Jr.: Letter dated March 15, 1969, to President Nixon___-_.-_------ Letter dated June 27, TOGOL at alt sre cettke ley east ee Chandler, David C., director, Great Lakes Research Division, Univer- sity of "Michigan, "letter dated Marya 281969450 244 4 tant oe Crowley, R. J., Jr., commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development, letter dated May 23, 1969__ ee Kenneth M., Governor, State of Maine, letter dated May Elliott, Dr. F. E., consulting oceanographer, General Electric Co., let- ter dated April 29, 1969, enclosing document entitled ‘“‘SSome Major Activities in Oceanics in Foreign Countries’”’______._.____-------- Fye, Paul M.: June 13, 1969, enclosing additional information requested by Committees == 2252 = See Be ee ee eee Letter dated July 16, 1969, in association with letter dated June 27, 1969, and signed by Dr. John C. Calhoun__-_------ Harvey, Matthew J., Director, Congressional Liaison Staff, State Department, letter dated June 18, 1969, enclosing information on Mish, ProtemyConeentnrate +125. es Ske oe Oe Kavanagh, Dr. Thomas C., dated May 9, 1969, regarding comments and recommendations on the report, “Our Nation and the Sea’’__- LaCerda, John, executive director, Florida Commission on Marine Sciences and Technology, letter dated May.2,, 1969 425-222 a aeoe Landsberg, H. E., research professor, University of Maryland, letter dated Way 9% (TOGO es Se ese Se oh Sete ea ee ee vil ‘Communications submitted by—Continued Lennon, Hon. Alton: Letter to President Nixon dated May 8, 1969__.......----.--_- Letter to Vice President Agnew dated March AY), MOGG se oe eon Perry, John H., Jr., president, Perry Publications, Inc., concerning testimony of Prot Pantieomer tec 6900). 0 ee ids i mnt OF Pritchard, Dr. Donald W., letter dated May 19, 1969, re report of the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources_____- Reedy, George E., president, Struthers Research & Development Corp., letter dated May 22, 1969, regarding testimony of Prof. Paul Sargent, Hon. Francis W., Governor, Commonwealth of Massachu- setts, letter dated June 20, 1969..-.__....-__.-_-----_--------..- Smith, Hon. Preston, Governor, State of Texas, letter dated June 4, Stephan, E. C., vice president, Ocean Systems, Inc., dated May 14, 1969, regarding testimonysof Prof PaulyBauen. 2. 2525-2 2. Stringer, Harold E., director, the American Legion, letter dated May 26, 1969, enclosing Resolution Nowa 092 sees he tee eet bees Timmons, William E. , deputy assistant to the President of the United States, letter dated Mi aiyeel Dye LOG OR Soe aaa lee ere a ts de ss, Weddig, Lee J., executive director, National Fisheries Institute, Inc., letter dated May 20, 1969, enclosing a resolution_____-___------- White, Dr. Robert M., Administrator, ESSA, letter dated May 22, 1969, concerning testimony of Prof. Paul 8. Bauer_____--_---___-_ ‘Williams, Hon. John Bell, letter transmitting a statement and Execu- IW EMORGC GTN GO: AQ tel Met aS Rahs mee a a ema ee ale BOT eR, na waite ea : = i808 ip ie. ual sola: i wid “oa ob So LICOaC POS Hote Mi beh yeenma! irs) pe ‘grtlnrdoros: sik ‘ anitnedld ae: ish aaobinoig 9 =m EPSOT BOR eh Bria yaniisorienll agit toe a ¢ . ct : ' ° Byiiy ' i ‘iN aie ah 4 é fi Vos i s ‘ ie ® edn st Yar) a MOKOUD. 20, See ee Si oi ees ing E Tndto ott Sonia 1 ot, COOL Of 7eth baisb vettal’ We taotadobrid’ Wi diangastt eens. niobidenys 2 ‘oa lo *Hrodailesd yarib sages ; eae SS si oieht BL to eiwew tom c10O-perir 00 ‘ys ia aguiave O shy £ iy ts) on he a] nigh Pek ek crys ie a ee fe on ak Bagab tats ia miotare fae re MRA Dim 6 Yah boiah “iat, oft anaaine Pith Bt rein 8 OF mois Lik lowered 16 ) Fdohiaes ele < che ed Liqsb! oth BEBE Cot-zehd hedab 1 abana as tant > -svisnes Ye asi afon + BOL 4 Reet Tore netiobaA Fy att viento Pironsites iia Vee tye ya he al disk AT! At 5) Oh er pane st ER ar {8 headin Gh ach “280 ote eee aa ad hal ak ea ile! a! ele oo ete onl Lotfditeat esis Suan ai, hibce SRU aay been ee oe oe! LS elt boiieds Tan Se Were SPY BS A is ~j sowed bate Inomotete Brie Ee Nevel | Nats BARS nT a ae te a NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1969 MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 1969 Hovuskt or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE CommittEE on MercHAant MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met in executive session at 10 a.m. in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alton Lennon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Lennon. The meeting of the subcommittee and those other aoe of the full committee we invited and the staff will now come to order. The purpose of this meeting today is to have an informal discussion between the members of the Subcommittee on Oceanography and the other members of the full committee as it was constituted in the 90th Congress with Dr. Julius A. Stratton, the distinguished chairman of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, other commissioners who are here with him, and members of his staff, on the subject of the final report of the Commission entitled ‘Our Nation and the Sea.” I hope you gentlemen got an opportunity to read this report and study it in depth. For the record, it will be recalled that after over 7 years of compre- hensive and careful study by the appropriate committees in both Houses in the Congress, Public Law 89-454 was enacted into law with the approval of the President on June 17, 1966. That act contained a declaration of policy of the United States to develop, encourage, and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive and long-range national program in marine science for the benefit of mankind, to assist in protection of health and property, enhancement of commerce, transportation and national security, rehabilitation of our commercial fisheries, and increased utilization of these and other resources. Key provisions of the act established in the Executive Office of the President the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development to provide advice and assistance to the President in meeting his responsibilities in regard to carrying out the national policy and programs. The function of the Council was to participate in the planning and conduct of coordinated Federal programs of a current and ongoing nature. The Council is a Cabinet-level body under the chairmanship of the Vice President. In addition to the Council, the act also provided for the establish- ment of a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, (1) 2 composed of 15 members appointed by the President, including in- dividuals drawn from Federal and State governments, industry, uni- versities, laboratories, and other institutions engaged in marine sci- entific or technological pursuits. The act provided that not more than five members of the Commission shall be from the Federal Govern- ment. In addition, provision was made for four advisory members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The functions of the Commission were to be complementary to those of the Council and with responsibility to make a comprehensive investigation and study of all aspects of marine science and to recom- mend an overall plan for an adequate national oceanographic program that will meet present and future national needs. As originally enacted, the act provided that the Commission submit. to the President, via the Council, and to the Congress, not later than 18 months after its establishment, a final report of its findings and recommendations. It further provided that the Commission would cease to exist 30 days after submission of its final report, and that the Council would cease to exist 120 days after the submission of the Commission’s report. In recognition of the enormity of the job that had to be done, the Congress, by Public Law 90-242, extended the life of the Commission for 6 months and the life of the Council until June 30, 1969. The Marine Science Commission was established in January of 1967, after selection by the President of an exceedingly able member- ship, under the distinguished chairmanship of Dr. Stratton. The Commission has worked with great concentration and energy for the past 2 years and has met the requirement of the statute by sub- mitting its report to the President and to the Congress on January 9. We in Congress, gentlemen, can do no less than to meet as promptly as possible, and with all of the concentration necessary, our responsi- bilities to review the Commission’s voluminous report and its numer- ous and far-reaching recommendations. And then we should take such action as we believe is necessary to implement those recommendations. Because of the complexities, and perhaps even potentially contro- versial aspects of the Commission’s report, the Chair felt that it was. desirable that members of the subcommittee and other ranking mem- bers of the committee should meet as soon as possible to have this. informal executive meeting and discussion with Dr. Stratton and his. colleagues. The Chair has asked Dr. Stratton to be prepared this morning to give us highlights of the Commission’s report and to be available for questioning by the members. Hopefully, after the meeting we are having today, we will have a better idea of how we should proceed, and establish a schedule of public hearings. Before asking Dr. Stratton to proceed, I want to take this op- portunity to compliment him, his member colleagues, and his very excellent staff for the tremendous work that they have presented to us. I might say to you gentlemen who have been members of the sub- committee since the enactment into law in June of 1966, that all of us, who have been privileged to be close to the work of the Commission, especially Mr. Mosher and myself, have reached the point where we 3 can say in candor and frankness to all of you that I have never known any more dedicated work on the part of any group in delving in depth on this subject. If you read this report you will see how much in depth they have gone. Certainly these gentlemen have done a magnificent job, led by a person who could not have been a finer selection, and whatever the action of the 91st or 92d or 98d Congress would be, I think this report will go down in history as one of the great efforts made by private citizens in cooperation with the Government in finding a solution to this problem. I think it would be appropriate at this time, to insert into the record, a biography of each of the members of the Commission. If there is no objection, so ordered. (The material referred to follows:) BrioGRAPHIES OF MEMBERS, COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND RESOURCES JULIUS A. STRATTON Julius A. Stratton assumed the Chairmanship of the Board of the Ford Foun- dation in 1966 upon his retirement as President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an institution with which he had been continuously associated since his undergraduate days. Born in Seattle on May 18, 1901, he spent one year at the University of Washington and then transferred to MIT, graduating with the Class of 1928. He studied abroad in 1923 and 1924 at the Universities of Grenoble and Toulouse after which he returned to MIT where he received his Master’s degree in 1925. He was awarded the degree of Doctor of Science in Mathematical Physics by the Hidgenossische Technische Hochschule of Zurich in 1927 and followed this with study at the Universities of Munich and Leipzig on a traveling fellowship from MIT. He joined the MIT faculty in the Department of Electrical Engineering in 1928 and subsequently became Professor of Physics, Director of the Research Laboratory of Electronics, Provost, Vice President, Chancellor, and, in 1959, President. He is now a Life Member of the MIT Corporation. Dr. Stratton is a director of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey and the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, and a trustee of Pine Manor Junior College and Vassar College. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the American Philosophical Society, and a Fellow of the Ameri- can Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the American Physical Society. He received the Medal for Merit from the Secretary of War in 1946, the Cer- tificate of Award of the United States Navy (1957), the Medal of Honor of the Institute of Radio Engineers (1957), and the Faraday Medal of the British Institute of Electrical Engineers (1961). RICHARD A. GEYER Dr. Geyer is presently Head of the Department of Oceanography at Texas A&M University where he has been since 1966. Previously, from 1963-1966, he was Technical Director for Oceanography for Texas Instruments, Inc. From 1959-1963, he was a manager of Gravity and Magnetic Department of Texas Instruments, and from 1954-1959, he was Chief Geophysicist for the Gravity Department, Geophysics Services, Inc., of Texas Instruments. From 1945-1954, he was associated with Humble Oil and Refining Company, first as Senior Re- search Geophysicist and then Head of the Oceanographic Section from 1949-1954. During World War II, Dr. Geyer served as Physicist in Charge of the De- gaussing Range for the US Navy, Bureau of Ordnance, in Newport, Rhode Island, and as Senior Field Instructor at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution at Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Before the war, from 1939-1942, he was an in- structor at Princeton, and from 1938-1942, he did research in geophysics and geology for the Standard Oil Company in New Jersey. 4 Dr. Geyer was born on October 27, 1914, in New York City. In 1987, he re- ceived his BS from New York University; in 1940, he received his MS, also from New York University; and in 1950, he received his MA, and in 1951, his PhD from Princeton University. Dr. Geyer is presently a member of the National Academy of Sciences Com- mittee on Oceanography—Ocean Wide Surveys Panel and a member of the Board of the American Society for Oceanography of the National Oceanographic Society and of the Marine Technology Society. He was a consultant with the US Coast and Geodetic Survey and was formerly an editor of Geophysics. DAVID A. ADAMS Dr. Adams is currently a member of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development Staff. He served as Commissioner of the North Carolina Division of Commercial and Sports Fisheries from 1963-1968. Before that he was curator of the North Carolina State Museum from 1962-1963, chief Park Naturalist of the North Carolina Division of State Parks from 1957-1959, and a ae biologist for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission in 1957. Dr. Adams was born in Lakewood, Ohio, on November 26, 1931. He attended North Carolina State College where he received his BS in Wildlife Conservation and Management in 1953, his MS in Wildlife Management in 1957, and his PhD in Plant Ecology in 1962. He is the author of numerous professional publications and a member of several professional and honorary societies. Currently, Dr. Adams is a member of the Ecological Society of America, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, and the American Fisheries Society. He was formerly Chairman of the South Atlantic Section of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and Vice Chairman of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. CARL A. AUERBACH Professor Auerbach has been a Professor of Law since 1947, serving at the University of Minnesota Law School since 1961, and before that at the University of Wisconsin Law School. In 1965, 1966 and 1967, he served as a visiting Pro- fessor at Columbia Law School, Utah Law School and Iowa Law School, respectively. Professor Auerbach received his BA degree in 1935 from Long Island Uni- versity and his LLB from Harvard University Law School in 1938. Upon graduation from law school, he took a position as attorney in the US Depart- ment of Labor, where he served until 1940 when he moved to the Office of Price Administration as Assistant General Counsel. He served with the US Army in the OSS from 1943 until 1946 when he returned to the government as General Counsel in the Office of Price Administration and Associate General Counsel in the Office of the Economic Stabilization. Professor Auerbach is the author of numerous legal articles and is the co- author of two books: ‘“‘The Legal Process—An Introduction to Decision-Mak- ing by Judicial, Legislative, Executive and Administrative Agencies,’ and ‘‘The Federal Regulation of Transportation— Materials Illustrating Problems of Public Utility Control.’’ He was also the recipient of a Fulbright Advanced Research Award in 1953, and from 1958-1959, he was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He is also a member of the Division of Be- havioral Sciences of the National Research Council. Professor Auerbach has been a consultant to the Agency for International De- velopment and the Staff Director to the Committee on International Orga- nization and Procedure of the Administrative Conference of the United States. CHARLES F. BAIRD Mr. Baird joined the International Nickel Co. of Canada, Ltd., as vice president, finance, in February 1969 and is also vice president, finance, and director of the company’s U.S. subsidiary, the International Nickel Co., Inc. For over 3 years prior to that time Mr. Baird served as a member of the U.S. Navy Secretariat. He was nominated by President Johnson as Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management). He served in that capacity until August 1, 1967, when he became the Under Secretary of the Navy as well as a member of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. Prior to his Government service, Mr. Baird had been an executive with Standard Oil Co., (New Jersey) and its affiliated companies for over 17 years. Starting his ~ oO career as a financial analyst, he served in various executive capacities including Deputy European Financial Representative in London, financial director and member of the executive committee of Esso Standard, S.A. Francaise, and assist- ant treasurer of the parent company. Mr. Baird served as an officer in the Marine Corps in World War II and during the Korean war. Mr. Baird was born in Southampton, N.Y., September 4, 1922. He is a graduate of Middlebury College where he majored in economics. He studied at New York University Graduate School of Business Administration and in 1960 completed the advanced management program of the Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration. He is a trustee of Bucknell University, a member of the Council of Financial Executives of the National Industrial Conference Board, the Council of Foreign Relations, the Atlantic Council of the United States and the American Academy of Political and Social Science. JACOB BLAUSTEIN Mr. Jacob Blaustein, of Baltimore, Maryland, has been long active in public life. President Eisenhower appointed him a US Delegate to the United Nations. President Truman appointed him a member of the Mobilization Policy Board during the Korean War. President Roosevelt appointed him Consultant to the American Delegation to the United Nations Organization Conference in San Francisco in 1945. President Kennedy appointed him a Presidential Representa- tive on the Board of Governors of United Service Organizations (USO), and as Consultant to the State Department on International Business Problems, to both of which he has been reappointed under President Johnson’s Administration. President Johnson also appointed him a member of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. With his father, the late Louis Blaustein, he was cofounder of the American Oil Company (AMOCO). He is a Director of the Standard Oil Company (Indiana) and of a number of other business corporations, including the Union Trust Com- pany of Maryland, and the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company. During World War II, Mr. Blaustein was acting Chairman of the Marketing Committee of the United States Petroleum Administration. He is a member of the National Petroleum Council of the United States Department of the Interior. He is also a member of the Board of American Petroleum Institute. Mr. Blaustein is a member of the Presidium, and Senior Vice President, of the Conference on Material Claims Against Germany which negotiated the agree- ments with the Federal Republic of Germany for the rehabilitation of the sur- viving victims of Nazi persecution, and which is handling the distribution of roceeds. t He was National President, is now Honorary President, of the American Jewish Committee. In 1946, he was Chairman of the AJC Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference. He is active in many philanthropic organizations; and is on the Boards of several educational and several scientific institutions, including the Maryland Academy of Sciences and the Baltimore Museum of Art. He is a member of the Board of Governors of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and is a member of Columbia University’s Advisory Council, School of International Relations. Mr. Blaustein was awarded honorary Doctorates of Humane Letters by his alma mater, Lehigh University, and by the Hebrew Union College; also honorary Doctorates of Laws by The Maryland Institute, College of Art; and an honorary Doctorate of Political Science by Wilberforce University, LL. D by each Morgan State College, Jewish Theological Seminary, and PMC Colleges. Mr. Blaustein has received a number of other awards, such as the Award for Citizenship by The Albert Einstein College of Medicine; the Distinguished Serv- ice Award by the University of Maryland: the Richard Gottheil Medal by the Zeta Beta Tau Fraternity; the American Liberties Medallion; and the Achieve- ment Award from the Society for Advancement of Management. He has been created a Knight of Malta and awarded the Maltese Cross. Mr. Blaustein was appointed by the King of Sweden to the Board of Trustees of the Dag Hammarskjold International Foundation; and is a Trustee of the Eleanor Roosevelt Memorial Foundation; a Trustee of the Lafayette Fellowship Hounda tions and a Director of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs. 6 JAMES A. CRUTCHFIELD Dr. Crutchfield is presently Professor of Economics at the University of Washington, with which he has been associated since 1949. Dr. Crutchfield is well known in the field of fishery economics and water resources and has par- ticipated in several national and international conferences on these and other subjects. He has also been the recipient of numerous research grants to study various aspects of the fishing industry. In addition to his academic duties, Dr. Crutchfield has held several advisory positions. Among these are the positions of: Chief of Mission, Food and Agri- culture Organization of the United Nations, Nigeria; Member of the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research of the National Academy of Sciences; Chief of Mission of the UN Special Fund Mission to Ghana; and many others. Born on September 9, 1918, in New London, Connecticut, Dr. Crutchfield re- ceived his BA degree in 1940 and his MA degree in 1954 from the University California. He is the author of numerous professional articles and publica- ions. FRANK C. DI LUZIO Mr. Di Luzio is presently vice president of E.G. & G., Inc., and president of its subsidiary, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., with offices located in Las Vegas, Nev. He served as a member of the President’s Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources, and is presently a member of the National Water Commission and the NASA Aerospace Safety Review Panel. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water Pollution Control from July 1966 to January 1968. Previous to his papointment as Assistant Sec- retary, he was Director of the Office of Saline Water in the Department of the Interior. His first Government position was as engineer with the Bureau of Reclamation on the Grand Coulee Dam project in 1988. In 1944 he was assigned to the Manhattan Engineering District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and from 1944-57 he held various positions with the Atomic Energy Commission. From 1957-61 he was Deputy Manager of the Atomic Energy Commission’s Operations Office in Albuquerque, N. Mex., from which position he moved to various executive ofices with Fairbanks, Morse & Co., serving as general manager of the firm’s Albuquerque Research Center, vice president of engineering for the Beloit Division, and vice president and director of the Hydraulic and Special Products Division. From 1963-65 he served as staff director of the U.S. Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences. Mr. Di Luzio, a U.S. citizen, was born in Rome, Italy, on September 2, 1913. He studied civil engineering at the Cleveland Institute of Technology and the Case Institute of Technology and received his B.S. from Fenn College in 1938. In 1957 he attended the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration. LEON JAWORSKI Mr. Jaworski is presently senior partner with the law firm of Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates and Jaworski with whom he has been associated since 1931. He is also Director and Chairman of the executive committee of the Bank of the Southwest, Houston, Texas; a Director of Anderson, Clayton and Com- pany; a Director of Gulf Publishing and Gulf Printing Company; a Director of Benjamin Franklin Savings Association; and a Director of the Pan American Sulphur Company. Mr. Jaworski has held many positions in the public service. From 1962-1965, he was Special Assistant to the US Attorney General and from 1963-1965, he was Special Counsel to the Attorney General of Texas. He is a member of the National Citizens Committee for Community Relations, a member of the Presi- dent’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, Chairman of the Governor’s Committee on Public School Education, a past Chairman of the Houston-Harris County Economic Opportunity Organization, and a U.S. member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague. He was named recently by President Johnson to serve as arbitrator of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes. Mr. Jaworski is a member of numerous professional associations and is a past President of the State Bar of Texas, The American College of Trial Lawyers, the Houston Bar Association, and the Texas Civil Judicial Council. He is the author of several professional articles and a book, ‘“‘After Fifteen Years,” a behind-the-scenes account of the Nazi war crimes trials. 7 Born in Waco, Texas, on September 19, 1905, Mr. Jaworski received his Bachelor of Laws degree from Baylor University in 1925 and his Master of Laws degree from George Washington University in 1926. He is a member of several civic and charitable organizations and has received numerous civic awards. JOHN A. KNAUSS John A. Knauss (B.S. in meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1943; M.A. in physics, University of Michigan, 1949; Ph. D., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, 1959.) Military service: U.S. Navy, July 1943-October 1946; USNR(R) 1966; Oceanographer in the Office of Naval Research, 1949-51; member of the staff of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 1951-61; professor of oceanography and dean of the Graduate School of Ocean- ography since 1962 and provost for marine affairs as of January 1, 1969, University of Rhode Island; president of the Oceanographic Section of the American Geo- physical Union 1965-68. He has been a member of several advisory groups to the U.S. Government concerning problems in oceanography, including Committee on Mine Warfare, the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council; Chairman, Panel on Oceanography of the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, the National Academy of Sciences; member of the Panel on Oceanwide Surveys of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography; and advisory panels to the Atomic Energy Commission and U.S. Weather Bureau. He was a member of President’s Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, and is currently a member of Advisory Committee for Environmental Sciences, National Science Foundation, and member of National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography. Has participated in approximately 16 oceanographic expeditions, scientific leader of 10, and has published extensively on problems relating to ocean circulation. Dean Knauss was born in Detroit, Mich., on September 1, 1925; is married to the former Marilyn Mattson of Winthrop, Mass. They have two sons and reside in Saunderstown, R.I. JOHN H. PERRY, JR. John H. Perry, Jr., is President and Chairman of Perry Publications, Inc., a Florida corporation which operates twenty-eight newspapers in Florida; All Florida magazine, a Sunday supplement; Palm Beach Life magazine, The Free- port News on Grand Bahama Island in the Bahamas; The Statewide All Florida News Service; and numerous commercial printing plants in Florida and Atlanta, Ga. Mr. Perry pioneered in the use of computers for production of newspaper typesetting and ad composition. He also has developed the Perry Photo-Composer for automatic newspaper page makeup. He designed and developed the first four- color web wrap-around rotary press. Also, he invented and developed the Perry ‘Cubmarine, a small manned submarine, and other underwater devices. Cub- marines are produced by Perry Submarine Builders, Inc., of which Mr. Perry is President. He is a Director of the Inter-American Press Association; Cowles Communica- tions, Inc.; the Caribbean Conservation Corporation; and is a National Asso- ciate of the Boys’ Clubs of America. He is a Trustee of the International Oceanographic Foundation and a member of the Ocean Sciences and Engineering Council of Palm Beach (Florida) County, Inc., as well as a member of the Advisory Council on Naval Affairs in the Sixth Naval District. Mr. Perry was born in Seattle, Washington, on January 2, 1917; graduated from Hotchkiss in 1935; Yale in 1939; and attended the Harvard School of Busi- ness Administration. In World War II, he served as a pilot in the Anti-Sub- marine and Air Transport Command and is now a licensed commercial pilot. Mr. Perry is the author of a book entitled, ‘‘The National Dividend.” TAYLOR A. PRYOR Mr. Pryor, a resident of Hawaii, is the founder of the Makapuu Oceanic Center where a marine exhibit, a marine science institute, and an ocean engi- neering testing facility are operated under his direction. President of The Oceanic Foundation, Mr. Pryor is also a Director of the National Oceanographic Asso- ciation, Sea Life, Inc., C. Brewer Corporation, and the Hawaiian Manufacturers’ Association. He served as a member of the Senate of the State of Hawaii from 8 1965 until his appointment to the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources in 1967. He serves on the Governor’s Advisory Committee for Science and Technology and is a member of the Science Advisory Committee t the New England Aquarium. ‘i Born in Connecticut in 1931, Mr. Pryor received his BA from Cornell and his graduate training in Marine Ecology from the University of Hawaii. He was a Naval aviator, USMCR, from 1954 to 1957. A receipient of the Honolulu Chamber of Commerce Progress Award of 1964 and the Hawaii J. C. TOYM Award of 1966. Mr. Pryor is the author of several publications on marine life and marine conservation. GEORGE E. REEDY Mr. Reedy is currently President of the Struthers Research and Development Corporation, Washington, D.C. He is also Vice-President for Planning and a Member of the Board of Directors of Struthers Wells Corporation. Prior to these positions Mr. Reedy had a long career in politics and government. He has served as Press Secretary and Special Assistant to President Johnson. Previously, he served as Staff Director of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee from 1953 until 1961. Prior to his association with the Policy Committee, Mr. Reedy was Staff Consultant to the Senate Armed Services Preparedness Subcommittee for two years. Except for the period from 1942 to 1946, Mr. Reedy was a congres- sional correspondent for United Press. During World War II, Mr. Reedy served in the mid-Pacific as a Captain in the USAF. Mr. Reedy was born in East Chicago, Indiana, on August 5, 1917. He received a BA in Sociology from the University of Chicago in 1938. GEORGE H. SULLIVAN Dr. Sullivan is an executive of the Northrop Corporation, Beverly Hills, California. As director of Life Sciences for Northrop he has the responsibility for planning, organizing and implementing all the research and development programs in which man or other lower life forms are an important element. Many of these programs are directly related to the use of the oceans. Significant examples are: systems engineering support to the US Navy Man-in-the-Sea project, biomedical problems relating to survival of SCUBA swimmers, anti- biotics from the ocean, and mass culture of marine algae for human consumption. As an electrical engineer assigned to the Navy Department’s Nuclear Reactor Electrical Control Branch between 1955 and 1957, Dr. Sullivan was responsible for the design, development and operation of the electrical, steam and reactor control systems for the first, and subsequent, nuclear submarines. Previously, he had served as a naval line officer, gaining extensive submarine experience aboard the USS WAHOO. Dr. Sullivan graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1948 with a Bachelor of Science degree, and received his Doctor of Medicine degree from Georgetown University. ROBERT M. WHITE Dr. Robert M. White became the first Administrator of the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) when the new Department of Com- merce agency was established in July 1965. Before his appointment as ESSA Administrator by President Johnson, Dr. White had been Chief of the Weather Bureau, US Department of Commerce, since October 1963. He has also served since early 1964 as Federal Coordinator for Meteorology, with the responsibility for coordinating and planning Federal weather services and supporting research. Born in Boston in 1923, Dr. White received a BA degree in geology from Harvard University in 1944. While attending Harvard, he worked as a weather observer at the Blue Hill Observatory. During World War II, Dr. White was a Captain in the US Air Force with duties in both weather forecasting and instruction. Continuing his studies in meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he earned his Master’s degree in 1949 and his Doctorate in 1950. From 1952 to 1958, Dr. White was Chief of the Large Scale Processes Branch of the Atmospheric Analysis Laboratory at the Geophysics Research Directorate, Air Force Cambridge Research Center. During this time, he directed a program of studies on the dynamics of general atmospheric circulation, long-range fore- casting, and statistical weather prediction. In 1958, he became Chief of the Meteorological Development Laboratory at the Cambridge Research Center, providing technical leadership of an extensive research program in weather 9 prediction, atmospheric dynamics, applied climatology, and meteorology and meteorological equipment. During the first half of 1959, he was a research associate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, studying problems of strato- spheric meteorology. He joined the Travelers Insurance Companies at Hartford, Connecticut, in July 1959, as head of the Travelers Weather Research Center. Later, he was Associate Director of the Research Department of the Travelers Insurance Companies. When the Travelers Research Center, Inc., was established in 1960, Dr. White became its first President. He served in this position until his ap- pointment by President Kennedy as Chief of the US Weather Bureau. Dr. White is a member of numerous professional and honorary societies. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Rogers? Mr. Rogers. I want to say, too, as I am sure all members of this committee do, concur with the feelings expressed by the chairman with regard to the fine work the Commission has done. It has been exceptional. I think the report is excellent. It has been well received so far. I think you can take great satisfaction in the fact that this report that you have devoted so much time and energy to will in effect lay the groundwork and the plan for the oceanographic effort of this Nation. I commend you and express my personal thanks. Mr. Lennon. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Mosuer. Of course, I concur in what you have said. I per- sonally have felt it a great privilege to be closely associated with the Commission during its studies. My own personal reaction to the report is completely favorable and affirmative. The general public response has been very fine and has shown very favorable interest. The only criticism I have heard is that the report is somewhat modest in its expenditure proposals. There is some feeling you might have set even higher goals. However, that can take care of itself during the next decade. I am very anxious for this Congress to get to work on implementing some of the ideas in the proposal. Mr. Lennon. Dr. Stratton, if you will proceed along the lines just mentioned. I might say, Dr. Stratton has been confined with the Hong Kong flu for a week or so, and is still not completely well. Dr. Stratton may yield to members of his Commission on other aspects of the report. Would you first introduce members of the Commission to other members of the committee? STATEMENT OF DR. JULIUS A. STRATTON, FORMER CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND RESOURCES Dr. Stratron. I will start with Dr. David Adams, Dr. Robert White, Dr. John Knauss, our executive director Dr. Samuel Lawrence, Mr. George Reedy, Mr. John Perry, and Dr. George Sullivan. Let me begin, gentlemen, by saying in behalf of the Commission how very much we appreciate the remarks which you have expressed. I can only verify that we have given this task everything we have. It has been the most totally engaging and encompassing thing that I have ever attempted. We have driven hard. Many of you have heard me say repeatedly here and there over the past 2 years that this has been a working commission. I think this is true. 26—-563—69—pt. 1——2 10 What comes out of this result will be the product of everybody who has participated. Behind it lies the panels of all these individuals, the groups they have brought together, literally hundreds of people in universities and Government who have been brought in. We recognize very well and very clearly that there are issues and recommendations here that are subject to discussion. Much of this is in an area which cannot be taken as black and white. There are some areas where there will be controversy inevitably. We have tried to make clear what the issues are, and in each case we think it is better to take a position than just to be cautious. We have given our best judgments. I think this report is replete with recommendations for action, for legislation, and it is our hope that we will have accomplished what I know to have been your real purpose in enacting that public law; namely, that out of this would come a substantial advance in the whole field with which we are deeply concerned. The final report, as you have indicated, Mr. Chairman, is completed. It was delivered formally to the President and to the Congress. On the 9th of February the Commission officially ceases to exist. But the critical test, as you have indicated, in this whole effort of nearly 2 years now, lies ahead of us. The only valid measure of success will be the extent to which this array of findings and recommendations leads to positive, constructive action, action destined to increase by an entire order of magnitude the benefits to be derived by the people of our country from the manifold uses of the sea. As you indicated, this will be somewhat of an informal discussion to see how we carry on, what this really means, where we should go. I would suggest the following procedure. We have had prepared a statement; it highlights the report of the Commission and is an effort to bring together the main poimts. There is so much there that this has been no easy task. But it takes chapter by chapter and points up what is involved. The general structure of the report does not coincide entirely, as you are aware, with that of the original panel structure and organiza- tion which had to do with science, technology, resources, environ- ment, education, business incentives for industry, and the international aspects. We have taken the results of the panel studies, and we are anxious to have these in your hands as quickly as possible, and over the past 2 months we have brought all this together and fused it into the report which is before you. There we begin with a discussion of the capabilities. What are the means that are essential if we are to do this job? Then we talk about the areas of most urgent importance, that of the coastal zones. There is a very extensive discussion of the resources, living and nonliving resources in chapter 4, and it is followed by a discussion, of the global environment, problems with which Dr. White is so familiar, the need for services and what they should be, and then culminating in the most critical and perhaps most crucial chapter— how do we organize and what should we do in order to get on with this from an organizational point of view? Lastly, there is our best effort to give some estimate of cost. It is an unusual situation for a Commission, Mr. Mosher, to come in with a report and be told we didn’t ask for enough. We can remedy that more easily than we can a number of other matters. We can come to that later. 11 I would like to suggest that perhaps this statement on the high- lights be entered into the record. If it is agreeable to you, Mr. Chair- man, I will call successively on a number of my associates here to read or to comment with regard to their interpretation of each of these chapters—what is in it and what is really important. That might be the basis of questions you would ask so we can get a discussion. One statement here. The people I call on are not personally identified with those particular chapters. Again this is a fusion here of different people. I do not want to hold them as singly accountable for what is here. We take common responsibility for this report. If this is agreeable to you, Mr. Lennon, I would like to call first on John Perry to talk a little bit about what is needed to be done to develop our national capabilities and why this is important. Mr. Lennon. Do I understand it is your desire that these high- lights be entered in the record at this time and the remarks of other members of the Commission follow? Dr. Stratton. I should like to make that request. Mr. Lennon. Without objection that shall be done. (The report referred to follows:) HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON MaRINE ScIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND RESOURCES Like the oceans themselves, the Nation’s marine interests are vast, complex, and not susceptible to simplicity of treatment. A plan for national action is needed to assure the orderly development of our uses of the sea in a manner whieh will advance the nation’s security, contribute to its economic growth, assure that it can meet increasing demands for food and raw materials, protect its position and influence in the world community, and preserve and improve the quality of the environment in which our people live. The plan must provide for determined attack on immediate problems concurrently with initiation of a long-range program to develop the knowledge, technology, and a framework of laws and institutions to lay the foundation for efficient and productive marine activities in the years ahead. The Commission report begins with an introductory statement of the Nation’s stake in the uses of the sea and a summary of major recommendations. The five chapters which follow treat primary areas of national emphasis. Since a strong, solid base of science and technology is the common denominator for accomplish- ment in every area of marine interest, actions necessary to advance our technical capability are presented at the outset in Chapter 2. Then follow in order chapters on the protection and management of the coastal zones and estuaries; the develop- ment of living and nonliving resources of the sea; the exploration and monitoring of the total global environment; and the technical services necessary to operate at sea. Chapter 7 brings together the Commission’s proposals for strengthening Federal organization through formation of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), and the report concludes with an estimate of costs. The remainder of this statement identifies the Commission’s major findings and recommendations in order to provide an overview of the total proposed program. Improving national capability The Commission’s concern with science and technology appears throughout its report—in relation to coastal management, fresh water restoration, resource development, deep sea exploration, environmental monitoring, and a host of marine services. Although each of these areas presents special requirements, they all draw on a common pool of knowledge regarding the sea and on a common reservoir of fundamental engineering skill. Arrangements for the support of marine science are well established, but must be improved to provide means for attacking large-scale problems and greater continuity of funding. In contrast, there is now no strong civil marine technology program; initiation of such a program is needed to increase our access to the sea and its resources, lower the costs of marine operations while increasing their reliability and safety, and provide the knowledge needed to make intelligent decisions regarding large future public and private investments. 12 To provide a more effective attack on large-scale scientific problems, the Com- mission proposes that a small group of institutions, including the present leaders in ocean research, be designated as University-National Laboratories and equipped to undertake major marine tasks of global or regional nature. Coastal Labora- tories also should be established in association with universities in each of the coastal states and aided in developing adequate facilities and continuing programs in coastal engineering and ecological research. Institutional support for these two categories of laboratories must be supplemented by research grants to individual scientists engaged in valuable basic research both in these laboratories and elsewhere throughout the nation in order to maintain highly desirable diver- sity in the total enterprise. A national program to advance fundamental marine technology should em- phasize activities basic to a wide variety of potential applications and be supported by NOAA through grants and contracts to industry and universities. Many fields of technology must be significantly advanced before the Nation can achieve the goals proposed by the Commission: to be able to perform productive work for sustained periods at depths to 2,000 feet and to have useful access to depths. of 20,000 feet. They include materials technology, power sources, external machin- ery, tools, navigation systems, instruments, mooring and anchoring systems, life support systems, and improved data on environmental effects and biomedical phenomena. National Projects are proposed to focus the effort on specific areas of need and opportunity, to impart a sense of priority, to involve actively a variety of groups, to provide the facilities needed to test the economic and technical feasibility of new systems, and to put technology at the service of scientific research and re- source exploration. Six such projects, listed in Attachment 1, are specifically recommended in the report; others are identified for further consideration. The U.S. Navy has a key role in advancing national capability and should work in tandem with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. As Navy mission requirements permit, provision should be made for other agencies to use Navy facilities on a reimbursable basis. Opportunities to spin off civil applica- tions from defense projects should be identified. However, civil and military interests and priorities will not always coincide, and a national program cannot. rest solely on Department of Defense-supported efforts. The Commission anticipates that the proposed national effort will generate its. own personnel, principally through transfer from other specialties but also through increased enrollment in marine education and training programs. Expanded sup-- port through NSF and NOAA will be needed, but the Commission’s principal. recommendation is that NOAA be assigned responsibility to analyze trends in manpower requirements in all marine fields, project future requirements, and’ coordinate Federal agency marine education and training activities. The Coastal Zone The coastal zone presents both some of the Nation’s most urgent environmental problems and most immediate and tangible opportunities for improvement. The- Commission considers this zone to embrace the territorial sea, Great Lakes, tidal areas, and those port and harbor facilities, recreational areas, and commerical and industrial sites which are dependent on the seas and Great Lakes. Coastal. counties include roughly half of the Nation’s people and its most rapidly growing: urban areas. It is the area in which industry, trade, recreation and conservation interests, waste disposal, and potentially aquaculture all press most sharply on the- limited resources of our environment. The Commission finds the key need in the coastal zone to be a management system which will permit conscious and informed choices among development alternatives and which will provide for proper planning. The Federal Government ae help in establishing such a system, but the primary responsibility lies with the- tates. The Commission proposes enactment of a Coastal Management Act to estab- iish policy guidelines, authorize matching grants-in-aid to States to develop and Implement a management plan, specify Federal responsibilities for review of State. plans, and provide a means for coordinating Federal and State activities and for- planning the development and use of areas lying beyond State jurisdiction. Al- though the Act should allow the States considerable latitude in shaping their coastal programs, it is essential that the State Authorities be able to exercise impartial judgment in weighing problems arising from conflicting use and be- equipped with planning and regulatory authority (including in typical cases. authority for zoning and eminent domain) adequate to their task. 13 Effective coastal management will need to be supported by substantially in- creased research, survey, and monitoring programs organized at both the Federal and State levels. Two particularly urgent, specific needs are for delineation of State seashore and seaward boundaries and for a comprehensive analysis of future ort and waterway needs. The Commission recommends the formation of a Nutional Seashore Boundary Commission to meet the former need and the ini- tiation of a major study under the lead of the Department of Transportation to meet the latter. Coastal management must be concerned both with conservation and develop- ment. Improved scientific and technical knowledge is needed to reach an optimum balance; and in the future such knowledge will be increasingly critical for eval- uating proposals for major modification in coastal lands and waters. Studies also are needed of means to move major facilities farther offshore in order to relieve pressures on the fragile tidal zone, and provision must be made for expanding recreation opportunities and assuring continued public access to the sea. Simpli- fied leasing procedures are recommended to permit use of inshore waters in a variety of new ways, including the practice of aquaculture, and provision for such activities should be made in coastal development plans. Pollution constitutes a major obstacle to effective use of coastal waters and severely threatens their future. The Commission has recognized that it is not practical to tackle coastal pollution in isolation from the other aspects of the over- all waste management problem. Nevertheless, there are certain needs for action which are unique to the marine environment. In particular, it is important that the AEC and Corps of Engineers be empowered to consider pollution effects of activities which fall within their licensing authorities. The deterioration of the Great Lakes presents a special problem and the Com- mission places a high priority on its recommended program to test methods for lake restoration. Marine resources At present most activities to tap the resources of the sea are concentrated in areas close to shore. But new technology is extending minerals-development operations outward onto the continental shelves and slopes and is yielding new techniques to harvest and use the living resources of the sea. The prospect that man may be able to gain new wealth from the sea has fired much of the recent interest in marine affairs. The Commission’s appraisal of the economic potential of marine resources has been tempered by an appreciation of the institutional and technical obstacles which must be surmounted to make significant advances. But even hard estimates indicate great possibilities for the future in— Continuing expansion of already large and profitable offshore oil and gas operations. Rehabilitating and redirecting our commercial fisheries to improve eco- nomic returns and to develop large latent resources off our coasts. Developing the new field of aquaculture. Mining placer minerals from the continental shelf and, within a somewhat longer time span, recovering mineral deposits from the deep sea floor. Economie uses of the sea are primarily a responsibility of the private sector. There is, nevertheless, a large role for government to assist. Public policy should be directed to: (1) assuring that the United States not be confronted with a critical shortage of any raw material and (2) advancing economic efficiency in the develop- ment of both marine and non-marine resources. Further, the Commission recog- nized that the U.S. interest in marine resources must be viewed in terms of world needs and capabilities. A. MARINE FISHERIES Our Nation has a strong interest in advancing development of the ocean’s food resources. The race between population and food supply has potentially ex- plosive consequences and every avenue must be employed to control it. Further, fishing is important to the U.S. both in terms of providing Americans with a more varied diet and of providing the basis for profitable industrial activity. About 66 percent of the world’s fisheries harvest, and 72 percent of the catch by U.S. boats, is taken in coastal waters. However, revolutionary developments in fishing technology are causing rapid growth in the exploitation of high seas fisheries, giving urgency to improving arrangements for international fishery management and to setting up cooperative programs to identify and assess po- tential yields of new stocks. The Commission has proposed a number of steps to 14 strengthen the institutional frameworks for both high seas and domestic fisheries which are aimed at increasing economic return from heavily utilized species and at providing incentives to expand catches of under utilized species. The welter of conflicting, overlapping, and restrictive laws and regulations applying to fishing operations in U.S. coastal waters is a major impediment to- the expansion of our domestic industry. In view of the discouraging lack of coordin- ation among state programs, the Commission concludes that Federal leadership: and guidance, and when necessary, regulatory power must be asserted. The Commission has also recommended removal of present legal restrictions on the use of foreign-built vessels by U.S. fishermen in U.S. domestic fisheries and an intensive effort through the proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (BCF) to analyze each major fishery off U.S. coasts and to develop integrated research, survey, and technical programs to exploit those fisheries where opportuni- ties for expansion exist. B. AQUACULTURE Compared with activities elsewhere in the world, the practice of aquaculture in in the U.S. is at a low level but is showing signs of rapid growth. Realizing the potential of aquaculture will require overcoming certain legal and institutional constraints as well as advancing scientific and technical knowledge to permit production at competitive costs. The Commission concluded that aquatic culture offers a valuable supplement to harvesting of natural stocks and that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (BCF) should be given an explicit mission to advance its practice. Cc. DRUGS The Commission also recognized the public interest in evaluating the potential of marine life as a source of new and useful medicinal materials and has recom- mended formation of a new program within the National Institutes of Health to effect a methodical inventory and evaluation. D. MINERAL RESOURCES 1. Petrolewm.—For the foreseeable future, oil and gas will be the most valuable minerals the nation can obtain from the sea. Currently, offshore sources account for about 16 percent of total world oil recovery and are expected to provide a third of total world production within 10 years. The search for new reserves is stimulated by forecasts of tripled consumption within 20 years and by political instability in some oil producing nations. Leasing and regulatory policies pertaining to U.S. outer continental shelf oil reserves must be geared to a rate of development which reflects all aspects of the national interest. The Commission urges a new assessment of the adequacy of the Nation’s oil reserves to provide a sound basis for shaping incentives. to explore and test the potential of new subsea fields. Further, in scheduling its lease sales the Federal Government must give adequate consideration to industry’s need to plan its exploration and development programs in an orderly and effective manner. 2. Natural Gas.—With growing demand and with reserves declining in reference to production, it is important to encourage exploration and development of new sources of natural gas. The maximum price which transmission companies can pay at the wellhead for gas is regulated by the Federal Power Commission, and some adjustment might be desirable to reflect adequately the greater cost of offshore production. Similarly, the transmission industry’s research and develop- ment activities are influenced by the FPC’s accounting regulations, and it is important that such regulations be clear and consistent with the transmission industry’s legitimate needs. f 3. Hard Minerals—The marine mining industry is in its infancy. Excluding shorebased operations, sulphur wells, recovery of chemicals from sea water, and dredging for sand, gravel, and oyster shells, total worldwide production of hard minerals from the seabed is estimated to total only $50 million currently. How- ever, world demand for many key minerals is expected to double by 1985 and triple by 2000, and it is essential that the United States encourage an increasing rate of discovery to ensure an adequate and dependable supply. The long lead time which will be required to define and appraise mineral resources and to de- velop the technology for their recovery requires orderly action now to establ sh the basis for future mining activity. The primary needs are for preinvestme'’nt geological surveys, development of fundamental technology relevant to minerals exploration and exploitation, and greater flexibility in the leasing provisions for the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953. 15 4. Fresh Water.—Brackish and salt water are being converted to fresh water in many parts of the world and possibilities may exist for tapping ground waters in coastal strata. The Federal Government’s ongoing desalination research and development program reflects a close and effective partnership among Federal, State, and local governments and the academic community, and the Commission recommends its continuation with increased emphasis on the possibilities of very large-scale applications, smaller plants for such purposes as tapping brackish water supplies for inland communities, and systems permitting re-use of waste waters. The Department of the Interior is responsible for fostering the development and use of the Nation’s minerals, including those of the outer continental shelf. It should continue to administer the outer continental shelf leasing programs and exercise primary responsibility for deciding whether the national interest warrants specific action to encourage development of seabed resources. However, conduct of offshore surveys and development of fundamental technology for marine operations are programs which should be assigned to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. NOAA will need to work closely with the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines in these tasks. The Commission, through its Panel on Marine Industry and Investment, has given special attention to the circumstances and needs of marine industries. In general, the Commission has found that capital has not been lacking to finance industrial ocean projects and that industry neither desires nor needs direct Government subsidies. Rather, to encourage private investment enterprise Government policy should be directed to providing the research, exploration, fundamental technology, and services necessary to expanded operations at sea and should seek to introduce a framework of laws and regulatory policies that will allow greater predictability in business planning and thereby increase con- fidence and investment activity. An important responsibility of the proposed new agency will be to work on a sustained basis with other agencies of Government, in consultation with the private sector, to achieve these objectives. The marine resource industries have a common interest in the clarification of marine boundaries and jurisdictions. But the matters at stake in securing inter- national agreements regarding the geographic extent of national jurisdiction over seabed resources and arrangements for exploring and exploiting resources in the areas beyond involve far-ranging and difficult questions of national policy which require consideration also of the Nation’s military and foreign policy interests. The Commission recommends that the United States seize the opportunity for leadership which the present situation demands and has proposed a legal-political framework for overcoming present uncertainties. Its proposal anticipates redefini- tion of the “‘continental shelf”’ to fix its seaward limits at the 200 meter isobath or 50 nautical miles from the baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea, whichever gives greater area; the creation of an “intermediate zone’’ to encompass the bed and subsoil of the deep sea in the band lying seaward of the continental shelf as redefined to the 2,500 meter isobath or points 100 miles from _ the baseline; the creation of an International Registry Authority to register claims by nations to explore and exploit the mineral resources of the seabed and subsoil of the deep seas including the intermediate zones; and the creation of an International Fund to receive payments from registering nations to be expended for such purposes as marine scientific activity, resource development, and aiding developing countries. The global environment The Nation’s interest in the seas, the land beneath, and the atmosphere above require that it attain the capability to observe, describe, understand, and predict oceanic and related atmospheric and geophysical processes on a global scale. The Nation is engaged or must be prepared to engage in operations in all of the world’s oceans in increasing depths and in increasingly hostile environments. Furthermore, the oceans, atmosphere, and solid earth are interacting parts of a single, incredible complex system. In many ways, the oceans are the dominant factor in this total environment. Man’s activities are fast approaching a stage wee we can influence, modify, and perhaps even control the total planetary system. A strategy for advancing our understanding of the global environment, both as a scientific problem and to meet practical operating requirements, will require a balanced effort in research, exploration, technology, and by the latter part of the coming decade, the development of a global monitoring and prediction system. New institutional arrangements will be needed both domestically and interna- 16 tionally. Near-term improvements in sea and air observation and prediction programs also are possible and are recommended. The Commission concludes that the proposal for an International Decade of Ocean Exploration offers an excellent vehicle to bring the necessary international collaboration to an expanded effort in research, surveys, and exploration of the global oceans. Execution of U.S. participation in the Decade should be focused in NOAA and the University-National Laboratories with assistance by industry. The key to study of the deep oceans lies in improved technology. The Com- mission concludes that there is no single approach, manned or unmanned, to the task. Extensive efforts are merited to increase the access of free-swimming divers in the sea, to extend the range and endurance of deep-diving manned sub- mersibles, and improve observing instruments of all kinds. The development of a system for monitoring and predicting the state of the oceans and the atmosphere is critical to all that the Nation would do in the seas. Observations are now technology limited; predictions are seriously limited by incomplete understanding. Thus the design of system components must be accompanied by strong scientific programs to increase understanding of current systems, sea-air interactions, and scales of motions. Such studies, coupled with continuous monitoring of sea-air phenomena, will provide the necessary basis for coping with planned and unplanned environmental modification. A central point of responsibility within Government is essential both to plan the necessary global monitoring and prediction system and to assess the impact of man on nature. Technical and operating services A great variety of technical services to support marine operations are being furnished by the Federal Government with a minimum of fanfare. The prevailing efficiency with which these services are provided minimizes public clamor for bold new programs and tends to conceal the vital functions being performed. Yet it is evident that sharp expansion in some Services and reorientation of others will be necessary to meet the challenges and capitalize on the opportunities presented by rapidly developing technology. A number of Federal agencies now provide services, and many inter-relation- ships exist among their programs. Thus, improved navigational positioning will facilitate preparation of more accurate maps and charts; these in turn will con- tribute to marine safety. Accurate instruments, built to meet agreed performance standards, are necessary to all marine activities. Useful data banks require that measurements be inter-comparable. Centering the majority of such service activi- ties in a single agency, aS proposed by the Commission, will importantly assist the Government to meet the increasingly demanding requirements of the Nation’s expanded activities at seas Organizing for action As an essential first step in undertaking a national ocean effort, the Federal Government must achieve a capability for conducting its own expanded activities and for providing imaginative support and leadership to the broad marine com- munity. The Commission has concluded that existing organization is inadequate to these purposes. While there are strong elements, which should be retained and strengthened, many Federal marine activities relate only marginally to their parent agencies. This results in a scattering of inadequately supported programs that consequently lack impact and complicate efforts to improve planning and coordination. The Commission believes that its proposed program can be achieved only by creating a major civil agency with adequate authority and resources. Such an agency must be of a size and scope commensurate with the magnitude, importance and complexity of the problems it seeks to solve, the services it seeks to render, and its potential contribution to the well-being of society. It can then be an effective claimant for the funds needed and give leadership and coherence to the total national effort. The major functions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency proposed by the Commission would be to— Explore the marine frontier and its interrelationships with the atmosphere. Define its resources. Advance capabilities for its use. Provide supporting services including weather and ocean forecasts. Minimize conflicts over uses of the marine environment. 17 Coordinate scientific and technical requirements and recommendations in support of foreign policy objectives. erve marine industry and the marine interest of the American people. NOAA would be composed of organizational elements concerned primarily with scientific, technical and service functions necessary for expanding the planned use of the sea and its resources and for monitoring, predicting, and potentially modifying the air and sea environments. It should include the Coast Guard, the Environmental Science Services Administration, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (augmented by the marine and anadromous fisheries functions of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife), the National Sea Grant Program, the U.S. Lake Survey, and the National Oceanographic Data Center. Important new functions would also be vested in the agency. Transfer of the Antarctic pro- gram and the National Center for Atmospheric Research to NOAA might be accomplished later. The size and scope of the program recommended by the Commission require that NOAA, at least initially, be an independent agency reporting directly to the President. In getting a major and diverse effort underway, the case for independent status is compelling. An independent agency can bring freshness of outlook and provide freedom of action, and its public visibility would draw public interest and support. Moreover, no existing department has sufficiently broad responsibilities to embrace the full scope of functions proposed for NOAA. However, future basic reorganizations of the executive branch might permit transfer of NOAA to a favorable location. A truly national effort in the oceans requires organizational arrangements for obtaining information and advice from the broad marine community. The Com- mission has therefore recommended establishment of a Presidentially appointed National Advisory Committee for the Oceans (NACO) to advise the head of NOAA in carrying out his functions and to report periodically to the President and the Congress on progress in achieving national objectives. Members would be drawn from outside the Federal Government and be broadly representative of the Nation’s marine and atmospheric interests; Federal agency representatives would participate as observers in the work of the committee. The Commission’s organizational proposals would permit the President to delegate planning and coordination responsibilities to an operating agency which has a strong base of technical expertise. However, until decisions are reached on its organization plan, the Commission believes it important to continue the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. Estimated costs To mount the national effort recommended by the Commission will require a build-up over the years of qualified personnel and suitable facilities. The Commission feels strongly that the build-up should take place at a rate which can be sustained. The funding problem for the marine program is quite different from that which accompanied the launching of the space program. The National Aero- nautics and Space Administration was entrusted with the organization of a new program which had very few antecedents and which was placed on a time table requiring a very rapid build-up of scientific and engineering effort. The objective of the Commission’s proposal, in contrast, is to emphasize and rationalize pro- grams which, for the most part, are already in existence and which are already returning benefits to our people. Programs recommended by the Commission are estimated to involve an annual expenditure growing by 1980 to roughly $1 billion per year over and above current program levels. This approximate doubling of present efforts could be achieved by maintaining a 7 to 10 per cent rate of growth over the 10-year period. The details of the Commission’s cost estimates are tabulated in Attachment 2. Expanding expenditures for civil marine programs will need to be accompanied by increasing support for military programs. Because the Navy now has an active program and extensive capital facilities, funding for such activities may not need to increase in percentage terms as rapidly as on the civil side, where the current level of activity is lower in reference to current needs. But it is obvious that the Defense Department’s requirements for marine and atmospheric science, tech- nology, and services will have to keep pace with the increasing sophistication of mnilitary systems operating on, under, and over the seas. Developing cost estimates was among the most difficult aspects of the Com- mission’s analysis. In spite of the uncertainties attendant on these estimates, 18 they nevertheless are a measure of the kind of commitment which the Commission feels the Nation must make. Yet they do not tell the full story. There are some stakes, such as a livable environment or the security of the Nation, which are priceless. Some of the least expensive recommendations, such as the establishment of the State Coastal Zone Authorities and the new international convention on the seabed, are among the most important ones. Benefits to the Nation will come not only from additional programs but also from the redirection of some current expenditures into more productive uses. The Commission’s cost estimates must be viewed in this light. They simply represent, as do the other parts of this report, our best judgment of how to respond to the needs and opportunities which relate our Nation to the sea. ATTACHMENT 1 NATIONAL PROJECTS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION Continental Shelf Laboratories Project—A continuing project to develop and construct both fixed and portable laboratories in the 200- to 2,000-foot depth range and with capacities to house 15 to 150 men depending upon mission needs. Submerged Continental Shelf Nuclear Plant Project—An experimental plant, which might be constructed initially in conjunction with a Fixed Continental Shelf Laboratory, to test the feasibility of using submerged nuclear power sources for development of continental shelf resources and of underwater siting of future large generating stations to provide power to coastal cities. Great Lakes Restoration Feasibility Test—A continuing project to develop alternative methods for restoring the quality of fresh water lakes, including pilot operations to test restoration techniques in small lakes for subsequent application to the Great Lakes. Pilot Buoy Network Project—A program to develop and test a system for continuous observation and recording of marine and atmospheric phenomena in a limited region, comprising buoys, anchoring systems, sensor packages, and logistics support ships. Long Endurance Exploration Submersibles.—A submersible for civil exploration missions to 20,000-foot depths, incorporating advanced materials and sensors. Test Facilities and Ranges.—A series of pressure test facilities, ‘in situ”? ranges and biomedical chambers to assist in the development of reliable systems and equipments and to determine the medium limits of man operating as a free diver; ATTACHMENT 2 DETAIL OF ESTIMATED COSTS The following tables show two different perspectives on the estimated costs of the Commission’s recommendations. Table 1 shows the expenditures classified by major program area; Table 2 presents the same expenditures recategorized by the type of activity or function being performed. The cost estimates are necessarily subject to a number of definitions, assump- tions, and limitations which are spelled out in full in Chapter 8 of the Commission’s report. Among the more important to note are that— All amounts are for the incremental costs, over and above present levels, for implementing Commission recommendations. The estimates are limited to programs addressed by the Commission and therefore do not represent the total cost of a comprehensive ocean program. On the other hand, there has been no attempt to project what portion of the programs recommended by the Commission might reasonably be expected to be financed from amounts already within agency plans. Estimates have been provided for Defense Department programs only for selected activities which relate intimately to civil functions. No estimates have been made of the investments which might be required of State and local governments and industry to meet their responsibilities under the Commission’s recommended plan. All amounts are shown in constant 1969 dollars. 19 TABLE 1.—COSTS BY PROGRAM AREA [Incremental costs in millions] Average annual costs 10-year total! Program area 1971-75 1976-80 costs All Commission recommendations._._.-.-.---.---------------- $652 $948 $8, 900 Improving the national capability-..........------------------------- 152 191 Al: 715 RAnnratonvaracliities=-y0es eevee 1 acl Me Fee, cans st asst onl ore 32 14 230 NALGnAMDILOICRIS= = seas -eee, 208 2 ee PE he 50 70 600 RininamentaitechnGloeVncosec. 22a sk -- Sela cnsuncecesascl a= sens 60 90 750 Edueationranditrainingesmaeemeneeeenes cae 7 11 90 Scientific and technical information..__..........-.--------------- 3 6 45 NiandaimeathercodstalZ0lee a= ai. me ee eae ioe 86 121 t 035 fanapemencandiplaniningcns 224222 - Sa awe ees ee 10 10 100 Panrdhaccisition8= seas ea Sect acasceleee 11 ll 110 Scientific and engineering studies._____._____.-.----------------- 50 80 650 SITON AIP LOLCC bee eteet ener ee Joe bose e 15 20 175 RE SULICES Mier ncemana ie et ANAL. pn eS at eee el ueaee 191 290 2,405 Livingaresofmees) programs= see. ee 62 88 750 Nonliving resources programs. ..-...-.------------------------- 39 66 §25 INALIONALIDLOIE GIS = ens Ue en ke so 60 86 730 Rimeamentalttechnologya-=-=== a ee 30 50 490 IG] HAE MVIGON Ie Ihe eee aoe ee A a ee 179 272 2,255 Reseakrchiandrexploration= Ms. 222 ee 81 162 1,215 Globalbmonitoning systems 268-2 = ek 2 Se See eee ee _ 48 15 315 Environmental modification program_____________...._-_--------- 20 45 325 Rundamentaumechnalopya. 249-82 23 a et 30 50 400 NTT SO MMBES A eps oP SE A a pte ee 44 74 590 Wanpiseaneuchanin Ce) i hf Ry i MURA ALE ii a8) rR 4 iw 9) l, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1969 TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1969 House or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE ComMitTEr oN MrercHant Mariner AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul G. Rogers, presiding. Mr. Rogers. The subcommittee will come to order, please. We are honored to have as our first witness today an old friend of this committee who I am delighted to see here and whose testimony many times has been helpful to this committee in its deliberations, Dr. Paul M. Fye, who is president of Woods Hole Oceanographic Insti- tution. Dr. Fye, it is a pleasure to greet you this morning, and the com- mittee will be pleased to receive your testimony. (Dr. Fye’s biography follows :) Paul M(cDonald) Fye, 21 Challenger Drive, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02548. Born: August 6, 1912, Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Education: Albright College, B.S., 1935; Columbia University, Ph. D. in Phys- ical Chemistry, 1939. List of Positions: President, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1961 to present ; Director, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1958 to present ; Asso- ciate Director for Research, U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, 1956-1958 ; Deputy Chief & Chief, Explosives Research Department, U.S. Naval Ordnance Labora- tory, 1948-1956; Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of Tennessee, 1947-48 ; Research Supervisor & Research Director, Underwater Explosives Re- ’ search Laboratory of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 1942-1947; Research Associate, Carnegie Institute of Technology, 1941-1942; Assistant Pro- fessor, Hofstra College, 1939-1941. Member: Member of the Corporation, Marine Biological Laboratory, 1958 to present; Committee on Oceanography, National Academy of Sciences, 1961 to present; Trustee, Bermuda Biological Station for Research, Inc., 1960 to present ; Undersea Warfare Research and Development Planning Council, 1959 to present ; Board of Visitors, Applied Physics Laboratory, The Johns Hopkins University, 1966-1968: Polaris Steering Task Group, 1956-1958; Polaris Ad Hoc Group for Long Range Research and Development, 1960-1965; Trustee, State Colleges of Massachusetts, 1966; Advisory Board, Naval Ordnance Test Station/Naval Weapons Laboratory, China Lake, California, 1965-1968; Board of Directors, Arthur D. Little, Inc., 1969. Scientific Societies: American Association for the Advancement of Science; American Chemical Society ; American Geophysical Union; American Physical Society; American Society of Limnology and Oceanography; The New York Academy of Sciences, Marine Technology Society, President, 1968. - Social Clubs: Cosmos Club, Washington, D.C.; Edgartown Yacht Club; Pi Tau eta. (223) 224 Honorary Societies: Sigma Xi; Phi Lambda Upsilon; Epsilon Chi. Honors/Awards: Albright College, Sc.D., 1955; Distinguished Alumni Award, Albright College, 1951; Presidential Certificate of Merit, 1948; U.S. Navy Certifi- eate of Commendation, 1960; U.S. Navy Meritorious Award, 1951; Bureau of ce Development Award, 1946; U.S. Navy Certificate of Commendation, 1966. STATEMENT OF DR. PAUL M. FYE, PRESIDENT, WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION Dr. Fyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have brought with me a prepared statement which I believe is be- fore you. If I may, I would like to read it, since it is fairly short, and thereby present a position for our discussion, if that is all right. Mr. Rocrrs. You may proceed. Dr. Fyz. Thank you, Congressman Rogers. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: It is a great privilege and a real pleasure to appear before the committee once again and express my views and opinions on.the Report of the Commission on Marine Sci- ence. I come before you as president and director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, as a member of the National Acad- emy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography and as president of the Marine Technology Society, a professional society composed of about 5,000 scientists, engineers, and related professions all of whom are vi- tally interested in the wise utilization of the oceans. However, in my testimony I speak only as an individual who is greatly concerned about the position of the United States in regard to its activities in the oceans. The aptly titled report of the Commission, “Our Nation and the Sea,” is the most comprehensive document ever prepared on the stake of the United States in the oceans. As soon as the Commission’s report was released in January, a group of our senior personnel at Woods Hole undertook a detailed study of the report both to inform ourselves and to evaluate the impact on our institution and on oceanography in the United States in general. The report is a magnificent job, and we commend it to the administration and the Congress for evaluation and action. I am here to offer what modest assistance I can in your evalu- ation, but we do look to you for ultimate action and implementation of a majority of the programs. The Commission has provided a much needed evaluation of the im- portance of marine activities in terms of other high priority goals of the Nation. As we see it, this report places the importance of the oceans to the Nation on the same general level of concern as outer space, pub- lic health, foreign aid, transportation, and urban problems. We would underscore this importance and endorse the Commission’s evaluation. We scientists, however, are not unmindful of the fact that science is merely a part of an intricate mosaic of the national life and does not comprise the whole picture. Our daily lives are immersed in the en- crossing pursuit of greater understanding of the enormously complex marine environment, and we often experience frustration in the con- viction that our efforts and results are woefully inadequate when com- pared to the vast potential held by the seas. However, we know full well that marine science and ocean develop- ment are vital national concerns only to the extent that there is a wise 225 division of our resources between immediate national problems and the longer range opportunities offered by the oceans. Responsible scien- tists seek no more, and the Nation deserves no less. Developing the Nation’s seas can only be accomplished properly through a truly national effort. It is important for us to recognize this point and distinguish between the recommendations of the Commission for a national program and the interpretation in some quarters that this proposal is a Federal program. We at Woods Hole see this distinction clearly and suggest that others who may have misinterpreted this basic premise take a closer look at the Commission’s report. “Our Nation and the Sea” is appro- priately subtitled “A Plan for National Action” calling for a coopera- tive effort by private enterprise, the individual States, the academic community, and the Federal Government. This cooperation will be an essential element for a national effort. The report of the Commission which considers both science (under- standing the oceans) and engineering (doing things in the oceans) is much too comprehensive and far-reaching to comment on each recom- mendation. However, we do strongly support the main thrust of the report and regard it as highly urgent that steps for implementation of its key recommendations be taken by the administration and by the Congress. Many of the recommendations, if adopted, will in one way or an- other profoundly affect the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and influence the programs and policies of all ocean activities in the United States. We do not endorse every proposal in the report but we support the purpose of the Commission’s recommendations and the general direction in which they are attempting to move the ocean sciences. In particular, I would like to comment on specific proposals and recommendations in the report which are intimately related to the pur- poses, policies, and objectives of Woods Hole and ocean science in gen- eral, and which in turn determine the course of many future programs for the years ahead. Some of this influence is, in fact, already being felt. My own institution, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, is likely to be affected most dramatically if the Commission’s recom- mendation to establish three or four major university-national labora- tories is adopted. We are most interested in the implications of this concept and in all its interrelated facets including: The basis for selec- tion or establishment of the laboratories; funding programs to provide long-term financial stability; academic and professional freedom to pursue basic investigations; and cooperative programs of national and international scope. In order to place these relationships in proper perspective and to present our views on the proposal for a University-National Labora- tory, I would like to remind you of some of the philosophy which has guided the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for the four decades of its existence. The institution was founded in 1930 in accordance with the recom- mendations of the first Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences. That committee recommended the establishment of a “single, well-equipped oceanographic institution in a central loca- 226 tion on theAtlantic Coast * * * to supply necessary facilities for re- search and education * * * and to encourage the establishment of oceanography as a university subject.” Dr. Henry B. Bigelow served as the secretary of that first commit- tee on oceanography and had a great deal to do with the shaping of its recommendations. He was subsequently asked to become the found- ing director of the new institution, and for the next 10 years gave it his daily guidance. A strong interdisciplinary staff was built up at Woods Hole under his direction, and major oceanographic research studies were under- taken. At the same time, cooperative studies were undertaken with faculty members and graduate students from many other universities. The major oceanographic research facilities that were available in Woods Hole were thus made available to the oceanographic commu- nity at large, and friendly advice from the permanent Woods Hole staff helped to increase the probability of experimental success by these other scientists and students. A large endowment grant from the Rockefeller Foundation enabled the institution to be financially self-sufficient for the first decade of its life. The demands of the war effort in the early 1940’s, however, dras- tically affected the operation of the institution. Increased research in the oceans was essential, and the institution accepted Federal funds to undertake special problems of particular importance to the Navy. Since that time, the institution has had to rely more and more on Federal grants and contracts to maintain its position as a leading cen- ter for oceanographic studies, and today more than 90 percent of our annual operating costs are met with Federal funds. The basic philosophy from the beginning has prevailed—a strong, interdisciplinary permanent staff; major and sophisticated facilities for studying the oceans; and extensive arrangements for cooperative studies with faculty and students from other universities. Thus the institution has been operating in fact, though not in name, much as a University-National Laboratory. In answer to a question from the Commission a year ago, I sug- gested that we needed a variety of types of laboratories in the United States concerned with ocean studies. Some should be matched in size and complexity with the problems to be investigated in the oceans. Many important problems are at least as large and complex as an entire ocean basin and can only be solved by teams of scientists and engineers involving many disciplines and talents using highly sophis- ticated research tools such as research ships and specialized computers. Consequently, some of the oceanographic laboratories must also be large and complex enough to tackle these problems. Some of these will be involved in obtaining a better fundamental understanding of ocean phenomena and with basic problems about life in the sea. These should be the University-National Laboratories; funded on a continuing stable framework and given a great deal of freedom in planning programs. I therefore strongly support the Commission’s recommendation for the establishment of University-National Laboratories and feel it ap- propriate to name the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution as a primary candidate for this proposal. 227 In the context of the Commission’s report which stresses our na- tional capability in the sea, it would, in my opinion, be unthinkable and untenable to support a program of basic research in marine science through the University-National Laboratories without also support- ing a program for fundamental technology. Marine science and funda- mental technology are inseparable. Except for certain applications in specific areas of exploitation, no- tably the petroleum industry, really new developments in fundamental marine technology have been relatively limited. Great strides have been made in oil exploration, desalination techniques, and design and development of deep submersibles where economic return supported the research. I do not intend in any way to demean these laudable efforts of pri- vate industry; I congratulate them on their progress and urge them forward to explore these and other areas of marine technology. Indus- try is motivated by profit—we must recognize this economic principle of free enterprise—and we must encourage it because our existence depends on it. However, despite some success in applied marine technology ad- vances in fundamental technology have been slow and fragmented. Materials research and instrumentation, both cited as major areas of concern by the Commission, must be given considerable and consistent support as a part of a successful technological program. Basic science and basic technology must move ahead together, or perhaps not at all. New theories in science demand exploration and proof—new tech- nologies permit this exploration and can provide the proof. In many cases, new or improved techniques invite new applications which will lead researchers to unexpected knowledge and results. With the strong convictions which equal my support of the recom- mendations regarding University-National Laboratories, I urge that the Commission’s recommendations to initiate a dynamic and comprehensive fundamental technology program be accepted and implemented. The Commission has also recommended that a new agency be set up to oversee the Federal Government’s civilian activities in the oceans. This is of particular importance for the implementation of a national program to improve our fundamental technology in the oceans. The establishment of an independent agency which reports directly to the President and, more importantly, answers to a unified ocean activities committee in each House of Congress, is the most important recommendation in the entire report. The proposed National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, if established as recommended, would include 55,000 employees, 320 sea- going ships, and 38 laboratories. The Federal Government’s and the Nation’s ocean activities would be clearly visible to the public and the reasons for these activities would be clear and would receive a con- tinuing place in our national priorities. Some may say this is too big an agency—but the ocean problems are gigantic. Others may quibble with the composition, and I, in fact, did propose to the Commission over a year ago another plan for an ocean agency. However, the important overriding point is that a new composite civilian agency is essential to the healthy growth of the Nation’s ocean 228 activities and to the implementation of a national program. In my opinion the Nation’s interests will be wel! served by the establishment of NOAA. I also endorse the Commission’s recommendation for the establish- ment of a National Advisory Committee for the Oceans as a useful method of obtaining support and advice on the program as it develops. This advisory committee is of vital importance in its own right and is not a substitute for the agency or other key Commission recommenda- tions. The Stratton Commission report may well be the most important single document concerning the oceans in our lifetime. The report has charted a national course which, if followed, can insure that the oceans will benefit all mankind for generations to come through the leadership of the United States. The Commission has provided a marine sciences blueprint which is scaled to the total] Nation-building plans of the future. Congress and the President have been presented with an opportunity to establish a permanent and stable place for oceanography in the list of national priorities. The report has given us a national sense of direction which—if im- plemented by the Federal Government—now can enable us to launch a new decade of accomplishment in the oceans—a new era which will see the world begin using the oceans widely and productively and in peace. Now, I believe, is the moment to take the initiative. The world will not stand by while nations hold each other at bay ona sea of food and mineral resources for which there is a growing need. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Downtne (presiding). Thank you, Dr. Fye, for a very fine statement. Doctor, you make the statement that basic science and basic tech- nology must move ahead together or perhaps not at all. I wonder if you could elaborate on that a little bit, particularly basic technology. Dr. Fyre. It seems to me, sir, that these are interlinked and inter- woven in a very intimate way. It is certainly true that we must learn something about the facts of the oceans before we begin to do things in a major way, which is what technology is all about; but I think today the time is ripe for developing both. We have had five or 10 decades of exploring the oceans and learning something about them. We know a great deal about the oceans. There is a oreat deal we don’t know, but T think we are now ready to begin major projects in the oceans. This will require the development ofa capability for doing things in the oceans and thus approach the day when we will be making use of the oceans In a very major way. So, as I see it, n the ‘days ahead the development of a fundamental technology may be even more important than the research activities which I normally represent with my Woods Hole hat on. This will be the way in which the United States can stake its claim in the oceans in an effective and imaginative way. Mr. Downine. Could you give us an example of fundamental technology ? Dr. Fre. I think there are a number of examples that we could take from the recent past. If I may, I would like to take an example from Woods House because I know those best. 229 Seven years ago it was decided that it would be wise to have a small submersible of considerably more mobility than the 77/este to go down and take people down in the ocean for exploring it. Out of this con- cept, with Navy support and the important backing of my distin- guished colleague this morning, funds were made available and the little submersible Alvin was built. Fundamental technology was in- volved in building such a submarine. There was some research involved, but in a very minor way. Once this tool was available to us, then it became, as I indicated in my first point, an important tool for research. This I think does illustrate the interweaving of technology and re- search and how both depend one on the other and both are important to each other. There are many other examples of technology. You get into the fish- ing business. Most of this is development of engineering techniques, and technology. Mr. Downtne. Thank you. Mr. Mosher? Mr. Mosuer. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that Dr. Fye’s statement is very encouraging and very useful, particularly useful to us in help- ing our understanding of what we face, and his emphasis on the sorting out of priorities for us is important. I like the way he starts his statement and ends it. On the top of page 2 he suggests that he and the other experts that are before us can offer us assistance but that it is up to us on the committee to give the ultimate action and implementation, and on the final pages of his re- port he says that now is the moment to take the initiative, and I cer- tainly agree with that sense of urgency. Dr. Fye, in discussing the history of your own institution and the important reliance your institution has had on Federal support, I am wondering what portion of the Federal grants and contracts you have had have dealt specifically with military and defense matters as dis- tinguished from so-called civilian uses of the ocean. Dr. Fyr. Mr. Mosher, the ratio between military applications and desire to learn more about the oceans for civilian uses has varied over the years and, as you well know, these are intermixed. One finds some- thing that may be useful to the Navy today and tomorrow will be of interest 1n civilian uses. When I became Director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Insti- tution in 1958 our best estimate was that about a third of the work was classified and thereby tagged as of direct application to the Navy. Around 65 to 70 percent of the work was supported by the Navy, primarily from ONR. That ratio has shifted for many other reasons over these last 11 years. Our classified work is down very considerably. The estimate today would be 3 to 5 percent. The support by the Navy has increased but not in proportion to the total increase in our operating budget so that the support from the Navy now is about half the total support. Some of the types of work which were classified 10 years ago are no longer classified. We look at the oceans as an interesting, complex system about which we must learn everything we can within our capa- bility. We believe very strongly that this knowledge will be of impor- 230 tance both in terms of our defense effort and in terms of the civilian uses of the sea. So we don’t distinguish uniquely unless it has some rather specific application. And as I indicated, there has been a shift over the last decade. I feel it is important for a laboratory like ours to continue in both military and civilian aspects of work. I personally believe we should continue to be a strong supporter of the Navy requirements. At the same time we should concern ourselves more and more in the days ahead with the peaceful applications of the uses of the sea. Mr. Mosumr. I have interpreted the congressional interest which was represented in the act we adopted in 1966, which created the Commis- sion and the Council, as emphasizing the need for a much greater im- petus and effort in the civilian aspects of ocean sciences and engi- neering. I assume we would accurately interpret the Stratton report, the thrust of it, where it recommends the creation of these new laboratories and the support of this laboratory effort, as being a new emphasis on the civilian uses of the ocean and giving that a higher priority and emphasizing the need and the demand and the opportunity in those areas. Would you agree with that? Dr. Fyn. Yes, Mr. Congressman. I would certainly accept your interpretation of what the Commission has done. I think the only addi- tional comment I might make is that in my opinion it is not so much a shift of priorities as it is a natural evolution from science to engineering and technology—the capability of learning, to the capability of domg. As I assess our progression in oceanography, we have now reached a point where it is logical to turn toward engineering and technology and do more of the projects, such as are outlined in the report. I would hesitate to say that these national projects are put at a higher priority than the defense requirements. I think they are of comparable importance. I hope in my own institution that we can continue to emphasize both. As the engineering activities expand in the next decade, and I am confident they will, and I think this is the main thrust of the Com- mission’s report. We may find ourselves doing a larger ratio of work applicable to civilian uses as compared with Navy applications, but only because we have done so little of this before. So that in a way ocean engineering is just coming into its own, as I see it. . Mr. Mosurr. I am sure you are right. It seems to me historically that it is more difficult to get support for some of the Nation’s civilian needs and therefore a new emphasis is needed. T have one other question. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Dr. Fye, on page 3 you say: “We do not endorse every proposal in the report.” Do you want to give us an example or two of the type of proposals in the report that you do not endorse? Dr. Fyz. These are relative matters, Mr. Mosher. I don’t have any list of affirmatives and negatives out of the report. I think it is more a matter of emphasis. I think in general the report has been beauti- fully done and is a magnificent job. I would prefer not to isolate out 231 4 minor points of disagreement because I just don’t think I have analyzed it in that sense. Mr. Mosuer. Counsel reminds me of the proposal for a nuclear powerplant on the mid-Atlantic Ridge. Do you want to react to that proposal ? Dr. Fryz. Yes, I would be very happy to react to that, Mr. Congress- man, Mr. Mosurr. Are we both punning when we talk about reacting ? Dr. Fyn. I think it is the kind of project which will be done in the years ahead. [ think it can be done engineeringwise. It has some at- tractive possibilities. If we don’t do it, someone else will, and I think the question of pollution and safety can be adequately taken care of. We have done the more difficult job of adequately taking care of it on land, and I think the Continental Shelf nuclear plant will in many ways be simpler. Mr. Mosuer. That is all. Mr. Downine. Mr. Karth? Mr. Kartu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last week, Dr. Fye, Captain Bauer appeared before this committee and made a very strong recommendation that instead of creating a NOAA, we place the total responsibility in the Department of the Interior. I would like for you to list a number of reasons why you feel that would not be as good a recommendation as the one made by the Com- mission and why it might not serve the best interests of oceanog- raphy, oceanology, or marine sciences as the NOAA approach which was recommended by the Commission. Dr. Fyn. Mr. Congressman, I am always reluctant to testify on mat- ters of Government organization when I am before such a distinguished group of experts, but I would be happy to give you my reactions if they are taken in the proper context. I have read Captain Bauer’s testimony, and I don’t agree with it. I have told him that, as we came in the door this morning. Let me first say, if I may just for the record, that there are many _ ways of getting at this problem of organization. It can be done in any one of a number of existing departments. It can be done with a new agency. It can even be done with the present organization. So what we are really talking about is efficiency and what is the optimum organization. I do believe the Commission’s proposal of a NOAA, or at least some form of an independent agency, will be better than giving any existing department the prime assignment in ocean activities. I think it will be difficult within an existing department to give the ocean the high pri- ority that 1t needs. More subtly than that, I think the Interior Depart- ment is oriented more toward land activities and what is needed is a new kind of a vision that is oriented seaward. IT wouldn’t for a minute suggest that Interior can’t do it or Trans- portation or Commerce. I am sure they all could. It is a question of whether, in my opinion, they would do it as well. Frankly, I think it would be done better by an independent agency. Mr. Karta. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 232 ? Mr. Downrne. Mr. Pelly. Mr. Pexiy. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any questions. I would like to thank Dr. Fye for his contribution. We are going to need.a lot of support, I can tell you, before we ever get this thing through. I was just thinking, as to your answer to the question with regard to transferring this responsibility to the Department of the Interior, that we would have one department with us if we did that. As it is, I think we are going to have them all against us. So we will have to overcome a great deal of jealousy and prejudice and desire for empire building. If we have support of eminent people like yourself, I think it will en- courage us to go ahead, and I hope succeed, in overcoming some obvi- ously very strong obstacles. Thank you. Mr. Downtne. Mr. Hanna. Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Fye, I want to join with the gentlemen who have evaluated your presentation here in such a favorable manner. I wanted to follow up on what Mr. Mosher had said. It has appeared to me that there is conflict of mentality that we have to deal with in this new program we are going to try to undertake. I think there has characteristically been a mentality of protecting what is, expanding what is going on, and evaluating on a basis of competition and incom- patibilities, and as a result, we approach things on an adversary basis. As against that I think we would like to encourage a mentality of realization of what can be and encouragement of discovery of what is not and an evaluation on a basis of cooperation and interdependency which can give us a little less of the adversary approach. How do you react to that ? Dr. Fyre. I react very favorably to that, Congressman Hanna. I know that the problem of reorganization which the Commission report pre- sents to you is the most difficult of all. It is going to take a lot of study and, as you say, it will take a great deal of cooperative effort and posi- tive thinking. In fact, I think it only comes into proper perspective if we think of the really magnificent and gigantic offerings that we see from the oceans. We must not be totally land oriented in this world of ours. It is almost three-quarters water. So we have to think progressively as you say. I am very confident that this will be done. I react very positively to your comment. Mr. Hanna. Of course, in facing the reality as it now exists, I think that the flow of money comes easier if you can show the protective in- fluence. That is why the Navy is going to dominate and have dominated because it is the essence of the protective mentality. We may be taking the tougher course. It isn’t going to be as easy to sell to the people as protection, but I think that with the support we can get from people like yourself and others who have as deep experience in this field as you have certainly had, that maybe we can steer that more difficult course. But I personally believe that as we are going to set up a new type of agency and orient it toward this second mentality, we had better hesitate to pick up the knife until we are sure we can cut the mustard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 233 Dr. Fyr. May I comment on that, Mr. Chairman ? Mr. Downina. Yes, indeed. Dr. Fryer. I certainly agree with you, sir, and I have often wondered how our small organization, and we are a small organization at Woods Hole, can help. I think probably the place we can help most is in trying to assist in the education of people so that this narrow mentality that you de- scribe won’t be self-limiting. I think it is very important, and I would like to offer our assistance in this very important phase. Without this kind of education, I think it 1s quite impossible to expect to take this forward step. Mr. Hanna. I appreciate the gentleman’s recognizing that educa- tional requirement because I think it is one of the paramount require- ments of this whole operation. Mr. Downtine. Mr. Keith. Mr. Kerru. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. T am sorry, Dr. Fye, that I couldn’t be here this morning. This is my third subcommittee meeting, and I am sure that similar busy schedules account for the absence of so many of my colleagues. We really have very good attendance here this morning, considering the pressure of business. I would like to comment on the dialog which has just taken place here and ask, if I might, are we not talking about mental attitude versus mentality ? Mr, Hanna. We are talking about mental attitude. I think that is clear from what we said. Mr. Kerr. You mentioned with reference to the nuclear power- plant on the Continental Shelf that we have solved the problems on land. How about those on shore, where water is used either for a cool- ing process or to disperse an effluent? Have we solved those with ref- erence to nuclear powerplants on the shoreline ? Dr. Fyre. Certainly not in all locations, Mr. Congressman. Each lo- cation is a different problem, as you know from your own district where there is one now under construction. I was very interested in a recent visit to Maine where Governor Curtis had called a number of people to advise in this regard to find that they were looking toward the possibility of using the heat out- put of a powerplant as a benefit. With the very cold water along that part of the coast they wanted to heat up a whole lagoon and see what they could do with warmer water species. I think this represents a proper attitude toward the whole pollution problem. Whenever we can make the inevitable waste products of civilization a benefit to us we should do so. Many times we can, if we are Ingenious. I do believe that if nuclear plants are properly located along the shore or even under the water of the Continental Shelf, that we can minimize any disadvantages and in many cases make it a benefit to the local community. . Mr. Mosuer. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Kerrn. I yield. Mr. Mosuer. I had a conversation recently with some British scien- tists in which they reported to me their positive efforts in using the heat from these power sources to the advantage of aquaculture, to the creating of a very useful climate in the water. 26-563—69—pt. 116 234 I think there are lots of possibilities for turning deficits into benefits in these situations. Mr. Kerrn. I thank you and Dr. Fye for those observations. It is a subject of great interest in my district, where we have both a fossil fuel plant and ‘a nuclear plant onshore, and occasionally I get corres- pondence with reference to the side effects these plants produce. Speaking of pollutants, we were advised recently in a memorandum that the Woods Hole and other oceanographic authorities had more or less sanctioned the disposal of chemical and biological warfare ref- use as currently carried out off our Continental Shelf. Would you care to comment on that, Dr. Fye? Dr. Frz. Yes, Mr. Keith. I did have the opportunity yesterday after- noon, after you informed me of the position stated in that memo- randum, to explore what had happened within my institution. There has been no institutional support of that idea. One of our senior scien- tists, Mr. Fuglister, participated in a group of experts in advising the Army on the matter. I talked with him at length since he had been there and had heard the full story. I would not be prepared to pass judgment on the wisdom of dispos- ing of this material at sea provided it is done in a reasonable location. We do recognize that the oceans are our biggest and in many ways our best dumping ground. It is quite properly a question of where the waste material eventually shows up. The important thing we must be sure to undertake in any such situa- tion is to research the total problem adequately so that an optimum location can be chosen. There are places in the oceans where things can be buried where the currents are low, the upwelling of water is low, the overturning from bottom to top is low, and where dissipation can occur within a time that is sufficient to make this an appropriate thing to do. Actually Mr. Fuglister told me that he was not very comfortable about the location that is proposed. In his opinion they are a little too close to the Continental Shelf, too close to the Gulf Stream and the fishing grounds. They happen to be about 50 miles from the particular location off the edge of the stream we call station D. We have been instrumenting that particular spot of the deep ocean for 4 or 5 years. On the other hand, he said he couldn’t find anything really overly hazardous about that, providing everything worked the way the plan said it would. My position on this would be, first of all, that disposal in the ocean can be done successfully provided there has been proper study of the problem. With proper investigation a suitable location can be chosen. I would not have an opinion on the particular location that is proposed at the moment off New Jersey. J don’t have the chemical information available concerning the hydrolysis of these particular gases into essentially safe byproducts. Mr. Kurrn. It would seem to me that this is a very good argument for the creation of such an agency as we are discussing this morning. I think this proposed agency would be the proper authorithy to look at the plan, give its approval, and suggest locations that might be best. It could regulate the circumstances under which it was done, and catalog what has gone into the oceans in these various locations. It is another reason for us, it seems to me, to look with favor on the estab- lishment of NOAA. 235 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Downtne. Mr. Grover. Mr. Grover. I have no questions. Mr. Downrne. Mr. Jones? Mr. Jones. I have no questions. Mr. Downtne. Counsel would like to ask you some questions, Doctor. Mr. Drewry. Dr. Fye, I think I understand your modesty in dis- cussing the Government organization. I don’t think you should really feel so humble about it because you have probably been associated with the development of this program as long as almost anybody else, you and the distinguished gentleman behind you, Dr. Wakelin. In your statement you made no comment on the National Advisory Committee for the Oceans, NACO. Would you care to comment on your views in relation to that ? Dr. Fy. The statement, Mr. Drewry, about that was rather short. Tt is on page 9. May I expand on that? I did say that I endorsed the concept of NACO and I do so very strongly. I think this is one of the examples of the great wisdom of the Commission in that they have proposed to establish a major advisory board which may well turn out to be as important as NACA was years ago in aviation. Thereby the Government can secure the advice of outstanding people who will continuously monitor this program. Their advice then could be available to the Congress, to the execu- tive branch, as well as to NOAA, itself. I read the report to indicate that the Advisory Committee for the Oceans would go beyond just the program of NOAA, but would look at the total national effort. I think this would be an important adjunct to the establishment of an independent agency. I would, as I say, not feel that this was a sufficient step forward in heu of NOAA, but I think it is one that should be a companion step to the establishment of NOAA, and I would be very unhappy if the agency were established without such an advisory board. Mr. Drewry. And I take it from what you are saying that you feel that they should be established simultaneously rather than to create NACO maybe first and then later get around to NOAA ? Dr. Fyz. I would prefer, Mr. Drewry, if this could be done either essentially simultaneously as a part of the same legislative act or to have NACO follow NOAA shortly thereafter. As to whether it could be a first step, with some modification : If we find that the difficult step which Mr. Hanna discussed of getting every- body educated enough to follow along seems to be impossible, I think that this could be a first step. However, if it were, I would then hope that the Congress would go beyond what is in the Commission report relative to the advisory committee. I would hope then to follow somewhat more closely what was done in the early days of NACA and permit the committee not to be solely advisory but to have it become a funding body to a certain extent as a part of this first step. I don’t believe, very frankly, that that would be nearly as good as following what the Commission has outlined. I would not exclude it, however. That would be better than nothing, and it could be, I think, quite an effective step if a modification of NACO were put in at the time it was established. Have I made myself clear ? 236 Mr. Drewry. Yes, you have, and I think in an important contribu- tory way. You mentioned that so much of your work has been for the Navy, much of it has been classified, and after a while much of it becomes declassified. Do you in your position at_ Woods Hole take any initia- tive, in saying to the Navy about something that was classified when it was started or carried out, “Look, it 1s time to declassify this project”? Of course, the Navy is excluded from NOAA. Yet, obviously, there has to be a working relationship between what the Navy is doing and what the civilian side is doing, and you at Woods Hole and other sim- ilar institutions are certainly in the position where they could advise the Department of Defense that it is time to let this get out into the public domain, that is an important work but the reasons for classifi- cation are no longer valid and therefore let it go. Dr. Fyr. Yes; certainly as the originator of a great deal of data which has been classified, we are In an appropriate position to take such action, and we do. I "indicated earlier a shift in the total amount of classified work from 10 years ago. Then maybe a third of the total work was classified, now about one-tenth of that or 3 percent is classified. I should expand on that to indicate that this is largely due to the fact that the Navy no longer finds that it is necessary to classify much of the oceanographic data that formerly was classified. This cireum- stance gives us a very legitimate basis for suggesting declassification. This “change i in policy, which I think has been a very wise one, has expedited the whole study of the oceans. All of oceanography has been helped by this. In large measure, the policy change took place when Dr. Wakelin was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and I give him a great deal of credit for this. I think it has resulted in a much better total integration of what the Navy is supporting together with what the civilian agencies are supporting. Mr. Drewry. I wonder if I could ask you to comment on what has happened to the submersible leasing program. I guess right at the moment Woods Hole is not in the market for any of that work, but I understand that the submersible leasing program has been drastically cut back within the Department of Defense. I don’t remember the fig- ure, but I am told that as many as 1,600 requests are pending for use of the various submersibles which are in being, on which I believe pri- vate industry has spent at least $100 million to develop, like the Star 3 and so on. Would you mind commenting on how you view that cutback as to the effect it might have on a forward program or encouraging this funda- mental technology that you were speaking of earlier ? Dr. Fyn. Mr. ‘Drewry, I don’t have any up-to-date mformation about the cutback in the chartering program for submersibles. I think it is a good program. I think the idea of doing this is great. Industry did go a long way to stick its neck out and made a major contribution through the submersibles, and I think we should use them. We had occasion last fall to charter the Dowd from General Motors in our search for Alvin. We only made one dive because of the weather, but we are very familiar with the submersibles that have been built in 237 industry. We were very fortunate in having Alvin up to October 16, last year for our own work. We intend to 0 back and retrieve Alvin from the edge of the Continental Shelf. So, at the moment, we would have some case for chartering sub- mersibles. We expect to obtain a new one which is now under construc- tion at Electric Boat. I think it is a sound program and should be expedited. I don’t have the current information on the cutback. Mr. Drewry. I apologize for asking the question because I realize, of course, that you have been out of the country for the last month or more I guess. Dr. Fe. Three weeks. Mr. Hanna. Mr. Chairman, before the witness leaves, might I ask if it would be possible for you, doctor, to provide for the committee a copy of the proposal you made to the Commission over a year ago for a certain plan for an ocean agency ¢ Dr. Fy. Mr. Congressman, I happen to have with me, as the saying goes, a synopsis of that statement. The reason I didn’t put it into the record in my statement is that I believe the Commission’s proposed organization has had a great deal more study than mine. The 15 men were brilliantly selected, and the job they did was superb. I would be glad to have this in this record if you wish. It does pro- pose an independent agency for the purpose of ocean engineering and resource development. It does not propose as comprehensive a takeover, as it were, from all the other departments. My own actual opinion is that it would be a good scheme, but the Commission has suggested a better one. Mr. Hanna. [ think it would be helpful to have it as part of the genesis of coming to a plan, plus there may be some alternatives for solving some of the inevitable problems that will turn up. Mr. Down1ne. We might like it even better. Without objection, we will place your synopsis in the record at this point. (The synopsis follows :) [From MTS-Memo, Marine Technology Society, January 1968] A FEDERAL ORGANIZATION FOR OCEAN HE.NGINEERING The time has come for this country to push forward with a major ocean engineering program. This program should complement present oceanographic research, but should have different objectives requiring different techniques. Two cogent reasons for such a program are the need to conquer the ocean depths for peaceful purposes, and the need to develop the oceans’ vast resource potential. The present National Oceanographic Program includes some ocean engineering projects, but the goal of many is to improve the capability for basic and applied research programs. Although the departments and agencies involved in the na- tional program undertake engineering projects to fulfill their missions in the oceans, there are gaps that preclude ‘the development of a comprehensive ocean engineering capability. These gaps must be filled if we are to exploit the oceans effectively. Industry cannot undertake projects of sufficient magnitude soon enough to match the nation’s total requirements. The cost of these projects will be large and the profits may be slow in realization. Often the results may be too diffuse to be exploited by a single industry. We cannot expect industry, unaided by the Govy- ernment, to undertake necessary research and engineering studies, to fund con- struction of a system, and to underwrite its operation, unless a satisfactory return 238 can be realized on the investment. Private industry undoubtedly will undertake ocean engineering projects as soon as it is economically feasible. I do not believe this will come about soon enough to satisfy national needs and to meet national goals. Oceanographic research and engineering programs now underway are germane to the operations of sponsoring departments and agencies. However, the develop- ment of a vastly increased ocean engineering capability probably cannot be split satisfactorily among these many organizations. I think there should be a new government organization whose primary responsibility is ocean engineering and resource development. This organization should work outside and beyond the missions of existing agencies. Today we are establishing new national oceanic goals. There is new work to be done. To meet these needs, it is reasonable to establish a new agency with a different mission. It would not be wise to sweep all ocean-related activities into this proposed agency. It is wholly proper to retain defense-related activities within Navy, en- vironmental missions with ESSA, basic research with NSF, fisheries research with BCF, regulation of the merchant fleet with Maritime Administration, and the study of nuclear energy with AHC. The new agency should have two prime functions: (1) to develop ocean engi- neering and to exploit ocean resources within a defined mission, and (2) to coordinate marine-oriented work of existing agencies through a marine sciences board similar to the National Science Board or the former NACA. It should be a funding, not an operating agency. It should use appropriate existing government laboratories, private industry, university and non-profit institutions to accom- plish its mission. The expenditure of public funds must be substantially increased, probably to a few billion dollars annually, to insure that the United States maintains its position of leadership in marine affairs. Within our governmental system, this can be done by establishing appropriate committees in Congress which would sponsor the proposed new agency. There is ample precedent for such action when a national need is critical. Mr. Downtne. Did you have any supporting papers that you would like to put in the record along with the synopsis ? Dr. Fx. I think it is adequate. I have a fuller statement than just the synopsis. If the committee wishes, I would be glad to send that to you. I think this covers the essential part of the idea. Mr. Downtine. I think it might be well to include that along with the synopsis at this point in the record. Without objection that will be done. (The statement follows:) Woops HoLeE OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION, Woops Hoe, MASSACHUSETTS, June 13, 1969. Hon. ALTON 8S. LENNON, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. My DrEAR CONGRESSMAN LENNON: During the hearing of your Subcommittee on May 20th, I was asked to submit to you my statement before the Research and Environmental Panels of the Commission on Marine Science, Hngineering and Resources on November 7, 1967 concerning Government organization. The text of this material is enclosed. Also, I was asked to submit comments concerning the management of the pro- posed University-National Laboratory and the Coastal Zone Laboratory. As I noted in my statement before your Subcommittee, our staff in Woods Hole has had this particular aspect of the Marine Commission Report under detailed study. We are putting together for our Board of Trustees our concept of how a cooperative program such as a University-National Laboratory might be operated in Woods Hole. When this is completed and reviewed by our Board, I would be glad to submit this for your information. 239 In general, I believe the management concepts set forth by the Commission are sound in that a major responsibility for the Uniiversity-National Laboratory would rest with the university concerned. In the case of the Coastal Zone Labora- tory, they propose a close affiliation between the State and Federal agencies sup- porting these laboratories. I hope our further studies in Woods Hole will be useful to you. It was, as always, a pleasure to appear before your Committee. Sincerely yours, Paut M. FYs. ON ORGANIZATION WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR MARINE ACTIVITIES— A Statement before the Research and Environmental Panels of the Commission on Marine Science, Hngineering and Resources on November 7, 1967 The question of adequate institutional and organizational arrangements for prosecuting the national program in oceanography has been raised. A considera- tion of these arrangements follows logically a discussion of major programs which should be supported by Federal funds and a case for some governmental re- organization can be made on the basis of conducting such programs in an efficient manner. Kor example, there is a need for a strengthening of the coordination function previously carried out by the Interagency Commititee on Oceanography. The case for re-organization is even stronger, however, when one considers the necessity of an increased comprehensive program which will lead to the full uti- lization of information about the oceans for the benefit of mankind. I think the time has come when this country should push forward with an ocean engineering program. In some ways, it will complement the present oceanographic research program, but an ocean engineering program really has quite different objectives and will require different techniques for achieving them. There are many reasons why we should have an ocean engineering program. Two of the most cogent, to my mind, are the need to conquer the ocean depths for peaceful purposes and the need to develop the vast resource potential of the oceans. You and your colleagues are all keenly aware of the many arguments why this country should embark on an ocean engineering program, and I shall not reiterate all of them here, but I do believe that the case in favor of an ocean engineering program can be defended solely on the basis of these two goals. We are aware that you are exploring the question of Federal support of engi- neering developments in the oceans as compared with the ‘possibility of this being done primarily by private industry. It appears clear to us that private industry cannot be expected to undertake 'a program of sufficient magnitude soon enough to match the nation’s total requirements. The initial cost of these engineering projects in the oceans will be large and the profits almost surely will be slow in realization. Too often the results of ocean engineering may be too diffuse to be exploitable by a single industry. We cannot expect an industrial enterprise, unaided by the Government, to undertake the necessary research and engineering ' studies, to fund construction of a system, and to underwrite its operation unless a satisfactory return can be realized on the investment. A good example of the area wherein the expenditure of public rather than private funds is indicated is the possibility of improving the fishing grounds by controlled returning of nutrients to the surface waters. No single company can be expected to undertake this type of project. There is no doubt in my mind that private indstry will undertake ocean engineering projects when it is economically feasible to do so. I do not believe this will come about early enough to satisfy the national needs and to meet national goals. The present National Oceanographic Program includes some ocean engineering projects, but the goal of most of them is to improve the capability for carrying out basic research programs. An example close at hand is the Navy-sponsored Gevelopment of our deep research vehicle, ALVIN. This project has necessarily entailed a great deal of ocean engineering, but the objective has been to provide a vehicle for oceanographers to use in their basis research projects. Although the several departments and agencies involved in the National Pro- gram undertake ocean engineering projects in order to fulfill their mission in 240 the oceans, there are gaps between their present missions that preclude the de- velopment of a comprehensive ocean engineering capability. These gaps must be filled if we are to develop the capability of conquering the ocean depths for peace- ful purposes and exploiting the vast resource potential of the oceans. There are many ways in which these gaps in present ocean engineering projects could be filled. I think it is fairly obvious that the oceanographic research and engineering programs now underway are indeed germane to the operations of the departments and agencies sponsoring them. It is not nearly so clear to me that the development of an ocean engineering capability can be satisfactorily split up among many organizations. I tend, therefore, to think that there should be a new Government organization whose primary responsibility is ocean engineering and resource development. This new Government organization should fill the void outside and beyond the mission of existing agencies. Today we must establish new national goals con- cerning the oceans. There is new and different work to be done. To meet these new needs, it is reasonable to establish a new agency with a different mission— a mission, I would suggest, that should be carefully drafted by this Commission. I do not believe it would be wise to sweep all ocean-related activities into this proposed new agency. It is wholly proper and wise to retain the defense- related activities within the Navy, to continue the environmental mission of ESSA, basic research in the oceans with NSF, fisheries research with BCF, regulation of the merchant fleet with the Maritime Administration and the study of the interactions within the ocean environment of man’s use of nuclear energy with the AKC. In my opinion, the new agency should have two prime functions: (1) The development of ocean engineering and the exploitation of ocean resources within a mission defined by the Commission, and (2) the coordination of the marine- oriented work of existing agencies through the establishment of a marine sciences board somewhat similar to the National Science Board or the Former National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. It should be a funding agency and not an operating agency. To accomplish its mission, it Should use Government labora- tories, private industry, university and non-profit institutions as is appropriate. It appears likely that the expenditure of public funds must be substantially increased to insure that the United States maintains its. position of leadership in marine affairs. Probably the expenditure of a few billion dollars annually will be necessary. Within our governmental system, this can best be done by the establishment of appropriate committees in both houses of Congress which will be the sponsoring committees for the proposed new agency. There is ample prece- dent for such action when a national need is sufficiently critical. Mr. Downtne. Doctor, do you think the time will ever come when we will be able to harness the power of the oceans as we now do our rivers ? Dr. Fryer. Not in exactly the same way, Mr. Chairman, but in very important and effective ways. I am not sure what is in your mind when you say as we have done with the rivers, perhaps with hydraulic plants and electric power. As you know, there have been a number of schemes of developing electrical power from tides. One apparently is working successfully. I have no doubt that others could be devised, and it could well be a successful operation from an engineering standpoint. The economics have really been what has been holding it back. From other standpoints, there are many ways that one can think of for using the energy of the oceans. This includes the supply of food which is a source of energy, derived eventually from the sun through the photo- synthetic process. T would answer your question by saying that I don’t think it will be in ways completely analogous to the rivers, but certainly equally and even more importantly in its effectiveness. Mr. Downtne. Thank you, Dr. Fye. One more question from Counsel. 241 Mr. Drewry. Dr. Fye, this synopsis is on the letterhead of the Ma- rine Technology Society. Is this a position of the Marine Technology Society or is this just your own position or just Woods Hole? Dr. Fyr. No; Mr. Chairman and Mr. Counsel. That was published as a part, as you see there, of the MTS Notes, not because I was presi- dent-elect, but because they thought they would like to publish it. It was the only convenient copy. I can send you, of course, the full text which will be on a Woods Hole heading. It is by no means the position of the society. It did spark some very interesting and I think important discussions within the society, but it is entirely my own personal writing. Mr. Drewry. I thought that point should be cleared up on the record. Thank you. Mr. Downrne. Thank you, Dr. Fye. You have made a very impor- tant contribution, We have another distinguished witness with us this morning, Dr. James H. Wakelin, Jr., chairman, the Oceanic Foundation, Honolulu ; the Research Analysis Corp., McLean, Va., and member of the advisory board of the Ryan Aeronautical Co., San Diego, Calif. Dr. Wakelin was the former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development. (Biography of Dr. Wakelin follows:) Dr. JAMES H. WAKELIN, JR., PHYSICIST, WASHINGTON, D.C. Born, Holyoke, Massachusetts, May 6, 1911. A.B., Dartmouth College, 1932; B.A., Cambridge University, 1934; M.A. 1939; Ph. D., Yale University, 1940. Senior Physicist, B. F. Goodrich Company, Akron, Ohio, 1939-48. Lt. and Ledr., USNR, Office of the ‘Coordinator of Research and Development, and Office of Research and Inventions, Navy Department, Washington, D.C., 1943-46. Director of Research, Engineering Research Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1946-48 (now Univac. Div., Sperry Rand Corp.). Associate Director and Director of Research, Textile Research Institute, Princeton, N.J., 1948-54 ; Research Associate 1954-59. Founding Director and Vice President, Chesapeake Instrument Corp., Shady- side, Maryland, 1954-59. Consultant on the Planning and Organization of Research and Development, General Electric Company, Stanford Research Institute, American Radiator and Standard Sanitary Corporation, J. P. ‘Stevens and other companies, 1954—59. Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research and Development), 1959-64 ; Chair- man, Interagency Committee on Oceanography, 1960-64; Head, U.S. Delegation to Intergovernmental Conference on Oceanography, Copenhagen, 1960, and to Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO, Paris, 1961. Chairman, Board of Trustees, Research Analysis Corporation, McLean, Vir- ginia (1965—__). Chairman of the Board, Oceanic Foundation, Honolulu, Hawaii (1966—__). Consultant and Member Advisory Board, Ryan Aeronautical Company, San Diego, California (1964-__). ‘Consultant, United Aircraft 'Corp., East Hartford, Conn. (1967—__). Member, Naval Research Advisory Committee, Department of the Navy; Board of Trustees, ‘Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic So- ciety ; Board of Overseers, Chairman (1967—__), Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College ; Overseers’ Committee to Visit the Department of Astronomy, Harvard University ; Executive Committee, Graduate School Association, Alumni Board, Yale University ; Member of the Corporation, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 242 Honorary Member, National Security Industrial Association and Marine Tech- nology Society (President 1966-1968). t Member, American Physical Society, The Fiber Society, Rheology Society, Tex- tile Research Institute, Society for Computing Machinery, Sigma XI, Gamma Alpha, Zeta Psi. Distinguished Public Service Awards, Navy 1961 and 1964. Author Scientific Papers on Textile and High Polymer Research, and Co-author with C. B. Tompkins and W. W. Stifler, Jr., of “High Speed Computing De- vices’ —MeGraw-Hill Book 'Co., New York (1950). STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES H. WAKELIN, JR., CHAIRMAN, THE OCEANIC FOUNDATION, HONOLULU; THE RESEARCH ANALYSIS CORP., McLEAN, VA., MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY BOARD OF THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL CO., SAN DIEGO, CALIF., AND FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Dr. Waxettn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have before me a statement. Is it your pleasure that I should read it, sir? Mr. Downine. Yes, proceed in any way you want, Doctor. Dr. Waxetin. If I may, I would rather quickly read it, and then reply to your questions. Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, it is a privilege for me to appear before your committee to discuss the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources entitled, as Dr. Fye has said appropriately, “Our Nation and the Sea,” which was submitted to the President in January of this year. I should like to consider (1) the growth of our ocean program dur- ing the years 1960-66, (2) national policy and the guidelines under which the Commission conducted its work, (8) the national program recommended by the Commission, and finally (4) the organizational framework recommended by the Commission to implement the pro- gram it has recommended for our national effort in the oceans. In the years prior to the enactment of Public Law 89-454, establish- ing the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering De- velopment, and the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, the planning and budgeting of the Federal program in the oceans was coordinated by the Interagency Committee on Oceanog- raphy of the Federal Council on Science and Technology. This period includes the years 1960-66. I was privileged to be the first chairman of the ICO from 1960-64, and in that capacity I have appeared at numerous hearings before your committee on the substan- tive and programing matters as well as the fiscal matters concerned with the Federal program. During this period, the Federal annual funding for our ocean efforts increased from $55 million in 1960 to $123 million in 1964. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that a more dramatic group of figures would include the years 1958 and 1959, with budgets of $21.3 million and $35.8 million, respectively. After the issuance of the National Academy’s report in 1959 on the ocean program, there was a decided impetus given between to the funding of the Federal program. At that level of Federal support, the coordinating mechanism of the ICO appeared to be sufficient to guide the program. 243 I might also say that there were 22 agencies, bureaus, and offices reporting to 30 committees in the Congress, both in the House and Senate, involved in the ICO. ; At the present time, in 1969, the Federal funding for our ocean pro- eram stands at $471.5 million, with $528 million planned for fiscal year 1970. Under Public Law 89-454, the National Council on Marine Re- sources and Engineering Development assumed the coordinating role previously undertaken by the ICO, with the Vice President as chair- man, and members comprising Cabinet officers, The Council has done an outstanding job of keeping the program moving, and in initiating action in new fields of activities requiring urgent, timely, and imme- diate attention. Public Law 89-454 of June 17, 1966, established the national policy with reference to the oceans as follows: Sec. 2. (a) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to develop, encourage, and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive, and long-range national program in marine science for the benefit of mankind to assist in pro- tection of health and property, enhancement of commerce, transportation, and national security, rehabilitation of our commercial fisheries, and increased uti- lization of these and other resources. The law defines “marine science” as follows, in section 8: Sec. 8. For the purposes of this act the term ‘‘marine science” shall be deemed to apply to oceanographic and scientific endeavors and disciplines, and engineer- ing and technology in and with relation to the marine environment; and the term “marine environment” shall be deemed to include (a) the oceans, (b) the Continental Shelf of the United States, (c) the Great Lakes, (d) seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of the United States to the depth of 200 meters, or beyond that limit, to where the depths of the super- jacent waters admit of the exploitation of the natural. resources of such areas, (e) the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine ‘areas adjacent to the coasts of islands which comprise U.S. territory, and (f) the resources thereof. The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources was instructed to review and analyze the current programs in the marine environment and “to recommend an adequate national marine science program that will meet the present and future national needs with- out duplication of effort” * * * together with, and finally the most im- portant, ‘“‘a governmental organizational plan with estimated costs.” The program recommended by the Commission encompasses a broad effort in the oceans, including, strong Navy and strong civilian par- ticipation. The Commission cites the need for scientific and engineering knowledge in order to provide the basis for making decisions on alternative courses of action with reference to the resources of the seas, and emphasizes the requirement for a strong civil marine technology program. It recommends the establishment of university-national labora- tories to undertake global and regional programs, coastal zone lab- oratories and a general expansion of the Navy’s oceanographic effort in order for our Nation to increase our understanding of the planetary oceans. In marine technology, the Commission recommends a significantly increased capability to utilize the Continental Shelf and the Conti- nental Slope down to a depth of 2,000 feet, and to explore the depths 244 of the oceans to 20,000 feet by 1980, and to utilize these depths by the year 2000. A series of national projects to implement this program is recommended. In recognizing the increasing importance of our coast land, the Commission recommends the establishment of coastal zone authorities to provide for Federal, State, and local machinery to preserve the quality of these regions, to develop the coastal areas for offshore ter- minals, storage facilities, et cetera, to increase the opportunity for recreation and public access to the water, and to strengthen our efforts in pollution control. In the field of marine resources, the Commission has recommended changes in national and international policies and law with respect to the living and mineral resources, and suggested mechanisms by which Government and industry can cooperate to develop means by which private investment can utilize ocean resources in an economical manner. The Commission further recognizes that the utilization of the oceans and ocean resources in terms of our domestic economy is primarily the domain of private enterprise. Many of the changes suggested by the Commission define the man- ner in which the Federal Government and the States can contribute to the private sector by providing information and data in technology, engineering, and resource evaluation. While the United States has immediate interests in the coastal zone, effective use of this area requires a broader understanding of ocean processes on a global scale. The Commission recommends programs in research and exploration, monitoring and prediction, environmen- tal modification and international areas in order to provide an im- proved understanding and prediction capability of the oceans and atmosphere on a global basis. | All of the foregoing recommendations require many services which can be provided principally by the Federal Government. These supporting services of a technical and operational nature include map- ping and charting, navigation, safety, and policing, data management, and instrument calibration and standards. The scope of the program recommended by the Commission to ad- vance our interest in and use of the seas demands a significant increase in the annual funding for such a program. In fact, the Commission recommends an increase of about 160 percent in our annual ocean program funding. Specifically, it recommends an addition of $800 million beyond the roughly $500 million now annually appropriated for the present program. It is, then, reasonable, for an annual expenditure of $1.3 billion, that we consider the value expected from such a program, and that we think very seriously about whether a program of such magnitude can be administered, managed, and directed by the part-time effort of Government officials who have primary responsibilities in many other important areas. Further, it is necessary to ask ourselves whether the sum of the work representing that in support of the roles and missions of presently or- ganized executive departments is sufficient to include all of the neces- sary functions of an enlarged, forward-looking national program in the oceans. 245 Tn its review and analysis of the present ocean effort, and the future program which it has recommended in its report to the President, the Commission recommends as a management structure the establishment of a major civilian agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, reporting directly to the President. The primary mission of this agency is to implement the programs that the Commission has recommended for our national effort, specifically : To explore the marine frontier and its interrelationships with the atmosphere ; To define its resources ; To advance capabilities for its use ; To provide supporting services, including weather and ocean forecasts; To minimize conflicts over uses of the marine environment ; To coordinate scientific and technical requirements and recommendations in support of foreign policy objectives ; and To serve marine industry and the marine interests of the American people. The Commission also recommends, in order to coordinate the inter- ests of the Federal Government, the States and regions, industry and the academic community, the establishment of the National Advisory Committee for the Oceans, comprising 15 members with backgrounds in and responsibilities representing the above interests. Finally, the Commission recommends the need for the Congress to organize its committee structure so that greater focus can be given to the entire program in marine activities. At this point in my statement it is probably unnecessary but I should like to remind your committee that recommendations for the integra- tion and improved management of our national program in the oceans have previously been made by several important groups. In June 1966, the Panel on Oceanography of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Gordon J. F. MacDonald, recommended, “a major reorganization of non-Navy governmental activities in oceanography. The recommended reorga- nization would place in a single agency all those Federal activities related to description, prediction, and attempts to develop capabilities of modifying the environment (ocean, atmosphere, and solid earth), and those activities concerned with managing and developing resources of the ocean.” Also, in 1966, the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences, National ‘Research Council, under the chairman- ship of Dr. Milner B. Schaefer, in its report entitled “Oceanography 1966,” had this to say about the national program: ... We still have no national ocean program with which to implement the policy— Public Law 89-454— and no national ocean budget with which to fund it. National needs now require that we build the managerial structure needed to develop these instruments. Con- siderable coordination of managerial function in both executive and legislative branches of the Government will be necessary before these forward steps can be taken. The position of certain industrial leaders in this matter is reflected by a group in the National Security Industrial Association, under the chairmanship of Mr. John H. Clotworthy, in a March 1964, publica- tion entitled “A National Ocean Program.” 246 This group proposed that a National Ocean Science and Technology Agency be created to guide and coordinate a truly national program. From these earlier studies and analyses, it is abundantly evident that eminent Americans representing the President’s Science Advisory Committee, the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, and the industrial community, have recognized the need for expanding our ocean efforts into a national ocean program, and for the appropriate organizational structure to implement, manage, and effectively direct this program. The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources under the leadership of its distinguished chairman, Dr. Julius A. Stratton, has performed an outstanding service of enduring value to the United States. The principal report of the Commission is an excellent summary of the technical, operational, and management plans for a national ocean program. The reports of the Panels, forming the basis for the plans and recom- mendations of the report, contain valuable, detailed information on (1) basic science, (2) environmental monitoring, (8) management of the coastal zone, (4) manpower, education, and training, (5) industry and private investment, (6) marine engineering and technology, (7) marine resources, and (8) international legal-political frameworks. I concur in and support the recommendations of the Commission in regard to the national ocean program and the organizational structure to implement it. There is no doubt that a unified managerial framework such as NOAA must be established if we are to pursue the recommended program. There is also no doubt that, to obtain the advice and counsel of the States, regions, industry, and the academic community, we require the establishment of the National Advisory Committee for the Oceans. This will provide the needed coupling of these interests with the Fed- eral effort, and will accelerate the transfer of the results of this effort into methods, techniques, and procedures useful to the private sector and the domestic economy. The extent and the success of our national ocean program will play a vital role in the security and the economy of our country, and on its influence in the community of nations. The program will also con- tribute in a most significant manner to the supply of increasing quanti- ties of food and other resources from the sea for the common good of all mankind. A program of this magnitude and importance should not be managed in the executive branch or reviewed in the legislative branch in a frag- mented manner. I suggest that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and the National Advisory Committee for the Oceans be es- tablished in recognition of the importance of our national ocean pro- gram to the United States. I also suggest that the Congress take the necessary organizational steps to provide for the integrated legislative and appropriational re- view of the program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of appearing before your committee and for the opportunity to present my views on the 247 report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. Mr. Lennon (presiding). The committee, Dr. Wakelin, is very grate- ful to you for your interesting, informative, and challenging statement. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Mosher. Mr. Mosurr. Well, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I have any ques- tions, but I must say that such complete support for the Stratton Com- mission’s recommendations from a man of the very distinguished ex- perience and success of Dr. Wakelin in practical operations in this field is very encouraging and very significant. I welcome it. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, sir. With that I totally agree. The gentleman from Florida. Mr. Rocrrs. Thank you very much. I share those feelings. It is good to see Dr. Wakelin before this committee again. Dr. Waxetin. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rocrrs. I might say that really it was your idea that I used in introducing legislation to bring about the Commission, which was later adopted by this committee and by the Congress. T think it has done an excellent job, and am delighted to see that you feel that its findings are worthy of support. I agree with you. I would like to have your views, and you may not have them ready to give to us in this regard right now, so that you may submit them to the record, or at least I would be interested in having a copy of your views, as well as those of Dr. Fye, on the operation of coastal labora- tories, which the Commission discusses, and the operation of such laboratories, how they should function, as well as the national labora- tories which Dr. Fye mentioned in his testimony, because I think it is essential for us now to begin to crystalize our thinking on how the regional and coastal laboratories would work in relationship to the national laboratory, and where their administration should be placed. Perhaps you could submit something at a later time. Dr. Waxetin. Mr. Rogers, if I may, I would like to do that. T don’t have any direct views on the management or establishment or interre- lationships of such laboratories for the coastal zone right now. Mr. Roegrs. I understand. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. (The document follows :) CoasTaL ZONE DLABORATORIES AND UNIVERSITY NATIONAL LABORATORIES, BY Dr. JAMES H. WAKELIN, JR. I would like to endorse the Commission’s recommendations for the creation of University National Laboratories and Coastal Zone Laboratories. While there has been some confusion in the marine community about how these two recom- mendations relates to each other and to Sea Grant Colleges, I believe that exam- ination of the Commission’s other recommendations and the reports of the Panels clarify the relationships quite adequately. UNIVERSITY NATIONAL LABORATORIES ‘ The concept of the University National Laboratories was based on two prin- cipal factors: (1) Some elements of marine science have now become what may be called “big science,” which means that large and expensive facilities are needed. These facilities include ships, aircraft, working platforms, arrays of buoys, special equipment, and deep submersibles. Further, the facilities may have 248 to be marshalled all at once for a given investigation of a priority ocean area. The Commission’s recommendation, quite logically, was based on a limited num- ber of groupings of such facilities because of the capital investment required. Such groupings already exist, but need to be expanded. The Nation’s great oceanographic laboratories, Scripps, Wood Hole, and Lamont, already have the nuclei on which to build. And so do a few other institutions. (2) The kind of “big science” research conducted by the University National Laboratories cannot be turned off and on by minor changes in fiscal priorities. This is what happens when the laboratories must depend on project-type fund- ing. Under such uncertain funding it is difficult to maintain the necessary staffs, with guarantee of tenure, and it is difficult to plan operations in support of re- search. Under ‘the concept of the University National Laboratory, block funding would be provided to support the core facilities and operations. Such block fund- ing would enable the laboratories to plan and conduct oceanic research at the level the Commission proposes, and which the national interest requires. The block funding, with a statement of intent to fund annually, could be supple- mented with specific project grants by the mission-oriented agencies for the conduct of programs important to their missions. Further the University Na- tional Laboratories would not be for the exclusive use of the managing university but would provide facilities for investigators from other institutions, both inland and coastal. In summary, the two principal elements for the University National Labora- tories are adequate facilities in a few places to conduct “big” ocean science, and block funding to assure the maintenance of facilities and staff. It is also important to note that the laboratories would operate primarily off- shore. Their objective would be to gain understanding of the ocean environment— its physical characteristics, its chemistry, its biology, and its interactions with sun, air, and land. The research would be basic in nature. The Commission’s recommendation was that the funding of the University National Laboratories be assigned to the new agency, NOAA. This may be de- Sirable within the context of the new agency’s mission as the Congress legislates it, but it is also unnecessary. In other words, we need not wait for a new agency to institute a University National Laboratory program. Both the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research have such block funding programs. Hither agency could manage the University National Laboratory program quite as well as could a new agency. In fact, the new agency would have to lean on the experience—and perhaps recruit the actual personnel—of NSE and ONR. The Commission itself pointed out that NCA‘R, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, now administered by NSF, is the atmospheric equivalent of the oceanic University National Laboratories. The management by Scripps, under NSF fund- ing, of the deep ocean drilling program, is equivalent to operations proposed for the University National Laboratories. In fact, because the operations would be for research into the natural phenomena of the seas, I can see merit in leaving basic research and the laboratory operation where it now resides. Certainly the nation must have more ocean scientific research aS an underpinning fo all its ocean goals, but I think the principal need is in ocean technology and engineering. COASTAL ZONE LABORATORIES The concept of the Coastal Zone Laboratories was to ensure the availability of Science and engineering necessary for the use, maintenance, and improvement ‘of the Coastal Zone. The coastal zone and the high seas do merge, and there are some common problems, but most of the problems are quite different. It is in the coastal area that man’s activities have the greatest impact and where there is the greatest conflict among users. The Coastal Zone Laboratories would provide the information on which management decisions of a real and practical nature would be based at the appropriate level of government. And the Laboratories would also devise the best means of carrying out such decisions with due regard to maintenance or restoration of the environment, conservation, and the public interest. The Commission recommended assignment of responsibility for the Coastal Zone Laboratories to the National Sea Grant Program. J think the reasons are apparent. Sea Grant, which has concentrated initially on coastal zone resources, already has funded institutions to carry out research identical to that envisaged for the Coasal Zone Laboratories. I know the committee is aware that Sea Grant 249 funds have been too limited to make a major impact, but even with a tight budget the program has managed to initiate programs which are, in fact though not in name, Coastal Zone Laboratory activities. For example, Louisiana State Uni- versity’s Sea Grant Program is directed to the management and utilization of the great coastal marshes. The University of Delaware’s Sea Grant Program is to apply systems engineering principals to the Delaware River Estuary and the Coast. The University of Washington’s Sea Grant Program includes a project involving economists, lawyers, oceanographers and biologists to determine the best management and utilization of an area within Puget Sound. Such activities need to be expanded, and provision must also be made for facil- ities, which are at present restricted under the terms of the Sea Grant Act, but the Congress could make this change quite easily. SEA GRANT COLLEGES The purpose underlying Sea Grant Institutional Support, which will eventually lead to designation of Sea Grant Colleges, was to assist qualified universities to develop broadly based marine competence which can be applied to problems and opportunities of the region served by the institution. This concept goes far beyond either the University National Laboratory concept, or the Coastal Zone Laboratory concept, but can include both as a legitimate part of a Sea Grant College function. I believe the Coastal Zone Laboratory idea should be included within the Sea Grant mission, with legislative changes as necessary for imple- mentation. I do not believe it would be as appropriate for Sea Grant to include the University National Laboratories because the objectives are not entirely eonsistent. Where Sea Grant has the purpose of developing marine resources and the people to conduct such development, the University National Laboratories are for more basic research. I suggest that the University National Laboratories could be more appropriately conducted by other parts of the National Science Foundation. There is no reason why a major university with the necessary breadth and competence could not be designated both a Sea Grant Institution and a University National Laboratory. In general, the two programs would be conducted and ad- ministered by different groups within a given university, and any overlap would be of mutual benefit without altering the distinct character of the two kinds of effort. I may also say that there is no need to label activities with exclusive tags. If a Sea Grant College has the necessary programs to meet Coastal Zone Laboratory requirements, there is no need to give it a different name. It’s the function that is important, not the title. CONCEPTS OF MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION The plans outlined in Chapter 3 of the Commission’s Report, “Our Nation and the Sea,” deal specifically with the relation of the Federal, State and regional interests in the management of the three types of laboratories under the admin- istration of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. It is perha'ps in order to expand on these relationships and to give my personal views on the matter of planning and coordination of the programs of each of these types of laboratories. In a program as broad as that recommended by NOAA, the development of pro- gram plans and program coordination is of the utmost importance in achieving an integrated program working toward the national goals of our ocean effort. First, there must be adequate coordination of the plans and programs of the University-National Laboratories, the Coastal Zone Laboratories, and the Federal Laboratories which come under the direct administration of NOAA. For example, the University-National Laboratories, in undertaking regional programs, should have close working relationships with the Coastal Zone Laboratories operating in their regions, and with those Federal Laboratories where their coastal and global interests are mutual. Also, the University-National Laboratories must work together in programs of common interests where their global expeditions and exploratory programs are planned to operate in the same areas of the deep sea. In Chapter 3 of the Commission’s Report, I believe it is clear that the pro- grams of the University-National Laboratories would be administered in the Federal Government by NOAA, and those of the Coastal Zone Laboratories by programs mutually agreed upon between NOAA and the Coastal Zone authorities. Finally, the programs of the Federal Laboratories under NOAA’s jurisdiction 26-563—69—pt. 1——17 200 would be administered by that agency but with mutual coupling with the Coastal Zone and University-National Laboratory programs. While the recommendations of the Commission are clear and follow well developed guidelines for the manage- ment of the Coastal Zone, plans for programs in this area must also include those of the University-National Laboratories and the Federal Laboratories. In order to coordinate these efforts, I suggest that the head of NOAA establish a deputy position whose responsibility, together with his staff, would be the Plan- ning and Coordination of NOA‘A (Programs. The second area of coordination and program planning includes that of the laboratories and operating elements of NOAA with other Government agencies such as the Navy, Army, Maritime Administration, Interior, AEC, NASA, the Smithsonian, etc., whose roles and missions include responsibilities for ocean science and engineering. This I would suggest should be the responsibility of a deputy and his staff for Coordination of Interagency Programs. The third element of coordination involves the Federal, State and regional programs in coordination with the efforts of industry working in ocean areas important to and in support of the national program. Without the proper cou- pling with industry, as the technology of ocean operations develops, the knowledge developed by the Federal and State groups will not properly be transferred to industry, nor will industry be able to contribute its part in support of the de- velopment of these programs. This is an area of great importance, and should be the responsibility of a deputy and staff, for Coordination of Industrial Pro- grams. Finally, all of the capabilities developed by Federal, State, regional, industrial and academic developments will be important in our ability to cooperate with other countries in mutually valuable efforts in internationally sponsored pro- grams. Important in this area is a strong and closely associated planning effort with that of the Department of State and with the Department of the Navy. I suggest that this effort be the responsibility of a deputy for Planning and Co- ordination of International Programs. Hach of the above deputies for plans and program coordination, and their staffs, should work closely with the National Advisory Committee for the Oceans so that the interests of the Federal, State, regional, industrial and academic communities can be welded together into a truly national program. It may be desirable to establish a Council of Laboratory Directors to advise NOAA on their recommendations, plans and programs, and who will assist in the coordina- tion of the national ocean program, as well as participation by the United States in internationally sponsored programs. In this regard the National Advisory Committee for the Oceans assumes a most important role in advising, assisting and guiding the head of NOAA in many areas of science, technology and engi- neering, both in the U.S. programs and those in international cooperation. Through NACO the interests of Federal, State, regional, industrial and academic efforts will be combined into an integral program. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, sir. Mr. Pelly. Mr. Petry. Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention the contribution that Dr. Wakelin made in pulling together a lot of the agencies when he was in the Navy Department. I don’t think we would have arrived at the point today of having before us this gigantic proposal had it not been for the fact that you were able to pull everybody together, and even after you left I think your influence lingered on, because there is and has been ever since you were active in this Government work a recognition I think by the various agencies that they would work together. I was interested in your statement that Congress should also reor- ganize, and I wonder how much thought you have given that. It is a very complex problem. Dr. Waxketin. Yes, sir. I am not an authority on the organization of the legislative and appropriational branch, here, but I would hope that the problems that we faced when I was Chairman of the ICO 251 would not be repeated with the establishment of a central agency to undertake the civil program for marine sciences, and I say this very feelingly, Mr. Pelly. : As I pointed out, there were 22 different offices or bureaus, including those of the departments which were concerned with the work of the ICO during my Chairmanship, and we did report to 30 different com- mittees in the House and Senate. We found only one committee that would look at the whole program, and this is your committee here. I want to say again, as I did in 1964, almost 5 years ago this month, when I was about to leave the Navy, that I think one of the great in- fluences on ICO as an integral structure was the interest of this par- ticular committee in the work of the ICO. While I went before Mr. Mahon’s committee on naval appropriations, including the oceanographic work in support of anti-submarine war- fare and also basic science, there was no other committee than this that looked at the whole program, including Interior, Commerce, Navy, and other agencies that contributed to the work of the ICO. I would hope that this committee would take the lead in the House in the matter of jurisdiction with respect to this subject. I think the interest of the members of this committee, their sincerity, and the hard work that they have done in preparing themselves for the hearings in which I was involved indicate that they have a principal interest and a principal responsibility. After all, the legislation for the Commission came out of Mr. Len- non’s and Mr. Rogers’ bill, and you deserve the credit for that. We had certain ideas about the Commission’s work, and I think it has been an outstanding job. I would hope, however, that you could work out, Mr. Pelly, some method in this committee to take further interest in the integral struc- ture in the House for such a program. Mr. Petuy. We have had a reform bill before the House, which ee the Senate and went up to the Rules Committee, and is still there. When you consider the problems that arise in trying to transfer - jurisdiction from one committee to another, which is really from one individual to another, it is very difficult. It 1s something that has been worrying me. I know that as far as this committee is concerned, we hope that we ean carry forward with this, but we had a case not very long ago in- volving a problem of oil pollution on the west coast, and two com- mittees vied with each other in their attempts to report legislation to carry out their ideas and establish their responsibility over population problems. T can see that it is not going to be very easy. I know that there are men of great experience on some committees who feel that they don’t want to give up the experience and interest that they have developed through the years. When you say that Congress should reorganize, I know you are aware that those things do not come about so easily. It requires the exercise of statesmanship and skill by the leadership in Congress, and as much as anything else, the unselfish interest that comes from leaders in your field coming before us and pointing up the importance of what we are now trying to accomplish. I think that this fact has to be im- pressed upon all Members of Congress, and I am sure it can be with people like yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Pelly. Mr. Jones. Mr. Jonns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions, except to compliment the gentleman on his appearance here, and perhaps make a personal observation. We are all aware of the dramatic success of the Apollo 10, and I think that vividly points out the need for a centralized, coordinated program in this field. I think with anything as fragmentized as the oceanography program, with 30 committees as well as ‘departments and commissions, there would be no Apollo 10. Dr. Waxerin. I think that is right, Mr. Jones. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Keith. Mr. Kerra. Thank you, ‘Mr. Chairman. A comparison was made of the recommended National Advisory Committee on Oceanography with the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics in 1915. I recognize the problems of the executive branch in coming up with a reorganization that would implement the recommendations of the Commission, and of getting the public in the mood to respond favor- ably, either fo that kind of Executive action or to congressional action along those lines. I wonder if you have any observation to make con- cerning the possible timing of the creation of NACO. Dr. Fye commented briefly on this. Would you care to? Dr. Waxettn. Well, if I might, Mr. Keith, go back just a bit with respect to NACA, first the establishment of NACA was made possible through the Naval Appropriations Act, as you recall, in 1915, princi- pally ‘to. establish an advisory committee to develop aviation both civilly and militarily in this country, to support the Navy and the Army, and to support the development of an industry that would con- tribute to our progress in aviation. The National Advisory Committee on the Oceans, it seems to me, timewise, is somewhat beyond that stage in which we started in 1915 with the NACA. I think we cannot have an NACO alone, unless we pattern it after the NACA with separate funding, the development of laboratories and test facilities and design studies, and engineering capabilities that would advance ocean science and engineering. I think the problem is much bigger in this area than it was in the aviation industry for the purview “that NACA had over it from 1915 into the 1920’s. J think the timing of NACO ought to be simultaneous with NOAA. I think if you set up an NACO as an advisory committee, the ques- tion I would ask mvself is: Whom do they advise? Would they advise the Council? Would they advise the President? And if they have only an advisory capacity, it seems to me the power and effectiveness of an operating organization that could advise would be lost. There would be no implementation, except through the various departments, agen- cies, and offices that now conduct work in the oceans. 253 I think they should, that NOAA. and NACO should be established simultaneously. Mr. Kerru. I have no further questions. I thank the witness for his comments. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Hanna? Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Wakelin, you have most recently been associated with one of the private companies involved in oceanography. Is it correct to assume that if we can demonstrate to industry that they have more to gain than they have to lose in terms oft heir own natural desires for activities that produce profits, that we could get their support in terms of this new agency setup ? Dr. Waxetrn. I don’t think there is any doubt of that at all, Mr. Hanna. Mr. Hanna. Because there is, of course, a natural predilection for people to be very conscious about what they have to lose, and you have to be very emphatic on what they have to gain, and I think that story has been told pretty well. On the other hand, to get Government change, you have to use a different approach. It seems to me that in changing the agencies, you need a very firm position by the President and his immediate advisers. Do you feel that this administration is prepared to make a very firm stand in this regard ? ) Dr. Waxe in. Well, I cannot speak for the administration. I think that, from what I know of their thinking on this, that they are still studying the whole proposition, and I think that they will have a Goy- ernment position sometime in June. Mr. Hanna. Do you agree with me that it would be very helpful if they come out with a strong position ? Dr. Waxertn. I think it is almost imperative that they do; and, if such a move were made to consolidate some of the groups that are mentioned here in the report into an agency, it would have a profound influence on the questions that we have been discussing with Mr. Pelly. The Congress would then have to consider very seriously its role, and the mechanisms by which it could look at an integrated picture, both in the House and in the Senate. Mr. Hanna. I should not like to be interpreted as being cynical, but it is my observation that if you can demonstrate a utilization of existing manpower in key spots in a manner which promises potential improvement in their power structure, and a positive expectation of increased funds, that this makes a second input to encourage restruc- turing of those agencies. Would you agree with that? Dr. Waxketin. Yes, indeed. Yes, sir. This could be done, of course, as the Environmental Science Services Administration in Commerce was set up by reorganizational admin- istrative action of the President. Mr. Hanna. I would think unless you could show that you were going to give consideration to those persons who have characteristic- ally been carrying out duties, and who have built up experiences, that they might not come out and be against you, but you would never get anything done, and you would wonder why. That would be my experience. 254 Dr. Waxe.in. Yes, sir. Mr. Hanna. I think we have an entirely different problem, Mr. ‘Chairman, in terms of the legislative change, because I think the legis- lative change comes from the result of pressure, and that is predicated ‘on education, as Dr. Fye and I discussed as we exchanged ideas here, and I think that is general where persons like yourself and the orga- nization within industry and the Academies and other areas must all join us in this educational process, because out of that will come the public pressure really required to make the legislative change. Dr. WaxKetin. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Hanna. Immediately preceding Dr. Wakelin’s statement, I ask unanimous consent that there be inserted in the record the biography of Dr. Wakelin. Dr. Wakelin, I am particularly delighted that you were able and interested and concerned enough to make yourself available, because our association has been long over the years in relationship to the bringing into being of Public Law 89-454, from which we move today to consider the Commission’s report. T note that you state on page 6, about line 8, that, “In June 1966, the Panel on Oceanography of the President’s Science Advisory Com- mittee * * * recommended a major reorganization of non-Navy gov- ernmental activities in oceanography. * * *” Is it your judgment that the Stratton report, or the Commission re- port suggests an implementation of its recommendations comparable to what was recommended in that particular panel report, that was headed up by Dr. Gordon J. F. McDonald, in general terms? Dr. Waxetin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am just now looking at the report to which you referred, which is entitled “Effective Use of the Sea.” It is not very different by way of organizational structure than that recommended by the Stratton Commission. The reasons given in the report for the proposed reorganization are three: Unity of environmental sciences and observational technology ; two, dependence of oceanic development for Navy and commerce on our ability to predict the environment; and three, clearly establishing responsibility for executing national objectives and nondefense mis- sions for the oceans. Mr. Lennon. In that same year, 1966, and you refer to it, also, on page 6, the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, under the chairmanship of Dr. Milner B. Schaefer, made its report, and they specifically referred, according to your statement here, if I understand it, to Public Law 89-454. I take it that in that particular report they made specific reference to the national ocean policy that was suggested or proclaimed by the enactment of Public Law 89-454. Is that your appraisal of Dr. Schaefer’s report? Dr. Waxeuin. That is my understanding, Mr. Chairman. ‘ Mr. Lennon. J think you must keep in mind that while this particu- lar act did attempt to establish by Congress a national oceanography or oceanographic program or policy, yet, at the same time, the act also provided for the creation of the national council that you and I have 255 discussed so many times in consideration of including it in that legis- lation. It also provided for the Commission, and the Congress at- tempted to mandate the Commission to recommend a Government structure if in the judgment of the Commission a Government struc- ture was the best possible approach. So I believe that actually the Stratton report, in a very strong way, icks up the two reports that you referred to in your statement, and follows through on them. Now, I think we can all agree, and we have been an agreement over the years, with what you say on page 8, beginning on line 2, or more particularly on page 8, beginning at line 9,and I quote: “A program of this magnitude and importance should not be man- aged in the executive branch or reviewed in the legislative branch in a fragmented manner.” Then you go on to say in that same paragraph: I also suggest, and later on in your colloquy with two of the members you said you urged that the Congress take the necessary organizational steps to provide for the integrated legislative and appropriational review of the program. And the gentleman from Washington commented on how easy it appears to so many people on the outside, but yet we recognize the turbulence that is created even in this committee by the agencies as suggested by NOAA. You take the Coast Guard. This full committee has jurisdiction of the Coast Guard, but yet it is under another subcommittee. It brings in certain aspects of the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Yet the legislative jurisdiction is under this full committee, but it is under another subcommittee chaired by another gentleman. I would like to ask, were you furnished yet with a copy of Capt. Paul Bauer’s statement before the committee of a few days ago? Dr. WaxkEtin. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Have you had an opportunity to study it, and review it at all? Dr. WaxkeEttn. I have. Mr. Lennon. I would appreciate it, sir, if you would furnish for the record your comments, either in concurrence or in opposition, or any position you would like to take about it. I would like to have your professional opinion, and when you read your biography you can understand how we value your opinion, on Captain Bauer’s state- ment. Captain Bauer served this committee for many years. We value his opinion. Would you object to doing that ? Dr. WaxeE tin. No, sir. Mr. Lennon. We would appreciate it very much. (The statement follows :) Dr. WAKELIN’S COMMENTS REGARDING CAPTAIN BAUER’S TESTIMONY Captain Paul Bauer, in his testimony before this Committee, has proposed a Department of Environmental Sciences rather than the organizational structure of an independent agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, recom- mended by the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. This is an interesting and far-reaching proposal beyond that which the Commission was directed to consider in Public Law 89-454, in particular Section 5(b) which 256 delineates the scope of 'the Commission’s work in marine science and Section 8 which defines the term “marine science.” While a Department of Environmental Sciences may eventually be established, I feel that the first step should be that of bringing together the ocean related civilian parts of the Executive Branch into an independent ocean oriented agency as recommended by the Commission. In this regard and in the matter of timing, I disagree with Captain Bauer’s pro- posal and I urge that we get on now with the establishment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency and the National Advisory Committee for the Oceans. Mr. Lennon. Are there any other questions ? I might say, Dr. Wakelin, that we are going to continue to hear the private. sector at the laboratory level and the scientific level, and this will go on, I am sure, through the middle of June, before we can possibly reach any of the Government agencies which are involved in the Commission’s recommendations. We are going to take the liberty to call on you from time to time as we proceed. In announcing the hearings for tomorrow, we have Dr. John Cal- houn, Jr., Chairman of the Committee on Oceanography of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, and Mr. Walter C. Beckman, president of Alpine Geophysical Associates, Inc. That is the program scheduled for tomorrow. With that, we thank you again, Dr. Wakelin, and the committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock for continuation of this hearing. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 21, 1969.) NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1969 WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1969 Houvsrt or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE CoMMITTEE ON MrercHant MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alton Lennon (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Lennon. The committee will resume the hearings this morning on the Commission report and all matters related thereto. We have a number of very distinguished witnesses appearing this morning, Dr. John C. Calhoun, the Chairman of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Charles L. Drake, Lamont- Doherty Geological Observatory; Dr. Jeral J. Paulik, University of Washington; Dr. Donald W. Pritchard of the Johns Hopkins Uni- versity; and Mr. Walter C. Beckman, president of the Alpine Geo- physical Associates, Inc. Mr. Counsel, do you know the order in which the witnesses wish to present their statements? Mr. Drewry. First the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography with Dr. Calhoun as the leadoff witness. Mr. Lennon. I wonder, Dr. Calhoun and Dr. Paulik and Dr. Pritch- ard, if you gentlemen would occupy the seats at the table there, and it might expedite matters. Are you going to make the single presentation, Dr. Calhoun, or will there be several presentations ? STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN C. CALHOUN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Dr. CatHoun. We have several statements. I would like each of these gentlemen to present his statement. Mr. Lennon. You proceed and then introduce the speakers in the order that you prefer. Dr. CatHoun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Calhoun, and I work for the Texas A. & M. Uni- versity, College Station, Tex., as vice president for programs and di- rector of the sea-grant program. I am appearing here this morning as Chairman of the Committee on Oceanography, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, and, as you have already pointed out, there are several mem- bers of that committee here with me, and in addition, Mr. Vetter, our (257) 258 Executive Secretary, is on hand to back us up with any information we might need to supply in the future. Mr. Lennon. Without objection then, immediately preceding the statement about to be made by Dr. Calhoun, there will be inserted in the record a biography or carreer résumé. (The career résumé follows:) JOHN C. CALHOUN, JE. Education: Pennsylvania State University—B.S. in Petroleum Engineering, 1937; M.S., 1941; Ph. D., 1946. Employment (in reverse chronological order) : Vice President for Programs and Distinguished Professor, ‘Texas A&M University System, 1965- ; Director, Sea Grant Program, Texas A&M University, 1968— . Assistant and Science Aldviser to the Secretary of the Interior, 1963 to 1965 (on leave from the Texas A&M University System) ; also, Acting Director, Office of Water Resources Research, Department of Interior, July—December 1964. Vice Chancellor for Development, Texas A&M University System, 1960 to 1963. Vice President for Engineering, Texas A&M University System, 1957 to 1959. Vice Chancellor for Engineering, Texas A&M University System, 1959 to 1960. Dean of Engineering, Director of the Texas Engineering Wxperiment Station, and Director of the Texas Engineering Hxtension Service, Texas A&M University, 1955 to 1957. Professor and Head of the Department of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Pennsyl- vania State University, 1950 to 1955. Associate Professor, Professor, and Chairman of the School of Petroleum Engi- neering, University of Oklahoma, 1946 to 1950. Research Assistant and Instructor, Pennsylvania State University, 1937 to 1946. Professional societies: AIMH, ASHE, Tau Beta Pi, Phi Kappa Phi, Sigma Xi, Society for the History of Technology, AAAS, American “Society for Oceanography. Publications: 84 technical and general articles; book, “Fundamentals of Res- ervoir Engineering.” | Professional assignments: Present Trustee (1959—- ) and Chairman of Board (1968— ), University Corporation for Atmospheric Research; Trustee, Texas A&M Research Foundation; Chairman, Committee on National Affairs, AIMH; Committee on Mineral Science and Technology, NAS-NRC; Board of Directors, EDUCOM, 1966— ; Chairman, National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography, 1967— ; Executive Director and President, Gulf Universities Research Corporation, 1966—- ; Vice President, American Society for Engineer- ing Hducation, 1968— . Professional assignments: Past: Chairman, Council of Education of AIME; Chairman, Mineral Engineering Division of ASHE; Member, Engineering Com- mittee on Interstate Oil Compact; Member, Education and Accreditation Com- mittee, Engineers’ Council for Professional Development (1955-1960) ; Vice Chair- man, Engineering College Research Council; Chairman, Lamme Award Commit- tee; ASHE; Distinguished Lecturer, Society of Petroleum Hngineers, 1961 ; Mem- ber, Board of Directors, JETS, 1957-1964; President, Society of Petroleum Hngi- neers of AIMH, 1964; Member, Federal Council for Science and Technology, 1963-— 1965; Member Board of Directors and Executive Committee, AIME; Panel on Environmental Pollution, President’s Science Advisory Committee, 1964-1966 ; Chairman, Department of Interior Committee on Marine Resources Program De- velopment, 1966; Board of Directors and Executive Committee, Hngineers’ Coun- cil for Professional Development, 1964-1967; Chairman, Ad Hoc Panel on Scien- tific and Technical Communication Problems in the Husbandry of Domestic Resources, NAS/NAE, 1967; NSF Advisory Panel on Sea Grant Program (1967— 1968). Consulting: For private companies, state agencies, Federal agencies, and uni- versities as petroleum engineer, petroleum production research specialist ; science program and research manager, engineering educator and resource specialist. Non-Professional Affiliations: Chairman, College Station United Fund, 1961; Member, Exchange Club, 1961-1963 ; Member, Board of Directors, Bryan Indus- trial Foundation, 1962-1963; Member, Cosmos Club, 1964— '; College Station Presbyterian Church. Foreign Travel: Hurope, Russian, Ceylon, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Venezuela, and Japan. 259 Listed in: “Who’s Who in Dngineering,’ “American Men of Science,” “Who’s Who in American Education,” ‘“Who’s Who in America.” Personal: Born Betula, Pennsylvania; Married Ruth EH. Huston( Finleyville, Pennsylvania) ; Four children. Present Address: 1106 Ashburn, College Station, Texas 77840. Dr. Catnoun. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to present my views on the implications of the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources to the future challenge presented to our Nation by uses of the oceans. The Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences has studied and discussed the Commission report and we have agreed unanimously to endorse its scope and content as vital to the future of our Nation. We unanimously endorse the concept of a single agency as an essential element to meet national needs recognized by the Commission and we support certain specific recommendations of the Commission. We formulated a letter which was sent to you under date of May 13, signed by myself as Chairman of the Committee on Oceanography, and with your permission, I would like to read that letter, which ex- presses the carefully considered views of the Committee on Ocean- ography. Mr. Lennon. Doctor, as you may know, the staff has had instructions to insert that letter in the record, but now that you are going to read it, we withdraw the request. We will get it into the record anyhow. Dr. CatHoun. Preparatory to reading that letter and offering you any further statement, it might be well to note that the Committee on Oceanography is made up of individuals representing different scien- tific disciplines and different philosophies concerning the organization of ocean science. In a group such as this, it is not always possible to obtain unanimity of opinion, and when unanimity is expressed, it is more often with respect to generalities rather than about specific details. Inasmuch as the report of the Commission on Marine Science, En- gineering, and Resources covers a wide spectrum of ocean sciences and accompanying subjects and deals with economic, legal, and admin- istrative matters, you can appreciate that the areas of consensus may be limited. What I express to you today should be taken in this context of a committee point of view. In many cases, what I will be expressing is my best interpretation as Chairman as to those points on which I think the committee might agree. Several members of the committee who are here with me are prepared to give supplementary statements and to be available for specific questions, 1f you don’t find that the Chairman is giving the opinions that you wish expressed in answer to your questions. I should say that in no way do our remarks reflect a position of, nor should they be attributed to the National Academy of Sciences or the National Research Council. As to the letter which we have placed on record, which is well thought out, addressed to the Honorable Alton Lennon, U.S. House of Representatives : Dear Mr. LENNON: The Committee on Oceanography is pleased to respond to your letter of 1 April asking for our views on the recent Report of the Commis- sion on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. We have discussed the Com- mission’s Report, “Our Nation and the Sea” extensively at our January and 260 March meetings. Our preliminary statement, based on these discussions, follows. As the Panel reports of the Commission become available, we will continue our review of the (Commission Report and will look forward to the opportunity to comment in detail when public hearings are held by your Committee. The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources has produced a milestone report. The Committee on Oceanography concurs in the Commis- sion’s conclusion that : “How fully and wisely the United States uses the Sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing demands for foods and raw materials, its position and influence in the world community and the quality of the environment in which its people live.” We applaud the recommended national marine program of the Commission as a major contribution and believe that national science needs will be well served by this program. The single most important recommendation of the Commission is that the national marine program requires a major reorganization within the Federal Government, a point also stressed in our report “Oceanography 1966, Achieve- ments and Opportunities.” We believe that a single agency, or its equivalent, would provide the needed focal point for the development of capabilities that are essential to meet national needs recognized by ‘the Commission. In our opinion many of the activities essential to an expanding program are unlikely to be ade- quately carried out in the framework of the shared agency responsibility. Although the details of reorganization and the scope of activities for the pro- posed new agency will require much study and negotiation, we support the Com- mission recommendation that efforts in this direction proceed without delay. Furthermore, we urge the Congress to give early consideration to this proposal of the Commission. AS reorganization is discussed and as elements of the national marine program are considered in depth, many details and differences of opinion will need to be considered. The Committee on Oceanography recognizes the importance of con- tinuing review and discussion, but strongly expresses the hope that such debate will not obscure the main thrust of the Commission’s recommendations. The program recommended by the Commission requires both an adequate tech- nology and a firm scientific basis. In spite of the vigorous growth and development in the marine sciences and technology over the past few decades, the fact remains that our knowledge of the oceans and the factors that control its living and non- living resources are just beyond the exploratory stage. Effective exploitation of the oceans’ resources requires knowledge that can answer the fundamental ques- tions of “where”, “how”, “why”, and for certain resources ‘‘when”. At present our ability to monitor the oceans is limited by technology, our hopes to improve the ocean environment as well as our ability to predict changes in the oceans is limited by the progress of science. To achieve capabilities beyond these limits our nation will require an organization and a program such as is recommended in the Commission Report. ‘Specifically, the Committee on Oceanography believes that the following major recommendations of the Commission will do much to accomplish these goals: (1) Establish increased understanding of the planetary oceans as a major goal (page 23 of the Commission report). (2) Hstablish university-national laboratories (page 27). (3) Establish coastal zone laboratories (page 29). (4) Initiate a comprehensive fundamental technology program (page 27). (5) Establish national projects (page 37). (6) Sea Grant Program expansion (page 44). I hope these comments are ‘helpful, and will be pleased to provide additional elaboration at a later date. That is the end of the letter, and the rest of this statement is in the form of elaboration on some of these points. The subject of oceanography is one on which NASCO has pro- duced a number of reports summarizing from time to time the status of the field, its potential and recommendations for the future. From time to time also the Committee offers specific advice in response to questions that are posed by its agency sponsors. NASCO was asked at 261 various points to provide comment on the Commission’s activities and members of NASCO were used from time to time as advisors to both the Council and Commission. % In particular, as chairman of NASCO I transmitted to Mr. Sam Lawrence the Committee’s response to a number of questions raised by him relative to program and organization for marine sciences. Be- cause of the way in which the questions were phrased, NASCO inter- preted its replies as an addendum to its last major report on the sub- ject, “Oceanography 1966—Achievements and Opportunities,” which was developed under the chairmanship of my predecessor, Dr. M. B. Schaefer. Later, I will refer specifically to parts of this letter, I am sure the committee is aware of the report “Oceanography 1966—Achievements and Opportunities,” and we feel as a Committee on Oceanography that the recommendations in this report are still very viable. Perhaps the most controversial and important recommendation of the Commission is that a single independent agency, designated as NOAA, be established to carry out the missions identified by the Com- mission as being essential to meet national needs. Our letter expresses the Committee consensus on this matter, but I would like to elaborate a little on some of the points that have been identified. The question of Federal organization for any program, and I need not tell the committee this, has many ramifications. As all of us know, it is sometimes not so important how an activity is organized as to how the appropriate people will be involved, and the degree to which the activity is given funding and support. Organization questions should arise principally from an examination of the goals to be accom- plished and the most significant thing to ask is whether our organiza- tion will meet the goals we desire. It is in this sense that NASCO be- heves that some new organization for oceanography is needed and has long held this position. If I may quote from the NASCO report, “Oceanography 1966,” it contained the following statement on this matter : In sum, under present management procedures we have 22 federal bureaus and laboratories doing separate things in and about the ocean. Through I'CO they are -all kept acquainted with what the others are doing and planning in the unclassi- fied area. AS much coordination is arranged for as departmental and agency poli- cies and activities will permit—and it is considerable. These 22 executive entities report to about 29 substantive and appropriation committees and subcommittees of the Congress. Thus while Public Law 89-454, June 17, 1966, states that the policy of the United States is to develop, encourage, and maintain a coordinated, comprehen- Sive, and long-range national program in marine science for the benefit of man- kind,’ we still have no national ocean program with which to implement the policy and no national ocean budget with which to fund it. National needs now require that we build the managerial structure needed to develop these instru- ments. Considerable coordination of managerial function in both the executive and legislative branches of the government will be necessary before these forward steps ¢an be taken. We repeat that it is not our present intent to recommend any specific structure to accomplish the necessary improvement. We do point out that any change in the managerial structure must be consistent with the continuing needs of those existing agencies whose primary missions involve ocean activities. That is the close of the quote which NASCO stated in its 1966 re- port, which we still think is germane to the question. 262 More recently in considering this subject for a response to questions raised by the Marine Commission staff, NA‘SSCO furnished the follow- ing statement to Mr. Lawrence: The management of oceanography in the federal government has grown in com- plexity and has necessitated decisions at high levels in the federal executive structure as the program has expanded. We are now at a crucial stage when deci- sions must be made that will affect our nation’s ability to understand and use the ocean in the decades ahead. We visualize both an improved organizational strue- ture and a many-fold increase in the level of effort required to meet these chal- lenges and take advantage of opportunities. By far the bulk of this effort will be in the areas of ocean engineering and resources development. The ‘Committee on Oceanography believes that the nation needs: (1) a major increase in our capacity to do things in the ocean, (2) a major increase in ocean-going and shore facilities, (3) a major increase in brainpower, (4) a major increase in federal funding, and (5) a new oceanographic management structure. The justifications for a major increase in our national ocean program have been documented elsewhere. Foremost among them are: national defense, exploi- tation and use of ocean resources (food, fuel, minerals, waste disposal, trans- portation, recreation), international cooperation and leadership, and weather and climate prediction. If we take appropriate steps now, our nation can retain its leadership in ocean activities and our future right to use the ocean and its re- ‘sources. We estimate that the future cost* of this effort will be less than our ‘present space program—$5 billion per year—but more than $1 billion per year. If present trends continue, it will take us more than ten years to grow to the $1 ‘billion level. This is not fast enough to meet our stated national goals to under- Stand anid use the sea. While a substantial share of the effort sketched above should be developed Within the broad, general missions of the several government agencies now in- volved in oceanography, we do not feel that the management structure required for this magnitude of effort now exists, nor that a program of this scope can be managed effectively unless there is a commensurate change in the management structure. The change in structure should have early attention to facilitate plan- ning and setting of priorities. We can already see major ocean engineering and resources development pro- grams that are many times larger in themselves than the mission assignments of any one of the several agencies. Some examples include: networks of oceanic buoys; deep-ocean habitats; data transmission, processing, collecting, and dis- semination ; and applied engineering and research on materials. These and many other engineering and resource development programs are of overriding national importance, of interest to several agencies, but not appropriately assigned to any single existing agency. Cooperative multiagency programs of sufficient intensity and complexity to solve these problems might be mounted provided a strong supplemental funding and coordination were available. Historical performance of federal agencies in dealing with large, multipurpose programs, however, sug- gests that multiagency coordination will be less effective than the creation of a new management structure. Accordingly, NASCO recommends that: to meet the national needs in the dec- ades ahead it is essential that there be major increase in the tools, facilities, brains and dollars available for study and exploiting the seas. If this is to be accomplished, the present government organization for supporting oceanography must be modified. This modified management structure should recognize a new mission largely related to support of ocean engineering and marine resource development. It should fill the gaps between existing programs. That is the close of the quote from the statement which we trans- mitted to Dr. Lawrence in response to the questions posed by the Com- mission’s staff. I would like to move on and review briefly the principal arguments that have been identified by NASCO on the question of a single agency *There are several ways to measure the total cost of a national ocean program. We are using the criteria now adopted by the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. 263 and specifically NOAA. These are arguments that did come up in our committee at one time or another. One of these arguments is that existing agencies can do the job. It can be argued that a major increase in Federal funding could pro- duce much of what we need even without a change in management structure. Indeed, it is NASCO’s opinion that often existing programs are held back by the level of funding. As our statements also point out, we do not need a modified management structure so much to co- ordinate and correlate the things being done now as to undertake the things that are not being done. A major increase in our capacity to do things in the ocean demands a specific management attention to doing things in the ocean. We must expect that the agencies with major missions that are not specifically to develop ocean science and technology will rightly feel that their first responsibility is to carry out their primary mission. To act otherwise would be contrary to the will of Congress and the public trust assigned to these agencies. Therefore, we cannot and should not expect the top executive of a non-ocean-oriented agency to be the strong advocate for ocean science and technology development that the Nation needs. Mr. Kartu. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? Mr. Lennon. Yes. Mr. Kartu. Are you specifically referring to the Department of the Interior ? Dr. CatHoun. No, this is a general statement that we are making. Mr. Karru. Would you feel that this paragraph hits the Depart- ment of the Interior? Dr. Catuoun. I am not singling out any particular agency. It seems to me that you can’t expect an agency whose mission is not necessarily to develop the oceans to take on that task. Mr. Kartu. And Interior’s is not, is it? Dr. CatHoun. I don’t think there is any agency in the Federal Goy- ernment that has the responsibility and the stated mission to develop the technology of the oceans. That is the point we are making here. Mr. Kartu. I think you are right. That includes all of them. Dr. CatHoun. That includes all of the agencies. Mr. Lennon. I think we could add the Department of Transporta- tion. That is not their total mission. Mr. Karrn. I would suggest to the doctor that he be not too reluc- tant, Mr. Chairman, to be more specific. Dr. CatHoun. No, sir; I simply don’t believe it would be fair. Mr. Lennon. You recall last week, gentlemen, we had the Chairman of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of En- gineering, and they took no position except in the broad scope. They didn’t file a report. So when I received your letter late the same after- noon that the gentleman testified, I got on the phone about 6 o’clock and read it to counsel, and I said, “Now I am going to write to this gentleman and send him your letter and ask, if you folks are taking a position, why couldn’t the National Academy of Engineering take a position. You are all housed in the same building and there must be dialog between you.” We will come back to that later. Go ahead. 264 Dr. Canuoun. I just want to clarify one point. I didn’t think it fair to single out the Department of the Interior in answer to your ques- tion. I think your comment applies to all existing agencies. None of them has a mission to develop ocean science and technology. Mr: Karru. Doctor, if you don’t mind, I do not intend this to be derogatory in any shape or form. We invite you experts to come here and be specific on occasions, and I am inclined to think that you are not. I wouldn’t worry too much about hurting people’s feelings if it happens to come about in the normal course of an event in answer to a question. I feel this committee has a great responsibility, and we would like to have as much specificity as we can. Dr. Catuoun. We will be as specific as we can be. Mr. Petuy. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Karru. I yield. Mr. Petry. I think it would be very worthwhile to the committee for you to address yourself to the case of the Department of the Interior. We have had a very prominent witness, Captain Bauer, a former ad- viser to this committee, who has testified here and seems in disagree- ment with you on that score. I think therefore we should get down to cases. Mr. Karru. If the chairman will permit, that is the only reason I asked the question. Mr. Lennon. You have not yet been furnished a copy of Captain Bauer’s statement ? Dr. Catyoun. It was handed to me about 5 minutes before the hear- ing started. Mr. Lennon. I shal] request that you and your associates give some thought, as much as you possibly can, to consideration of the things that he has projected in that statement, and then I would ask you to furnish for the record a statement signed by you and your three asso- ciates here this morning in which you analyze the statement and take a position. I think that is what we have to do, is to find out how you experts feel about another expert’s position on something where he goes in an entirely different direction from which you are going. We have asked him to do the same thing with respect to the position that you have taken. Dr. Catuoun. We will be happy to look it over and advise you as to what we think we can do. I believe as I go on I may touch on some of these points. (The information follows :) THe Texas A. & M. UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, College Station, Tezx., June 27, 1969. Hon. Auton A. LENNON, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. My Drar ConGRESSMAN LENNON: When I and other members of the Committee on Oceanography testified before your ‘Committee on the Commission Report “Our Nation and the Sea,” you asked us to comment in more detail on the Com- mission’s proposed government reorganization and on the statements on this topic made by Mr. Paul Bauer. After much deliberation, I think that a response to your request goes beyond the role of the Committee on Oceanography. 265 I am willing personally, however, to discuss further some of the issues relative to the Commission Report and especially to elaborate on the question of a federal organization to achieve the goals set forth by the Commission. My discussion is not to be construed as a position of either the National Academy of Sciences or its Committee on Oceanography. In formulating this letter, I have availed myself of thoughts offered by others, including members of the Committee, but the views are strictly my own. I would like to express again enthusiasm for the Commissions’ report and a concern that its main recommendations be implemented in the immediate future. This report puts the importance of the oceans to the United States in proper perspective. It is apparent from the Commission’s study that the oceans must be placed on the same general level of national concern as outer space, public health, foreign aid, transportation, urban problems, and many other matters of high priority. The stake of the United States in the oceans is so large and so in need of development that a new national program should be launched. Further, I believe that the strength and capability of the United States is such that it can en- compass not only immediate problems such as those of the cities, but also prob- lems of longer range potential such as those pertaining to ocean resources. I reemphasize my former statement to the effect that organization, or reorga- nization, is a critical matter, but is derivative from and secondary to the recog- nition of a new mission for ocean affairs and to the allocation of funding to do the necessary job. If we focus our concern on programs and on goals, the need for certain organizational elements becomes clear. If nothing more is done than to combine several existing agencies into a new structure without recognizing a role over and beyond current roles, little will be accomplished. If existing agen- cies are brought together in a new format with no provision for additional federal expenditures, little can be done beyond what is now being done. Some federal organization for marine affairs, stronger than the existing format, is clearly needed. Although it may not be possible to provide the ideal organiza- tion at this time, it is useful to project what the ideal might be. In this respect, I visualize a desirable ultimate federal organization as including a department of natural resources and environments which would bring into focus all federal policies and programs in these areas. Major elements of such a unified department would be sub-departments of the oceans, of the atmosphere and of other resource systems. Clearly, this desired reorganization cannot be done without considering the role of many existing federal agencies and the manner in which they are related. However, steps to provide a focus for ocean resources cannot afford to wait upon the broader goal. Some action is needed now—action which will not prejudice, but perhaps enhance attainment of the ultimate goal. There are Many ways by which a new organization could be structured. I am of the opinion that the creation of NOA‘A would be better than maintaining the status quo. I recognize, as have others, that it is possible also to fashion an agency which would be either larger or smaller than the group for NOAA as recommended by the Commission. Taking all these elements into consideration, I suggest that action at this time should be centered around three points: (1) establishing a new independent agency whose principal mission is to do things not now being done; (2) combin- ing into the new agency a limited number of existing ‘activities based on ocean- centered missions, and (3) providing funding to the new agency sufficient to make it a viable force toward focusing the direction of all civilian ocean develop- ment. My reasons for believing that the new agency should be an independent agency are similar to those voiced by the Commission— “In getting ‘a major and diverse effort underway, the case for independent status is compelling. An independent agency can bring a freshness of outlook and freedom of action difficult 'to achieve within an existing department. Its greater public visibility would draw stronger public interest and support. A head of an independent agency would be better able to organize the agency’s activities, to achieve the multiple purposes of a national ocean program than would an officer of a larger organization in which other interests are represented and, perhaps, dominant.” An independent agency at this time has merit simply to avoid the subjugation of the new ocean mission to any existing departmental mission until a total balanced department can be created. An independent agency is desirable at this time also so that Congress can provide a special over-view of the program apart 26—563—69—pt. 1 18 266 from existing departmental structures. With an independent agency there will be no doubt about the intent of Congress with respect to a new mission. The administrator of the new agency should be provided with a National Ad- visory Committee on the Oceans much as is described on page 245 of the Com- mission Report and he should be designated as federal coordinator of ocean re- lated programs much as is outlined in the Commission Report on page 231. The mission of the new agency should be to stimulate the development of tech- nology for and the capability of operating in and of doing things within the ocean for non-defense purposes; ‘and to gain an understanding of the ocean environment necessary for predicting its behavior and for regulating and using the technology that is developed. It is essential that this new agency contain the core elements of a capability for approaching the complex problems of ocean development on a comprehensive scale. The new ocean agency must support science, develop an ocean technology which expands our national capability in the oceans, support conservation of resources, develop manpower through appropriate educational goals, provide knowledge that will protect the coastal zone from unwise ex- ploitation, and in large measure, coordinate the activities of all federal agencies concerned with oceans. The element of this new agency which was not emphasized sufficiently in the Commission’s Report is that it must be capable of developing a new capacity for ocean activities in a way which no present federal agency is prepared to do. Some component parts from existing marine activities within the federal structure might be assembled within the new agency. While I have opinions on this point, I feel that specific identification of these elements should be deter- mined in consultation with the agencies concerned, taking into account the manner in which ‘these existing marine activities serve non-ocean missions. I would like to clarify the point that I recognize the need for some a'ttmospheric sciences activities to be closely integrated with the ocean sciences. However, the federal program for the atmospheres is a broad program in its own right and goes beyond ocean-related problems. I foresee that the eventual department of natural resources and environments would provide within its structure for a department of the oceans and a department of the atmosphere. My point here is not to differ conceptually with the intent of ‘the Commission, but rather to emphasize that a new ocean agency must have sufficient identity and strength to develop a major new thrust in marine resources and ocean development with- out being encumbered with non-ocean problems. I also support the concept that the Commission program can best be imple- mented if there is a consolidation of Congressional committee activities support- ing ocean agency activities. An appropriate way to provide this overview in Congress would be to establish within Congress a joint committee for the oceans or a Single committee in each House at the time that the new ocean agency is established. In this way, appropriate overview of and support for the new agency would be enhanced. Although the recommendations with respect to federal organization are im- portant there are other recommendations of the Commission which are of equal importance to the furtherance of ocean science and which should not be over- looked. ‘Some of these require legislative action. Others do not, but would benefit from clear Congressional support. I suggest that the appropriate committees of ‘Congress take whatever action is necessary on the Commission’s recommendations with respect to the establish- ment of university-national laboratories (page 27) and with respect to coastal zone laboratories (page 29). The arguments made for these two kinds of facili- ties, both in the Commission Report and in the Panel reports, are compelling and well documented. Several states have already demonstrated interest in creating coastal zone authorities and coastal zone laboratories in response to the Com- Iission’s recommendations. Early action by Congress to implement these recom- mendations would take advantage of this initiative by the states. In summary, I am concerned that Congress provide a national ocean develop- ment mission, new funding support to advance the use and knowledge of the oceans most effectively and a federal organizational structure for ocean affairs, in that order of importance. As an ocean scientists, I am prepared to work fully with the administrative structure which Congress. determines to be best, and I think my scientific colleagues feel the same. As your Committee formulates spe- cific legislation, I will be pleased to provide such comment and advice as I am competent to give. Sincerely yours, JOHN C. CALHOUN, Jr. 267 Woops HoLtrt OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION, Woods Hole, Mass., July 16, 1969. Hon. Auton A. LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Wash- ington, D.C. My DEAR CoNGRESSMAN LENNON: I wish to associate myself with the content of Dr. John C. Calhoun’s letter to you dated June 27th. He has written you as an extension of remarks which were made when several members of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences testified before the Sub- committee. Since he is writing you as an individual, I wish to add my support to this position. All members of the Committee on Oceanography feel strongly that the Com- mission report must be implemented through early action in Congress. If there is any way we can assist you in your fine endeavors, please let us know. Sincerely yours, PAvuL M. FYE. Dr. Catyoun. A second argument that came up in our discussions is that important ocean tasks could be assigned to separate “lead” agencies. This suggestion is a variation on the first theme. It has some merit but again it has weaknesses, and we think they are twofold. If different major tasks of oceean technology development are as- signed to different agencies—for example, development of an opera- tional buoy network to one agency and a national data collection proc- essing and dissemination facility to another agency—there is loss of the advantages of efficiency and flexibility that should result if both are managed by one agency. If several major tasks are assigned to a single lead agency there could develop in that agency a major ocean-oriented thrust that, if properly managed, could grow to a proportion where the original non-ocean- oriented missions of the agency would take second place. In either case there is a loss. Oceanography in the United States has come of age and there is every reason to expect that in the next decade the ocean-oriented ac- tivities of our Nation will expand manifold. The forces that are driv- ing us in this direction will produce this high level of activity whether a new agency is created or not. Thus, within the next decade we will need a managerial structure in our Government to match this activity. Tf this structure grows in one of the existing agencies, it can only thrive at the cost of other vital and legitimate missions. Third, the argument is presented that the establishment of NOAA should be deferred pending studies of the need for an agency of the environment. In my opinion there is merit to the proposal that an agency of the environment be established. While this is not the place to examine in detail the problems of reorganization of our Government, we should recognize that such matters are under continual study and review. Furthermore, we should remember that our Government structure is flexible and does change, One such major and courageous change was taken immediately after World War II when three departments of military forces were combined into one Department of Defense. Similar steps could be taken now to strengthen and make our Govern- ment more efficient in the area of natural resources and environments. However, I do not foresee such steps being taken in the next few years. In this context, the proposed agency for the oceans and atmos- 268 phere should be considered as part of the natural governmental evolu- tion in reorganization. We can proceed with a step now that can be taken without prejudicing, perhaps actually enhancing, a future, more broad-scale reorganization. A fourth argument is that removal of major complements from existing agencies would degrade the agencies’ capability to carry on non-ocean-orlented functions. NASCO hesitates to recommend specific existing agencies that ought to be clustered into a new Federal organization. Decisions on this point encompass more than scientific capability. However, we should be more concerned with what needs to be done than with whether an existing agency should be maintained intact. The importance of mission-oriented ocean research has long been recognized by NASCO and the degree to which a specific ocean mission is divorced from other missions is indeed a complex question. Capa- bility of an existing agency to perform essentially a nonocean mission should not be limited by denying it a role in ocean research, in our opinion. NASCO’s view is that the particular agencies that may be brought together for forming a new organization is not nearly so im- portant as recognizing that there is a new job to be done over and apart from that which any existing agency is doing. A fifth argument that has come up is that the proposed combination of agencies for NOAA is wrong. I do not wish to suggest that the Committee on Oceanography sup- ports the view that the specific combination of agencies suggested by the Commission for NOAA is necessarily the optimum combination. As individuals, we have different views on whether certain organiza- tions should or should not be included as well as whether some orga- nizations not identified by the Commission should be added to the pro- posed NOAA. Many factors must. be considered. Many groups and organizations and the agencies must be heard from. However, we do believe that the establishment of a single ocean agency is in the best interest of the Nation and of the science of ocean- ography. While we are more expert on the latter point than the former one, we do not believe that we are politically naive on the former point. From a science point of view, most of us are very receptive to the idea that the ocean and atmosphere be examined as part of one physical system. On the other hand, the program of atmospheric control for weather pollution in an inland city, or the suppression of hail in the Rocky Mountain area may bear little relationship to the ocean problem. If one asks the question, can the meteorological activity and oceano- graphic activity be mutually advanced by common administration, one is likely to arrive at a positive answer, provided that m the process neither one of these very important areas of science is subjugated to the other. On the coastal zone question, it is necessary to ask whether the coastal zone problems are really oceanographic in nature. Some of the important agencies that deal with coastal zone problems do not appear to have been considered in the Commission’s recommendations, for example, the Corps of Engineers of the Department of Defense which plays a very large role in coastal zone activities. The specific mission for a new organization as seen by the Commis- sion therefore appears to have a dichotomy—to be oriented on the one 269 hand toward a single geophysical system representing the ocean and the atmospheres together, but on the other hand to be oriented also to the problems of people living along the coast. A new Federal orga- nization might be focused on one or the other of these. Can it be focused on both? These are offered as some of the questions about organization which, indeed, came up in our discussions and which Congress will need to consider. The statement contained in “Oceanography 1966” is still germane: “We repeat that it is not our present intent to recommend any specific structure to accomplish the necessary improvement. We do point out that any change in the managerial structure must be con- sistent with the continuing needs of those existing agencies whose primary missions involve ocean activities.” At this time, therefore, individual members of the Committee on Oceanography could give you individual opinions as to which agen- cies they think might be involved in reorganization structure. As a group, we have no consensus opinion. My own individual posture on this has been stated in a letter which I addressed to ‘President Nixon in which I have expressed the view that whatever is done ought to be within the context of a broader reorganization of the Federal Government with attention given to our needs for a Department of Natural Resources and Environments. In the letter which I read at the outset, NASCO has identified six specific program items of high priority. Members of the committee who are with me this morning will speak to some of these points and to others of major interest to them, and they are also free to talk on the reorganization question and give their individual opinions. Some members of NASCO have appeared already before this com- mittee as spokesmen for other groups. I would point out that one mem- ber, Dr. Knauss, is a member of the Commission. Dr. Paul Fye gave a statement on the need for a fundamental technology program which I am sure the other members of NASCO would endorse. Before I turn to these other persons, however, I wish to urge this committee to move ahead with all speed to implement the thrust of the Commission report. Although we may differ on details, none of us ditfer with its message. The Commission has performed a mighty service for the Nation in this respect. As with all affairs of men, there comes a time to act. We think our Nation has reached this point with respect to marine resources. We have seen the development of ocean science through an age of classical oceanography followed by a more recent era of broader marine in- vestigations. Parallel to that, of course, we have had always an em- pirical use of the ocean which began with man’s earliest ventures into the sea for transportation and fishing and which continues to date in a not greatly modified sense. These two broad avenues of involvement, the scientific and the pragmatic, are now slowly coming together. If the marriage can be stimulated, there is much promise for mankind. Already, in the court- ship phase, it is possible to see how scientific activity has made some contributions to the empirical uses of the sea. Conversely, it is ap- parent that the role of engineering has stimulated greater scientific activity. What is now needed is a catalyst for speeding up the reaction. The public is not unaware, in our opinion, of the promises of the 270 sea. In fact, it is a tribute to the lasting creativity of our people and ar expression of our pioneering characteristics that we look with longing upon this new environment to conquer. The expectancy of promise is: demonstrated by the public in many ways—through the formation of local groups such as the American Society for Oceanography, and these are interested public citizens; through the interest in ocean in- vestments; through the wide concern for pollution; through the grow- ing recreational use of the shore; through the support of such educa- tional programs as the sea grant program. And I might point out that in the last 3 days in Houston, Tex.. at the offshore technology symposium, industry demonstrated their awareness of this field. There were some 400 people registered and a tremendous display of this Nation’s capabilities and budding interest in the whole field of ocean technology. The public is in fact waiting for a signal. They are waiting for Congress to announce goals and provide the stimulus for action. Just as our Nation looked to the West and waited upon national leadership to open up the public lands for development, so today the public is waiting for Congress to supply the leadership that will bring forth the promise held by marine resources. There is another sense in which our Nation must lead the oceano- graphic dialog. This is on the international scene. Our Nation has a responsibility to know; a responsibility to understand the ocean and its potential, so that we can lead in the right direction and not be led in the wrong direction. Only the strong can ever fulfill the responsibili- ties of the need to know, and this Nation must carry this responsibility for much of the need to know on the international scene so far as the oceans are concerned. . Recently there was a book edited by Edmond A. Bullion called “Uses of the Sea,” prepared for the American assembly, and I might say that the American assembly is another evidence of the interest of the public in this field. These American assemblies have been held. all over the Nation. Let me quote what appears in the foreword : The future course of ocean science and technology is now relatively easy tov foretell, but the economic, political and social implications of these projected developments are infinitely complex. We have yet to learn the ultimate economic potential of the sea bottom. We have yet to explore the ocean as a source of food. for hungry people. We have yet to learn how to halt the pollution of our coastal waters. AS we move down the continental slope and out along the deepest ocean floor, a multitude of questions arise that cannot wait too long for an answer * * *. Above all, how do we mobilize the resources of industry, of finance, and of Government to take advantage rapidly and effectively of the vast promise of our new technology? He asks a very cogent question. That is why we feel the deliberations of this commitee are so important. It is time to move and we stand ready to help further in deliberating the wisest course. I think perhaps one other thing I might say as chairman of the com- mittee is to call to your attention that we have been engaged in a joint activity with the National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Ocean Engineering in preparing for the Marine Council an explora- tory program for the international decade of ocean exploration. 271 There has just been published this book called, “An Oceanic Quest,” which I hope has been brought to your attention, Mr. Chairman. It also expresses some of the future that we see in this area. I think that perhaps the best thing would be to turn to these gentle- men. Dr. Charles Drake, from Lamont Laboratory at Columbia Uni- versity, who is a member of the committee. I will turn the microphone over to him. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, gentlemen. We will withhold questioning until each member of the panel has been heard. We have here, too, a career résumé of Dr. Drake, and I ask unanimous consent that this be inserted in the record immediately preceding his remarks. I do want people who read this record to know the back- ground of these witnesses. Now you may proceed, Doctor. Let that be true, also, of each of the other gentlemen, Dr. Paulik and Dr. Pritchard, that their biographical sketch and career résumé appear in the record immediately preceding their statement. (Dr. Drake’s biographical sketch and career résumé follows :) CHARLES L. DRAKE—CURRICULUM VITAE (Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York) Address: 2 South Boulevard, South Nyack, N.Y. 10960 Area 914 358-0515. Born: July 18, 1924, Ridgewood, New Jersey. Married: Martha Ann Churchill, four children. Education: Chatham High School, Chatham, N.J., 1941; Princeton University, 1941-43 ; 1946-48, B.S.E. (Geological Engineering) ; Columbia University, 1958, Ph. D. (Geology). PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS HELD Research Associate, Lamont Geological Observatory (Columbia University) 1948—56. Lecturer in Geology, Columbia University, 1953-55. Senior Scientist, Lamont Geological Observatory (Columbia University) 1956-58. Instructor in Geology, Columbia University, 1958-59. Assistant Professor of Geology, Columbia University, 1959-62. Associate Professor of Geology, Columbia University, 1962-67. Acting Assistant Director, Lamont Geological Observatory (Columbia Uni- versity) 1963-65. Educational Coordinator, Department of Geology, Columbia University, 1965-67. Professor of Geology, Columbia University, 1967-. Chairman, Department of Geology, Columbia University, 1967-. MEMBERSHIP ON PANELS AND ADVISORY COMMITTEES Working Group on Geology and Geophysics, International Indian Ocean Ex- pedition, 1960-61. Working Group on Solid Earth Problems, Geophysics Research Board, Na- tional Academy of Sciences, 1960-64. Ocean Surveys Panel, Committee on Oceanography, National Academy of Sci- ences, 1961-65. Ad Hoe Committee on Oceanography, President’s Science Advisory Committee, 1963-64. Advisory Committee on Oceanography, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1961-66. 272 Upper Mantle Committee, Geophysics Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, 1963-. Visiting Team Member, Geological Education Orientation Study, American Geological Institute, 1961-62. Planning Committee, JOIDES (Joint Oceanographic Institutions Deep Harth Sampling) Project, 1964-; Chairman, 1966-68; Executive Secretary, JOIDES, 1967-68. Earth Sciences Section Aidvisory Panel, Division of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Science Foundation, 1964—66. Subcommission on African Rifts, International Upper Mantle Committee, IUGG-IUGS, 1965-. Commission on Continental Margins and Island Ares, International Upper Mantle Committee, I[UGG—-IUGS, 1966-. Committee for the Promotion of the UMP, IUGS, 1968-. Advisory Panel, Oceanography Section, Division of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, National Science Foundation, 1967-68. Committee of Direction, Compilation of ‘Crustal Seismic Profiles, IUGG, 1966-. Committee on Oceanography, National Academy of Sciences, 1967-. Committee Advisory to ESSA, National Academy of Sciences/National Acad- emy of Hngineering: Main Committee, 1968—; Marine Activities Panel, 1967—; Chairman, Panel Advisory to RL, 1968-. Committee on Post-UMP Activities, Geophysics Research Board/Committee on Oceanography/National Committee on Geology, 1968-. Ad Hoc Committee on Solid Earth Problems, IUGG/IUGS, Chairman, 1968-. OTHER Distinguished Lecturer, AAPG, 1961. Special editor, GEOPHYSICS, issue on engineering geophysics, 1961. Co-editor, AGU Monograph No. 12, 1967-68. Board of editors, Journal of Marine Research, 1966-. Senior Post-Doctoral Fellow, NSF, 1965-66. Condon Lecturer, Oregon University System, March 1969. Trustee, Village of South Nyack, 1963-65, 1966-69 ; Deputy Mayor, 1968-69. Director, Rockland Foundation, 1961-64. , Director, National Youth Science Foundation, 1966-68. Member, Cosmos Club, Washington, D:C., 1964-. ACTIVITIES 1948-46: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (New Guinea & Philippines). 1947: Gravity and magnetic measurements in eastern United States and Can- ada with G. P. Woolard, then of Princeton University. 1948-49: Gravity measurements at sea aboard submarines in Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic. 1950: Seismic refraction measurements in Hudson River for Thruway Bridge foundations and in Long Island Sound. 1951: Seismic refraction measurements in the Gulf of Maine. Chief Scientist RV Caryn on cruise in North Atlantic. 1952: Participated in cruise abroad MV Kevin Moran in company with RV Atlantis in Atlantic Ocean. 1954: Participated in cruise of RV Vema in central Atlantic. 1955: Chief Scientist RV Vema on cruise between Bermuda and New York. Participated in program of missile impact location on Grand Bahama Island. 1956: Chief Scientist MV Theta for joint cruise with RV Vema to Gibraltar, and with Spanish vessel Patrollero V—17 in Spanish waters. 1957: Chief Scientist RV Vema during joint cruise with Argentine vessel Bahia Blanca between Cuba and New York. 1958: Chief Scientist RV Vema during joint cruise with RV Atlantis in Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea. 1959: Participated in survey of area north of Puerto Rico for possible drilling site to Harth’s mantle. Joint cruise with MV State Star carrying out seismic re- fraction measurements in Bahama region. 1960: Chief Scientist RV Vema during cruise from New Zealand to Cape Horn. Chief Scientist RV Vema during joint cruise with Canadian vessel Sackville to northern waters. 1961: Chief Scientist RV Vema during joint cruise with Canadian vessel Sack- ville in Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence. 273 1962: Chief Scientist RV Vema from Panama through Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean to North Atlantic and New York. 1963: Participated in search for submarine Thresher, June—July, aboard RV Conrad. Chief Scientists RV Vema from Abidjan to New York. 1964: Participated in joint French-U.S. Operation Deepscan dives in bathy- scaphe Archimede in Puerto Rico trench area. Chief Scientist RV Vema, Recife- Bermuda-N.Y. 1965: Co-secretary, UNESCO/UMC Conference, Nairobi, Kenya. Participant, International UMC Symposia, Ottawa, Canada. 1965-66: National Science Foundation Senior Post-Doctoral Fellowship; Sab- batical leave spent at Cambridge University, England. Participated in operations of bathyscaphe Archimede off Greece. 1967: Microearthquake studies in Kenya and Iceland. 1968: Microearthquake studies in Iceland. STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES L. DRAKE, LAMONT-DOHERTY GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY Dr. Drake. Thank you,'Mr. Chairman. J have been asked to speak to the subject of national projects as recommended by the Commission. These projects were proposed to stimulate and support fundamental technology and to provide national facilities with the ultimate aim of lowering the cost of marine technological applications by industry, the scientific community and Government. Some of the suggested projects are designed to attack critical prob: lems of immediate concern to large segments of our population, others to provide a technological base for future development. NASCO has endorsed the concept of national projects in principle although indi- vidual members might differ in their opinions about priorities and might also offer other projects as suitable for consideration as national projects. Exploration and development of the oceans is and has been tech- nology limited. I can speak with the greatest assurance within the framework of my own field which is marine geology and geophysics. Many, or perhaps even most, of the major developments in this field nave resulted from work by oceanographers i in this country and each major discovery can be traced back to the development of a new tech- nique for studying the ocean floor. At the end of the Second World War, precision echo sounders did not even exist. As soon as accurate timers were attached to existing echo sounders, major features of the sea bottom, such as the great flat abyssal plains and midocean canyons, were revealed and it became possible to study the minor features. The echo-sounding data combined with underwater photographs and sediment samples obtained with coring devices revealed the nature of the sediments and the sedimentary process, including bottom cur- rents and mass downhill movements at high velocities. Magnetometers, adapted from devices developed for detecting sub- marines, have revealed a systematic magnetic striping of the ocean floor which appears to be related to the age of the crystalline rock be- neath the sediments on the ocean floor. The data suggest major horizontal movements of the ocean floor and have revolutionized geological thinking about the origin of ocean ridges and mountain systems. Continuous reflection techniques have revealed the presence of such features as dome-like structures on the deep floor of the Gulf of Mexico 274 which ‘have recently been revealed to be oil-bearing. The vessel which drilled a hole on one of these structures used technology developed by the petroleum industry coupled with technology developed under Project. Mohole. These are but a few examples to illustrate the major developments which follow the introduction of new technology. One might even, in a sense, say that the technology was generated by a national project since a majority of the devices were offshoots of programs undertaken during World War II—a major national project. It is unfortunate, but nevertheless true, that many major technologi- cal advances occur during wars. Surely, through proper planning, they can be encouraged without the necessity of such drastic measures. The Commission has considered this question carefully and has de- signed three types of projects: (1) the creation of facilities for testing and calibrating new instruments and equipment; (2) feasibility studies of major problems of human ecology; and (3) extension of existing technology to provide a base of fundamental knowledge upon which future developments can be based. These are worthy objectives and worthy of support. They will require industry participation to a far greater extent than has been the case during the past 20 years. They should open many new avenues for the ultimate utilization of the oceans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Dr. Drake. Mr. Catnoun. Dr. Paulik from the University of Washington. (The document referred to follows :) BI0GRAPHY OF GERALD J. PAULIK I. Address —Home: 6218—20 N.H. Seattle, Washington 98115 206—LA 3-0679 Business: Center for Quantitative Science in Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, Fisheries Hall No. 2 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105, 206— 5438-1191 and 548-4668 Il. Current Research Interests and Areas of Expertise: Population dynamics, resource management, computer simulation of biological systems, population ecology, statistics and experimental design, electronic data processing, fluid dynamics, and educational simulation games. Ill. Summary of Professional Hxaperience: Sept., 1968 to Present—Professor, College of Fisheries, University of Washing- ton, Seattle, Washington. April, 1968 to Sept., 1968.—Visiting Professor, Biometrics Unit, Cornell Uni- versity, Ithaca, New York. Sept., 1967 to April, 1968.—Consultant, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commis- sion, La Jolla, California. Sept., 1964 to Sept., 1967.—Associate Professor, College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (Promoted to Full Professor, Sept., 1967). Sept., 1962 to Sept., 1964.—Assistant Professor, College of Fisheries and Fish- eries Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Wn. June, 1962 to Sépt., 1962.—Research Assistant Professor, Department of Mathe- matics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. June, 1961 to June, 1962.—Biometrician, Fisheries Research Institute, Univer- sity of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Sept., 1960 to June, 1961.—Research Instructor, Department of Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Sept., 1959 to Aug., 1960.—Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Statistics, Uni- versity of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. Previous to 1959.—Research Associate at the University of Washington, Bi- ologist at the Washington State Department of Fisheries. 275 Duties as University Professor include: Teaching graduate sequence of courses in Quantitative Population Dynamics ; occasionally teaching courses in statistics and biomathematics. Supervise Ph. D. and Master’s candidates in the College of Fisheries and in Biomathematics at the University of Washington. Supervise training grants and contract research : Principal Investigator.—a. Simulation Games for Resource Managers (Ford Foundation). Co-Investigator.—b. Quantitative Ecology and Resources Management Training Grant (Ford Foundation). e. Aquatic Stock Management (‘Sea Grant, NSF). d. Hstuarine Heology (U.S. Public Health Service). Previous contract research as principal or co-investigator includes water simu- lation studies, pink salmon tagging analysis, mathematical models of exploited -animal populations, studies of the effects of gear limitation in northern Puget Sound, and energistics of fish locomotion. Inira-University Committees (University of Washington) : Budget and Planning (College of Fisheries), Fisheries Analysis Center (Chair- ‘man, College of Fisheries), Cost Centers, Applied Mathematics, Computer Sci- ence, Biomathematics, Quantitative Ecology anid Resource Management Program, and Biology Teaching. Consulting Clients During Past 7? years (most consulting done during summers Detween academic years). (1) Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska. (2) M. Bell, Consulting Engineer, Seattle, Washington. (3) Chelan County Public Utility District No. 1, Wenatchee, Washington. (4) Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Pacific Biological Laboratory. (5) Ford Foundation, New York, New York. (6) Grant County Public Utility District No. 2, Ephrata, Washington. (7) Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C. (8) US. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Auke Bay Laboratory, Alaska. (9) U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Montlake Laboratory, Seattle, Wn. (10 U.S. Public Health Service, Water Supply and Pollution Control, Pacific Northwest, Portland, Oreg. (11) Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. (12) Western Fish Disease Laboratory, Sand Point Naval Air Station, Seattle. (13) Oregon Fish Commission, Clackamas, Oregon. (14) California Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Major Consulting Duties: Design and analysis of oyster larvae bioassays; statistical consultant for pro- gram to determine effects of pulp mill pollution in Puget Sound; fish passage efficiency studies; mortalities of downstream migrant salmonids in Francis and Kaplan turbines ; and design and analysis of physiological experiments. IV. Education: St. Martins College—Lacey, Washington (9/48-6/49) Science pre-major. University of Puget Sound—Tacoma, Washington (9/49-6/50) Science pre- major. University of Washington—Seattle, Washington (9/50-6/59). B.S. 1953 (zoology, fisheries), Ph. D. 1959 (biology, mathematics, fisheries). University of Chicago—Chicago, Illinois (9/59-6/60), Postdoctoral fellow in statistics. Y. Professional Societies: American Fisheries Society. American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists. American Statistical Association. Ecological Society. Biometric Society. Operations Research Society of America. Pacific Fisheries Biologists. Sigma Xi. VI. Professional Activities: Member of: National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography {NASCO) ; National Oceanographic Data Center Advisory Board ;: NASCO Marine Data Panel; Committee on Public Affairs of the Ecological Society of America; Biometric Society-AIBS Program Committee; Membership Committee, Western Division, American Fisheries Society ; Fisheries Terminology Glossary Committee, American Fisheries Society. 276 Chairman of Biometric Society-AIBS Program Committee for 20th Annual ATBS Meeting (1969). Past committee work includes membership on NASCO Panel on Quantitative Models in Biological Oceanography and Chairman of Inter-Agency Rock Island Dam Study Group. Professional Journal Editorial Services.—Referee for : Biometrics, Chesapeake Science, Heology, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Journal of Wildlife Management, Limnology and Oceanography, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. Associate editor of Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (1966-69). VII. Miscellaneous: Honors: Seattle Times scholarship award in fisheries (1954). Postdoctoral award in statistics from University of Chicago ($5,500 fellowship, 1959-60). VIII. Summary of Publications: Thirty-one publications in professional journals between 1956 and 1969. Five representative titles of recent publications are: 1966 Management analysis for a salmon resource system. Chapter 9 in Systems Analysis in Ecology, K. E. F. Watt (ed.), Academic Press, New York: 215-250. (with J. W. Greenough, Jr.) 1967 Digital simulation of natural animal communities. In Pollution and Marine Ecology, T. A. Olson and F. J. Burgess (eds.). Interscience Div., John Wiley, New York: 67-88. 1967 Exploitation of multiple stocks by a common fishery. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 24 (12) :2527-2537. (with A. S. Hourston and P. A. Larkin.) 1969 Statistical calculations for change-in-ratio estimators of population parameters. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 33(1) :1-27. (with D. S. Robson) ; Digital simula- tion modeling in resource management and the training of applied ecologists. Chapter 14 in Hcological Systems Research, B.'\C. Patton (ed.). Academic Press. N.Y. (in press). (See Bibliography for complete list of publications. ) STATEMENT OF DR. GERALD J. PAULIK, COLLEGE OF FISHERIES, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE, WASH. Mr. Pauur«. Mr. Chairman, my name is Gerald Paulik, and [ama professor of fisheries at the University of Washington in Seattle. I would like to thank you and your distinguished committee for provid- ing me the opportunity to appear before you to present my views on the report “Our Nation and the Sea” prepared by the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. I have been asked by our } -NASCO chairman, Dr. John Calhoun, to comment on the marine biological resources aspects of the Commission report. As a professor whose primary teaching and research interests have been concerned with the population dynamics of exploited fish stocks, I found the Commission’s report to be a timely and masterful exposi- tion of the problems we face as a Nation attempting to make wise use of the living resources of the oceans. The report comes at a time of great national concern about the many problems confronting our domestic fishing industry. Total world “production of fish and shellfish has expanded steadily since World War II. The average rate of growth of world production is above 6 percent per year. However, the size of the United States catch during this postwar period has remained remarkably constant, and thus our relative position has declined. There has not been a corresponding decline in demand for fishery products in the United States. Quite the contrary—statistics just 277 released by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries show that fishery products from a catch of over 17 billion pounds were consumed in the United States in 1968. This compares to a consumption of just over 71% billion pounds one decade ago in 1958. Imports made up 37 percent of the total consumption in 1958. In 1968, 76 percent was imported. The United States is now sixth behind Peru, Japan, mainland China, Russia, and Norway in total landings of fishery products. However, it should be mentioned that the value of our fishery land- ings is second only to that of Japan’s. These statistics have not been entirely responsible for the recent expressions of concern about our fishing industry. The appearance of large foreign fishing fleets near our coasts has dramatized the issue. The Commission report explains the causes behind our relative de- cline as a fishing Nation and proposes that we adopt as a national goal the rehabilitation of the harvesting sector of our domestic commercial fisheries. The Commission recommends that special emphasis be placed on increasing production by United States flag vessels from latent fish- ery resources adjacent to our own coasts. These recommendations are, in my opinion, sound and deserving of support. The Commission sets forth a comprehensive program for strengthen- ing our domestic fisheries. The most important parts of this program are: (1) Legal and political reforms to rationalize the present confused and archaic jurisdictional system of local, State, and Federal laws for managing fisheries. (2) More emphasis by our management agencies upon the economic performance and perhaps somewhat less emphasis upon the biological performance of specific fisheries. (8) Initiation of studies leading to mechanism for regulating entry of gear into certain fisheries. (4) An enlarged engineering development program to advance our technological capability to harvest and market fishery resources. (5) Scientific research and exploration to locate and determine the quantity and quality of the fish resources adjacent to our coasts as well as to improve our understanding of the productivity of these resources. These recommendations for a domestic program are well designed to foster a more favorable climate for private development of the harvest- ing sector of the U.S. fishing industry. A new, strong, and independent government agency dedicated to ocean affairs would provide an effective administrative structure for implementing the domestic fisheries program recommended by the Commission. Although we are making substantial progress on some parts of this program under our present administrative structure— and I do not mean to belittle in any way the activities of the dedicated and capable administrators, technicians, and scientists working on fisheries problems—I do believe our fisheries program would benefit greatly from being part of an environment which provides the type of long-range engineering research and development support needed to make significant technological advances in our modern industrial society. Adequate advanced engineering support and program coor- dination is difficult under present arrangements. 278 As a population ecologist, I am especially pleased by the Commis- sion’s recommendations for extensive exploration for latent resources and monitoring of environmental changes in the oceans surrounding our continent. Individual fish stocks exist as parts of multispecies systems, and it is of great importance to measure the characteristics of other components of the biological community as well as those of the single stock being fished. Far too often in the past we have waited until some stock has been seriously damaged before initiating adequate scientific studies. Bio- logical studies of intensely exploited stocks are very expensive and are not nearly as informative as studies started before exploitation begins and continued while the fishery develops. I must confess less personal enthusiasm for the Commission’s recom- mendations concerning international fisheries affairs. On the positive side, I support their recommendations that: (1) The United States work to improve and extend the existing framework of specific bilateral and multilateral agreements. (2) Operational ecological units should be defined to serve as a basis for international fisheries regulation in place of existing manage- ment schemes based on either one species or a small number of species. (3) International fisheries commissions should have their own scien- tific staffs, and the enforcement and arbitration machinery of inter- national conventions should be strengthened. On the negative side, I do not believe we know enough to support wholeheartedly overall area total catch quotas, such as that proposed for the cod and haddock stocks of the North Atlantic. Misapplication of a similar quota scheme was partly responsible for the near de- struction of the Antarctic whale stocks. The problem of how to properly manage international fisheries is enormously complicated and needs a great deal more study. I was also disappointed that the Commission did not emphasize more strongly the need for more research on new techniques for col- lecting and organizing data to make them truly useful for managing large international fisheries. However, any such disagreements on specific proposals are of minor importance. The overriding issue is the necessity to create a new, strong, and independent governmental entity oriented toward the use of the sea and its resources. I strongly support the Commission’s recom- mendations for such an agency. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Catnoun. Dr. Donald Pritchard of Johns Hopkins University. (The document referred to follows :) BIOGRAPHICAL DATA OF DONALD WILLIAM PRITCHARD, SEPTEMBER 1968 Born: Santa Ana, California, October 20, 1922. Edueation: B.A. Degree in Meteorology, University of California at Los Angeles, 1943. M.A. (1948) and Ph. D. (1951) degrees in Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla, California. Present Employment: Director, Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University (since 1951) ; also Professor of Oceanography, Department of Harth and Planetary Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University. Past Professional Hmployment: Served as Weather Officer in World War II, forecasting sea and swell for amphibious landing operations in Normandy and in Pacific. Head, Current Analysis Section, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 1946. Oceanographer, U.S. Navy Electronics Laboratory, San Diego, California, 279 1947-48. Associate Director, Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins Uni- versity, 1949-1951. Chairman, Department of Oceanograph, The Johns Hopkins University, 1950-1968. Professional Activities National Boards and Committees: Member, Committee on Oceanography, Na- tional Academy of Sciences (NA‘SSCO). Chairman, Panel on Oceanographic Data (NASCO). Member, Panel on Radioactivity in the Marine Environment (NASCO). Member, Advisory Committee on Isotopes and Radiation Develop- ment, U.S. Atomic Hnergy Commission. Member, Marine Resources Advisory Committee, Department of the Interior. State Boards and Committees: Member, and current Vice-Chairman, Board of Natural Resources, State of Maryland. Member, Air Quality Control Advisory Council, State of Maryland. Member, Radiation Control Advisory Board, State of Maryland. Member, Commission on Submerged Lands, State of Maryland. Mem- ber, Study Commission to Investigate Problems of Water Pollution in Maryland. Consultant to Special Commission on Pollution, State of Maryland. Professional Societies, Editorial Boards, and Honors: Fellow, American Geo- physical Union; Past President, Past Vice President and Past Secretary, Section of Oceanography, Life Fellow, The International Oceanographic Foundation; Member, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography ; Past Vice-President, Member, Society of Sigma Xi; Past President and Past Vice-President, JHU Chapter; Member, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Mem- ber, Atlantic Estuarine Research Society ; Board of Editors, The Johns Hopkins Oceanographic Studies; Board of Editors, Journal of Marine Research. Past Professional Activities: National Academy of Sciences Representative on the Advisory Board to the National Oceanographic Data Center, 1960-1968; Consultant to Special Advisory Committee on Department of Commerce, The National Academy of Sciences, 1959; Consultant, Sub-Committee on Oceanog- raphy and Fisheries, Committee on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation, National Academy of Sciences; Chairman, Panel on Waste Disposal from Nuclear Powered Ships, Committee on the Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation, Na- tional Academy of Sciences; Panel member, Radioactive Waste Disposal inte the Sea, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria; Member, Ad Hoe Expert Committee on Radioactive Materials in Food and Agriculture, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Publications: Author of some 50 scientific papers published in scientific jour- nals, In Symposia proceedings, in encyclopedia, and as chapters in text books, on such subjects as the physical oceanography of the Arctic and Antarctic; the physical limnology of lakes; the kinematics and dynamics of estuarine circula- tion and on the distribution of constitutents in estuaries; the processes of diffu- sion in estuaries, coastal waters and in the ocean; the fate of radioactive mate- rials in the marine environment ; and the eutrophication of estuaries. STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD W. PRITCHARD, DIRECTOR, CHESA- PEAKE BAY INSTITUTE, THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, BALTIMORE, MD., AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRA- PHY, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Dr. PrrrcHarp. Thank you. I am Dr. Donald W. Pritchard, director of the Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, and professor of oceanog- raphy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at the University, having been formerly chairman of the Department of Oceanography, which has now been combined into the new Depart- ment of Earth and Planetary Sciences. JI am a member of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences, I wish to thank you for providing me with this opportunity to pre- sent my opinion on the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources and on the implications of the findings of 280 that commission on the future of our Nation in the marine environ- ment. The final report of the Commission, “Our Nation and the Sea,” together with the several panel reports, constitute a monumental undertaking of exceptional caliber and value. Recognition should be given to the unselfish expenditure of time and effort by the members of the Commission in this service to their country. First, I wish to endorse the prepared statement presented to you by Dr. John Calhoun on behalf of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences. My purpose here is to amplify certain areas of that statement and to comment on those areas of the Commission report which fall in areas within which I have a particular competence and experience. For the past 20 years I have concentrated my professional activities in studies of the estuarine and coastal marine environment. During that time I have also contributed to the efforts of my present home State to properly manage the multiple uses of the estuarine and coastal environment falling under State jurisdiction. I currently serve on some half-dozen State boards, commissions, and special study com- mittees concerned with natural resources. I have also on occasion been called upon to give advice to other States in regard to management of the coastal marine environment. My activities have therefore been closely related to much of the subject matter contained in chapter 3, “Management of the Coastal Zone,” of the Commission report. I strongly endorse the specific concept of joint Federal-State re- sponsibility for the coastal zone as stated in the Commission report. The actual management functions should, as recommended by the Commission, remain a State responsibility. The Federal role should be to effectively use the various means recommended by the Commis- sion to encourage the coastal States to strengthen their administrative structure for management of the coastal zone and to aid these States in attaining the knowledge of this environment necessary for wise management. Specifically, I endorse the Commission’s recommendation for en- actment of a Coastal Management Act to provide policy objectives for the coastal zone and authorize Federal grants-in-aid to facilitate the establishment of State coastal zone authorities empowered to manage the coastal waters and adjacent lands. Man’s impact on water quality and other properties of the coastal zone influencing the value and character of man’s use of this environ- ment is controlled to a large degree by decisions regarding use of the lands adjacent to the estuaries and other coastal waters, even the use of the lands in major watersheds supplying the surface runoff to estuaries and other coastal waters. A number of States are in the process of consolidating their management of the natural resources. But even in those States which have taken the most advanced steps in this direction, considerable division of authority exists, especially with respect to use of adjacent lands. Action by Congress as recom- monded by the Commission would provide a much needed direction to State action toward establishment of a consolidated policy, or the national sea-grant program as it exists now should have prime responsi- bility for the management structure for the coastal zone. 281 I further strongly endorse the recommendation of the Commission that coastal zone laboratories be established in association with appro- priate academic institutions to engage in scientific investigation of estuarine and coastal processes and to be prepared to advise the States in managing the estwaries and coastal zones, This recommendation is actually contained in chapter 2 of the Commission report, but is re- ferred to in chapter 3, and certainly is required to attain the goals of effective management of the coastal zone as outlined in chapter 3. The Commission further recommends that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency should have prime responsibility to provide insti- tutional support for the coastal zone laboratories, and I endorse this recommendation. There is a relatively short time connection between the findings of basic research in the estuarine and coastal marine environment and the application of these findings to management of this environment. For this reason I consider it essential that a close relationship exist between such coastal zone laboratories, with their base within aca- demic institutions, and the central management agency for the coastal zone. There is at present insufficient communication between the scientists engaged in basic studies of the physical, chemical, geological and bio- logical processes in the estuarine and coastal waters and the applied scientific and engineering personnel responsible within the State agencies for supplying the technical basis for management decisions. T envision the coastal zone laboratories as a means of providing a close working relationship between the research scientist and the manage- ment agency. Speaking now strictly as an individual, without any indication of concurrence by the other members of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of ‘Sciences, I would like to briefly comment on the subject of the structure of the proposed centralized Federal agency for administration of the nonmilitary Federal activities in ocean science, engineering and utilization. I recognize that Congress must view with some frustration the fact that the scientific community, as represented by the several groups which have provided testimony on the Commission ‘Report, has not provided either wholehearted endorsement of the specific structure recommended by the Commission or endorsement for an alternate restructuring of the Federal agencies. I do not believe that the marine scientific community as a whole can reach a consensus on this matter. In many cases the problem of administrative structure falls outside the areas of competence of the scientist. Of more importance is the fact that the recommendations of the Commission represent the product of a very large expenditure of time by a group of competent individuals who organized the input obtained from a significant segment of those concerned with increasing our knowledge of the sea and with the use of the sea and its resources. Only after this group put a considerable effort in the digestion of this in- formation, and in thought and discussion, did they arrive at an agreed proposal for the restructuring of the Federal agencies. A different group of equally competent and dedicated individuals, after expending an equal amount of time and effort, would probably 26-563—69—pt. 119 282 arrive at somewhat different conclusions. This likelihood does not im- ply that the recommendations of the Commission in this area are improper. Rather it is merely indicative of the fact that there are a number of possibly equally valid ways of organizing the effort toward attaining mastery, both from the standpoint of knowledge and use, of the marine environment. Again, I thank you for this opportunity to present these opinions concerning the national program in marine science, engineering, and utilization. (A letter of Dr. Wayne Burt follows :) OREGON ‘STATE UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT OF OCEANOGRAPHY, Corvallis, Oreg., May 17, 1969. Hon. Auton A. LENNON, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE LENNON: Dr. John Calhoun, Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Committee on Oceanography, wrote to you 'on May 13 summarizing the Committee’s views on the Report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. I wish to take this oportunity to speak up for the Commission’s recommenda- tion that the advancement of understanding of the planetary oceans be established as @ major goal of the national ocean program. This recommendation, along with several others, was endorsed by the Committee on Oceanography in Dr. Calhoun’s letter to you. The solution of every applied problem concerning the ocean depends upon our knowledge of the fundamental processes going on in the oceans. Thus the rapid growth of our fund of basic knowledge must be assured as a first step in any Major ocean program. The nation cannot economically sustain an expanding program of exploitation of the ocean resources without a sound knowledge of what is there; how it changes, and the interrelationships opweor! the factors involved. Perhaps ‘some of the most important missing links in our ihowieaEe of the oceans have to do with underwater weather and climate. The primary driving force of our oceans and the atmosphere iis heat from the sun which is first absorbed by the oceans and then returned to outer space via the atmosphere. Irregular changes in the rates and routes of this heat as it moves about in the oceans and the atmosphere control the driving forces which establish and regulate our climate and weather, both in the oceans (water) and in the atmosphere above. There is strong evidence that changes ‘in the heat storage of the tropical Pacific Ocean presage mid-latitude weather changes. As our understanding of these relationships builds up, we are getting closer and closer to the day when long range weather forecasting will become a reality. We should be able to forecast six months to a year in advance when warm water will bring good tuna eatches off Oregon and Washington, or when any part of the United States will be substantially warmer, wetter, or colder than normal. Many other examples could be cited where basic research today will have practical results tomorrow, and some are referred to in the Commission reports. Very truly yours, WAYNE V. BURT, NAS/NRC Committee on Oceanography. Dr. CatHoun. Mr. Chairman, we had hoped to have another mem- ber of our Committee with us, Dr. Wayne Burt of Oregon State Uni- versity. He was not able to be with us, but he has addressed a letter under date of May 17 to you, and it is available for the record, and I would like to have it introduced. He speaks specifically to the need for ocean science. But since it covers much of the same ground that we have covered, I won’t bother to read it. 283 Mr. Lennon. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the statement just made by Dr. Pritchard there be inserted the state- ment. Mr. Cauuoun. I would like to comment briefly on about three other oints. i The Commission report makes some very definite recommendations with respect to laboratory structure, university national laboratories, and coastal zone laboratories, which were referred to in part. The Committee on Oceanography supplied Dr. Lawrence, in a letter to which I referred, its views on laboratories and laboratory structure, and they are quite parallel to the Commission’s recommendations. We believe that the format which the Commission lays out is a very appro- priate one. We would emphasize that these need to be tied in very closely to universities, as Dr. Pritchard has suggested. We think the subject of facilities is also an important one, and we believe that, just as it takes special facilities to carry on research in medicine with hospitals, so it takes special facilities to get into the ocean environment. And these facilities are not just ships. They are buoys; they are submersibles; and they are shore facilities. We feel as a committee that the whole area of facilities has been underfunded, and we strongly support the recommendations of the Commission in this direction. ‘So far as the sea-grant program is concerned, we also are generally in concurrence with the Commission’s recommendations. As a com- mittee we wholeheartedly support the sea-grant program and recog- nize it as a new thrust that has great meaning for the whole subject of marine resources and oceanography. Mr. Lennon. Have you finished, Doctor? Dr. CatHoun. Yes, sir. That finishes our statements. Mr. Lennon. May I turn to Dr. Pritchard ? Dr. Pritchard, there is such an organization known as the Council of Oceanographic Laboratory Directors, of which, I believe, Dr. Pritchard, you are the spokesman. Dr. Prircuarp. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. This Council of Oceanographic Laboratory Directors responded to an inquiry made by myself to the staff respecting the posi- tion of this particular organization on the Commission’s report; is that not so? Dr. Prrrcwarp. That is right. We have met on this issue, and under date of May 19, 1969, I addressed a letter to you, sir, giving very briefly the conclusions of the Council of Oceanographic Laboratory Directors. Mr. Lennon. You identify this council by saying that it “consists of the directors of the following major oceanographic institutions of the United States.” I will ask unanimous consent, gentlemen, that there be inserted in the record following Dr. Pritchard’s statement the letter: addressed to me signed by Dr. Pritchard for and in behalf of the Council of Oceanographic Laboratory Directors. I ask you at some future time to read it, because it is right on the point. Dr. Prrrewarp. Thank you. 284 (The letter referred to follows :) THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Baltimore, Md., May 19, 1969. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Longworth Office Building, Washing- ton, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LENNON: The members of the Council of Oceanographic Laboratory Directors appreciate this opportunity to comment for the record on their reactions to the recently published report of the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering and Resources. This council consists of directors of the following major oceanographic institutions of the United States: Dr. Jonh Byrne, Department of Oceanography, Oregon State University. Dr. Maurice Ewing, Lamont Geological Observatory, Columbia University. Dr. Paul Fye, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Richard A. Geyer, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M Uni- versity. Dr. John Knauss, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. Dr. W. Nierenberg, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California. Dr. Donald W. Pritchard, Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University. Dr. M. Rattray, Department of Oceanography, University of Washington at Seattle. Dr. F. G. Walton Smith, Institute of Marine Science, University of Miami. Dr. George P. Woollard, Institute of Geophysics, University of Hawaii. The directors have given this report serious study and consideration. We agree in principle with the conclusions and the recommendations submitted with respect to the action required to meet the urgent and growing demands incumbent upon oceanographic institutions. These must be implemented if the marine resources of this Nation are to continue to be developed in a manner befitting the national interest. We are becoming increasingly concerned with the level of support given to oceanographic institutions during the past several years for reasons documented in previous testimony submitted to your Committee. If the present essentially level funding to the institutions that has existed over the past several years is continued, it will become impossible for them to meet their funda- mental commitments to the Nation. These include supplying the necessary basic information and pure research results that are imperative as a foundation for solving problems in oceanography, in such areas as defense and the development of marine resources. Simultaneously, the institutions will not have the capability in terms of ships, staff, and shore based facilities to train adequately the ever- growing numbers of highly qualified graduate oceanographers required to imple- ment the expanding programs. These programs are essential to develop our marine resources and to solve defense problems vital to our Nation. It is for these reasons that we specifically endorse the Commission’s recom- mendations in the following areas: 1. The concept of a National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency to serve as a major focal point on which to build the expanding: National Oceanographic Program necessary to the Nation’s interest. 2. The concept of supporting a series of University/National Laboratories so that the goals and objectives suggested for them by the Commission be achieved. 3. The concept of strengthening seine and adding new Coastal Labora- tories in numbers sufficient to solve the many pressing problems of immediate urgency existing now in the coastal and estuarine zones of the United States. The highlighting of these three recommendations is not to be ‘construed that many others in the Report, particularly those closely relating to these areas, are not also of prime importance to the total National Oceanographic Program. These ‘were selected at this time because of their extreme pertinence and urgency for implementation. The mechanism must be provided soon to carry out satisfactorily ‘these recommendations, with all their implications; otherwise it will become wirtually impossible to expect that the Nation will ‘be able even to meet its 285 minimum commitments as a major maritime state, much less to permit it to assume the position of leadership in the oceanographic community of nations that it so justly deserves. f In conclusion the members of the Council of Oceanographic Laboratory Direc- tors stand ready at any time to provide either individually or collectively any additional material that might be required by your Committee to justify or elab- orate upon the statements made in this letter. Sincerely yours, D. W. PRITCHARD, (For the Council of Oceanographic Laboratory Directors). Dr. Prrrowarp. Mr. Chairman, I just might comment that the chair- man of the Council of Oceanographic Laboratory Directors, Dr. Rich- ard Geyer, director of the Department of Oceanography, Texas A. & M., as a member of the Commission, could not, of course, respond to your request. And at the request of the remaining members of the Council, I responded on their behalf. That is why this is not signed by the chairman of the Council of Oceanographic Laboratory Directors. I thought that might take a little explanation. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Doctor. Now, gentlemen, I suggest that when we question the witnesses that I recognize each one of you and you select any one or all. I don’t know how to tell you to get started. Mr. Gooprrnc. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question out of order. I trust the question is not out of order. I have an appointment that I must keep. I have just a very short question, if I may proceed. Mr. Lennon. If you are leaving as soon as you finish, I will say, yes, go ahead. Mr. Goopirne. First of all, I think I should welcome Dr. Calhoun here as a fellow Pennsylvania University man. Dr. CatHoun. Thank you. Mr. Gooprine. This is my question. It is very timely and may not be relevant to what you are talking about right now but to me it is very _ Important. Would you care to comment on the proposal of DOD to dump gases into the Atlantic Ocean ? Dr. CatHoun. I don’t belive I care to comment, sir. I don’t believe I have the total background on the subject. Mr. Gooptine. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Goodling. Now the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Mosher. Mr. Mosuer. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that Dr. Calhoun and his colleagues have presented for us this morning a most impressive case In support of the Stratton Commission’s recommendations, par- ticularly the recommendations for reorganization of the agencies and the creation of a new central agency to take the lead in the uses of the seas. To me, Dr. Calhoun, your arguments are very cogent, very forceful, very convincing. I noticed in your letter to Chairman Lennon on page 3 of your printed statement that you emphasize that the comments contained in 286 that letter were made before the panel reports of the Commission became available. Now the panel reports of the Commission are avail- able, and I assume that you and your associates have had a chance to study them. Could I also assume correctly that those panel reports only reinforce the. position you took in your letter to Chairman Lennon? They do not in any way detract from your enthusiasm for the Stratton Commission’s report? Dr. Catnowun. I can only speak as an individual in this respect. The Committee did not receive the panel reports prior to its last full scheduled meeting, so we have not discussed in Committee meeting the panel reports or their contents. J have read parts of the panel reports. I haven’t had time to go through them in detail. Generally speaking, yes, they do reinforce my feeling on this matter and do not detract from it in any way. I don’t know if any of the other NASCO members here have a comment. Dr. Pritchard says that he concurs. Yes, there is general agreement among us on that point. Mr. Mosuer. As I sense it, the major emphasis in your comments today is on the need for, to use the phrase you use, a manifold increase in the level of effort in the areas we are discussing here. Now, there has been some criticism of the Commission’s report that it is too modest. Do you have that feeling? The criticism is that it is too modest as to what it projects as to the level of funding in the next 10 years. Does it meet this standard that you are suggesting for a manifold increase in the level of effort? Dr. Cartoun. IT don’t recall the specific dollar figure that the Com- mission proposed, and I have not made a comparison. As I recall the figures, | would say that what the Commission recommends would be a manifold increase. Mr. Mosuer. In other words, you do not necessarily think it is modest. Dr. Cartuoun. “Modest” is a relative term, and, as I say, I don’t remember the specific figure. I don’t have the report in front of me. Dr. Prrronarp. Mr. Chairman, while Dr. Calhoun is refreshing his memory, I might say, as an individual, that I found this possibly the one drawback in the Commission’s report that I felt concerned about. In its efforts to perhaps be practical the Commission did not really project the growth needs and the goals that it stated properly in terms of the financial needs. Mr. Mosuer. In other words, your recommendation to us would be that the Congress could look upon the recommendations as modest and not be tempted to look for goals that were less than the Commis- sion’s report. Dr. Prircuarp. Definitely. I feel that, while the Commission has properly outlined the Nation’s goals and what we should do in the future, these are not reflected fully in the dollar amounts that they quote. Mr. Mosuer. Now, Dr. Calhoun. Dr. Catuoun. Just having gone back to look at the way they have this figure laid out, it is not up to the figure that we indicated in our letter to Dr. Lawrence of something less than $5 billion a year or something more than $1 billion a year. Mr. Mosuer. That was my impression. 287 Dr. Calhoun, on page 10 you use this sentence: “We do not need a modified management structure so much to coordinate and correlate the things being done now as to undertake the things that are not being done.” . Tam glad you remind us of that. On another page in your report, among the things that you em- phasize are not being done, I think you indicate that in our present situation we have no focus or center of initiative in the comprehen- sive development of fundamental technology in the uses of the sea. Would you agree with me that that emphasis should be of the very essence of our planning for a reorganizational structure, for the crea- tion of a new agency, that there is a very basic need for technology development that we are not meeting under the present situation / Dr. CarHoun. Yes; I would agree. One of the things I tried to say in my statement, although I realize I didn’t say it very well, is that in your deliberations for structuring a new agency the most important thing to be asked is, what specific missions will this agency be called upon to do? In my view—and I think it is shared by the members of the Com- mittee on Oceanography—that principal mission should be to learn to work and do things and carry out activities within the ocean—to de- velop, if you will, a technology which does not now exist for the civilian economy. In order to develop this technology, it will be necessary to do a reasonable amount of basic research and gain further understanding of the environment itself. But it will be necessary to go beyond that into many project-level activities and task-force activities which ac- tually get down to the business of doing something that isn’t being done now. So I think we are in agreement. Mr. Mosuer. That mission is really not located or focused in any present agency. Dr. CatHoun. I don’t think it is. Mr. Mosuer. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, sir. Before I recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, I just want to get something for the record to be sure that I understand it, Dr. Pritchard. The Council of Oceanographic Laboratory Directors, how many colleges or universities does that represent, this council ? Dr. Prircuarp. Ten. The Council represents 10. Mr. Lennon. The Council, so you state here, are “the directors of the following major oceanographic institutions of the United States.” Dr. Prircuarp. That is right. Mr. Lennon. What I am trying to determine, since someone has raised the question, is: Are there not other institutions at this same university level which are also members of this Oceanographic Lab- oratory Council? Dr. Prrrcuarp. No, sir. There are 10 directors of 10 institutions who got together and formed the Council of Oceanographic Labora- tory Directors. These were laboratories which had the following major features in common. They operate oceanographic research vessels in the open ocean and have a significant research program, as well as in many cases a teaching program, in this field. 288 Mr. Lennon. That answers my question raised by another member. Dr. Prircuarp. There are other marine institutions, many of which do not operate oceangoing vessels. Mr. Lennon. That answers the question. Now the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. Karts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Pritchard, isn’t it extremely difficult to calculate with any reasonable degree of accuracy what a program in line with the Com- mission’s recommendations would cost, not really knowing what basic and applied-research-and-development programs would be initiated ? I don’t mind the criticism that you aimed at the Commission’s report in terms of its elusiveness in its report. But I think it 1s diffi- cult to pinpoint these things. Dr. Prircnarp. I would agree that it is extremely difficult to forecast. Mr. Karru. And that perhaps is why it was difficult for Dr. Cal- houn to be more specific. He says less than $5 billion and more than $1 billion. That is quite a variation, too. Dr. Calhoun, how much money was appropriated to the National Academy of Sciences last year insofar as it relates to marine-resources activities ? Dr. Catnoun. I was going to ask the secretary of the committee. He says our budget for the committee was about $85,000 last year. This money is not appropriated to the Academy, however. We have working agreements with a number of individual agencies which sup- port our activity. Mr. Karrs. Could you be more specific? What agencies are involved ? Dr. Catuoun. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the National Science Foundation, the Coast Guard, the Atomic Energy Commis- sion, ESSA, and Navy. Mr. Kartu. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Pelly. Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Calhoun, I recognize that as a member of the scientific com- munity you are somewhat hesitant to comment in detail on the struc- ture of a Government agency, but I think perhaps Dr. Paulik could comment in this since I note that he has been a consultant to what I call a unilateral arrangement for conservation; namely, the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission. I am addressing myself more to the problem of fisheries because I happen to be on the Fisheries Subcommittee and am concerned in one particular respect with ‘how the fishery problem is going to be solved under any new agency. It seems to me that we are more and more getting into the realm of international agreements so far as fisheries conservation and self-pro- tection is concerned. We have arrangements on the Atlantic with the Soviets. We have them with the Soviets on the Pacific. We have an agreement with the Japanese; and we have certain international ar- rangements for halibut with the Canadians, and so forth. So it appears that now, while we only produce 4 percent of the world’s supply of fish and consume some 12 percent, we are more and - more reaching out into the realm of international agreements and the 289 State Department is directing more of its attention to the fishing prob- lems of the United States today than is our Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. I indeed wonder how we can protect our fishing industry and our fishermen and their livelihoods under these conditions, and if we create a department or agency which has oceanography and basic research and all the other matters that come within marine science, how we are going to get the State Department into this picture without letting them run away with the ball? Dr. Paulik, you said in your statement that you confessed less per- sonal enthusiasm for the Commission’s recommendations concerning international fisheries affairs. Could I get you to comment on the basis of what I have said? Dr. Pavutix. I think I also said that these problems are enormously complicated. Mr. Petuy. In Peru, today, we are finding that out. Dr. Pavtis. I was reacting to the Commission’s specific recommen- dations for an overall catch quota of cod and haddock in the North Atlantic. I feel that such a quota is far too simple a solution for a problem of this complexity, involving several different stocks of fish. The real problem is to limit in some way the total fishing effort in the North Atlantic. I support the Commission’s recommendations for strengthening and extending our bilateral and multilateral agreements. ‘Some of these have worked very well. Mr. Peixy. Halibut isan example. Dr. PautiK. Yes, sir. Mr. Pstuy. In the establishment of a new agency we are going to have to recognize that the State Department will play a very prominent role in all matters having to do with research and conservation and indeed the protection of our own industry. Dr. Pavtix. Yes. I don’t think that a new ocean agency would in any way detract from the role of the State Department. In fact, I think such an agency would enhance the State Department’s role by providing a much sounder base of factual information for their recom- - mendations. T think many of our present difficulties arise from mutual mis- understandings and suspicions of different nations. If we had a sounder base of knowledge, it would be simpler to reach more equitable agree- ments in the international area. Where agreements are not reached, it is likely we will destroy the resources to the detriment of all the participating parties. I think that strengthening our scientific capa- bility in these areas would provide the State Department with the ability to recommend programs which would function perhaps better than those we are working under today. Mr. Petry. Under agreement with the Soviet Union we have mutual arrangements for research and we have found out for example on the Pacific that the supply of perch is dangerously low and we were able to reach agreement with the Soviets that they will not take perch. These are things that I want to satisfy myself are going to go on in spite of any new agency that is set up. You think it could be actually improved ? 290 Dr. Paunix. I certainly hope that it would not only go on, but that we would improve our ability to make these agreements with other nations, I think the Commission’s report supported this type of activ- ity very strongly. They recommended that many of the international agencies have their own scientific staffs patterned after the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission, the Pacific Halibut Commis- sion and the Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. Mr. Petiy. Of course, I think we all recognize that we do have a very able man in the State Department in Dr. Donald McKernan. Dr. Pautix. Yes. Mr. Petuy. I don’t know, frankly, what we would do without him. Dr. Pauitix. We are very fortunate. Mr. Pretuy. We can’t expect to always have a person that has as good a background and is trained in science as well as the practical aspects. I think maybe you have answered me. I want to think about it a lot and I would like any other comments. Dr. Catnoun. I would like to respond briefly to the first comment you made. It isn’t that I, as a scientist, am unwilling to talk about organization. As a scientist I have opinions on many things. I simply don’t want to present an organization question as a scientific matter, and we were trying to make the point that as scientists we all have varylng opinions on this. Mr. Petry. A political-scientific question. Dr. Catuoun. I would say this as a personal observation. My own views are that it is very important that any organizational structure be done at the highest level. This is why I have expressed myself per- sonally as being in favor of a major reorganization somewhat akin to the reorganization we made with the Department of Defense. I personally would opt for creating a new Department of Resources and Environments, one unit of which would be a subdepartment on oceans and atmospheres. This is only a personal view. I think it is time, however, that we gave to some top-level person in the executive this responsibility and let him reorganize the units in a way that would get the job done just as we did in the Department of Defense. They created in Defense an Office of Defense Research and Engineering, which supports the whole establishment. Tt seems to me that if we had a Department of Resources and En- vironments, the Secretary of that Department could create a similar internal structure, an Office of Environmental Resource Research and Engineering. Congress wouldn’t have to tell him how to organize it- They would tell him to get on with doing the natural resource job, one part of which is the oceans. Mr. Prtriy.'I think you are a good political scientist, Dr. Calhoun, because I think you have offered a very practical way in which this could work very efficiently. Dr. Catuoun. Of course this is predicted on the assumption that within our total executive we have too many units, and this is why I personally in all my testimony have not used the word independent in talking about a new agency. I think we have too many individual agencies, and I would rather see some consolidation. So, if we make a bold move like we made when we put the Department of Defense together, and get all of these questions coming up with respect to resources and environments and put them in one package under a Secretary and tell him to get on with the job, we wouldn’t have to 291 argue about whether we are destroying a subagency or not. You would leave it to the best judgment of the people running the Depart- ment to get the job done. Mr. Petiy. The word “independent,” as far as agencies go is prob- ably the most overworked and greatly exaggerated word there is be- cause there is no such thing as an independent agency that I can find. Tt all goes back to the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Mosuer. Would the gentleman yield ? Mr. Petniy. Yes. Mr. Mosuer. I would like to ask a quick question of Dr. Paulik. A constituent of mine was arguing with me the other day and he was de- fending the position of Peru in the argument over the fisheries, and he claimed that the American fishermen in those waters were taking catches of species that are prohibited to the Peruvian fishermen under their own regulations; in other words, that this is one basic reason for Peruw’s action. Is there any truth to that? Dr. Paurin. No, I don’t believe there is any truth to that statement. As far as I know we are taking only tuna in those waters, and Peru is not harvesting these tuna resources. I think Peru is concerned about their anchovy fishery which is ex- tremely large and is a very important part of their economy. They may also be concerned about protecting some planned future entry into the tuna fishery. Mr. Petry. I am glad I yielded to the gentleman on that subject because it gives me an opportunity to say that they have seized prac- tically every one of our boats, several times using our own naval ves- sels to do it, and never charged that they found anything but tuna on them. All they wanted to do was fine us anyway. Mr. Lennon. It is interesting to observe at that point that in Febru- ary 1959 the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences issued its catalog with its introduction and summary of recom- mendations, and it was because of this document that this subcommit- tee was formed by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. You gentlemen are responsible, in fact—not speculation—responsible for the bringing into being of the Subcommittee on Oceanography of this committee. We are delighted to have you back home again. Dr. Catnoun. I will have to yield to predecessors on this point. Mr. Lennon. Now the gentleman from California. Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I particularly want to note that Dr. Pritchard appears here as one of the local boys who made good. I represent Santa Ana, where the gentleman was born. I am delighted to have you here before the committee. Mr. Chairman, I was particularly struck by a statement by Dr. Calhoun in which he said, “In all affairs of men there comes a time to act.” And it brought me back to a situation in law school in which the professor had us working on one case for about a week trying to ana- lyze why the judge decided, and after we had given him all of the in- tricate reevaluations of that puristic mind, he finally said, “I think you are all wrong. He decided it because the case had to be decided.” I think that is the kind of situation that we are ultimately in and we will have to establish our role somewhat in a mix of what I under- stand from the story of three umpires who had been through the season and were meeting together and decided to exchange views on 292 how they decided to call balls or strikes, and one who was a little younger had a modicum of humility left and a substantial amount of moral rightousness, and he said, “I call them as I see them.” The other fellow who had been a little more experienced and therefore had far less humility and a little more authoritarianism, said, “I call them as they are.” And the third fellow who was the senior of the umpires there had already reached the place where the deistic mantle settled over his shoulders said, “I figure they ain’t nothing until I call them.” Somewhere in the mix there is where this committee is going to have to be in deciding what the structure is going to be. I don’t know that we are going to have any more humility than is generally ex- pressed by persons who have had experience in their callings because T noted in several of the statements of the gentlemen the general course of those who have been acting long enough to have not been overtaken by humility. I find that in the statement saying, ‘““We look with long- ing upon this new environment to conquer” and in the statement, “There are a number of possibly equally valid ways of organizing the effort toward attaining mastery * * * of the marine environment.” Conquering and mastery, it seems to me, shows a rather lack of humility which the western man has exhibited in an exorbitant ca- pacity throughout our history. I should like to see that subordinated a bit. I think we are at a place where humility might be brought to play here, and I would prefer to see us looking at this thing as though we were part of nature rather than an adversary to nature. T understand the background in which we have come to be a highly competitive adversary type people, and I make this point, Mr. Chair- man, because it establishes the kind of attitude we have as we set about this job, and I think the time has come when western man has to re- evaluate his attitude and I hope that our attitude would be a little different than the assault and mastery we have made on land, over our forest industry, for instance, and the conquests that we have made in our rivers. Would you care to comment on that ? Dr. CatHoun. Yes, I think this simply shows the inadequacy of words when one is trying to present the best possible face and the most forceful argument. I do think it is a time to act and I guess I used the word conquest like the colonialists and imperialists of old in the best sense of the word, But, I might say I agree with your observations. This is one reason why in my own thinking I would advocate, as I said, an Execu- tive Department of Resources and Environments. And, I put the two words together for this very reason—that whatever we do must be done recognizing that we, too, live on a spaceship and the spaceship is rather limited. If we don’t pay some attention to its characteristics, we are likely to find that we, too, are lost in space. Mr. Hanna. Would you care to comment on that, Dr. Pritchard? Dr. PrircHarp. Yes, since the one quote was as to mastery, I agree that it would have been more appropriate to have stated something to the effect that we should attain an ability to exist within the environ- ment, within the natural environment. : Mr. Hanna. Some kind of a harmonious Dr. Prircwarp. Harmonius existence within the environment we live in. To understand them takes knowledge and that was really my main emphasis. 293 Mr. Hanna. I understand. if fyi Dr. Prircuarp. If we are to exist in a compatible situation with the ocean, we have to know its processes and forces and be able to not necessarily master them, but to direct them perhaps to avoid such things as destruction and to take advantage of the currents for a more rapid transit and such things as that. : Min Hanna. I hope you gentlemen won’t think I was being force- fully critical. I wanted to make a point, and you have helped me make it, and I think it is important that that point be constantly before us so that we do not relive some of the errors of the past and that we have more of the ecological thought in this thing at all times. I think that you gentlemen have contributed very substantially to this whole decisionmaking process with what you have said. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is only fair to tell these gentlemen that it is going to be easier for Congress to tell the executive what to do than to face up to what Congress has to do. Other than that, I want to commend each of you for your contribu- tions here this morning. Mr. Rocers (presiding). Thank you very much. Mr. Keith. Mr. Kerrn. Thank you. As I listened to Dr. Calhoun, I thought of him not only as an accomplished oceanographer, but one who might also have earned his doctorate in English or perhaps in management, and then, as it finally has developed, in philosophy. It has been a rare privilege to be here. When I came to Congress, I had quite a financial burden, but I used to think it was compensated for by the educational expe- rience. Today has been a graduate course in that, and I am very grate- ful for your contribution. We have an expression in New England, “It is time to fish, cut bait or pull for shore.” And I think, from the tenor of this committee and the witnesses before it, that we are going to try to do just that. I have one question, and it may be best to develop this if you are going to be in town a few hours, Dr. Paulik. I represent the city of New Bedford, and we are very much concerned not only about lobster, scallops, and many other species of fish, but more particularly had- dock, which hasn’t been a big product in our port. If the projected plans of the ICNAF materialize, haddock may be in very short supply. This means that Boston fishermen are going to transfer into New Bedford products. You talked at some length in your report or in your prepared statement, as well as afterward, about what was wrong, but you didn’t say what you would do about haddock. Now, if you have a short answer to that, I would like to have it here. If you have a long answer, I would like to meet you later on. Dr. Paurrx. Maybe we could defer this until the session is finished. Mr. Kerry. Let’s do that, because there is another witness from the private sector. But if you are going to be in town for another 3 or 4 hours, I would like to meet with you. Dr. Pavurs. I will certainly be at your disposal. Mr. Kerrn. That is the only question I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon (presiding). The gentleman from Florida. Mr. Rocrrs. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 294 I have had an opportunity to look at your statements and have been impressed with your feelings and think your viewpoint has been most helpful to the committee. Dr. Calhoun, I notice that while you give some viewpoints, you make the statement, “In no way should our remarks be attributed to the National Academy of Sciences,” but you are on a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, are you not? Dr. Catyoun. Yes. My. Rogers. But you don’t want your viewpoint to be associated in any way with the Academy ? Dr. CatHoun. We don’t speak, in this sense, for the Academy and there is a limited area in which we can speak for the Committee on Oceanography—that where we have a consensus of opinion. The things that we did agree on we have tried to state in the letter to Mr. Lennon. Mr. Rocers. In the three points. Di. Catuoun. That is right. My prepared statement is my best in- terpretation of how I think the committee might feel. And, as you have heard from these gentlemen, we do have a general agreement about the matter, but we speak really as individual scientists who have come together with common purpose. Our majority opinions and considered viewpoints generally show up in our reports and these are on record. Mr. Rogers. I see. Thank you so much. It has been very helpful. Mr. Lennon. Doctor, I believe you sum up the position of NASCO relating to the governmental structure in these words which are found beginning on line 8 on page 12: “However, we should be more con- cerned with what needs to be done than with whether an existing agency should be maintained intact.” Is that the philosophy of the NASCO? Dr. Catyoun. That is certainly one way to summarize it. Mr. Lennon. Did you summarize it that way ? Dr. CatHoun. It takes my whole statement really to summarize and taking one sentence out of context sometimes can get you in trouble, but I would say that is one way of summarizing 1t. We might offer a few guidelines. When it comes to an existing agency, one has to ask whether the mission of that agency can be carried out if you don’t give it access to the ocean. And, just because it is doing some ocean-related work doesn’t necessarily mean that you ought to take the agency and plunk it into a new organization. You have to ask yourself why is it doing ocean work. Mr. Lennon. Take the agency Coast Guard with its mission of search and rescue. Dr. CatHoun. The Coast Guard happens to be an agency which is oriented almost completely to the ocean. Let’s take the Geological Survey, for instance. Mr. Lennon. Let’s hold right where we were. You concede then that the Coast Guard in its missions and roles is oriented almost en- tirely to the oceanic environment ? Dr. CatHoun. Yes, sir. I think that is a fair statement. Mr. Lennon. Should that agency be placed in the new proposed Federal agency as recommended by the Commission report? Dr. Catnoun. Well; Mr. Chairman, the decision as to what agencies ought to be in the new structure , Mr. Lennon. I am not asking for a decision. I am asking your judg- ment and opinion, 295 Dr. Catnowun. I think it would be most appropriate for the Coast Guard activity to be a part of a focus agency to develop ocean science and technology. There are parts of the administrative structure in any technological development which don’t move so much to the develop- ment of the technology itself as it does to protecting the public. I think we have some ood examples of this in the health field where we divorce the regulatory and safety regulations from the mission of those who are developing the technology. In the atomic energy field we handle it a little differently, but again there are regulatory agencies that are protecting the public and are looking after the safety of people which is different from the develop- ment of the technology. These things are joined always in any technological development, but I think it is a matter of governmental administration to recognize that there are safety problems and human involvement problems that are separate and distinct from the development of the technology. Just because both happen to be concerned with the same environment doesn’t necessarily mean that administratively you put them together. It depends on the checks and balances that are needed. Mr. Lennon. What about the Environmental Science Services Ad- ministration which the Commission recommended be put in this new agency ? Dr. CatHown. It seems to me that one question that has to be asked is whether the mission of an existing agency is broader than ocean science and technology and specifically with ESSA this is a question that I would have to ask myself. It seems to me that the mission of ESSA goes beyond ocean science and technology. If one is structuring a new agency that has a mission IM ocean science and technology, then you have to ask what do you do with an agency whose missions are broader than ocean science and technology. Do you put it in or leave it out? That is the kind of question you have to ask. Mr. Lennon. You have contractual relations with ESSA, Coast Guard, and many others. You would be working with these Govern- _ ment agencies in the field of sciences. Who would be in a better posi- tion to make an administrative determination as to which could be br ought together ? We work with them only in the legislative aspect. You work with them down in the issue in which they are involved. Where should we go to get definitive advice and information with respect to what agencies should be brought together that have roles and missions so oriented to marine technology, ¢ pcos ee aphy, oceanology, and marine sciences other than people ‘like you? Dr. Carnoun. Again, our contact with these agencies is from a pro- gram point of view. Mr. Lennon. I understand that, but you get to know them and know what their programs are and why. Dr. ‘Catnoun. Well, in answer to your question, sir, I think that this is again a reason why i im my own personal judgment I come back to the point that it is so important to designate to some executive a responsibility for resources and environments and let that adminis- trator organize internally to take care of these overlaps. There isn’t any way ‘that one can organize any activity to get around overlaps. There are always going to' "be some. 296 Mr. Lennon. With that I agree. We would be delighted to hear from you, Dr. Pritchard. Dr. Prircwarp. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I might perhaps be willing to speak a little more directly than Dr. Calhoun. I would say this: The problem is that existing agencies are not structured necessarily appropriately from the ocean standpoint. That is we have a number of existing agencies whose mission en- compasses broad aspects of the environment including the ocean and so to consider how to put these agencies together in an ocean-oriented system is difficult. You can say, “Well this one has more ocean orientation than not, so we will put it in, but this one, while it has a significant amount of ocean-oriented activity, has a larger activity associated with land, and we won't.” : This is one reason why I would again support Dr. Calhoun’s sug- gestion that, if one didn’t have to just assemble the agencies into a single structure which were ocean-oriented but could assemble the agencies which are concerned with natural resources and environ- ment, and leave them a larger structure, and can now shuffle within these agencies a group of activities which are ocean-oriented, thus we accomplish the purpose. It is hard to see how to put this jigsaw puzzle together when the pieces don’t quite match now is the point I make. Mr. Lennon. We would be delighted to have the recommendations of the Oceanography Committee of the National Academy of Sciences in the form of suggested draft legislation. We would be delighted to consider it and see what you folks really believe. Dr. Draxr. May I comment on this, too? In my specific field, which is geology and geophysics, the division as proposed is not quite ap- propriate because the rocks don’t really know whether they are under- water or under the air. I would endorse most highly Dr. Calhoun’s recommendation that the idea of an agency dealing with natural resources and environment should be considered. Anytime you try to split up the environment, you get into trouble because, for example, one man’s solution to a pollution problem is another man’s ‘pollution. Mr. Lennon. One man’s solution is another one’s pollution. All of us find ourselves in that situation. Dr. Draxs. As soon as you divide up environment into separate jurisdictions, one man will take his pollution out of the water and put it in the atmosphere, or another takes it out of the atmosphere and pumps it underground. In each case you are not really solving the problem. You are just putting it into another jurisdiction. ‘So I would endorse the idea of trying to draw these things together into a single agency. Mr. Roczrs. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Lennon. I will be delighted to yield at this point. Mr. Rogrrs. It seems to me that we are losing somewhat the thrust of what we are trying to do. What we were trying to do in setting up the Commission to make a study on oceanography is trying to empha- size the development of resources in the sea and its associated resources. Now, we are trying now to consider an agency to bring that to the 297 forefront. We have had Interior. We have had a lot of the land de- velopment. We have had the Weather Bureau with emphasis on the land, and so forth. We are trying now to bring in the oceans. I understand your concept of saying all of this ought to be tied together, and I am sure everyone would agree, but we are not quite at that stage probably. I think we have to upgrade our handling of oceanographic problems in the national budget, in national emphasis, in national programs before we can ever talk about equalizing. Otherwise we start now and you still have downgraded oceans if you are going to put it in an environmental department where the oceans have never been upgraded. This is what we are trying to do, and I think we have lost the thrust of the whole effort in developing oceanography. Dr. Drake. That isa point. Mr. Rocers. I think it’s a major point. Dr. Drake. If you look at the Commission report, you run into the same thing. They started to study the oceans. They found they really couldn’t do this without including the atmosphere. Mr. Rocrers. Of course, interaction of air and sea is a proper func- tion to be in an oceanographic agency, and the Commission as a result of that has recommended a separate agency. Dr. Drake. Atmosphere and sea. I look at this from the geological point of view and see interaction with the solid earth as well. Mr. Rogers. Seventy percent of the earth is water, isn’t 1t? Air and water, 70 percent. Where should interaction of air and sea be? In an oceanographic agency I would think. Mr. Lennon. Gentlemen, we do appreciate your presence here today, and if Mr. Beckman would confer with us here, we will deter- mine what we will do from now on. We will go off the record at this time. Thank you gentlemen. I am sure we will be calling on you in the future for counsel and advice. We are grateful for your attendance. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. The schedule for tomorrow, whieh will begin of course at 10 o’clock, is Mr. John H. Clotworthy, president of the National Oceanographic Association, and Dr. Walter Orr Roberts, University Corp. for Atmospheric Research, and Congressman Bob Wilson also desires to be heard tomorrow. Now the gentleman with whom we just discussed the matter of rescheduling, if you will meet with counsel after the meeting is ad- journed, that will be done to suit your convenience and will give you an opportunity to enlarge the scope of your discussion to include comments on what you may have heard here today, and I will request that you be furnished with a copy of Captain Bauer’s statement before the committee. You may want to comment on that, too. Thank you, gentlemen. The meeting will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock, to be chaired then by the gentleman from Florida. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to recon- vene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 22, 1969.) 26—-563—69— pt. 1——20 ms ball al Ot “Ftgd iy Toulti. guizie t 0, depspiton Tea rt EPR Db TAH i Reifentio| fi hircate nay ben ad To noeral tierce oe cence be ay" ‘oii val ral} farct ad OF ty ol oO OL 48 cae ei ey ~oh hiaal ald, cae fi ciel ee Whi J re BP) ao cienilitis (iv tee ee gong NE Beas She itt arehech OY wrest, goo, te . OA 04 be. ie fi Orit Fou At Tan i) if, avian Dhie: MN 91071014 matte r ie a EIB ctngt “tthe S Abb yt Teg ih oy WP Gal, ty ait, ‘et quttiits Eetoi sant OF alogbihl bit Otter Qt ay, aceldoue. oS thi fig HeGelis 3 Lad 1978 ntiny ay) Saeko weg 9 FP 2 Hikave Pabiee ino Orgel (Era sore hig: wor Fipdy . an oS ih itt: atti iqaby fesionnitokiens how a 6 Susep o “EN On Re uika ty STR BW HK Aw. Bi til Y sokypingcpy Aseek 495 thy olotah Me Tolls. glos Cwatt 16 jecaith adi, deol es een <5 ile . x Wet “Amo. Be 4 uy Vd LTC TOGA fa as cnteer Ce Soast wieeloura ads yy TERS ‘ hs TOL eG) " HTKAUO oi , wh nt rv eet es a a ygtnalty Dailort Saosin gic arts Ciba OSTENT 4c fat boa DEB ATR WG Nop MTS TELS ABALLECISS iver Ben motion) adh Tite RIT ORE EC Pat EONS OR STGTRCOS iD PAS Pahoa rth ot Dis SLOG L Bacar | DOLL, Sorte PRR Ne Ve Por hoy el irks BHF aa sar4 Sod Parti) fe aD hednse bien’ tie ko. oly evel liigile arash Yi ; - ; i aie, gettin} blrrow A. eat SiO) Bonsesay ioe oposite “Of hor PRUE, Lorie? & YH Noe a) pipes es “PSPS tw surly ail en tive $4 LOO Deere. 1h art: at byt he Bide als he rey (tyer's hs tO} WROTE i in ; i n " ! < io. Fe f Waihi ‘ hag ys s { Ve F * ’ eye SSOP TA TO OB BC Tbe Sor mri EE ale carck hy annie ie “Troy: Ty Ty : te T a adit bad alt “Oot Tbe Dire. “y . a Dbtooer alt to” “HOMES ta ie Hie Herb “yrohaoddy i gta fart iz on. Hes) | i: 1) Trehiastie vPro wsol YH alot “al, er oH a a uc for tO OHTE MT bres ros deisose sk, + sidijmngotta fo8 Hameeo Tato.) Bek doasoeetl otiodqeontds tat . mae 1 oO PTO IO btsod 5h OF ee on bey sydd Gis Hose soeth “. ee or ceronte ser eo feligag LA ST Me Pagers cits toot LOOM Le JOS fF, ADR ar y YA BOY RTs TLE Dts A TIL9y Ho “ov tue od atoly Ore | Ug t yi See ger nd ¢ f at ae ub WATT ey rive 8 Ge as 2 TES AO ae) ‘ott eee lite. od. NY; ny 5 i #Vabet ator Prien ay ae GAL, MOY Tah yg, . ; ‘ ; j . hh wey Ties stance apie), td T4095 6 tive hotlairuut, ood i sOUNE Bre (Th AG OT Sew (eat sor 9K (OKO, ut ¥ 'y ‘ i bi * “1099104 i most sot ionimondhyys Sift batts On er ts, eights aoa CH Ne eae ha eee we, nee J F ve i ¥ ‘ ‘ NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1969 THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1969 Hovusr or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE Commirrer oN MercHant Marine AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul G. Rogers presiding. Mr. Rocers. The subcommittee will come to order, please. This is Maritime Day and a number of the members had to attend ceremonies, some in New York. We are delighted to have some distinguished witnesses with us, and the first witness we have today is an old friend and one who has taken a very active interest in this field for years, Mr. John Clotworthy, who is president of the National Oceanography Association and who is president of Oceans General, Inc. Mr. Clotworthy, we are delighted to have you and we will be pleased to receive your testimony. If you have any associates, we would be delighted if you would bring them with you, and will you identify them for the record. (A biographical sketch of Mr. Clotworthy follows :) BioGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOHN H. CLoTWORTHY Mr. Clotworthy was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1924. He graduated from the University of Virginia with a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering and has done post graduate work at the Harvard Business School. In 1967 fol- lowing eighteen years with the Westinghouse Electric Corporation, during which time he rose to the position of Vice President, Defense and Space Center and General Manager of their Underseas Division, he joined the faculty of the Uni- versity of Miami to become Chairman, Division of Ocean Engineering. In mid- 1968 he formed Oceans General, Incorporated of which he is President. Mr. Clotworthy is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and is a founding member and director of the Marine Technology Society. In 1968 he served as Chairman of an ad hoc committee of the National Security Industrial Association which prepared a report entitled “A National Ocean Program”. He is a director of the American Society for Oceanography and President of the National Oceanography Association. STATEMENT OF JOHN H. CLOTWORTHY, PRESIDENT, ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD N. RIGBY, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY ASSOCIATION Mr. Crotwortuy. Mr. Chairman and members, it is a privilege to appear today to testify in behalf of the National Oceanography As- sociation. I have with me our executive director, Mr. Richard N. Rigby. Mr. Rocrrs. Mr. Rigby we are delighted to have you here. (299) 300 Mr. Crorwortuy. The National Oceanography Association is a citizens’ organization dedicated to a stronger national program in the oceans, consisting of approximately 600 corporate and 900 individual members. I have submitted for the record a list of our board of directors. The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and: Resources has put before the country a major question—are we to have a stronger, concerted national ocean program or not? We have been discussing, studying, recommending, and debating this question for a full 10 years. Significant actions have taken place during the decade since 1959 in response to these studies, principal among which, in my opinion, was the enactment in 1966 of the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act for which this subcom- mittee is in large measure responsible and which sets the stage for present deliberations. Now, I submit, we are at the time of decision. Do we as a Nation move ahead on a broad scale into the oceans, or do we continue to study the problem while other nations move to establish operational com- petence that will assure continued decline in U.S. position as a mari- time nation ? The Commission report puts the case for action in brilliant fashion and with the right emphasis on the benefits to the public from such a move. The people of this Nation do have a real stake in the decision we make—our security, or economy, our ability to meet demands for food and raw materials, our position in the world community, the quality of our coastal] and Great Lakes environments, our comprehension of weather systems—all will be greatly affected by the direction we choose, as the Commission report states. It is not possible in a short period to review the Commission recom- mendations in detail. Nor, as the Commission itself recognized, have all of the findings and suggestions met with approval. During these hearings, there will be no doubt be recorded objections to this recom- mendation or that finding. No such commentary can or should be allowed to obscure or diminish the excellence of the report as the whole, the soundness of most of its conclusions and the propriety of its advocacy of a concerted national ocean effort with a strong emphasis on private enterprise. J, and I think many in the oceanography community, have two major reservations with the work of the Commission—but these in no way lessen my respect for the excellence of the effort. First, I don’t think the Commission adequately treated the significant role the U.S. Navy has played in the development of our existing ocean capabilities and the role it will certainly play in the future. Perhaps this represents a maturing of view—a recognition that a true national ocean program is bipolar, involving a nonmilitary as well as military capacity. Second, I think the recommendations in the field of international law dealing with undersea resources are subject to question as to whether or not they are in the best interest of this country. The Commission recommendations in this complicated legal field, along with the objections you will certainly hear, should be examined most carefully and deliberately before a choice is made or action initiated. 301 Tn this instance, the fault is too definitive a recommendation, too soon. I urge that this question be considered separately from the rest of the Commission report. Before discussing the Commission’s central recommendation to pro- vide focus and coordination at the Federal level, I would like to sub- mit for the record the statement adopted by the board of directors of the National Oceanography Association on January 27, 1969: The National Oceanography Association Board of Directors endorses the uni- fied management advocated by the Commission for Federal nondefense ocean- ographic efforts through formation of an independent agency—the National Oceanie and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA). We believe further studies should be made promptly with the aim of consolidating views on the appropriate size and composition of NOAA. We heartily endorse the recommended National Advisory Committee for the Oceans to facilitate close industry-Government coordination. We recommend continuation of the present National Council on Marine Re- sources and Engineering Development until decisions are reached on the recom- mended reorganization as suggested by the Commission. We commend the initiative of the Oceanography Subcommittee of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in meeting with representatives of the Commission to discuss implementation of the report soon after its issuance. The National Oceanography Association Board of Directors urges further study be given the recommendations of the Commission regarding international law relating to deep sea resources and specifically its endorsement of a narrowly defined Continental ‘Shelf. We believe the United States should not attempt imple- mentation of these recommendations prior to completion of such study. In the interim, the U.S. should continue implementation of the principles of the Convention on the Continental Shelf. The National Oceanography Association Board of Directors endorses the Com- Missions’ recommendation that “concrete, definable’ National Projects be estab- lished with the broad aim of advancing knowledge and technology. The private sector should participate in the planning of the projects; Congress should adopt them and provide adequate funding, subject to customary legislative oversight and appropriation reviews. Creation of the recommended National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is absolutely essential to a stronger national program, in our view. Regrouping within an existing department or continuation of the present council, even with additional authority, will simply not meet the national need. The reasons for so stating are many. If we don’t take the recom- ‘mended step or something very close to it, we will lose the momentum that has been built up slowly in recent years in our ocean capabilities and knowledge. We will, in fact, move backwards. You gentlemen will have a very understandable reluctance to suggest continuing the coun- cil beyond the June 30, 1970, expiration date after the two previous extensions of this interim coordinating mechanism, To my mind, the unlikely continuation of the council makes action on reorganization imperative. The Federal organization for marine activities, as has been often observed, is fragmented, sometimes duplicative, and jacking in focus or direction. We simply have to have a competent civilian agency with the ex- pertise to evaluate the Nation’s needs as they relate to the Federal role and with sufficient strength to carry out necessary programs approved by the Congress. Perhaps the need for this independent agency can best be illustrated this way—who would coordinate varied civilian programs, oversee 302 their day-to-day operations and provide the mechanism for coordina- tion of programs and research with the military oceanographic effort ? Who in the Federal Government, now, is there to evaluate and then act on the Commission’s recommendations? Who, now, would review and recommend to Congress if the recommended national project for in- creased test facilities is valid and, if so, to what extent Federal partici- pation is needed or desirable? And after this examination, who would be in charge? Where would an interested company go for information ? Where would students write ? These same questions can be applied to Commission recommenda- tions for the Great Lakes restoration feasibility project, Continental Shelf laboratories project, civilian deep submersible systems, and the buoy network proposals. It is because the Nation needs to move on these and other programs and because the national interest is involved that we need Federal reorganization. T think it is well worth noting here that other nations are moving— in coastal zone management, Continental Shelf research and develop- ment, aquaculture and ocean engineering. Russia, France, Japan, and England, for example, are active in most of these fields today. We dare not be left behind. Let me lay to rest the suggestion that industry is only interested in the Federal tax dollars that might flow from a new agency. While there may be some concerns looking for Federal contracts, because that is their business, there are far more who are not. As you will see from the attached list of NOA questionnaire respondents, there are indus- tries without involvement in oceanography who support reorganiza- tion as well as those that are because of the logic of the agency pro- posal and because they want to see the country have a strong presence in the sea. The support from academicians and the general public is clearly not motivated by self-interest alone. There are thousands of individual citizens who are interested because they see the future of oceanography and understand the need to take action. I commend this course to you—form the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency now and do not provide one dime of additional funds beyond present Federal expenditures for the components. Charge this agency with implementation of the Commission report and direct it to report to Congress with its recommendations for ac- tion, along with whatever new authorizations would be required. In my view, this is just simply good management. The Federal Govern- ment is already spending a considerable amount on civilian oceanog- raphy activities, estimated by the Commission as $773 million this year, without central contro] or direction. In this age of slogans, I apologize to the committee when somewhat facetiously I suggest that what we are talking about here is more splash for the cash. Then, you gentlemen of the Congress would have professional staffs unfettered by departmental restrictions reviewing the report, specific action proposals to consider, a more unified budget—and here I assume the new agency’s proposals would be referred to the Appropriations Independent Offices Subcommittees rather than scattered in pieces among many subcommittees—and, after enactment, a chance to review achievements against goals with the responsible Government agency. 303 Before considering specific composition of the recommended agency, I would like to say a word about the companion National Advisory Committee for the Oceans (NACO). It will do the country little good to establish this advisory body without the agency to advise. Some may recommend this course to you as a last resort, but I urge you to heed to the advice of Commission member John Perry who advised on April 30 before you that, without NOAA, there was no point to NACO, and that the two ought to be considered as one proposal. On committee composition, I hold with the Commission that there should be no Federal Government members. Also, the committee should not be exclusively industrial but should contain a mix of in- dustry representatives, State representation and people from the aca- demic community. I would also follow the recommendation of the Commission’s Panel on Marine Engineering and Technology that in- dustrial representation should include at least eight major areas: transportation, petroleum, fishing, mining, desalination, recreation, hardware, and services. The first organization suggested for inclusion in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the Coast Guard. It has been described as the “guts” of the agency. I endorse this recommendation, although I recognize questions have been raised about it. To deal with several, on the question of the Coast Guard’s defense role, I feel it can continue as well or better in NOAA than in the Department of Trans- portation, whose main focus is on such matters as railroads, airports, urban mass transit, and highways. Tt has been objected that putting the Coast Guard into NOAA will mix operational matters with programing. While I respect this con- cern, I think careful organization internally can keep the two func- tions separate and prevent operational matters from dominating. The ocean environment is unique and must be served by research as well as operations to do an effective job. Furthermore, the very uniqueness of the oceans serves to unite the functions conducted there and to diminish the differences between operations and research. The Coast Guard belongs in an ocean agency. As for the objections filed March 10, 1969, by the Department of Transportation—which I read with dismay since they seemed to miss ‘the message of the Commission report—I am struck by this fact : some of the arguments used against relocating the Coast Guard could be used to suggest the Department of Transportation never should have been formed. I refer to mentions of possible loss of effectiveness from regrouping, “administrative upheavals” and the ability to coordinate without reorganization. I think the activities of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries would be enhanced by transfer to an ocean agency, as will certain functions of the Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau. The Department of the Interior has great responsibilities to protect and preserve our natural land resources, manage our national parks, oversee mineral resources, conduct Indian affairs, conduct geological surveys and promote desalination, and the complex problems of our diverse fisheries industry will be better served in an organization with a sharper focus on the oceans. I subscribe to the inclusion of the Enviornmental Science Services Administration basically because of the necessary involvement of the 304 Weather Bureau in ocean science, since understanding weather sys- tems requires it, and because of the obvious relationship of the Coast and Geodetic Survey to the activities of NOAA. Tt has been argued that removal of ESSA will dimish the Depart- ment of Commerce, perhaps even end its life, and thereby, hurt the business community which it represents. First, in response to this concern, I do not believe ESSA’s activities in any way relate to representation of business, and second, I think the business community is not impressed by the size of the Department of Commerce’s payroll or its budget but rather by the quality of the services performed and the caliber of its leadership. The National Sea Grant program, U.S. Lake Survey, and National Oceanographic Data Center belong in NOAA. In the case of each of these organizations, the following can be said: Their services will be improved by presence in NOAA, NOAA will benefit from their participation—and the national interest will be served, Of course, affected departments are going to file objections to the formation of NOAA because they will lose personnel, budget and, they think, stature. In this connection, the comment on a National Oceanog- raphy Association questionnaire from an employee in one of the agen- cies suggested for transfer sums it up: Reorganization is needed and wanted by people at the working bureau level, but opposed by the existing departments. This has been historically true and clearly illustrates why reorganization is needed. The existing departments are just not marine oriented * * * We then come to another suggestion about NOAA—that no action should be taken until decisions are made on other possible major re- organization within the Government. A Department of Science has been suggested, a Department of Natural Resources. a Department of Environmental Affairs, and so on. Whether any of these or other alterations come about, we still will need the grouping of ocean and atmospheric activities that is NOAA, Furthermore, the new agency could fit into almost any of the suggested departments as a unit and is, in fact, a logical first step toward more fundamental restructuring. Taking this step now could well enhance such future action. An additional point is—no matter what other reorganizations come, we need NOAA now to set our ocean affairs in order and no additional amount of study of reorganization could possibly improve on the work of the Stratton Commission. To me, one of the most convincing comments about NOAA came from Dr. Stratton at his appearance on April 30 before you. He told you that personally he was “appalled” at the idea of another Federal independent agency when he first heard the suggestion. We can understand this reaction, given the proliferation of Federal agen- cies and programs and the Sorietimes chaotic condition of governmental structuring in this country today. Now, as you know, Dr. Stratton is a vigorous advocate of NOAA. From his backeround in science and major organizations, he is convinced of the logi ic of taking this action now. It is in spite of our reluctance to add to the number of independent agencies in Washington and not because we think a Federal agency 305 and Federal dollars are cure-alls that we come to you to urge creation of NOAA and its companion advisory group, NACO. There is another suggestion I would like to deal with, that oceanog- raphy somehow isn’t relevant to conditions today—in the world, in the cities or with major problems. I say oceanography is as relevant as a hurricane hitting the coast without adequate warning, as relevant as the need for protein in many diets abroad and in this country, as relevant as polluted Lake Erie to a youngster in Cleveland on a hot August day and as relevant as the U.S. Navy is to the defense of this country. In addition, the social benefits that can be achieved through the ap- plication of ocean science and technology to the problems of our cities and to the development of the human resources in our coastal plains has already been noted within the Government. During the past year, the Economic Development Administration of the Department of Com- merce has given considerable attention to the development of the ma- rine environment and its resources as a means for achieving economic erowth in the coastal plains of the Carolinas and Georgia. The Office of Sea Grant Programs of the National Science Founda- tion, although it concerns itself solely with higher education, is a first step in the Government’s support of education to achieve regional de- velopment through oceanic and estuarine programs. Waterfront re- newal and the provision of access for the urban underprivileged to the marine environment for purposes of recreation are a goal of the open space and urban renewal programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Some imaginative industry programs have begun in these areas. Once more, this social mission for the application of what we have learned in the last decade for the good of the citizen is fragmented. To achieve maximum social responsiveness of the new technology, a unified approach such as NOAA is required. I hope this subcommittee will report to the full committee soon, a bill forming NOAA, and on the same bipartisan basis that has guided you before. And that the Nixon administration will either endorse that bill or move on its own to accomplish the same objective through the Reorganization Act. _ The President is one who has spoken about the need to act. I quote from his speech in Miami on October 30 last year, entitled, “The Sea— Our Last Unexplored Frontier,” when he referred to the “fragmented and confused” national oceanographic effort and the need to consider a sea agency. We continue to be optimistic that support from the ad- ministration will be forthcoming. Together with the support manifest here and elsewhere in Congress, I am encouraged that we can soon begin to move into what some have already called the ocean decade. In closing, I would like to submit for the record results of two Na- tional Oceanography Association questionnaires. The first was taken in mid-February at the time copies of the Commission report were being distributed. Eighty-one percent of those responding supported the independent agency concept and general support for other Com- mission findings was voiced. The second questionnaire sent out last month seeks opinion on the precise composition of NOAA and alterna- tives to it. The returns on this second survey are not complete, but the preliminary results through May 12 are shown and they also reveal strong support for NOAA among industry, the academic community, and the general public. 306 Those answering the second questionnaire were asked if their names could be used as participants, and I would like to list those answering in the affirmative so you can see the diversity of interests represented, Thank you. Mr. Hariraway (presiding). Thank you very much, Mr. Clot- worthy. I appreciate your very thoughtful and detailed statement. There is only one general question that I have. In any reorganization when you are thinking canner of putting some agency into a new agency, you are going to run into trouble. One problem that bothers me is the Weather Bureau. Since the Weather Bureau is concerned with problems of the ocean and of the land as well, do you think that ESSA will still function as well in a new agency ? Mr. Crorworriuy. Yes, I do. I realize the problems we have in any question of reorganization. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and the decision as to where the line is to be drawn is most difficult. I believe there is a clear and logical reason for keeping the Weather Bureau with HSSA and making it a part of the ocean agency. Simply because weather on this planet is one up so completely of those physical and chemical reactions that take place over the land as well as over the ocean, I don’t think you can separate them very well, and since the planet is predominantly a water planet, it certainly follows that oceans contribute in a very major share to the formation of weather systems. [t is quite apparent further that the same kinds of monitoring sys- tems which we presently have over land which we use as a tool to help in the prediction of weather will ultimately be needed throughout the world oceans in order to complete our synoptic picture of world weather. So, therefore, I don’t think that there is any reason to believe that the Weather Bureau’s inclusion within the NOAA will in any way detract from the performance of the service for which it was estab- lished. In fact, if anything, it will be enhanced. Mr. TWarmaway. You don’t think it will become so marine oriented that it will fail to serve its other function of performing weather serv- ice for land-based activities ? Mr. Crorworriry. No, I don’t. I believe weather is 70 percent marine oriented anyhow simply because of the distribution of the oceans on the planet. Mr. Warraway. Mr. Karth. Mr. Karri. I have no questions. Mr. Hareaway. Mr. depen Mr. Mosrur. Mr. Chairman, [ would like to comment on page 4 of this very vigorous statement by Mr. Clotworthy, at that point where he refers to what he anticipates will be the understandable reluctance of the Congress to renew the Marine Resources Council after June 30, 1970, [think it isa very important point that he makes there. You will remember that I origimally introduced legislation which would renew the Council for an indefinite period until sueh point as the Congress replaced it with some other form of reorganization. In the discussion here in the committee, and then later the House con- curred completely and the Senate also, it was decided to put a date cer- tain to the conclusion of the Council on June 380, 1970. I think we acted wisely in doing that because we thus set a deadline for ourselves ancl we thus emphasized, I think, how imperative it is that we do act in this session of the Congress on some such concept as NOAA, 307 Therefore, I personally want to accent the point that Mr. Clotworthy made there. I like the sense of urgency in his statement. I think it is imperative that we move for reorganization, I notice in the beginning of his statement that he does raise two very important question marks concerning the Stratton Commission report. Particularly he raises some doubts about 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 off on tangents and divert our attention from the big job which is the urgency of this reorganization matter, and I hope, Mr. Clotworthy, that I have rightly interpreted your ‘statement in that respect. Mr. Crorworrmy. You have, sir. Mr. Hatuaway. Mr. Pelly. Mr. Penny. 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 speak right out. I particularly appreciated your calling attention to the fact that the Navy has never had proper recognition for the way it carried on when other agencies of the Government were unable or unwilling or at least failed to recognize 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 international law. You say on page 4, quoting, that “* * * the United States should continue implementation 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. Crorwortiy. Well, the interpretation of the outer bounds of the shelf, of course, has been a subject of much discussion since the convention. [am referring here to the 200-meter isobath. Mr. Perny. Do you think this provision is vague the way it is written into the international convention of 1958 ? Mr. Crorworriuy. Yes, I think it is vague, but perhaps purposely vague. [ think that as a Nation we have chosen a more liberal inter- pretation of it and go out beyond the 200-meter isobath, and that is what I was quoting from. Mr. Penny. I think the members of this committee have indicated their concern that through some international arrangement we might yield the sovereignty which was given us in that convention. We do have sovereignty over the Continental Shelf and beyond where we can exploit it. IT am not quite sure from your statement where the Na- tional Oceanography Association stands so far as, for example, the action which has been taken in the United Nations is concerned. Mr. Crorworriy. If I may comment on the domestic situation first, T believe leases to Continental Shelf territory have been granted beyond the 200-meter isobath so in effect I am saying we endorse the practice of Government thus far to go beyond the 200-meter isobath where it appears to be in our best interests and within our technical capability to do so. Mr. Penny. Do you think that is vague ? 308 Mr. Crorwortuy. No, I don’t think it is vague. I think the action has been very forthright. Mr. Petry. And you support it ? Mr. Crotrworrny. I support it. With respect to the United Nations and the activities there, we certainly commend the study that is taking place now, the dialog among nations as to what must be accomplished in future times. We do not want to see, as some have suggested, the seabeds becoming a hotbed of international political activity in the future to the point where there are military consequences. We want to se the peaceful development of oceanic resources in the deep seabed, but we feel that this should be done through normal treaty mechanisms rather than the outright usurping of sovereignty through a body such as the United Nations or through such a mecha- nism as the Malta proposal. We believe that we have in the past as a Nation been able to negotiate international treaties with other Nations where we have common interests and common problems and that this is a satisfactory mechanism for handling the exploration and exploita- tion of the deep sea resources in the future. Mr. Prtxy. In other words, by international convention and agree- ment among nations as to the problems that confront us in connection with the seabed and the oceans in the future? Mr. Ciorworrny. Yes, as opposed to the assumption of sovereignty by the United Nations. Mr. Prtiy. For example, unilateral action in claiming a fishing zone, or territorial sea for 200 miles, we will say, contrary to any inter- national convention in this area, you would oppose. ‘Mr. Crotwortuy. The 200-mile presumption, which I would prefer to call it, is a unilateral action. I am talking about multilateral actions as the proper course of events. Mr. Pretty. I think you have been very explicit, and I certainly commend you for your clarification and your support of this proposed legislation. I think we can probably clear up some of the international vagueness and lack of agreement if we have such an independent agency much better than we can if the responsibility is divided among all the different departments of Government. I think implementation of this program will certainly be very helpful. I want to thank you for your very fine statement. Mr. Harnaway. Congressman Keith? Mr. Kerra. No questions. Mr. Hataaway. Congressman Schadeberg? Mr. Scuaprperc. To follow the comment, I agree with the past statement, but could you suggest as to what the difficulty would be if it were accomplished through such a proposal as the Malta proposal in the United Nations? What would be involved that would affect our research and so forth? Mr. Crorwortny. Well, as I interpret the intent of the Malta pro- posal, it was to delegate sole responsibility, executive responsibility for the development of deep sea oceanic resources beyond the Conti- nental Shelf to an international body. I don’t subscribe to this because I don’t think that an international body, where one nation such as ours can be counted only to the extent of one vote in a body made up of many nations, and considering our abilities to explose and exploit the oceanic resources, if proper. 309 I think that we have a larger stake and that work among maritime nations who have the principal interest and the principal technical capability for exploration and exploitation will be in the long run better for world population than if we go the delegation route, the delegation to the United Nations. I think that the natural forces in the economy will make it advis- able ‘for the principal industrial nations of the world, the maritime industrial nations of the world, to explore and exploit for deep sea resources as the need is generated and as there is an economic rationale for so doing that, and that there is no need in effect to delegate this to an international body which I believe is relatively insensitive to some of these market factors and certainly is a very difficult body in which to achieve any unanimity, any general agreement on courses of action. I don’t think that we have seen in the past the kind of leadership coming from the United Nations as supposedly a cohesive world body that gives me any confidence that as a world we will be able to move ahead in exploration and exploitation of the deep sea resources. I think this has to be left to the principal industrial nations. It will be done more efficiently, more effectively, and the population of the world will generally benefit to a far greater degree if we leave it to this kind of a natural mechanism and the bilateral treaties, multilateral treaties, I believe, are the mechanism for providing the legal frame- work in which this exploration and exploitation can go forward. Mr. ScHapesere. I am in complete agreement with you on that state- ment. I am glad to have it for the record because many times we are asked that and want to know what some thinking on it may be. Thank you very much. Mr. Haraway. Mr. Karth. Mr. Karrs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry, Mr. Clotworthy, that I was not able to hear your full statement. As unfortunate as 1t may appear to be, constituents always come first. I do want to commend you, though. I think this is the most forceful and specific statement that we have received before the sub- committee by anyone other than perhaps those who were members of the Commission. _ As I went through some of the statements which I was not privileged to hear I could not help but see this $773 million figure. It is the first time I have seen it related specifically to ocean research. I wondered if you could be more specific and perhaps for the record break down where the $773 million was spent this year in civilian oceanography activities. | Mr. Crorworrny. I will try, if we can find the section of the Com- mission report very quickly here. | Mr. Karru. I thought they were talking about $500 million or there- abouts. It seems to me that this $773 million is new to me specifically relating to civilian ocean sciences. _ Mr. Crorworruy. The $500 million may be the Council’s figure. This is a terribly difficult problem, the accounting problem, because it all depends on what you wish to include in that general grouping of moneys that support civilian oceanography. Mr. Karrn. I think it would be helpful to the committee if someone could do this bit of accounting. If it comes up to the three-quarter billion dollar mark, it might make it easier for the committee in the 310 future to talk in terms of a billion dollar budget because that is not a great deal more than what we are spending this year. Mr. Ctorwortuy. May I cover this in two parts? On page 258 of “Our Nation and the Sea,” the report of the Commission, the second paragraph says: The 1969 budgets for the agencies and programs which would be immediately transferred to NOAA under the Commission’s organization plan total $773 million. I believe there is a breakdown in the text of what portion of each of the existing agencies’ budgets would be transferred into NOAA and how that figure would be derived. Mr. Mosuer. Would the gentleman yield ? Mr. Kartu. Yes. 3 Mr. Mosuer. That would include some of the land activities pres- ently operating, wouldn’t it; the Weather Bureau and so forth? This figure would include that ? Mr. Crorwortuy. That would include the Weather Bureau; yes. They go on to say, “Other activities which might be transferred to the agency at a later date would add an additional $36 million.” I think it is important to distinguish that in the Commission’s recommendation for the expenditure of some $8 billion over a 10-year period, they are talking about $8 billion in addition to the funds that are presently being spent by these agencies. Mr. Mosuer. I think that is very important. Mr. Curorworry. So that the annual budget then goes to well over a billion dollars. Mr. Karrs. Thank you very much. In your statement you refer specifically to civilian oceanography activities, and I am not sure that this figure includes just civilian ocean- ography activities but includes things that might be performed by these agencies that they are suggesting be transferred, other than that. Mr. Crotwortry. Yes; that is true. Mr. Mosumr. Will the gentleman yield again? Tt is obviously not only an accounting problem, but a problem of definitions. Mr. Kartu. I am willing to accept your definition if you can sub- stantiate it a little better. Thank you very much. Mr. CrorwortnHy. Perhaps I can find the breakdown reference in the Commission report and pass that to counsel after the hearing if that is OK. Mr. Karru. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Haruaway. Mr. Clotworthy, we thank you again for your ex- cellent statement which will be extremely helpful to us when we con- sider this in executive session. I want to say that Congressman Rogers asked me to apologize to. you for the fact that he had to leave early. He had a prior commitment which he couldn’t avoid. Thank you very much. Mr. Crorwortuy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. oll (Attachments referred to follow :) List or PERSONS RESPONDING TO NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY ASSOCIATION QUESTIONNAIRE 1969/2 PERMITTING IDENTIFICATION Mr. Robert C. Arnim, R. C. Arnim Oil and Gas Operations, Limited, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Mr. Robert C. Avondo, Auburn and Associates, Incorporated, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Mr. Tom Baker, Diamond Springs, California. ‘Dr. Leonard F. ‘Barrington, Air Products and ‘Chemicals, Incorporated, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania. Mr. Roy N. Barthom, Beebe Brothers, Incorporated, Seattle, Washington. Mr. H. A. Bedell, Bel-Ray Company, Incorporated, Farmingdale, New Jersey. Mr. Albert G. Berberian, D. G. O’Brien, Incorporated, Framingham, Massa- chusetts. Mr. David T. Bernstein, Kingston, Rhode Island. Mr. Kris P. Blackmarr, Boulder, Colorado. Miss Marguerite E. Bryan, AFL-CIO Maritime Committee, Washington, D.C. Mr. E. R. Bullock, B&R Tug and Barge, Incorporated, Kotzebue, Alaska. Rear Admiral Thomas Burrows, (Retired), Washington, D.C. Mr. Richard F. Burt, Laconia, New Hampshire. Mr. Kenneth P. Camisa, International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, New York, New York. Mr. James N. Casto, Charleston, West Virginia. Mr. Arnold Clickstein, Charles River Academy, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dr. Salvatore Comitini, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. Mr. Wil) Connelly, Marine Acoustical Services, Incorporated, Miami, Florida. Mr. Louis G. Dameson, Jr., Cubic Corporation, San Diego, California. Mr. Robert G. Day, Raytheon Company, Submarine Signal Division, Ports- mouth, Rhode Island. Mr. Samuel Ll. Dederian, Galileo High School, San Francisco, California. Mr. Cyle Dickson, Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. W. C. Difford, Wisconsin State University, Stevens Point, Wisconsin. Mr. Raymond Dispoto,.Scarsdale High School, Scarsdale, New York. Mr. Carey D. Domme, Topeka, Kansas. Mr. Karl A. Drescher, San Antonio, Texas. Mr. Paul Ducklow, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Mr. Mello G. Fish, AFL-CIO Maritime Committee, Washington, D.C. Mr. M. B. Frank, West Los Angeles, California. Mr. Karl Franz, Westerly, Rhode Island. Mr. William T. Gardner, Seneca Valley High School, Harmony, Pennsylvania Mr. J. A. Gast, Humboldt State College, Arcata, California. Mr. W. S. Gleeson, FRAM Corporation, Providence, Rhode Island. Mr. William L. Griffin, Washington, D.C. Mr. Hoyt S. Haddock, AFL-CIO Maritime Committee, Washington, D.C. Mr. John W. Harrington, Specialty Ships, Unlimited, Incorporated, Wash- ington, D.C. Mr. John R. Hendrickson, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. HMZ Anthony Hill, U.S.N., F.P.O. San Francisco, California. Mr. Robert D. Howard, California Divers, Incorporated, Santa Barbara, California Mr. Timothy C. Irish, Lehigh, Iowa. Mr. ‘Lionel S. Johns, Ocean Science and Engineering, Incorporated, Washing- ton, D.C. Miss Virginia Johnson, Cape May Court House, New Jersey. Mr. Ronald 8. Kandzer, Novelty, Ohio. Mr. Mitchell A. Kapland, Trident Engineering Associates, Incorporated, An- napolis, Maryland 21401. Mr. George W. Kelley, Youngstown ‘State University, Youngstown, Ohio. Mr. H. B. Kennerly, Jr., H. B. Kennerly and Son, Nanticoke, Maryland. Dr. John A. Knauss, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. Mr. John A. Lamb, F.P.0O. New York, New York. 312 Mr. Edward J. Langey, American Metal Climax, Incorporated, New York, New York. Mr. Paul G. Langfeld, Langfeld Manex Corporation, New York, New York. Mr. Phillip Lazzara, Blue M Hlectric:‘ Company, Blue Island, Illinois. Mr. R. Lethi, Bunnell High School, Stratford, Connecticut. Mr. Mike Libby, Midland, Texas. Mr. BE. Alan Lohse, Gulf Universities Research Corporation, Houston, Texas. Mr. Bruce W. Lowny, Indianapolis, Indiana. Mr. James 8. Lunn, Lunn Laminates, Incorporated, Wyandauch, New York. Mr. Ben S. Man, AFL-CIO Maritime Committee, Washington, D.C. Mr. Wilbur Marks, Poseidon Scientific Corporation, Hauppange, New York. Mr. Jack T. Marshall, J.T.M. Professional Diving Service, Trumansburg, New Mr. R. F. MeAllister, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. Philip A. Miller, Tooele, Utah. Mr. Robert T. Monroe, ‘Columbus, Ohio. Mr. Clarkson P. Moseley, Signal Oil and Gas Company, Houston, Texas. Mr. James R. Moss, Marine Colloids, Incorporated, Springfield, New Jersey. Mr. Thomas F. Norton, The Skipper Publishing \Company, Annapolis, Maryland. Mr. Robert J. O’Connell, ‘Simplex Wire and Cable ‘Company, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Mr. Daniel A. Panshin, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. Mr. Roger J. Pierce, Hydro Space Systems ‘Corporation, ‘Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Mr. W. A. Plummer, The Zippertubing Company, Los Angeles, California. Mr. Charles H. Powers, Bendix Field Engineering, Montrose, California. Miss Joyce Raia, Staten Island, New York. Dr. Robert J. Reinold, University of Georgia, Marine Institute, Sapelo Island, Georgia. Mr. Roy J. Ricci, Procedyne Corporation, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Dr. James A. Roberts, James A. Roberts Associates, Incorporated, Newport Beach, California. Mr. E. A. Rodgers, Maine Maritime Academy, Castine, Maine. Mr. Kenneth A. Roe, Burns and Roe, Incorporated, Oradell, New Jersey. Mr. Ferdinand 8S. Ruth, Berkeley, California. Mr. W. Frederick Sampson, Palos Verdes, California. Mr. John WH. Sanders, Barnard ‘College, New York, New York. Mr. David I. Schactman, Lynn, Massachusetts. Miss Jean L. Schwartz, Marion, Massachusetts. Mr. W. E. Seachrist, Kent Industries, Incorporated, Kent, Ohio. Mr. Douglas B. Seba, Miami Beach, Florida. Mr. Paul Shew, Oceanside, California. Mr. Robert L. Smith, Salem Oil and Grease Company, Salem, Massachusetts. Mr. Willard Smith, III, Willard’s Orange-Ice Company, Orange, California. Mr. William R. Sorensen, The Hmerson Consultants, Incorporated, New York, New York. Mr. Richard T. Steel, Flushing, New York. Mr. F. R. Storke, MacLeod Instrument Corporation, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Stuart M. Strait, Alma College, Alma, Michigan. Mr. Timothy J. Sullivan, Oakview Junior High School, Skokie, Illinois. Mr. Milton D. Taylor, Blacksburg, Virginia. Dr. Donald A. Thomson, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Mr. Edward J. Valentine, Waterford, Connecticut. Dr. Jack R. VanLopik, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Mr. Stanley J. Volens, AFL-CIO Maritime Committee, Washington, D.C. Mr. Michael J. Walsh, Coronado, California. T/Sgt. Martin O. Wascher, USAF, Midwest City, Oklahoma. Dr. Charles G. Wilber, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Mr. Warren B. Wimer, Beckman Instruments, Incorporated, Fullerton, Cali- fornia. Mr. Donald E. Wohlschlag, University of Texas, Marine Science Institute, Port Aransas, Texas. Mr: EF. F. Wright, University of Alaska, Institute of Neaniae Science, College, Alaska. Mr. Robert T. Wright, Stenographie Machines, Teororacent Skokie, Illinois. Mr. M. R. Yeiter, EG & G International, Incorporated, Waltham, Massa- chusetts. Miss Patricia L. Zilinkes, Dayton, Ohio. 313 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY ASSOCIATION QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS, 1969/1 1 115 148 263 Corporate Individual Total No No No Questions Yes No opinion Yes No opinion Yes No _ opinion 1. (a) A new strong Federal focus for marine activity is essential to a national ocean GT. 9) ie, ese eae 111 ReTCentesme sel. ov CL cee See eee. 96.6 (b) The Commission recommends that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agen- cy (NOAA) be established as an inde- pendent agency, reporting directly to the BYesien Pee sto ae sa 95 13 Th ei eth 7 ‘240 35 14 Rercetteetcs 12.323] eee se 82.6 11.3 6.1 80.4 14.9 4.7 81.4 13.3 5.3 (c) The Commission recommends that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agen- cy initially be composed of the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Science Services Administration, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (augmented by the marine and anadromous fisheries functions of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife), the National Sea Grant program, the U.S. Lake Survey, and the National Oceanographic Data Center__-___ 87 12 16 «©1110 20 18 197 32 34 Bercentieee = os seems eee res 75.6 10.5 13:9 74.3, 13),5 22 ae eel oee 12.9 2. Programs recommended by the Commission are estimated to involve an annual expenditure growing to 1980 to roughly $1,000,000,000 per year over and above current program levels_. 85 12 Usha 7 27. ~=—199 19 45 Rercentae eee Eee ree rine sds rE oxy, 73.9 10.4 15.7 77.0 4.7 18.3 75.7 7.2 17.1 3. The Commission proposes that a small group of institutions, including the present leaders in ocean research, be designated by the Federal Government as university-national laboratories and equipped to undertake major marine science tasks of a global or regional nature. (Estimated Federal cost, 1971 to 1980, $445,- COOTO ODS eee ty ewer le) Tae ees ceee S222 Sey 224 12 194 46 23 Rercentianieste eae eam sete ets 71.3 19.1 Ce oe 4 Chil 7ebGh U7A@) 8.7 4, The Commission recommends that the primary responsibility for management of the coastal zone continue to be vested in the States but that Federal legislation be enacted to en- courage and support the creation of State coastal zone authorities to carry out specified national objectives with regard to the zone. The authorities should have clear powers to plan and regulate land and water uses and to acquire and develop landinthecoastalzone___ 89 16 10 100 30 18 189 846 28 Rercentee see re re RN SBS 77.4 13.9 8.7 67.6 20.2 12N27 OTE. 5: 10.6 5. The Commission recommends that NOAA launch a national project to explore the techniques of water quality restoration for the Great Lakes. (Estimated Federal cost, 1971 to 1980, $175,- COTO SOLID pes SEN Sa tne 92 5 18 117 13 18 209 18 36 Recents ats Oe es ee nee 80.0 4.3 Lo 79h 1857, 12.2 79.5 6.8 EL Y/ 6. The Commission recommends that legislation be enacted to remove the present legal restric- tions on the use of foreign-built vessels by U.S. fishermen inthe U.S. domestic fisheries... 74 18 23 105 21 22 179 39 45 Pencentes se esecne rae reas ea 64.3 15.7 20.0 71.9 14.1 14.8 68.1 14.8 Wal 7. There is no urgent necessity to develop subsea hard minerals with maximum speed regard- less of cost. Nevertheless, an early start of off- shore exploration and development of the re- quired technology is warranted to determine reserves and to establish a basis for future exploration. (Estimated Federal cost, 1971 to 1980, $150,000,000.)__._.__.____.________.- 94 13 8 124 17 Hie? Shee 15 Bercen tase seas See eee eee ccee 81.8) LL 6.9 83.8 11.5 4.7 82.9 11.4 ny 8. The Commission recommends that the United States take the initiative to secure interna- tional agreement on a redefinition of the ‘‘con- tinental shelf’’ for purposes of the Convention on the Continental Shelf. The seaward limit of each coastal nation’s ‘continental shelf’’ should be fixed at the 200-meter isobath, or 50 nautical miles from the baseline for meas- uring the breadth of its territorial sea, which- ever alternative gives it the greater area for purposes of the convention_________________ 7 PR 1447110 19 19 186 44 33 Rarcenteet erie te etn ake ees ae ea 66.1 21.7 12. 2974.4 12.8 12.8 70.8 16.7 12.5 See footnote at end of table, p. 314. 26-563—69—pt. 1——-21 com Np a wo = for) = N wo = on ow Oo a on 314 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY ASSOCIATION QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS, 1969/1 1—Continued Questions Yes 115 Corporate No No Opinion Yes 148 Individual No No Opinion 263 Total Yes No No Opinion 9. The Commission recommends that NOAA sup- port technology development of power sys- tems necessary for undersea operations and resource development, and that an experi- mental continental shelf submerged nuclear plant be constructed to pilot test and demon- strate the feasibility and cost of the use of nuclear power for resource development operations and of the underwater siting of nuclear facilities to provide power for coastal regions. (Estimated Federal cost, 1971 to 1980, $230l0001000)) == eee ea Percents. 0) lian Wi amting @ SaviAdy 10. The Commission recommends that NOAA launch a continental shelf laboratories national project to provide a national capacity for re- search, development, and operations on the continental shelf. (Estimated Federal cost, 1971 to 1980, $500,000,000.)_______._______. Percent) sar. Ae ee SOE ne UR See ee 11. The Commission recommends that NOAA spon- sor an explicit program to advance deep ocean fundamental technology and proceed with a national project to develop and con- struct exploration submersibles with deep ocean transit capability with civil missions to 20,000-foot depths. (Estimated Federal cost, 1971 to 1980, $285,000,000.)________________ BONG erty sites ene a ech Re al 12. The Commission recommends that NOAA launch a national project to develop a pilot buoy net- work. (Estimated Federal cost, 1971 to 1980, $851000!000)) soe ae ee i Percent ate. ten: 9 Roe aa ESA Reese NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHY ASSOCIATION QUESTIONNAIRE PRELIMINARY 75 65. 3 86 1 Total received: 263, 15 percent; total mailed: 1,700. 25 21.7 13 11.3 15 106 13.0 71.6 16 125 13.9 84.5 26 22.6 56.1 RESULTS—1969/2* 25 16.9 16 10.8 11.5 181 50 68.8 19.0 ZN 29 80.3 11.0 32 12.1 23 8.7 1. The Commission on Marine Science, Hngineering and Resources recom- mended that the following agencies be included in a new independent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. of each of these agencies: Om1m VOWS . Environmental Science Services Administration_ _ . Certain marine and anadromous functions, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife________ National sea grant program___.________________ UES: lakejsunveye 9 Ske eee Slee ee Percent Total No No Percent opinion 86 28.4 31 17 5.6 10 16 5.3 17 38 12.5 36 15 5.0 18 39 12.9 37 10 38 1 Please indicate your views on the inclusion Percent 2. Other possible components of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency have been suggested by sources outside the Commission. Please indicate your views as to whether or not the following should be included : *Received through May 12, 303—Mailed 3,000. Corporate—177, Individual—126, 315 Total . No Yes Percent No Percent opinion percent A. Civil works functions of U.S. Army Corps of En- gineers relating to the coasts_____- blip date 149 49.2 105 34.6 49 16.2 B. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (now in the Department of the Interior) ______- 199 65.7 79 26.1 25 8.3 C. Maritime Administration (now in the Department GhGorymerce) asses et ee Nr 128 42.2 119 39.3 56 18.5 D. National Oceanographic Instrumentation Center__ 268 88. 4 19 6.3 16 53 E. Office of Saline Water (now in the Department of FHGHINUOLION) ste tee Oe eae ne 192 63. 4 56 18.5 55 18.1 38. Alternatives to establishing an independent National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Agency that would provide a Federal focus on ocean activities generally include the following. Check the one alternative you think most suitable. If you favor the independent agency approach, check item F. [Choose One] A. Coordination of Federal marine activities through a staff-level body similar to the former Interagency Committee on Ocean- Percent CVSS Ey RN ee AY TO ES a YA Perk oy oe, 6 25 A B. Continue present cabinet-level National Council on Marine Re- sources and Hngineering Development _________-___------~~ 3 1.0 C. Continue present Council with the addition of some operating eapacity and funds for that purpose_______-___-_--__-___-___--- 2 7 D. Establish an interagency task force on marine matters to settle lead-agency responsibility for major projects_______________ 10 3.4 E. Group marine-related functions within an existing department, such as the Department of Commerce_________-__-__--_-_--_- 3 1.0 Department of the Interior_______________---_-------_ 10 3.4 Department of Transportation_____________-_-_--_------ 1 «3 F. An independent, operating agency_______________---__------ 170 58.5 G. Consolidate ocean activities in a new cabinet-level department similar in composition to the proposed agency but with higher Statuses Sir seis? erie nn Goons oeld tra att wo ppb 86 29.6 INGEECSpPOMGeaiet Mit ide el Cae 2 Penner ah Pita a I J sor rene Bee 12, Mr. Haraway. Our next witness is Congressman Bob Wilson of California. We are always happy to have a Member of Congress testify before the committee. I understand, Bob, that you have a written statement which you can either read or summarize. STATEMENT OF HON. BOB WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Witson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the com- mittee. I would like to submit a statement for the record and make a few brief comments. Mr. HatrHaway. Without objection, the statement will be printed in the record at this point. (The statement follows :) STATEMENT OF Hon. Bos WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman and members of the-Oceanography Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today and discuss the report of the peaeion on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, “Our Nation and the Sea.” 316 Many have come before you during your hearings on this report, endorsing the Commission’s recommendation for establishing a National Oceanic and Atmos- pherie Agency to coordinate and direct our national marine policy in the years ahead. I wish to add my wholehearted endorsement to that proposal also. Although I was the first to introduce legislation five years ago calling for the establishment of a single federal oceanographic agency, commonly referred to as a “wet-NASA,” I am still of the opinion that the only way we can get a NOAA into being is for the President himself to push for it through a reorganization plan. When I introduced my bill to set up NOA in 1964, I asked the various de- partments involved for reports on the proposal. I got 15 of the saddest letters you ever saw in your life. All were negative: each agency or department argued that its oceanographic effort was the most important function of its own agency. They couldn’t possibly give up that responsibility to some independent agency, they reported. Simply put, they would rather fight than switch. Their opposition to such a proposal would hamper any legislative effort to create a single ocean- ographic effort. We are never going to win approval of this kind of legislation until the President champions the cause by seeking Congressional approval of a reorganization plan that would establish NOAA. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I watched what happened when the Administration at that time pushed the proposal for setting up the space agency, NASA. Oh. we heard the cries of anguish from the Air Force and the Navy because they had missile programs that were the most important things they were doing, and a NASA concept would completely emasculate and devastate those particular departments if it took any of their missile functions away from them. Yet only because we had the foresight through the reorganiza- tion procedure to set up a space agency were we able to accomplish a well-coordi- nated space effort. The Commission’s report, however, overlooks an important point. It does not deal with the question of what committees in Congress should oversee the new NOAA once it is established. I would recall that when NASA was created, a con- current reorganization of the House committee structure took place with the creation of the Committee on Science and Astronautics. Likewise, I believe that any establishment of a Federal oceanographic agency must be accompanied with the designation of a House committee to oversee the new agency and its various efforts. This could be done by changing the name of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee to the Oceanographic Committee and giving it the responsi- bility of authorizing the new agency’s programs. Right now, our oceanographic effort—scattered among 22 agencies—is parceled out to numerous committees for review. When departments that deal in oceanography come to Congress to testify on thir budget requests, Congress, in effect, is looking at our oceano- graphic effort in bits and pieces with no attention given to the program as a whole or to how each piece relates to the other. The Commission recommends that NOAA should be comprised of the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Science Services Administration, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the U.S. Lake Survey, the National Sea Grant Program, the National Oceanographic Data Center, certain programs of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and possibly the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This reorganization would shift about 55,000 federal employees under the roof of NOAA as well as control of 320 seagoing vessels. This shifting of agencies, of course, will trigger controversies among those de- partments that jealously protect their bureaucratic preserves. But all of us must put these petty jealousies aside and tackle the real issue here which is the nation’s interest. I am hopeful this Administration will propose the creation of NOAA. President Nixon spoke about the need for such an agency during the campaign. Vice Presi- dent Agnew, who is from a coastal state involved in oceanography, is very en- thusiastic about the possibility of NOAA, and has advised the President and his associates that a unified oceanographic program should have high priority in the Nixon Adminstration. Mr. ‘Chairman, I congratulate your Subcommittee for holding these hearings and again turning the national spotlight on the importance of investing in the oceans so that one dar we can reap its many resources. Mr. Witson. Thank you. This is my third appearance before this subcommittee on this sub- ject, and I want to commend the subcommittee and the committee for 317 its diligence in bringing the whole oceanographic community this far along the track. i ‘ f I introduced the first legislation, I think the chronology will show, 5 years ago, to set up an agency to be known as the National Oceano- graphic Agency. In doing so I realized that there was little likelihood the bill would become law because the complexity of taking the vari- ous oceanographic functions from other agencies and putting them into one agency is so great and prone to inciting strong resistance from the agencies involved. bike Obviously I believe the steps this committee took in its wisdom of first setting up a council and a commission as a prelude to eventually, and I am positive it will come about, having a full-fledged agency was the right step to take. There is no doubt that we have a parallel in what happened in NASA. I recall sitting in and participating in hearings on the formation of NASA and, believe me, the agencies and departments involved screamed just as loudly over taking functions away from them as our agencies engaged in oceanography are now screaming about this pro- posal of the Commission. The Navy swore up and down it couldn’t survive without its missile effort. The Air Force of course said that everything it was doing was directly related to space and therefore it couldn’t give up even its non- military roles. It took the Presidential order, so to speak, to set up NASA, and it is going to take, in my opinion, a similar reorganization plan to set up NOAA. I remember when I introduced my bill I asked the various agencies for reports on the bill. We got 15 reports, and they were the saddest reports you can imagine. The tears were running through every page of each of these agency reports. They just couldn’t give up a most important function of their department to some other department. Even though the word may come down from on high to these various departments to cooperate in the agency formation, I believe we are going to need the enthusiastic support of the administration through a reorganization plan to effect the recommendations of the Commission. I heartily subscribe to the recommendations of the Commission. The agency that would be set up would be one of the biggest and most im- portant agencies in Government with 55,000 employees and a navy of 320 vessels, and obviously a Department commanding the attention and the respect that oceanography deserves. Also, previously, I think the counsel will remember and some of the committee members may remember that I suggested that even the name of your committee might be changed to the Comittee on Oceanography. I think it would clearly cover the responsibilities of the committee, and I think the committee would grow in responsibility and respect when it had jurisdiction over the legislation of the newly created agency. Of course, you now have legislative jurisdiction over the Coast Guard and many of the other ocean-related activities, but to bring all of them into one agency that would champion the total cause of oceanography would be a more worthwhile endeavor for us in Congress and a more worthwhile endeavor for the administration. 318 So, all I can say is that I heartily subscribe to the recommendations of the Commission. I believe we might find after the agency is set up that there are other agencies that might be transferred to it in addition to the ones that have been recommended. The time is ripe for this coun- try to realize the potential of the ocean. We are conducting right at this moment tremendously important experiments in space and costly experiments in space that will expand our knowledge and bring great prestige to this country. But, believe me, the problems we face in feeding the people, the growing population of not only this country but the world, the problems we face in mming and the potential of exploiting the ocean bottoms, will make the space effort look almost offhand rather than as exciting as it appears today. There is a tremendous potential that needs to be realized. I don’t believe we are ever going to really get an effective and expanded pro- gram in oceanography going until this committee pushes hard for the recommendations of the Commission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. Mr. Harnaway. Thank you. We appreciate your statement. Do you think we can look forward to getting a statement of support from the administration in the near future with respect to establish- ment of this agency ? Mr. Wison. I would hope so. I think it’s incumbent on all of you as individual members and this committe as a body to convince the Vice President and the President of the importance of early action. T am not talking out of school, I am sure, in saying that at a leadership meeting at the White House a few weeks ago, the Vice President told the President and all of us that he felt the Commission’s recommenda- tions were sound and that this was the type of program the Nixon administration should get its full resources behind. No action was taken by the leadership at that time. This was merely a statement by the Vice President, and I am not trying to put words in his mouth. T think he is being properly cautious in making public statements as to what the plans are of this administration. But I have personally gone to the White House in a special appointment with the Vice President and urged him to use his full salesmanship and his full talents in trying to get this Commission report adopted and a reorga- nization plan underway. While he didn’t commit himself positively to me, there is no question of his interest. I am confident you are going to see the Nixon administration come in with a recommendation to adopt the report of the Commission. Mr. Harnaway. Very good. We are glad to hear that because, as you well know, coming from a coastal State, this committee has a very small constituency and we don’t get much public pressure to install a new agency and the recommendation of the administration would carry considerable weight and help considerably to get this going. Mr. Wixson. I don’t know about your constituency, but I live on the sea coast. I remember one time we had some problems with beach erosion. So we called a meeting of all the Members who were con- cerned about beach erosion and it seemed to me that about half the House of Representatives showed up. I didn’t realize there were so many Congressman who represent areas adjacent to the oceans or the Great Lakes. I said one time only “the oceans” and Mr. Mosher chided me for not pointing out that he 319 is really on the ocean, too, in Ohio. But actually this committee has a tremendous constituency. The major cities are on the oceans, and we must get the Congress itself excited about this prospect. If I can talk a little partisan philosophy, this is truly an activity that Republicans ought to adopt because this is an activity that is clearly a Federal responsibility. We cannot go back to the States or go back to the local communities and have them do this. This is our responsibility as a Federal Government, and we are just not living up to it. I think as Republicans we are more to blame perhaps than anyone else that we are not doing so. Mr. Haruaway. What I meant was that, although a lot of people should be interested in our affairs, so many of them are not. I think that if you sent out a questionnaire that had Merchant Marine and Fisheries activities on it, it would probably come in last in concern. Probably student unrest would be first. It is difficult at times to get people really alarmed about, say, the shortage of food that we may run into in the not too distant future, and for that reason we ought to have more of an effort placed on oceanography. Mr. Wuson. Maybe we ought to have some fish fries or some Maine lobster bakes or some tuna salads in the restaurant to stir things up, Mr. Chairman. I think we probably need more showmanship than we are exerting. Mr. Hatuaway. Congressman Karth? Mr. Kartu. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I merely want to compliment our colleague for having the fore- sight some 5 years ago to recommend in part at least at that time what the Commission, after great study, has recommended in the field of oceanography and marine sciences. I want to congratulate our colleague. Mr. Wuson. Thank you very much. Mr. Hatuaway. Congressman Mosher ? Mr. Mosuer. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we on this committee are very fortunate that we have Bob Wilson in our constituency. It is good fortune for everyone interested in this problem that a Congressman in the leadership so close to the throne, so to speak, and one who is so respected and has such talents is giving vigorous attention to this problem. I am delighted that he has been before this committee a couple of times before and is here today and I hope he will come again. I share his feeling that we have to place a lot of hope in action from the White House in terms of an executive order through the reorganiza- tion process to bring about NOAA or some agency of that sort, as recommended by the Commission. I think we must continue to emphasize that hope and that expecta- tion, and I know that Bob is aware that several of us are in the process of arranging a meeting with the Vice President on this very subject at some mutually convenient time in the near future. I am a little concerned, Bob, by the phrase in your written state- ment here where you say, “I am still of the opinion that the only way we can get a NOAA into being is for the President himself to push for it through a reorganization plan.” Tam reluctant to say that we can rely only on the White House. That would discourage action here in this committee, and I think it is im- 320 perative that we move ahead on our own and take our own initiatives and vigorously support a legislative program and, even though we may hope for the reorganization plan, I think we must not wait for it. I hope you agree with that. Mr. Wixson. I think any action by this committee in the form of legislative amendments would be helpful in the total effort, but I still stand on my prediction that the only action that will result in the for- mation of a new agency will be enthusiastic Presidential support in the form of an executive order. It isn’t impossible by any means. The Congress has the responsibility and the right to write legisla- tion, but the Executive has a responsibility to administer the various agencies and, unless the President is enthusiastically behind the for- mation of this agency, we would be just wasting time. Mr. Mosuer. I am sure you would agree that very vigorous bipart- isan effort on the part of this committee and action and interest on the part of this committee is going to strengthen the hand of the President and encourage it. Mr. Witson. No question about it. I hope I haven’t given the im- pression that I thought we were wasting time. I think we wouldn’t be this far, as I told you, unless this committee had really taken an en- thusiastic stance on it, and we would still be in the same situation we were 5 years ago with everybody talking about it and nobody doing anything about it. You can just take full credit in the wisdom you had, as I mentioned earlier, in setting up the Commission and the council for the ultimate flowering of this whole idea. Mr. Haraway. Congressman Pelly ? Mr. Petry. I want to welcome our colleague here. I think 5 years ago you and I introduced companion bills and I received the same adverse reaction from the various agencies to my bill that you did to yours. We had hearings and we moved a long way, rather slowly, but I think in a sound and progressive way. Your statement to which Mr. Mosher took some exception about needing, in fact requiring, support from the executive branch, I agree with. I am reminded of the so-called members of a Cabinet that met under, I think it was Andrew Jackson, and who had to deal with a problem because the wives of the members of the Cabinet wouldn’t call on the wife of one individual that they didn’t approve of because she had kept a boardinghouse, and the President said, “Either your wives call on Mrs. so and so or I will take all your resignations.” Somebody has to do that today to some of the members of the Cabinet because their Departments are not advising them as to what this new agency would accomplish. We recognize the role of this agency and they must become informed as well. I have seen evidence that the Department of the Interior is very anxious to take over this responsibility, and I think it has spent a lot of money in trying to promote that idea. The Department came out with a brochure that must have cost thousands and thousands of dol- lars to subtly indicate that it is the agency of Government that should handle oceanography. I don’t think, unless we have very strong support from the President, that we will accomplish what we want on this, and I don’t think you 321 need extrasensory powers to discover that in the Vice President we do have a great supporter. Mr. Mosher and I were over meeting with him only a few days ago on space matters, and I brought up the question of the entire environment and our oceanographic opportunities. He was enthusiastic and said that no nation can long continue and be a great nation if it does not explore and move out from its own immediate restrictions, whether it is space or the oceans or any other challenge. He has a great deal of enthusiasm, and we are going to get his sup- port I am confident. Mr. Witson. The Commission on Hunger that is working on the hunger problems of the country and the world ought to become inter- ested in this idea, too, because the projections of food sources from the ocean that can be developed are just fantastic. I mean enough to feed the world. I remember one figure where a plankton farm the size of Rhode Island could supply the food needs of the entire world, and I mean if it were developed properly and so forth. I have never had plankton stew, and maybe I wouldn’t particularly care for it, but the potential is there for us to develop. I just think that we are spinning our wheels until we really get this agency under- way. One further point, if I might: This is something that I pledged to stop today. I referred to this NOAA as a so-called wet NASA. I think that is a bad term. NOAA shouldn’t be a contracting agency like NASA. It should be an operating agency, but unfortunately it was tagged with that particular name. Maybe it was good in the early stages to help explain what the basic idea of the agency was, but there is no relationship or parallel with NASA any more than between, let’s say, a horse and a rabbit. They do go through similar creative processes, but when you are through, they are completely different types of animals, and I think this is what this is going to be, too. Mr. Petiy. Your mentioning hunger brings to mind the fact that the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee did report out legisla- tion which was passed and enacted authorizing a pilot plant to develop a low-cost method of producing fish protein concentrate, but some of you Californians are going to have to help us get a little more money to get that project going because people are still starving to death. We are starving for money to get that plant built and operating. Mr. Wison. I think money from the Federal Government is the big need, frankly, in this oceanographic area, but it is going to be not ex- penditure, but investment. The returns that will come back to the Federal Government and to the community in terms of benefits provide a real opportunity for Federal investment rather than expenditure. We are just not investing any more than pennies compared to what we should be. Mr. Petry. I couldn’t agree more. I sometimes doubt what we are going to get any fallout from the moon but, when it comes to the oceans and the environment on our own planet, I think we can probably make the best investment. Mr. Hatuaway. Congressman Keith. Mr. Kerra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 322 I am glad to have the benefit of your advice and counsel once again. I recall your earlier statement that those of us on the east coast were so afraid of this power on the west coast that we weren’t too enthusiastic about you, Bob, because we were afraid that everything would go out to California. Now I think it is resolved happily for both the east and west coasts. We appreciate your interest and support. Mr. Witson, Thank you. I would not suggest that branch agencies or activities might not be situated in various parts of the country, but I wouldn’t give you many votes for Houston at this time. Mr. Putty. How about Woods Hole? Mr. Wizson. Woods Hole isin a good place all right. Mr. Harnaway. Congressman Schadeberg. Mr. Scuapepere. I do want to welcome you. In the Bible, Paul makes the statement that one man sows, and the other waters, and another reaps. I hope you are in this long enough so that you can take part in all of it. You have helped sow it and water it, and I hope all of us will see the harvest. Mr. Witson. The parable of the loaves and fishes comes to mind, and if you remember what the Lord did with a couple of fish, he fed a lot of people. I think we are in the same category. If we invest it properly we can use the oceans to solve a lot of the needs. Mr. Scuapesere. Thank you. Mr. Karrn. I would just like to make one statement. As long as you have already divided this basket of fruit between the east and west coasts, I suppose a gentleman like myself who comes in between those two coasts ought to just grab up his earthly possessions and go home. Mr. Wirson. I would visualize a Humphrey- amt memorial some- where there in Minnesota. Mr. Scuapepere. As one from the Great Lakes, I am sure we won’t just let it happen that way, if the gentleman will yield. Mr. Karru. A memorial is something more than I had expected. Mr. Prtuy. Don’t forget the Coho salmon in the Great Hale The fallout goes to all. Mr. Hartaway, Thank you, Bob. Mr. Wirson. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Harnaway. Our next witness is Dr. Walter Orr Roberts. T would like to call on Congressman Keith to introduce Dr. Roberts to the members of the subcommittee. ’ Mr. Kerrn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Roberts has kindly furnished us, as is the custom, with a bio- graphical sketch. I think a most interesting and noteworthy factor is that which has been added, to the résumé, “perhaps for the purpose of this meeting. Down at the bottom, it says, “birthplace—West Bridgewater,” which is my hometown. The atmosphere i in that community is largely respon- sible for the success that he has had. His father was a close personal friend of my father. In fact, Walter and I are almost like cousins. His dad was director of athletics and coach of the football team, and ran a farm at the same time. The weather had a lot to do with the fortunes of us all in the day-to-day ac- ' tivity, at home, on the farm, and in the athletic world. 323 I always felt that Walter was interested in the atmosphere and the oceans. The time he spent at Cuttyhunk Island, also in my district, made him very conscious of the need for understanding the ocean and the atmosphere. I am very pleased and proud to listen to him today as he comments on this momentous report, which can be so helpful to our Nation. Thank you. Mr. Harwaway. Thank you, Congressman Keith. Dr. Roberts, you may proceed. You have a written statement which, without objection, will be rinted in the record at this point. You may either read it or summarize it; whichever you prefer. (Biographical sketch of Dr. Roberts follows :) Dr. WALTER ORR ROBERTS Walter Orr Roberts was graduated from Amherst ‘College in 1938 and received his A.M. and Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1940 and 1948 respectively. He also holds honorary Doctor of Science degrees from Ripon College, Amherst Col- lege, Colorado College, C. W. Post College, and Carleton College. Since July 1940, Dr. Roberts has been in charge of the High-Altitude Observ- atory at Climax and Boulder, Colorado. During this time, the Observatory evolved from a one-man operation affiliated with the Harvard College Observatory to a research division of the National ‘Center for Atmospheric Research, of which Dr. Roberts was the Director.* He is president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. During this time he held the following appointments: Instructor, Harvard University and Radcliffe College, 1947-1948; Research Associate, Harvard Uni- versity of Colorado; Professor of Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado, 1956-60; Director, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, 1960. Professional societies of which Dr. ‘Roberts is a member include Sigma Xi, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Astronomical Society, International Astronomical Union, American Geophysical Union, Royal Astronomical Society, American Meteorological Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, American Acadamey of Arts and Sciences, and International Academy of Astronautics of the International Astronautical Federation. Dr. Roberts is a member of the following boards and committees: Science Advisory Committee, Pacific Science Center; Advisory Committee, World Mete- orological Organization; Board of Directors, American Association for the Ad- vancement of Science, 1963-1966; President of the AAAS for 1968; Chairman, _AAA'SS Committee on the Public Understanding of Science; Board of Directors, Fund for Overseas Research Grants and Education, Inc.; Geophysics Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences; Pacific Science Board of the Na- tional Academy of ‘Sciences ; Editorial Advisory Board, Journal of Panetary and Space Science; U.S. National Commission for UNESCO; Inter-Union Commission on Solar-Terrestrial Relationships, 1964-1966; and Panel 3 of the U.S. Japan Committee on Scientific Cooperation, 1963-1966. He is a trustee of the C.F. Ket- tering Foundation, Amherst College, and of the Fleischman Foundation. He has served on the Councils of the American Astronomical Society and the American Meterorological Society. He has been ‘Chairman of the Colorado Weather Control Commission, the Solar Technical Panel of the U.S. National Committee for IGY; Director of World Data Center A for Solar Activity. He was a mem- ber of the Working Committee on Solar Activity of the Comité Spécial de l’ Année Géophysique International at Barcelona in 1956 and at Moscow in 1958. He was a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on International Programs in Atmospheric Sciences and Hydrology of the Na'tional Academy of Sciences during 1962-1963. Birthplace: West Bridgewater, Mass., August 20, 1915. *1960-68. 324 STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER ORR ROBERTS, PRESIDENT, UNIVER- SITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH Dr. Rozerts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Hastings. I started out in my professional career as an astronomer, but some 20 years ago switched my interests primarily into the field of mete- orology and atmospheric science because of my very strong conviction of the ultimate social significance of knowledge in this realm, so that IT am happy to appear before your committee today representing the field of weather, and talking about its interactions with the oceans. T am very much honored by the opportunity to appear and comment on the report, “The Nation and the Sea,” prepared by Dr. Stratton and his distinguished colleagues of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. The report is, as the Chairman stated in the opening of these hear- ings, a monumental one, with numerous and farreaching recommenda- tions. With your concurrence, I wish this morning to speak briefly to one of the most important of these recommendations—that having to do with the unity of the oceans and the atmosphere as a single environ- mental system upon which man is heavily dependent. I then wish to make a few comments on the Commission’s specific recommendation concerning the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a national laboratory operated by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, of which I am president and chief executive officer. THE SCOPE OF A NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC AGENCY Let me turn to the first point to my testimony. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether your subcommittee has had opportunity to view the remarkable new motion picture film of hurricanes seen from space that has just been assembled by Drs. T. Fujita and V. E. Suomi from University of Chicago and the University of Wisconsin respectively. If any of the members of your committee would like to see the film, I can make it available to you. Mr. Haruaway. Thank you very much. Dr. Rozerts. If you have not seen it, it is hair raising and very in- structive and exciting. Nothing that I have ever seen demonstrates so graphically the unity of the environmental system embracing the atmosphere, the oceans, and the continents. In a few moments of time-lapse photography, this film reveals the violent vortex of a giant hurricane, and traces for hundreds of miles the cloud lines that spiral toward the eye of the storm. It shows, for example, how minor cloud streaks from the storm some- times develop to major squall-line storms when they cross land. When you realize that these atmospheric monster storms, the hurri- canes, can arise only from tropical oceans where the sea surface tem- perature exceeds 25° C., or about 75° F., you are reminded of the importance of ocean-atmosphere interactions to weather phenomena. The Stratton Commission rightly underlines the essential unity of the ocean-atmosphere system. It is because of this unity, I suspect, that the Commission recommended the creation of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, rather than simply a National Oceanic Agency. 325 In recommending an integrated national atmospheric and marine sciences effort, the Commission was, in my opinion, entirely correct. Whether the physical unity of the air-ocean system necessarily means that a single administrative entity must be centrally responsible for research and resource development over the whole domain of the physical system is, of course, one of the central questions, Mr. Chair- man, that I believe your subcommittee must wrestle with. Something more than an interagency coordinating group, some- thing more, for example, than the Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Sciences in the atmosphere field, is obviously needed, because such coordinating groups tend to be ineffective in guiding programs that need integrated effort. There are three observations, however, that I wish to make on this matter. First, many aspects of research and development in the marine and atmospheric sciences are today lagging very seriously, when one looks at the overall national interest. Creation of something like NOAA may be able to obtain, for this area of science, a national priority commensurate with its practical potential for public benefit. My second point has to do with something the Fujita-Suomi hurri- cane film graphically shows, and also something that it fails to show. The thing that it shows is that land heavily affects the ocean- atmosphere system, even when hurricanes are involved. The effects of mountains, plains, forests, and fields are as important to the system as is the ocean. There is real action, as you all know, from giant weather systems over land, and, of course, it is over these land areas where millions of people live and work, and own property, and farm crops. One of the things, for example, that was called to my mind by Con- gressman Wilson’s remark is the jetstreams. These giant rivers of air, so important in air operations, are perhaps the principal factor in the development of weather systems over the Great Plains and over the central part of the United States. These jetstreams are driven, in large part, by the energy of the tropical oceans, by the evaporation in the first inch or so of the tropical oceans. The evaporation of moisture into _ the atmosphere provides energy that is then transported aloft and car- ried to higher altitudes by the general circulation of the atmosphere. This energy contributes to driving the jetstreams. Yet, even though these jetstreams are one of the most important factors in weather over the whole of the United States, the regions from which the evaporation occurs in the tropical oceans are practically un- observed by the observation stations in operation today. What the film does not show, and what the Commission report does not really discuss is this: that the marine sciences and the atmospheric sciences are interdependent, but they are not identical in scope or in potential usefulness to mankind. There are many atmospheric problems of concern to mankind totally unrelated to the exploitation of the sea, and, of course, vice versa. Therefore, the development of atmospheric science cannot be con- sidered simply as a necessary adjunct to the development of marine science. Each has an important role to play in the national interest, and also in any agency that incorporates the two. And in such an agency the 326 two must be viewed as of equal, or perhaps one should better say, of parallel importance. My third point is that the atmospheric sciences are approaching a sense of readiness and unity that promises considerable payoffs in the next decade or two. When one considers the atmosphere, one can think of three major areas of application: weather prediction, especially long-range predic- tion, which generally means anything beyond about 10 days. Second, weather modification, from its present-day modest capability of in- creasing runoff in western mountain areas to the more speculative pos- sibilities of regional or continental-scale climate modification. Third, there are the problems of conservation of the atmosphere, from local air pollution to worldwide effects of man’s activities in de- grading the atmosphere. One of the things that I have been working on personally in the past few years is the clouds that sometimes form on jet airplane contrails over the continental land masses. They result from the effluent from the exhaust of the jet engines, forming thin streaks of contrail. Instead of dissipating, they sometimes grow and cover the sky. There is a possi- bility that these artificially induced cirrus clouds have substantial weather modifying effects on a large scale. So that when we talk about weather modification, we need to recognize that not only is it some- thing that man might hope to do deliberately, but perhaps madvert- ently we are, on some occasions, already engaged in large-scale weather modification. : To reach many of these applications, to have success in achieving these applications, we need inputs from the marine sciences, but again, these applications are not directly related to the exploitation of the oceans. Rather, they are related to the needs of people. As you have seen from satellite pictures of weather, and also per- haps in computer-produced global patterns of atmospheric circulation, the atmospheric sciences are on the threshold of being able to cope with the world’s weather as the single physical system it is. This is the key to the greatest part of the atmospheric sciences’ po- tential usefulness in years to come, and there is great and growing international interest in the world weather program and other efforts now underway to cross this threshold of new advance. We have identified the central problem ; namely, the problem to cope with the truly global nature of this earth-atmosphere system. You might say that we have put the finger on the essential concept that wraps it up, and makes it possible for great advance in this field. This is another good reason why the atmospheric sciences should not be subordinated to other areas of science in any new Federal agency, but instead should be placed on an equal basis with them. The potential benefits from atmospheric research are simply too great to be subordi- nated, even, to the exploitation of the sea with all its national and inter- national importance. COMMENTS ABOUT TRANSFERRING NCAR TO NOAA Finally, I wish to comment very briefly about the suggestion in the Commission report that the National Center for Atmospheric Re- search, which we speak of as “NCAR,” should be transferred to the 327 NOAA, once it is firmly established (page 243 of the Commission report). As i report points out, the NCAR is an existing atmospheric science analog of the University-National Laboratories proposed to be created for oceanic science areas. NCAR is operated by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a nonprofit corporation con- trolled by 27 member universities, whose geographical distribution spans the United States. NCAR is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Its primary mission is to conduct major programs of atmospheric research that embrace a scale of activity that would be too great for a single university to conduct alone. It provides major atmospheric re- search facilities both for its own staff and for joint use by other organizations. For example, it operates a major high altitude balloon launch fa- cility in Palestine, Tex. We have pioneered a very exciting globe- circling weather-balloon program, based in New Zealand, that has greatly extended our knowledge of stratospheric winds of the Southern Hemisphere, where, of course, the oceans are far more dominant than here in the Northern Hemisphere. We also operate one of the Nation’s outstanding computer centers for the simulation of global weather interactions—behind which are hidden the secrets of long-range forecasting and large-scale weather modification, if we are ever to achieve long-range forecasting or weather modification. It is a major planning center for large cooperative world weather research programs, like the global atmospheric research program to be mounted with broad national and international participation in the late years of the next decade, and destined to be, in my view, one of the most important programs of international scientific coopera- tion that this Nation has ever engaged in. Tt would make good sense, in my mind, to consider the transfer of support for NCAR to the NOAA only if the mission of the NOAA puts the atmospheric sciences in an adequately central position, and not simply as an adjunct to oceanic sciences, and provided the realms of atmospheric research encompassed in NOAA are sufficiently broadly interpreted. I should interpolate here that my remarks should in no way be interpreted as being critical of NSF’s sponsorship of NCAR, however. NSF has provided strong and effective backing for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even though NCAR has been sub- ject to the budgetary limitations that have been imposed on the NSF, and this has slowed our program substantially. Tf you compare the NOAA report with the activity of NCAR and the 27 universities with which NCAR is associated, it is clear that our concept of the atmospheric sciences is far broader than the concept of the atmosphere envisaged in the NOAA report. Much of NCAR’s strength comes from its broad concept of atmos- pheric science, reaching even to other planets and to the sun. NSF has provided fertile ground for this new concept. This broad view of the atmospheric sciences extends from the surface of the earth into the very high atmosphere and beyond. This concept embraces the influences of the sun on the earth’s atmosphere. It takes into 328 account the effect of mountains and land areas on the atmosphere. It embodies a concern for severe land storms like tornadoes and hail- storms. It puts atmospheric chemistry in an important position. Such a broad view is an essential ingredient for progress toward great practical usefulness. Any narrowing of this scope would de- crease the relevance of atmospheric research to primary national goals. NOAA’s sights should be set as high as this. If the incorporation of NCAR into NOAA would help guarantee such a broad scope in the concept of the atmospheric components of NOAA, it might work to the benefit of the whole country, and to the position of this Nation in world science. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hatuaway. Thank you, Dr. Roberts, for a very enlightening statement. I presume you mean that you go along with the Commission’s rec- ommendation, which says that NCAR should be incorporated into NOAA eventually, but you think it should not be immediately. Dr. Roserts. I think it would be useful for NCAR to be incorpo- rated into NOAA, if the agency adheres to the broad concept of the at- mosphere that would embrace atmospheric environmental pollution control and the many other fields of atmospheric science, which the Commission report has not recommended be incorporated, at least at the outset, into the new agency. For example, there are areas of work in the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, and there are areas of work in the Public Health Service having to do with air pollution chemistry, that the Stratton Commission report does not recommend for inclusion in NOAA. Without the inclusion of these equally integral parts of the atmospheric science in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, I believe the NOAA concept becomes inadequate, and that the agency itself becomes insufficiently comprehensive. Mr. Hatrwaway. Thank you. Dr. Roserts. I feel similarly about certain parts of the NASA weather program, as well. Mr. HatHaway. Congressman Keith. Mr. Kriru. We noted, and the Commission also has noted, the many diverse parts of the oceanography effort, and the extraordinary costs and duplication. Is there a parallel in the field of atmospheric research ? Dr. Roprrrs. Yes, sir. In the oceanic sciences, I believe the Commis- sion report states there are 22 Federal agencies, with overlapping interests. In the atmospheric sciences, there are, I believe, some 16 agencies in- volved; the difficulty of coordination and the fractionation of the sup- port for major programs among different agencies and among differ- ent committees are quite parallel to the situation in the marine sciences. In fact, I am very much attracted to the idea that was suggested in these hearings yesterday, that perhaps what is needed is a reorganiza- tion that would create a Department of Resources and Environments, of which perhaps NOAA would be one component. Mr. Kerrn. In developing our arguments for this, it is helpful to talk of costs and possible savings. Would it be difficult to draw up a letter that would outline the nature and extent of these duplications and possible efficiencies, or has the Commission done it adequately as it pertains to the atmosphere? 329 Dr. Roperts. The Commission has not confronted this in a compre- hensive way for the atmospheric sciences. It has compared relative costs, and outlined the costs of the components that it has recommended putting into the NOAA. However, the Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Sci- ence and ESSA have both made extensive studies, and I believe the National ‘Science Foundation also has done this, of the total funds going into atmospheric science areas under present Federal programs, including the very extensive weather services of the Department of Defense. The Defense applications of atmospheric science, it must be obvious to anyone, are extremely important, particularly in the long-range forecasting and forecasting for remote regions of the world, so that the total costs that are now being expended within the Federal Gov- ernment for atmospheric sciences are a matter of record, and they are very, very substantial. Only a small fraction of these Federal activities in atmospheric science have been recommended for inclusion in NOAA. However, it would be quite easy, using these various reports, to develop a recom- mendation that would, for example, show a distribution of activities for what I would consider to be an appropriate NOAA, and to show where areas of overlap might possibly be avoided in such an agency. One could also put a price tag on the present work, and the recom- mendations for the future. It would be a larger figure than that shown in the Stratton Com- mission report, partly because of the inclusion of a larger range of atmospheric science within the agency, and partly because of the need for incremental funds for some of the major, coordinated pro- grams leading toward long-range forecasting. The global atmospheric research program, for example, has not been considered by the Stratton Commission. Mr. Kerru. I would think that would be helpful data for us to have, as we approach the time when we really have to make a strong stand on. it. Dr. Roserts. I would be glad to provide, speaking just for myself, _ and for my own organization, a view of what this might be. Mr. Kerru. If the Chairman concurs, I think it would be very help- ful to have that. Mr. HarHaway. Yes, Doctor; if you submit that, we would be glad to incorporate it into the record. Dr. Rozerrts. Thank you, sir. (The information requested follows:) ANALYSIS OF PRESENT PROGRAMS IN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, BY FEDERAL AGENCY, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING (CONSOLIDATION WITHIN AN APPROPRIATELY CONSTITUTED OCEAN-ATMOSPHERE AGENCY, JUNE 4, 1969 Planned FY 1970 funding for scientific research in the atmospheric sciences, as reported by the Federal Council for Science and Technology’ totals approxi- mately $202 million, and involves efforts in 10 different federal departments and agencies. This level should be compared with actual funding of atmospheric research of over $248 million in FY 1968. In spite of heightened priority of public interest in such socially important goals as weather modification, air pollution control, and improved long-range weather forecasting, funds for underlying re- Search in this field have declined. 1 Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences Report No. 13, January 1969. 26—563—69— pt. 1 2:2 330 Services and operations in the relevant domains of the atmosphere will require approximately $342 million in FY 1970, according to a report of the Office of the Federal Coordinator of Meteorology.” Chief among these are the world-wide Air Weather Service, under the Department of Defense (operational funds requested in FY 1970: $144 million) and the U.S. Weather Bureau of HSSA, under the Department of Commerce (operational funds requested in FY 1970: $108 million). The remaining $90 million is spread among eight other agencies and departments. ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE ELEMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN A BROADLY CONSTITUTED OCEAN-ATMOSPHERE AGENCY In my view, if an agency were to encompass the nation’s interest in the sea and the atmosphere, it would include a large proportion of the atmospheric research supported by the various Federal Agencies, and would, in addition, include operation of the U.'S. Weather Bureau. It would exclude the operational atmos- phere-related services of the military, and some portion of R & D directly sup- porting those services. The major portion of my remarks below refer to research, rather than opera- tions, since I am familiar with our national research needs in this area. However, as the Stratton Commission wisely indicated with regard to the oceans, research and operational services both belong within the concept of an adequately broad ocean-atmosphere agency. Listed below are the major Federal Agency research programs that should be considered for inclusion in an appropriately broad ocean-atmosphere agency. For each agency, I list the planned FY 1970 budgets * and comment on the desirability of inclusion in the agency. The views expressed are solely my own, and are based on my current knowledge, which is not exhaustive. A comprehensive study should, of course, precede final judgment. (1) Department of Agriculture, FY 1970: $1,783,000 Research in water-management, forest fire meteorology, and programs in forest- air-earth interactions, including climatology of forest and crop environments. In my view these programs should be included in the ocean-atmosphere agency if it is formed. (2) Department of Commerce, FY 1970: $19,124,000 Support of research in the Laboratory Astrophysics Division of the National Bureau of Standards and also in the varied research programs of the Environ- mental Science Services Administration should be included in the agency. This should include the major parts of the funding for the Global Atmospheric Re- search Program, an important international research program for which HSSA now has lead-agency U.S. responsibility. In my opinion, the Global Atmospheric Research Program probably should . be singled out for special scrutiny by the Congress, and should obtain a very high priority as a national goal—with earmarked funds and special periodic review by Congress. GARP should be a goal of the ocean-atmosphere agency comparable to NA'SA’s present goal of a successful moon landing. Included in the Department of Commerce are many important research func- tions, such as the pioneering work of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Labora- tory, which merits increased support. Research on hurricanes, tornadoes, climate modification, severe thunderstorms, satellite meteorolgy, and several related areas justify continued or enhanced support. The Stratton Commission report does not, however, clearly identify what parts of the HSSA research programs it seeks to encompass in N.O.A.A. It is particularly important that studies of the very high atmosphere, generally labelled aeronomy, be included in the ocean-atmosphere agency and that they be pursued with increased vigor. These researches involve the interaction of the earth’s atmosphere with phenomena of solar and cosmic origin. Not only must these researches be extended, but there needs to be a closer contact between scientists in these realms and those working in lower-level meteorology. (3) Department of Defense, FY 1970: $62,832,000 There are many important programs in the DOD atmospheric science effort. The DOD concept is broad, extending to solar physics research, such as the obser- vation and theoretical study of solar flares and their effects on the earth. In this 2 Wederal Plan for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research, fiscal year 1970, Office of the Federal Coordinator of Meteorology, ESSA, 1969. 3ICAS, op. cit. 331 regard, the programs are very fitting for inclusion in the agency, though the Stratton Commission did not so recommend. There are some parts of the DOD program that are closely enough related to the specific military needs of the agency, that it might be better to have them stay with DOD. Without more extensive study, I cannot make a firm recommenda- tion as to which parts should be transferred to a new ocean-atmosphere agency. I suspect, however, that it would be in the overall national interest if these com- ponents, at the very least, transferred : (a) Work on mathematical modelling and on the large-scale circulation of the atmosphere. (b) Fundamental work in cloud physics and cloud electrification. (ce) Studies of the solar spectrum, both experimental and theoretical, includ- ing stellar and solar modelling. (ad) Most of the aeronomy and solar physics work, including the outstandingly successful solar-terrestrial studies, and related space-environmental studies. (e) The Arecibo Ionospheric Observatory work, with its uniquely powerful and important radar and radio astronomical research capabilities. (4) Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, FY 1970: $7,315,000 Air pollution abatement is a central problem of atmospheric sciences, and it seems to me essential to include the support and extension of such programs within a properly constituted ocean-atmosphere agency. Its pursuit must go hand in hand with research on atmospheric dynamics, diffusion, and turbulence. This area of work must gain vastly expanded support, and with it must come im- proved focus and quality of effort. This work was not encompassed by the Stratton Commission recommendations, but I believe it must be included if an ocean-atmosphere agency is created. However, it may be more practical to leave the establishment and enforcement of air pollution standards in HEW, especially those related to health standards. (5) Department of Interior, FY 1970: $5,550,000 Most of the researchers now carried on under the atmospheric science pro- grams of this department seem to me to be of central interest to a properly-con- stituted ocean-atmosphere agency. Rainfall augmentation is a central goal of the Interior programs today. This goal is intimately related to the problems of hail suppression, lightning suppres- sion, and climate-modification. I believe all belong within a single well-coordinated agency. (6) Department of Transportation, FY 1970: $470,000 The DOT programs in atmospheric science are rather directly tied to the needs of the air-traffic-control system of the nation. In my view this probably puts them in a category of such close relevance to the agency’s mission that inclusion within the new agency will not result in substantial benefits. However areas of research having to do with “mountain waves” and their relation to “clear air turbulence,” of great importance to aviation, should be conducted within the ocean-atmosphere agency and should be intensified. (7) Atomic Energy Commission, FY 1970: $7,249,000 Much of the AEC’s work in atmospheric turbulence and in dynamic meteorology, it seems to me, could be effectively brought within a broad ocean-atmosphere agency. Some of the specific trajectory work for radioactive fallout, on the other hand, should probably remain an AKC responsibility. (8) National Aeronautics and Space Administration, FY 1970: $70,243,000 The best division of responsibility between NASA and a properly constituted ocean-atmosphere agency is a difficult matter to recommend. However, the problem requires a direct confrontation and solution. If NASA orients its post-Apollo thrust towards the earth applications, then meteorology and atmospheric sciences gen- erally offer promising public benefits through space applications, and it may be that an appropriately large and focussed effort will materialize most effectively and economically if these efforts are kept within NASA. If, however, earth- directed applications research, and specifically if the meteorological programs continue to play a very subdued, second-fiddle role as compared with man-in-space programs, meteorology should probably be removed from NASA and centralized In a new agency. If this is done, it should embrace all aspects of space-based meteorology now in NASA except, perhaps, actual vehicle design and launch. The 332 continuing lowering of support to atmospheric programs within NASA ($130,982,- 000 in FY 1968 to $70,248,000 planned for FY 1970) strongly contrasts to the in- creasing public interest and potential benefit from effective use of space tech- nologies for atmospheric studies, one of the most promising areas in all of modern science. (9) National Science Foundation, FY 1970: $27,800,000 The NSF programs in the atmospheric sciences, generally speaking, should probably remain with the agency. NSF's mission is to promote the advancement of basic science in all disciplines, and the atmospheric field should not be singled out as an exception. NSF now has responsibility to support the National Center for Atmospheric Research as well as the research grants programs. Over the past three years the NSF atmospheric program has remained essentially level, in spite of vast and growing public concern with air pollution, weather forecasting, and a host of other atmospheric problems. This funds freeze has had adverse consequences. For example, NCAR has been stopped far short of the major facilities and re- search goals that have been set by widely-based planning studies, and for which there is very strong evidence of national interest and benefit. It may prove nec- essary to provide sponsorship of the new ocean-atmosphere agency, to the National Center for Atmospheric Research in order to make it possible for NCAR to acquire and operate the necessary facilities and do the appropriate research. This should not, however, be taken as criticism of NSF, which has had severe limitations to work under. Within these limitations, the mode of NSF sponsor- ship has been very beneficial to NCAR. NCAR's FY 1970 budget plan constitutes approximately 40% of the NSF atmospheric science budget; it is included as a line-item in the budget request to Congress for the NSF. (10) Federal Communications Commission, FY 1970: $25,000 This is a nominal program, and I do not suggest any change in its support. It is closely related to the FCC mission. SUMMARY Summing up these recommendations, I would include within a broadly-consti- tuted ocean-atmosphere agency the atmospheric science programs of three agencies whose FY 1970 budgets total $26.5 million and part of the atmospherie science programs of five agencies whose FY 1970 budgets total $105.2 million. These fig- ures do not include NASA, pending a determination of the importance of earth- related programs in the post-lunar U.S. space program. Since many existing programs are at sub-critical levels when the national in- terest is considered, I estimate that the atmospheric research portion of a properly-constituted ocean-atmosphere agency would require an annual budget averaging between $200 and $300 million per year over the next five years (not counting NASA atmospheric research functions, which may be added on); and that the budget of the U.S. Weather Bureau, which stands now at approximately $108 million for FY 1970, should also be included, at a substantially higher figure, in a properly-constituted agency. If NASA atmospheric science functions are in- cluded, the operational and research aspects of the atmospheric sciences in the new agency would then require on the order of half a billion dollars per year for the next five years. In addition, as much as $100 million per year would be re- quired for support of the atmospheric research and development in existing agencies. I wish to emphasize that the recommendations that I have made here are the product of my own thinking only, and that they are not the result of a detailed critical study of the appropriate bounds of a viable new ocean-atmosphere agency. The recommendations do, however, reflect my Own strong view that not just a part, but all of the atmospheric sciences, as well as the atmosphere-related serv- ices, should be integrally involved in a national agency that nominally encom- passes the oceanic and atmospheric environments of the earth. I sincerely hope that Dr. Stratton's excellent Commission can be re-constituted with broader en- vironmental representation, or that some other broadly representative Commis- sion can be brought into being, to extend the concept so excellently outlined by the Stratton Commission for the oceanic portion of the earth-air-ocean environ- ment of man. 333 Mr. Kerrn. Does this University Corp. for Atmospheric Research have a coordinating role? Is there any improved correlation of atmos- pheric research data because of this? Dr. Roserts. Yes, sir. I think it is fair to say so. Mr. Kerrn. Representing, as I do, Woods Hole, and knowing what they have recently done in the field of education, I wonder if there is not perhaps a need for a similar organization in the field of ocean- ography, or does one already exist ? Dr. Roserts. No; such an organization does not now exist in the field of oceanography. But in the atmospheric sciences, the University Corp. for Atmospheric Research has as its members, 27 universities comprising almost all of the major universities in the country that have atmospheric research programs and graduate study going on in the at- mospheric sciences. As a consequence, it represents, you might say, a voice of the princi- pal part of the academic community in the atmospheric sciences. As such, it is a principal planning agency for major programs in which the universities seek to participate. It also provides major re- search facilities that are too large for a single university to provide, but which can be used by all universities. I might add that many of the facilities are also used by Federal agencies, so that the facilities, the advisory services, and the planning activities of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Corporation that runs it are available in the total national interest. Even advisory services to private industry in respect to atmospheric research are available from NCAR. Mr. Kerr. What is its budget? Dr. Roserts. The budget at the present time is approximately $14 million, of which approximately $12 million comes from the National Science Foundation. Mr. Kerrn. What is its physical plant? Does it have a central location, as such? Dr. Rozerts. Yes, its central headquarters are at Boulder, Colo., and it has major facilities also in Palestine, Tex.; Page, Ariz.; Climax, Colo., in the high mountains; in Hawaii: and in New Zealand, and it _ has field operations that extend to many places. At the present time, for example, NCAR is a participant in the Bomex (Barbados Meteorological Experiment), a major program or- ganized by ESSA in the Barbados, to study tropical atmospheric cir- culation over the warm oceans in the summer. Mr. Kerrn. Mr. Hathaway, I think this is an organization that we might visit. I like some of their locations. Mr. Harnaway. I do, too. Dr. Rozerts. I have a picture of your next meeting place, which I will be glad to leave with you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kerrn. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. Mr. Harnaway. Mr. Schadeberg. Mr. Scuapeserc. I want to welcome Dr. Roberts and tell him how much I appreciate his testimony. I am beginning to know how little I know, and how much there is still to learn. I am sure as NOAA gets into being that certainly things that were left out or should be changed will be taken care of as we go along. Of 334 course, it is better to know beforehand how much is involved. I am sure there will be many, many changes that will go on as we go along. Thank you very much. Dr. Roserts. Thank you, sir. Mr. Hatruaway. Thank you very much. There is one question I want to ask you before you leave. Although consolidation of functions is an admirable objective m almost any field, the argument is made in certain cases that there is an advantage that we have in fragmentation from the competitive element involved, For example, you have the various manpower training programs being conducted today by the Department of Education, by Labor, by OEO, and some say we ought to consolidate and save money, but others say let’s leave them as they are, because we get new ideas from the competitive element of these three agencies competing in that one field. Do you think we might make a mistake in this area by consolidating all atmospheric agencies in one agency, and lose the competitive advantage ? Dr. Rozerts. I realize that there are advantages to a certain measure of separation, but in respect to the creation of the NOAA, I believe that the advantages from consolidation of many atmospheric science functions that are not now recommended for consolidation outweigh the disadvantages. In particular, there are areas of atmospheric research that involve weather modification, that are so integrally related to the problem of prediction as the character of the winds over the mountains, that to separate these into two separate agencies means that programs that should be carried on in a coordinated way have to go to separate agencies to receive separate components of the funding. They have to be defended before separate committees, and the total program that needs to embrace four or five cooperative efforts by separated agencies is only as strong as the weakest link in the particular defense of the particular component. Right now, for example, in northeast Colorado, NCAR is orga- nizing—and I wish I had time to tell you the history of this—what we are calling the northeast Colorado hail experiment. The Russians demonstrated some years ago that it appeared to be possible to suppress 90 percent of the hail in a major thunderstorm by firing antiaircraft shells into the lower part of the thunderstorm. We have decided in the United States, with NCAR playing a prin- cipal role, and with the support of the Interdepartmental Committee on Atmospheric Science and the National Science Foundation, to mount, what I like to call a Chinese copy of a Russian experiment, to see whether American thunderstorms behave the way they appear to do over the collective farms of the Soviet Union, and see whether it is possible to suppress hail over northeast Colorado. It involves coordinated components of support from ESSA, from the Department of the Interior, from the Department of Agriculture, from the National Science Foundation, military support for the air- craft, and a number of other things. Now, to bring these together, and to get the funding through the separate committee structures that are involved, means, in spite of 330 all good will on the part of the Interdepartmental Committee on At- mospheric Science, a terribly great struggle, and the program threat- ens to slip from year to year for want of funding of some particular component. I feel that a single agency, seeing the national importance of this cutting across many fields of interest, would make the funding for this come along more promptly, and allow it to be spent in a more effective way. Mr. Haruaway. Thank you very much, Doctor. Are there any further questions ? The subcommittee will adjourn until next Tuesday morning at 10 o’clock, when we will hear Dr. Sidney R. Galler and Mr. Walter C. Beckman. (Whereupon, at 12 o’clock noon, the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 27, 1969.) Mop) Ropes Thank yet, Te ae pea ie ett Yo bite etic Tidttottsier-ockt ee rf eidt Wr wnihals vlikdabenstirhsorr'gtavdortait oi eviiselta-svcain poses een adioh fi drolth: barn Ab ‘be A) ifitost BY Tele. the eicenment iz mad tii ‘cOreaaes ; ap Kevan tages bet Aotobe aldnid yo radie arin h reenter am Venotiesup toda OL te sattiesront ebeor'l dxont Bigeu Tred (bia vf tee i J notie ME aah Hosts seal and Bs hy Rie ciiied ‘rived tf fea By ATI aes ~~. We Ought: ig Coli seca Ce ATH eee ok sybarrsso bole sofilermondng writ! ROG A dystntoron ha he | wake) COR Bie eas i ho i 3 oh yey ( ! hy r SSrTh > BOERS ' Ry eae { M i : j + % ' re! é i ¥ tie) i { LF f hh } oy , k's RD ti Or tht Ret Rte: ‘ hy 4 i AM i vA we i ; fy ry : " We Sa Rt t } ms Pa AK \ a tr Aes ¥ | o Wl { f f BE rh $z i} ry i ¥ \ "8 Leal { wre) Se ; 5 eh) \ pad i Bi Fs Selo, POE: ‘ ns f esy i a i ve ~~" i! " i hie, ‘ CeO SOO PaAGe, Ot Le A ie hes: A i by bee OL Set BPD a satiate ba 4 itt reyealt bt ! yt ICRI ST haa > H ee uP EY Ur Ay’ { ie | ‘ 1 i) q } : \ f MLPRIC tb red ) iy \ f? : x ‘ ti 30 St Lo ‘ye i , wid : , } ra : ¢ i j i Pee ha 7 : te eh le oe fr I { pet ¢! t ¢ TLS . Le ms! 4 . . ~ 4 , | oa kat io) part act eae CHMONSorAT! tis mh wea apt Cia, 1, LORE TO, SOhP TS TOPCO OD) Bie LM hese ah: bah) OR DY Dring wnhioweras lia inte the tower gare * ’ m ' ¥ RSE TLOEN LENT CRE : | pes Wy oN ie ; 9 ry i Le Lg +} Tyla vr are a By A i \ ; ‘i LC Re Uae L , 7 : i “int ‘ ‘a ¥: Titi \ c » ain’ ped th i] i pee. whether, Anverica lh Screarehonn ne We ah ite a) we Lo Pee hs x avec ro Pararne ot Eu fa Hh ‘ite NY, ERS Oe ey hase 80 rdineted GOT IR BRFSS it 4 as ees tr Outs lepartt HEE Gs: i ; oe ean by thé Ta panent of the. Tntertae Feo tt ‘4 hee. Fonunataty s vyS 4 ate ha F vanes tie Babions. a! aie uF -Oralt, Aud} mubber of other thingie 2. fay a bd. i w Kel ete Haman iy ppd, te, et the fund epi ate coapsimrtive or neoty TOR Aliat ar al ined! ved i NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1969 TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1969 Hovst or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY, OF THE ComMMITTEE ON MercHant MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alton Lennon (chair- man of subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Lennon. The subcommittee meeting will come to order. This morning we resume our hearings in review of the report by the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, en- titled “Our Nation and the Sea.” There are two witnesses scheduled for this morning. The first will be Mr. Walter C. Beckmann, chairman of the board and president of Alpine Geophysical Associates, Inc. As you recall, Mr. Beckmann was here prepared to testify last week but unavoidably we had insuf- ficient time to receive his testimony. He very graciously agreed to reschedule his appearance for today’s hearing. And we appreciate his cooperation. I am sure his testimony will ihe both interesting and enlightening as he is certainly outstanding in the field of applied oceanography. Although we have heard from previous witnesses associated with industry, Mr. Beckmann will be the first to speak directly from the standpoint of an oceanographic corporation and the scope of its activities. Our second witness this morning is a distinguished friend of this _ subcommittee—a noted marine biologist and Assistant Secretary for Science of the Smithsonian Institution—Dr. Sidney R. Galler. When Dr. Galler was invited to appear, it was wtih the understanding that his testimony would reflect his personal views and not those necessarily of the Smithsonian Institution. It is of course our intention to call on ihe paeehsoman later, when the various Government agencies are eard. Gentlemen, we are delighted that you could be with us this morning. We will be happy to receive your statement now Mr. Beckmann, and I will ask unanimous consent that immediately preceding your state- ment a career résumé of Mr. Beckmann appear in the record. Good morning, sir. We are delighted to have you and regret that we do not have a better attendance of members. We have been doing some checking and find that many of the members of this committee are on other committees now in executive session of reporting out their annual authorization bills, and that is the explanation for our short attendance. . (337) 338 We are delighted to have your statement. You won’t be subject to as many questions. Go right ahead please. (The information referred to follows:) CAREER RESUME OF WALTER C. BECKMANN President and Chairman of the Board, Alpine Geophysical Assciates, Inc., Norwood, New Jersey 07848, 1959-1969. Research Associate in Oceanography, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory (Columbia University) Palisades, New York, 1949-1959. Columbia College. B.A. 1949, Majors in Physics and Mathematics, New York, New York, 1945-1949. Professional Affiliations: American Fisheries Institute, American Geological Union, Catfish Farmers of America, European Society of Exploration Geophysi- cists, New York Academy of Sciences, Marine Technological Society, Seismolog- ical Society of America, ‘Society of Exploration Geophysicists. STATEMENT OF WALTER C. BECKMANN, PRESIDENT, ALPINE GEOPHYSICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. Beckmann. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, it is indeed a pleas- ure for me to appear before the subcommittee to express the views of Alpine Geophysical Associates, Inc., concerning the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. The Commission must be congratulated on its report. Basically A1- pine supports the recommendations made by the report. Some of these are particularly significant to Alpine and I would like to comment briefly on some of them. T am Walter C. Beckmann, president and chairman of the board of Alpine Geophysical Associates, Inc., of Norwood, N.J. Our company is a leader in applied oceanography. We began our brief history in 1959 and note our first decade of operations this year 1969. Our group has distinguished itself by introducing to the offshore and land petroleum exploration industry the use of nonexplosive sources of seismic energy—this means that the techniques we have introduced do not kill fish—but equally important, provide a better means of find- ing oil. We have found oil in the Persian Gulf, the Cook Inlet, the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and on the Alaskan North Slope. Our tech- niques and crews have proven offshore geophysical exploration for mining: coal, diamonds, iron ore, tin, manganese, among others. We have introduced the use of tankers to carry bulk cargoes such as grains and ammonium sulphate. We are the first and only company in the world to make marine protein concentrate (MPC)—which is a fish protein concentrate (FPC)—and is perhaps one of the principal means of preventing mass world starvation. Alpine was the largest industrial contractor, for oceanographic sur- veys, of the U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office, prior to last year’s budget cut. Of three marine geophysical survey contracts, let by Navoceano, we were awarded two—the third went to Texas Instruments. It might be well to note here that, when the Agency for International Development of the State Department decided to obtain fish protein concentrate for their humanitarian projects some 850 persons, repre- senting U.S. and foreign corporations, attended the bidders’ con- 339 ference, but Alpine was the single and only bidder. We were awarded the contract to provide over 2 million pounds of marine protein con- centrate (MPC) to AID. I have a few simple points to present to this distinguished group. Oceanography is often compared to space, in fact such terms as inner- space and wet NASA are commonplace. However as an oceanographer and moreover as a commercial oceanographer I note one big difference between space and the oceans: Space holds no profit motive for private industry—other than the design, development, and fabrication of hardware. While, in contrast, the oceans hold considerable profit motive for industry. We do not seek development of hardware, we—industry— seek the exploitation of the oceans. The exploitation of the oceans should be by private industry, using private capital. We, as the oceanographic industry, compete with many Govern- ment supported academic research programs—which are in reality, rather poorly performed and inefficient oceanographic studies carried out by university students. As you all know last year’s budget cuts have made considerable in- roads into oceanography. Industry will need considerable help to con- tinue its progress in the oceans. We feel that the Government needs to help private industry—help by initiating fewer big Government supported programs using unnecessarily expensive and inefficient research vessels. Put this money into joint academic, industrial, and Government programs where the unique capabilities of each group are utilized to the maximum. We, at Alpine, believe that the national projects recommended by the Commission are well conceived. I would recommend the operation of such research, development, testing and evaluation facilities to be by private industry, on a cooperative arrangement with Government and the academic community. As examples, Alpine has been engaged in two such projects, which have been perhaps the most efficient application of taxpayers’ dollars in oceanography. The first of these was the International Indian -Ocean Expedition. Here the U.S. Navy provided a ship which was converted, by Alpine, to a biological oceanographic research vessel using Government funds—in this case provided by the National Science Foundation. The vessel, which was formerly President Truman’s yacht, was re- named the RV Anton Bruin, and was operated by Alpine using a regular union crew. Alpine was responsible for a basic scientific staff who performed routine oceanographic measurements and maintained the equipment. Scientists from Government agencies and from academic institu- tions, both domestic and foreign, participated on a grant basis, with funding by NSF, and with overall scientific planning and program- ing by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The program went extremely well and a follow-on project along the west coast of South America was also carried out. Unfortunately, the Bruwn’s useful life has expired. NSF has run short of funds and she is to become a seaside restaurant in New Jersey. 340 We have been engaged during the past 6 years in a similar project aboard the NSF Antarctic research vessel USNS £itanin. In this case the vessel is MSTS owned and operated, the scientific support staff is made up of Alpine personnel and scientific programs are manned by university scholars under National Science Foundation grants. Administration, including that of the grants, is carried out by Alpine. I mention these examples to point out that a three way joint effort in specific mission oriented programs can be accomplished effectively and efficiently. I suggest that the National Science Foundation struc- ture is a better example for a national agency than either the Coast Guard or the Department of the Interior. We are interested and encouraged to see that the Commission has recommended the establishment of the National Oceanic and Atmos- pheric Agency. We are in favor of such an agency if it is a new agency with its own responsibilities and authority and of course its own funding. If it is to be a rehashing of existing agencies to enable the creation of yet another bureaucracy I think it be best left uncreated. It is most important that the new agency have access to a scientific body, or steer- ing group which can plot its overall objectives and contribute to long range planning, both in the initial stages of development and on a con- tinuing basis. I am certain that with the continued excellent guidance of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee we may all achieve our objectives in oceanography. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, very much, Mr. Beckmann. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Scuapeperc. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page 3 you stated: I would recommend the operation of such research, development, testing and evaluation facilities to be by private industry, on a cooperative arrangement with Government and the academic community. Mr. Beckmann. Correct. Mr. Scuapepsere. First of all, my question is, Do you think that pri- vate industry is capable financially, or willing to assume the costs of research for development of equipment that may have to be used? Tam interested more or less in your interpretation of what this cooperation between Government and the academic community would be, in what areas and to what extent. Mr. Beckmann. I think as far as the first part of the question asking whether or not industry will develop the equipment; industry has shown that it will develop the equipment. As far as our own company is concerned, we develop relatively smaller pieces of equipment which have an almost immediate commer- cial application, but of course the larger members of the industrial community like the Lockheeds, and Westinghouses, and so on, have put a lot of money into developing submersibles. Some have done it just for publicity and some have done it with a serious intent to utilize these vehicles in the future. They have to be in the future because there is certainly no market for the submersibles now. There are approximately, 60 submersibles and about once every two months one gets a decent opportunity to do something. 341 I would like, if there are going to be any extensive facilities, to see them run the w ay the Atlantic missile range was run by Pan Am. I think that routine surveys are better run on a commercial basis in order to reserve the academic community to investigate into pure research. Mr. Scraveserc. I can understand and appreciate this because I do believe personally, of course, that private industry should get the maxi- mum responsibility at least ‘and efforts and benefits, but I think I am aware that this may be the case: that as you look into the future there may be new tools besides the submersibles themselves, new equipment and tools needed for specific work and I don’t know much about it but some of it may be at considerable cost and I am wondering whether private industry would be in the position of assuming the cost of de- velopment of these tools. Maybe I am looking too far ahead at the moment. Mr: Beckmann. I think I ean say, in line with what you are saying, that where industry needs the maximum help is in the development of exotic instruments for which there is no need today but where there will be several years down the road. How much industry is going to take over that sort of thing I would think would be at a minimum. Mr. Scrapesere. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, sir. Mr. Hanna from California. Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noticed in your presenta- tion, Mr. Beckmann, that you refer to a contract that you were awarded for over 2 million pounds of FMPC. Mr. Beckmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Hanna. Has that all been delivered now? Mr. Brecxmann. No. Delivery is to start at the end of this month. Mr. Hanna. It will start the end of this month. What was the price arrived at? Mr. Becxmann. Forty-two cents a pound. Mr. Hanna. Forty-two cents a pound. Where are the plants located ? Mr. Beckmann. This plant is located in New Bedford, Mass. Mr. Hanwa. In Massachusetts. Mr. Beckmann. Yes. Mr. Hanna. I was surprised to see that you were the only bidder there. There are some other firms that I have heard mentioned. Mr, Beckmann. We were extremely surprised that we were the only bidder at the time, but since that time I have found out that nobody else makes it, that there are no other plants. Mr. Hanna. I am trying to remember that name that was quite strong in the field for a while. It seems to me that it was from up in New England some place. Mr. Scuapeserc. Will the gentleman yield ? Mr. Hanwa. Yes. Mr. Scwapepere. Are you referring to human consumption ? Mr. Hanna. Yes. Mr. Scuaveserc. I know that many industries make it for meal for cattle. I think there is one in Milwaukee. Mr. Hanwa. I know there were a number making it for cattle, but there were also some that indicated they were making it for human consumption. 342 The other thing I wanted to refer to in your testimony is on page 3, where you indicated that the Government needs to help private in- dustry, “by initiating fewer big Government supported programs using unnecessarily expensive and inefficient research vessels.” Would you care to be a little more specific as to what you had in mind in that particular statement. Did you have in mind any particu- lar activity that we have initiated ? Mr. Beckmann. Yes, I think one of the things that has occurred in oceanography, say, in the last 5 years is that the greatest expansion in oceanography has come from taking existing vessels and putting them over into a budget called oceanography rather than ship operations. The oceanographic community went on a program which defined a 10-year expansion effort to build many, many research vessels. It has accomplished that purpose and has built many, many research vessels. The only thing that everyone forgot was that the vessels require scientists to work on the data and that the vessels become rather all consuming when the budget cut gets a little tight, so that we now find ourselves, at the present time, continuing to build large vessels costing over $10 million, $10 million to $15 million, yet cutting our programs at the National Science Foundation and Navoceano, and so on. All these programs were operating vessels that cost about $1 million. Therefore, I feel strongly that at the present time we have far more vessels than we can utilize and we don’t have enough money to operate the vessels that exist. Mr: Hanna. Then what you are talking about is that more money should now go into operational programs rather than development of expensive vehicles. Mr. Beckmann. I think that is right, yes. I would like to see the attitude of oceanography turned around a little bit to be mission oriented. Pick out a few of the recommendations in the report and do them. I agree you can’t do oceanography without vessels, but when the vessels get to be so large that they are overpowering the accomplish- ment of any work, I think it is wrong. Consider Lamont Observatory at Columbia whose budget is about $7 million a year, Woods Hole about the same, and Scripps about $10 million, and then talk about building research vessels for $13 million or $15 million apiece, I think that this is out of proportion. Mr. Hanna. You feel that there is more return on the investment if we can go now in terms of putting the eyes and ears and talents to work on a specific mission. Mr. Beckmann. Yes. I think that is very definitely right. I think you can see that with the work that the Glomar Challenger has been doing with the essentially shallow coring problem in the ocean. Mr. Hanna. I think that was the point that Jacques Cousteau was making at the oceanography meeting a few years ago when he pointed out that it was very important to have the man present who drives the vehicle because he provides the eyes, and he told the story of the re- markable bull in Spain where there was this tremendous example of the bull which looked like it was admirably suited for the ring. He took it to the ring but he said, “Unfortunately, bull, you cannot see. You cannot tell the difference from the picador, the matador and the cuspidor. Everybody is so sad.” 343 But there was an optometrist. He said, “I fix.” And he ground the contact lenses for the bull and, “The bull was very, very much a champion-type bull and can tell the difference immediately between the picador, the matador, and the cuspidor, but he cannot see the grass and die.” So that the presence of the eyes and the ears is very important and I am delighted to hear the gentleman emphasizing the importance of missions because I concur in that statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. iLfanna. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ruppe. Mr. Ruppr. Thank you. Thank you for your very informative state- ment. On the first page you mentioned the use of nonexplosive sources of seismic energy. I wonder if you would comment on that a little. Mr. Beckmann, In what regard? What they are? Mr. Rupee. Right; what they are and a little bit on the technique used. Mr. Beckmann. Well, there is a family of them now. Basically the principle is that of making a small noise or many small noises and add- ing the echoes up from these many small noises rather than using one large explosion. The devices are used in reflection techniques which are used to de- termine structure beneath the ocean bottom and, working very sim- ilarly to the echo sounder, provide a chart which provides a graph of the layers beneath the ocean bottom. There have been a dozen or so sound sources that have been used. These include the Sparker, which is simply a small spark discharge in the water, a gas exploder which is a small explosion of oxygen and propane, and there are a few mechanical ones, the Hydrosein, the Vibroseis, and the air gun, but the basic principle is that of making many small explosions and using computers to add up the many small explosions to replace one large one. _ Mr. Rupes. The explosion used does not affect the fish population in any way. Mr. Becxmann. Thats correct. Mr. Ruprer. I am not clear on the distinction between marine pro- tein concentrate and fish protein concentrate. Mr. Beckmann. Marine protein concentrate is a trade name of our company and fish protein concentrate is the generic term. Mr. Rupee. I wonder if you might give me an indication of the type of work in general and the goals of the effort behind the work of the two vessels mentioned, the Anton Bruun and the E7tanin. Mr. Beckmann. The Anton Brwun program: The primary objective was to contribute to our understandings of the life cycle of the fish and plankton of the Indian Ocean to determine whether or not there is a possibility of an economic fisheries in the Indian Ocean. Mr. Ruprr. Were you able to go far enough with this research pro- gram to make a final determination as to the potentials of the fishery ? _ Mr. Beckmann. I believe the answer to that is yes, but the problem is who is going to fish it. Of course, most of the Indian Ocean lies adjacent to India and fishing bases could be set up in India and de- veloped. That becomes a very difficult thing to do as compared to the problem of figuring out the ecology of the ocean. 344 The Zlianin program is primarily an oceanographic and atmo- spheric vessel or platform which has been working in the Antarctic waters for about 8 years and has gone approximately around half of the Antarctic. The program is being performed on a systematic basis. Tt determines the depth of the water, the geologic structure, physical oceanography, studies the water column, birds, fish, plankton, and the upper atmosphere. Mr. Rupee. Will the work of the Hltanin have any particular or direct application as far as American commercial or industrial or scientific endeavor is concerned or is it almost a pure research project ? Mr. Beckmann. It isa pure research project at the present time and even just figuring out the depth of water is pretty good because we don’t know how deep the water is any place around the Antarctic or know little of the configuration at the bottom or any other features. There are many things that will be learned which will give us a first crack at learning a little about the Antarctic. Major discoveries are made in the Antarctic, such as the fact that the hills are really moun- tains and are not piles of ice, has been made within the past 10 years. Mr. Rurrr. The work done in the Indian Ocean does seem a little remote from our own shores or our own applications. Has similar work been done on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts in matters that might offer opportunities for American fisheries and exploitation of same ¢ Mr. Beckmann. Yes; there has been a lot of work done both by Scripps on the west coast and by Woods Hole on the east coast in addition to other research organizations. I mention those two because they have been performing such programs for 25 or 30 years. In addition the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries does a lot of this type of work. Mr. Rurer. I have some question of the value I suppose of the effort expended in the Indian Ocean. It does seem that if the vessel were still operative working there that the potential of the applications for future commercial activity would be very limited. Mr. Becxmann. I don’t think that is right because I think, the way the fishing industry is today, any place you could find fish in quantity, you would be willing to go to get them. You see the expedition of the Bruun wasn’t solely for commercial fisheries, but the study did ascertain the fisheries population in the Indian Ocean. Mr. Rurrr. Was a determination finally made as to the composition of that fishery ? Was it carried to a conclusion ? Mr. Beckmann. Yes; to the extent that one can learn in 2 years with one boat. Mr. Rupee. Has the study resulted in any particular new applica- tions or the utilization in any different way of that particular fishery ? Mr. Beckmann. There are several companies, Indian companies—a lot of this work as done in conjunction with Indian scientists—that are working in the Arabian Sea harvesting fish that they had not previously harvested. You know that an answer to your question is that the problem has more to do with other aspects of social, economic, and political factors than it has to do with oceanography or fisheries. 345 To the same extent that it is impossible to start a cattle industry in India, for example, because people don’t eat cows, you have a similar trouble with fisheries. People don’t particularly like fish because they have never had fish before. Mr. Ruppr. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you. Counsel ? Mr. Drewry. Mr. Beckmann the Anton Bruwn was one of a number of ships participating in the international Indian Ocean expedition ; was it not? Mr. Brockmann. My recollection is that there were about 40 or 50 ships altogether. Mr. Drewry. And a large number of nations were involved in it on a cooperative basis. Mr. Beckmann. Yes, I think about 14 nations altogether. Mr. Drewry. And the studies were multidisciplinary, were they not? Mr. Becxmann. Yes. ae Drewry. Not just looking at fish, but trying to find out a lot of things. Mr. BrckMANN. The mission was to study the Indian Ocean from as many disciplines and aspects as was possible. Mr. Drewry. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rocers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Beckmann, I read your statement and I think it points up something I am concerned with and T think the committee probably is too, and that is the lack of a proper utilization of the industrial capability. T think you have made this point very forcefully in your statement. It seems to me that we have put such stress on the academic in research, feeling that all research has to go through an academic institution that we have bypassed the usage of private industry in a cooperative effort, and I think and hope that this will be corrected in our approaches and I would think this committee would be interested in seeing what it can do to encourage greater use of our industrial capability in research so that we do have the joint effort of the Government and industry and the academic community all working together. T think your point is well made and I agree with it. Thank you. Mr. Beckmann. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Beckmann, you called our attention to the fact that your com- pany was awarded this contract to provide some in excess of 2 million pounds of MPC or what is really fish protein concentrate, FPC. How much of that 2 million pounds, since this contract was entered into, have you delivered to the AID? Mr. Beckmann. On the order of, I believe, less than 2 tons. We have only delivered as requested by AID for use in some of their market studies. We have not begun delivery of the bulk order. Mr. Lennon. But you have a contract for 2 million pounds. Mr. Beckmann. Yes. Mr. Lennon. And that contract was entered into when? Mr. Beckmann. Well, I know delivery is due this month and we had a 9-month delivery schedule. Nine months ago. 26-563—69—pt. 1——23 346 Mr. Lennon. In other words, some 9 months ago. Mr. Beckmann. Yes. ae | Mr. Lennon. Over what period did your contract provide for the delivery that you have been referring to of the 2 million pounds? Mr. Beckmann. I believe it was within an additional 9 months. Mr. Lennon. Do you anticipate that you will actually deliver and receive payment for 2 million pounds within this period of time? Mr. Beckmann. I do now, yes. Mr. Lennon. Do you now have and have you had a capability to make this delivery much earlier than you have been called on to make it? Mr. Beckmann. No, we have not. Mr. Lennon. You have not had the capability ? Mr. Beckmann. No. . Mr. Lennon. In other words, you are saying to the committee that it is your judgment that you will actually deliver 2 million pounds to AID of fish protein concentrate. Mr. Beckmann. Yes, it is. Mr. Lennon. Now, that has a very fine nutritional value, doesn’t it? Mr. Beckmann. Yes. Mr. Lennon. That is basically what it is. Can you sell that in this country? We need it badly, everybody says. Our people are not hun- gry from lack of food, but from lack of nutrition and everybody agrees that this is an ideal food additive for that purpose. | Can you manufacture it and sell it commercially in this country? Mr. Beckmann. At the present time, we are restricted to sale in the United States in containers smaller than 1 pound. Mr. Lennon. In containers smaller than 1 pound. Is that the Fed- eral Food and Drug Administration’s requirement ? Mr. Beckmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. But they have approved this particular protein, haven’t they ? Mr. Beckmann. Yes, sir. It is approved for human consumption and we are restricted on the size of the package in which we can sell it. Mr. Lennon. Why is that? If it is needed and everybody says it is needed and it ought to be used in meal and grits, hominy, bread, and so many, many things, why is it that you can’t use it in this country ? The Federal Food and Drug Administration has approved it for sale overseas and yet we won’t let our own people use it. Is it the aroma or flavor? You ought to know because you make it and try to sell it. Mr. Beckmann. I don’t know of anything in the product that re- sults in this restriction. ) Mr. Lennon. What has been done, is what concerns me, to change this restriction. Has anyone at the executive level made an effort to try to change the policy restricting the sale of it in boxes of a pound or less. . Mr. Beckmann. We have made applications to FDA, we, as a com- pany, and have had assistance from the Bureau of Commercial Fish- eries, and our estimate on the length of time that is required to get approval of this change is of the order of 18 months to 3 years. We have talked with Food and Drug, specifically with Dr. Ley, who I think is interested in making some real progress in this direction. 347 Mr. Lennon. Now, after Food and Drug has approved it as to the quality of the product it does not have the authority to say in what size package it has to be delivered, does it, or does it ? Mr. Beckmann. Well, I think the answer is “Yes” on two counts. Yes it can say the size package you put it in, it can say the labeling on the package and it also says what you can add it to. For example, FDA sets up a definition of simple words like bread, flour, with a certain specific specification. In other words, if you devi- ate from the specification of bread you can no longer call it bread. Mr. Lennon. In other words, what you are saying to the committee is that you can’t sell it to General Foods or any of the other manu- facturers who use it in their various food products, can you? Mr. Beckmann. No; we cannot unless we are willing to ship it in one pound bags and then of course the onus comes on them as to what they do with it. Mr. Lennon, Of course you are forbidden to do that by the Federal Food and Drug Administration. Mr. Beckmann. Yes. Mr. Lennon. That is specifically for the record. This. committee after the Food and Drug Administration approved this product, I guess it was in about February or March of last year, wasn’t it? Mr. Beckmann. Yes, sir. Early this year we called on the new Chairman of the National Council, Vice President Spiro Agnew, and the new Cabinet members who were members of the Council to see if they could remove this packaging restriction. Everybody says we need this protein, that it ought to be sold to all of the manufacturers in the country who are making food products. Who is blocking this thing? Who has the authority to say that as much as this particular product is needed that it can’t be sold and our people shouldn’t have the nutrition that we seem to be willing to fur- nish the people of the world free through ATD. ‘Do you have any comments on that? How do you think we can move this thing or don’t you want to move it? Do you want to sell this stuff in this country ? Mr. Beckmann. Yes; we most definitely do. I know our present course of attempting to make progress in this area is to select one or two products on which we could get a change of product specification. Of the two that we are presently looking at, one was suggested by Dr. Ley, that is tortilla flour, which is a corn flour, and as far as provid- ing animal protein, is essentially useless to eat. The other product is macaroni. Each of these products lend them- selves very well to the addition of fish protein concentrate. Mr. Lennon. Don’t you think, sir, that it is rather disgraceful that we say to people all over the world, “Here we make a product in our country fit for human consumption, which has high nutritional value and we need it in our country but we won’t let our people have it. It is Just not good enough for our people in our affluent America, but it is good enough for you people.” What do you think? Mr. Beckmann. I agree with that completely. I think the thing that bothers me most is when my own children come home and, because they are too lazy to do anything else, open a box of cereal. This happens 348 about eight times a day up until midnight. I wish I could buy a cereal that had FPC in it so I could feel at least they received some protein and get a little nourishment. Mr. Lennon. We are passing a bill today that carries in it several hundred million dollars to feed the school lye programs, the poor, the elderly, and yet we can’t use something in this country because, well, it smells a little fishy. But they have eliminated that fishy smell, haven’t they, completely ? Mr. Beckmann. Yes, sir; and when it is used in a concentration as recommended in products, you don’t know that it is in there at all. I am sure most people here have had various breads or desserts or something like that made with it. Mr. Lennon. I am going to ask unanimous consent to put in the record at this point the letter that I wrote to the Vice President urging him to use his influence and urging all the members of the Cabinet who were members of the National Council to try to change this policy. I would also like included the letter that I wrote to the President calling his attention to the possibilities of using FPC in his fight op hunger and malnutrition. (The letters follow :) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., March 20, 1969. Hon. Spiro T. AGNEW, The Vice President, The White House, Washington, D.C. Dear MR. Vick PRESIDENT: The Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Con- servation of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries conducted hearings on Fish Protein Concentrate (KPC) last summer at the request of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries for the need of additional funding to construct a research pilot plant to develop new and less expensive processes for producing FPC. For years, we have been told how KPC can be used to fight hunger and mal- nutrition throughout the world. At this time, we are in the process of sending $900,000 worth of FPC to fight malnutrition in Chile. However, here in the United States, FPC cannot effectively be used to combat malnutrition because Food and Drug Administration regulations require that FPC be marketed in one-pound packages or less. Testimony developed before our Subcommittee revealed that Dr. James L, Goddard, the then Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, had indi- cated a willingness to waive the one-pound packaging restriction on FPC if the food additive were used in a Government sponsored program to combat malnutrition. Like you, I am keenly interested in the fight against hunger and malnutrition in this country. We now have a plant in New Bedford, Massachusetts, that can produce EPC that will meet the quality standards of the Food and Drug Admin- istration. This product could be used here to help alleviate the malnutrition we are told exists in our country. Several federal agencies would be involved in any developed feeding program using FPC as a food additive. It seems to me that you, as Chairman of the Na- tional Marine Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, could best coordinate and further such a worthwhile program. I will be glad to assist and cooperate with you in this proposed program. With kind regards. Most sincerely, ALTON LENNON. 349 THE VICE PRESIDENT, Washington, April 10, 1969. Hon, ALTON LENNON, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DeEeaR Mr. LENNON: Your letter of March 20 expressing your interest in the fish protein concentrate program is greatly appreciated. The contribution of food from the sea—and particularly FPC—in combating malnutrition at home and abroad is high on the agenda of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineer- ing Development. ™he Marine Sciences Council is reviewing the entire FPC program, including the one-pound packaging restriction on the sale of FPC in the United States. I therefore have asked Dr. Edward Wenk, Jr., the Council’s Executive Secretary, to keep you informed of developments. May I take this occasion to say how much I appreciate how your interest and support in marine science affairs has contributed to progress so far, and that I look forward to talking with you personally about future advances. Sincerely, Sprro T. AGNEW. May 8, 1969. The PRESIDENT, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Like you, I am keenly interested in the fight against hunger and malnutrition in this country. As a member of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. I have been most interested in the development of fish protein concentrate (KPC) as a food additive in the fight against malnutrition. As you know, FPC is still in its formative state and last year Congress author- ized funds for the construction of a pilot plant on the West Coast. The sum of $300,000 is being expended for the design and construction plans of this facility, and the Bureau of the Budget is holding $675,000 of the project funds in reserve pending an additional $900,000 to complete the plant. This last item is not in your Budget. Our national needs are varied and great, I realize, but I simply wanted to call your attention to the possibilities of using FPC in the fight against malnutrition both here and throughout the world. Perhaps this resource could also become a part of your proposed fight to combat hunger and malnutrition. With kind regards, Most sincerely, ALTON LENNON. THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, May 15, 1969. _Hon. ALTon LENNON, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. LENNoN: Thank you for your May 8 letter to the President concern- ing hunger and malnutrition. We appreciate having your suggestion to use fish protein concentrate as a food additive and your comments are now receiving careful consideration. With cordial regard, Sincerely, WILLIAM FE. TIMMONS, Deputy Assistant to the President. _ Mr. Scuaprpere. One thing I would like to have clear on a point of information is, is this a meal of itself that would replace wheat or others or whatever it is maybe, or something that you add to it? Mr. Hanna. It’s an additive. 300 Mr. Broxmann. Look at it another way. There are various ways of storing fish, fresh on ice for 2 weeks, or you can freeze them and hold them 6 months or a year, FPC is a means of storing fish with a shelf life of, say, 5 years. It is in a powder form which is white and has a little bit of odor, not objectionable. The question comes up: What does one do with it? The only thing we know to do with it, is to make an additive, to add to a soft drink, for example, or add to flour to make the dough, or into macaroni (which 1s essentially flour). Mr. Scuaprserc. The reason I asked it is that I know from some of the farm organizations and from some of the agricultural industries that there has been a tremendous amount of opposition to it because there is a fear that it will replace the agricultural product, rightly or wrongly. I might also add, Mr. Chairman, that I don’t know what the source is, but Tread about 2 or 3 years ago that India was to get some of this through ATID and they refused to accept it because it wasn’t on our own shelves. I don’t Know how true that was. Has any of this been delivered that you know of to India? Mr. Beckmann. No. To the best of my knowledge, none has ever been made. Mr. Scuaprsrre. Mr. Chairman, I have one other question if I may ask it. In a previous hearing we had testimony from Mr. Boggs of the Ocean Harvesters, Inc., and Mr. Levin from the Viobin Care. Are these in your organization ? q Mr. Beckmann. Viobin is the corporation which developed the process which we use to make the' F PC. Mr. Scuapepere. ‘But they don’t manufacture it? Mr. Beckmann. They do not manufacture it. Mr. Scuapeserc. How about the Ocean Harvesters? Mr. Beckmann. That is a new one on me. I never heard of it. Mr. Hanna. Mr. Chairman, would you yield further? Mr. Scuaprperc. I am finished. Mr. Hanna. I appreciate this because I, with the Chairman, have entertained a long-term interest in this problem and before I came on the committee was one of the members of Congress personally jousting with the people downtown about this whole problem. I take it that there are several problems associated with this busi- ness, one of them being economic. If it costs 42 cents a pound on the basis of a 2-million-pound delivery it would appear to me that there are some market problems in adding this concentrate to just any prod- uct. It would be more acceptable to put it in a product that is so cheap that it could easily absorb in the process the small amount of protein concentrate in the larger amount of something like flour that is put in tortillas, is that not correct, and macaroni, for instance, which is a very cheap product which could spread out the higher price of the concentrate to the lower price of the basic commodity ? r Has that got something to do with it? Mr. Beckmann. Yes. “There are two points. One is at the iileont time the 42 cents is a guessed price. We don’t know what it really does cost to make. 301 The second one is that one should realize that 42 cents a pound for animal protein is extremely cheap because in the normal price of a piece of fish you pay for 83 percent water. FPC is dried to about 4 percent water or moisture content. . Mr. Hanwa. In other words, it is a concentrate ? Mr. Beckmann. Yes. Mr. Hanna. And I think that answers Mr. Schadeberg’s question because obviously this is not anything like wheat because it is really a concentrate. What you had stored as fish is stored as a concentrate and certainly would be no substitute for flour. No one is going to bake with protein concentrate. It seems to me that what we should do is to get the story to the wheat- growers that this is something that would make wheat have a broader market because it would add protein. In other words, you could have a fish sandwich without even having the fish in a sense, “having it built right into the bread. The other thing is: Do I understand that you can’t deliver this thing in anything larger than a pound bag? Mr. Becxatann. That is correct. Mr. Hanna. This would mean that if you were going to push this thing at all, you would be almost thrown completely out of the insti- tutional market and all you could do is to go into the stores, and I personnally know how much it costs to try to bring a new product on the line in any kind of a marketing situation through the various retail outlets. That is a tremendous investment in terms of pushing a single product, is it not ? | Mr. Beckmann. Yes, it certainly is. Mr. Hanna. So that that almost is precluded on the basis of the mar- keting facts of life, right ? _ Mr. Beckmann. Yes, but we are going to try anyway. Mr. Hanna. I wish you luck because I know what that is like, be- lieve me. ~ Mr. Beckmann. I know it isn’t going to be easy. Mr. Hanna. I have gone into the freeze dried coffee thing about 7 years ago with a small company, and we never got any place, but I notice Maxim with some real clout behind them could do something on that market. I wish you well. I would certainly commend the chairman in terms of his interest and say that, if there is anything I can do, Mr. Chairman, to support your position, I will certainly do it. ~ Mr. Lennon. Your contract is for 2 million pounds? Mr. Beckmann. Correct, sir. Mr. Lennon. You. have deliver ed you say up to this date approxi- mately 2,000 pounds? ~~ Mr. Beckmann. On that or der, 2,000 or 3,000 I believe. Mr. Lennon. In that area, you have another 9 months to go on your contract to consummate the delivery of the balance of the 2 million pounds? Mr. Beckmann. I believe it is 9 months or 6 months. Mr. Lennon. I wish you would ask AID for a statement as to what nations they intend to furnish FPC and insert that in the record 1 in- mediately following our colloquy on this Subgedhes ; (The information follows :) DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, Washington, D.C., June 18, 1969. Hon. Auton LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LENNON: Thank you for your letter of May 29, 1969 in which you asked for a status report on the contract A.I.D. awarded to Alpine Marine Protein Industries, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alpine Geophysical Associates, Inc.) in April, 1968 to provide A.I.D. approximately 970 metric tons of fish protein concentrate (EPC) for $900,000. The contract called for delivery of 320 metric tons by January 26, 1969 and the balance by July 26, 1969 and included a liquidated damages clause in case these delivery dates were not met. In October, 1968 Alpine requested a four-month extension of these delivery dates. The extension was granted because it was deter- these delivery dates were not met. In October, 1968 Alpine requested a four-month period. The new delivery dates were set at May 26 and November 26, 1969. How- ever Alpine was unable to deliver as scheduled on May 26. Although several attempts have been made by Alpine to supply small quantities of EPC for A.I.D.- sponsored market studies, the FP'C produced did not meet the required specifica- tions. To date, no FPC has been delivered to A.I.D. under the contract. Accord- ingly, A.I.D. has given written notification to Alpine that damages are assessable under the liquidated damages clause of the contract in the absence of facts to support an excusable delay. This clause requires that Alpine “shall pay to A.I.D. by way of compensation, and not as a penalty, liquidated damages for delay in delivery at the rate of two percent (2%) per thirty (30) day period of price of undelivered amount for each thirty (80) day period or fraction thereof of delay commencing on the first day after the date in which delivery is required under the contract or any extension thereof, and continuing until the date of actual delivery or ‘the date of termination of the contract.” We are enclosing a copy of the contract and amendment as well as a copy of A.I.D.’s letter to Alpine, dated June 8, 1969, regarding the liquidated damages. As you know, A.I.D. helped in initiating this pioneering attempt to produce FPC on a commercial scale and we fully expect delivery under this contract. Alpine reports that it has produced a substantial quantity of first stage material, which awaits final processing. The final processing facilities are completely installed and are now being tested. Once the plant is fully operative, it is expected that Alpine should be able to meet its first delivery commitment, now estimated to be September 1, 1969. Once received, A.I.D. will utilize the FPC in projects developed pursuant to the enclosed Guidelines which were sent to Registered Voluntary Agencies and A.I.D. Missions abroad. The proposals received ‘were prepared and have been evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Guidelines. A prelim- inary review of these proposals indicates that Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Re- public, Chile, India and Korea offer the best opportunities for Phase I of the program. The information developed from Phase I will be used to program the second delivery of 650 metric tons of KPC. Your deep and continued interest in this program is appreciated. We will be pleased to supply you with any additional information you would be interested in receiving. Sincerely yours, MarTTHEW J. HARVEY, Director, Congressional Liaison Staff. GUIDELINES FOR USE AND EVALUATION OF AID PROcURED FISH PROTEIN CONCENTRATE (KPC) (By Food From the Sea Service, Office of War on Hunger, Ageney for International Development) I. General facts on FPC. IJ. Delivery schedule/amounts available. III. Utilization and evaluation program: A. Phase I (330 tons). B. Phase II (640 tons). 300 C. FPC feasibility studies. D. Proposal submission. H. Deadline for proposal submission. IV. Written agreement. VY. Adherence to U.S. Government regulations. VI. Packaging and shipping details. Appendix—Essential technical data on FPC; I. Composition. II. Specifications waived. III. Background on fluoride change. IV. A legal requirement. V. Use of FPC in foods: (A) Pasta products. (B) Bread and other bakery products. (C) Soups and gravies. VI. Storage. Attachment 1. FDA specifications. Attachment 2. Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council letter on fluoride level. I. GENERAL FACTS ON FPC AID has been given the major responsibility for developing FPC as an effective weapon in the battle against hunger and malnutrition in developing countries. As one aspect of its development program, AID has agreed to purchase approxi- mately 970 metric tons of PPC from Alpine Marine Protein Industries, Inc. ‘NPC, as processed from whole fish, is a highly nutritious (75-80% protein and 14% useful minerals) powdered fortification ingredient with a bland fishy taste, and a slight odor. FPC is not a food per se. It is an ingredient used to fortify the protein content and value of flour and flour products, corn and cornmeal products, and other cereal grain and vegetable based products. This fortification not only provides additional protein but also a better balance of amino acids, the so called “building blocks” of proteins, thus it increases the availability of the proteins present in the fortified food product. For example, tortillas have 14 the protein value of milk (when compared in the standard protein efficiency ratio (PER) test). However, if 5% PPC and 5% de-fatted soy flour are added to this corn based food, the PER increases to about the same as milk—with no effect on the taste of the product. The nutritive value of PPC has been demonstrated in clinical trials on infants, children, and adults. These studies have shown that FPC supports normal growth and has a nutritional value equivalent to fresh fish, milk, meat, and eggs. According to these studies, fortification with FPC in the range of 5—-10% of the dry weight of the product being fortified is sufficient to provide significant nutri- tional enhancement without affecting consistency, stability and taste accept- ability. Pasta, breads and other bakery products, beverages, and soups and gruels are good vehicles for such fortification. Mixing HPC into food products, such as ‘flour, for shipment overseas is not being done at this time pending obtaining final data from technical studies being performed on the stability of such mixing. II. DELIVERY SCHEDULE/AMOUNTS AVAILABLE ATID experts that FPC will be available as follows: 330 metric tons, August 1, 1969. 640 metric tons, November 26, 1969. III. UTILIZATION AND EVALUATION PROGRAM The purpose of this program is to identify the food products normally eaten by the general population of selected less developed countries and to measure the acceptability of these foods when fortified with FPC. For this reason it is necessary that the food products proposed for FPC fortification have relevance to the diet of the people of those countries or regions, or sections thereof. To obtain this goal the program will be carried out in two phases keyed to the above delivery schedule. Proposals for individual countries may be submitted for each phase in accordance with the criteria detailed below. 304 A. Phase I (830 tons) Phase I is essentially a pilot phase to determine product formulae for FPC fortification of pasta, bread and other bakery products, beverages, and soups and gruels, and to evaluate their acceptability. Phase I is restricted to the use of these products because present knowledge indicates that they are the best vehicles for such fortification. Approximately 130 of the 330 tons of FPC available on August 1, 1969 will be allocated to Cooperating Sponsors (Voluntary Agencies, Recipient Governments, and Intergovernmental Organizations) for selected programs in a few countries that use these products. In selecting these programs priority will be given to those operating under plant like conditions or with central processing facilities. These stringent criteria and target concentrations are necessary in order to control and monitor the product fortification, its distribution, and subsequent evaluation. Consistency in fortification and distribution should provide an op- portunity to obtain valid and significant evaluation data. AID will provide field assistance and guidance for the use of this 130 tons of FPC and for the evaluation of such use. AID sponsored nutritionists and/or food technologists in cooperation with Cooperating Sponsor personnel and host country counterpart, to the extent the host government desires to participate, will assist in product formulation and tests with the products proposed for fortification in this phase. Concurrently, an AID evaluation team will refine the general evaluation procedures for each program, implement it, oversee the data gathering, and analyze the information generated. In this phase evaluation will be concerned with three general areas; (1) Con- sumer acceptability, (2) Product Stability, and (3) Packaging requirements. Specifically, we want to determine if FPC fortified products are as well accepted as non-FPC fortified products; what effect different levels of FPC have on flavor, cooking, texture, color, etc.; and what, if any, packaging is needed to assure product stability. The remaining 200 tons is tentatively programed for use in Chile, Korea, and Morocco to complement A.I.D.’s FPC feasibility studies, as detailed in C below. B. Phase II (640 tons) Approximately 170 of this 640 tons is tentatively preonanied for Chile Ss school feeding and maternal and child welfare programs. The formulae developed and the acceptability determined in Phase L will be useful in allocating the remaining 470 tons to the Cooperating: Sponsors for Phase II. Although some evaluation will be attempted in Phase II, Phase iI pro- grams will not be subjected to the same degree of control and evaiuation as Phase I. The final shaping of Phase II will be guided by the experience and ibewon obtained in Phase I. eat C. FPC feasibility studies As a result of worldwide preliminary surveys conducted by A. L.D., Chile, Korea, and Morocco were selected.as the demonstration sites for the FPC feasi- bility studies. A contract has been awarded for the Chile and Korea portion of these studies and steps are being taken to award a contract for work in Morocco. The general objective of these studies is to determine if- FPC fortified food products are acceptable to protein deficient and malnourished people and if viable FPC industries can be established. These studies will be used as a guide to invest- ment-decision-making in EPC and other related food industries. Chile.—The 300 tons of FPC tentatively programed for Chile will be made avail- able to a point of contact within the Chilean Government who will control its dis- tribution and use. Any Cooperating Sponsor proposal submitted for Chile will be forwarded to this point of contact, once it is officially established, for review and approval. Korea.—The Korea portion has been completed and a final report is being prepared. Since product development and testing was not performed as originally planned under the contract, A.I.D. is especially interested in receiving proposals that might provide some insight into the potential acceptability of EPC and FPC-fortified food products in Korea. Morocco.—The main objective of the Morocco study will be to evaluate and determine the market potential for FPC and EFPC-fortified food products in Morocco in four market areas: (1) Fortification of staple foods directed toward protein deficient target groups; 305 (2) Development of infant and weaning foods enriched with FPC; (8) Development of foods for institutional feeding programs; and (4) Market testing selected foods from 1, 2, and 3 to determine commer- cial potential. Proposals for Morocco will be reviewed in terms of how they might fit into these areas. D. Proposal submission Proposals for both phases should be submitted at this time and should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following information: (1) The name of the country and the pertinent phase to which the pro- posal is directed ; (2) A complete description of the program for which the proposal is directed; ie., the program’s location within the country; the facilities and personnel available; the magnitude of ‘the program ; a breakdown of the age groups involved and the approximate number in each group; the foods the group eats and the foods proposed for fortification with FPC, including a statement as to whether these foods are relevant to the normal dietary pattern of the country or section; any comments as to the kind of evaluation procedures that might be useful for each specific program; and any other pertinent information or comments; (3) The proposed length of the program including a time phasing or sched- uling chart showing when FPC and other requirements are needed. Phase I may (according to the time span proposed for the selected programs) con- tinue past the beginning of Phase [1 ; (4) An important consideration in proposal submission is the general rule that one (1) metric ton of FPC at 10 grams/day/child feeding levels will feed about 3,300 children for one month. E. Deadline for proposal submission Please submit your proposals by May 23, 1969. Direct these proposals and any questions to: Mr. George K. Parman, Director, Food From the Sea Service, Office of War on Hunger, AID, Washington, D.C. 20523. Telephone: Area Code 202 343-2391 or 343-2641. In his absence, Mr. J. B. Cordaro, of his staff, will be able to provide any assistance that might be required. IV. WRITTEN AGREEMENT AID will enter into cooperative agreements with each organization that will assist in this program. These written agreements will detail the allocation, dis- tribution, programming and evaluation procedures. Vv. ADHERENCE TO GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS This program is not a part of the PL 480 program and the regulations that govern PL 480 are not applicable herein. Any legal requirements that must be adhered ‘to will be discussed with each organization and detailed in the written agreement noted in IV above. VI. PACKAGING AND SHIPPING DETAILS The FPC used in Phase I will be packaged in fifty (50) pound multiwall bags with a polyethylene insert. (This is the same bag used for non-fat dry milk). PPC will be shipped, on Government Bills of Lading, to Hast Coast ports. Over- seas shipment costs will be borne by the recipient country or the Agency. which is to handle its distribution. Registered Voluntary Agencies may be reimbursed, according to the usual procedures, for transportation costs of the FPC by author- ity of Section 216 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. APPENDIX ESSENTIAL TECHNICAL Data on FPPC I.. COMPOSITION The composition of KPC varies somewhat according to the fish used put all U.S. produced FPC must meet the standards set by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetie Regulations (FDA)—that appeared as Section 121.1202 of the Federal 306 Register of February 2, 1967 and is herewith attached to this appendix as 1. A typical sample contains the following major components : Protein, 75 to 85 percent. Fat, 0.3 to 0.5 percent. Ash, 9 to 15 percent (mostly calcium and phosphorus). Carbohydrates, 0.1 to 0.4 percent. II. SPECIFICATIONS WAIVED The AID procured FPC is subjected to rigid inspection and conforms to all but two provisions of the above mentioned regulations. These concern packaging and fluoride level (refer to ‘Sections 121.1202(c) (6); (d); (e) ; (£)'\(2) ). Specifically, A. The requirement for packages not to exceed one pound net weight reflects a domestic matter, does not relate to any public health aspect, and is not germane or pertinent to overseas use. B. The FDA requirement for fluoride level is a maximum of 100 ppm. AID has set, after consultation with experts, a permissible maximum fluoride level of 250 ppm. III. BACKGROUND ON FLUORIDE CHANGE The level of 100 ppm of fluoride, which can be attained only by expensive deboning, was determined administratively by the FDA on the basis of a possible cosmetic affect from long-term feeding of high levels of FPC. There was no concern about any possible toxic effect. If a child is fed FPC as 10% of its total protein intake daily from the age of six months to 12 years, and assuming a level of 250 ppm of fluoride in the KPC, the amount of available fluoride ingested per day during this period will be from 3 to 5 mgs per day. At this level of intake, there may be some slight mottling of teeth after several years continuous feeding. The letter from the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council attached to this appendix as 2 summarizes the opinion of a special expert committee ; namely, that as much as 8 mg. of fluoride per day for a life time will have no serious effect, and on the contrary may be regarded as beneficial. Iv. A LEGAL REQUIREMENT Despite the lack of hazard associated with these changes the fact that they differ from the FDA standard necessitates that in any country in which the EPC will be used, A.I.D. must ascertain that written approval has been obtained from the appropriate Ministry before shipment can be made. Vv. USE OF FPC IN FOODS FPC can be added to a variety of foods. The amount needed to supplement a protein deficient diet depends upon the composition of the diet itself. In general, an inclusion of 10-20 grams of FPC per day will greatly improve the quality of the diet. Adding FPC at levels of 5-10% of the flour used in cereal foods and at similar levels in other food, has no discernible effect on flavor and texture. FPC fortifica- tion recognizes the persistence of food habits and is used only to improve food nutritionally while at the same time retaining the conventional taste, color, and textured qualities of the food fortified. Some examples: (A) Pasta products.—All forms of pasta products, spaghetti, macaroni and noodles, ete., can be supplemented with FPC. The proportion of FPC to flour per kilogram of mixture is given in the following table: [In grams] Animal protein in 3% oz. (100 Supplement level FPC Flour gram mix) Ofpercen tees as han cas rye it es ae ad 2 In ge 0 1, 000 0 SAPECEN tases - = = oa coc alee eee ae eee eee ce ee a 30 970 3 Gipercentaee tek CME Sal ONE, er ee eee 60 940 6 Oipercentas se Seo eat alee he Ee ale ban neg Bl iy, Dp ante! 90 310 9 300 The addition of FPC up to 6% level may cause a little darkening of the dried pasta. At 9-12% levels the darkening is more noticeable. As the usage levels of FPC increase, more water than is normally used is required to attain cohesive- ness with the FPC-flour mixtures. For example, the addition of FPC at a 6% level, requires approximately 5% more water than non-FPC mixtures. The addi- tion of FPC gives no appreciable changes in texture. If 9-12% FPC is used in the formulation, there will be a faint characteristic FPC odor during the first few minutes of processing and cooking. At lower levels of FPC supplementation, no unusual odor is detectable during processing and cooking. Pasta that contains up to 9 per cent FPC tastes no different from non-FPC fortified pasta, whereas at the 9-12% level the taste is “different.” The acceptance of this “difference” may vary from locale to locale. (B) Bread and other bakery products A mixture of 5% FPC and 95% wheat flour can be used in place of plain wheat flour in a standard bread or roll recipe. If more FPC is used in the formulation, changes must be made in the prepara- tion. For example, the amount of water used may have to be changed to produce the desired texture. With increased amounts of FPPC, the color of white loaves darkens and the loaf volume decreases further. Bread made containing FPC is similar in appearance to whole wheat bread. The texture of the bread tends to become more crumbly as the amount of FPC increases. The flavor of the bread is very good. A mixture of 10% FPC and 90% soft wheat flour (cake flour) can be used in place of the white flour in making cakes, cookies and similar foods. Water should be used instead of milk, since the use of milk tends to result in a toughening of the cookies or cakes. Depending upon the nature of the wheat flour, the amount of water added has to be adjusted. s The use of FPC in the formulation affects the degree of sweetness. At the 10% level of FPC, there is a slight decrease in sweetness. The addition of FPC grays the color of baked products but the effect is only slight and not sufficient to make them objectionable. (C) Soups and gravies.—In general, one teaspoon of FPC (approximately 2.5 grams) to a cup of soup or gravy (about 200 milliliters) can be added with mini- mum change in the original product. The FPC should first be mixed to a smooth paste with a small amount of cold water, then some of the hot soup or gravy added to it. The fineness of the grind of FPC is especially critical in these prod- ucts, since a coarse product will give a slightly gritty feel to the product fortified. VI. FPC STORAGE FPC is a stable, dry powder which can be kept under any conditions suitable for storage of other powdered foods. Excessive heat or dampness must be avoided as in the case of other bagged materials, but special storage conditions such as refrigeration are not needed. Normal food sanitation handling should be prac- ticed to avoid contamination by other substances, dirt, foreign materials carrying infections, insects, birds and animals. Mr. Lennon. Now, Mr. Beckmann, may I ask you this question spe- cifically? I assume when I ask you this question that you have read and given some serious thought to the Commission’s recommendations with respect to a governmental structure. What type of organization or governmental structure do you feel would best be suited for a national agency ? Mr. Beckmann. I believe it should be an agency that is made up of two bodies. The first is a scientific steering committee that would de- fine goals and determine priorities, and the second would be a non- operating body which would implement programs by providing the funds to academic, industrial, and Government operating units. I stress the nonoperating organization aspect of such an agency because I feel that the last thing oceanography needs at this time is another group of expensive vessels and facilities. We should make use of teas and facilities that we presently have, many of which are now idle. 308 Mr. Lennon. That reminds me of a hearing that was held in this room on June 21, 1961, by this same committee on oceanography. The Committee on Oceanography actually had been in being at that time a little over a year chaired then by our distinguished friend Hon. George Miller from California. Tt was at that hearing that we had appear before us Prof. Edwin J. B. Lewis of the George Washington School of Government, Business and International Affairs, and he had been asked to make a study in depth and to make his appearance before the committee on that date, June 21, 1961, to make a recommendation concerning a bill that was then pending before the committee which would, in effect, establish a National Oceanographic Council, a nonoperating agency. In that connection the then ranking member of this committee was the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, and I quote now from page 12 of that statement. Mr. Dingell addressing himself to the then Professor Lewis: That is a pretty strong statement. J happen to agree with you on it. But is it your opinion that we are in a welter of confusion in this oceanographic program of ours? Professor Lewis. The reading I have done on the subject has led me to that conclusion, Mr. Dingell. Mr. DinceE.u. All right. Now, let us go a step further. Is it your conclusion that the ad hoe agency set up by Executive order is going to clear up this problem? Then speaking of the Interagency Committee— Professor LEwIs. I would say that the ad hoe agency set up administratively has been functioning for some time, and there has been little apparent improve- ment in the program organization during that interval of time. Then I was recognized and said: Mr. Chairman, since I have been a member of this committee, since early last year, I have waited patiently for just the statement that Professor Lewis has brought out today. We have wallowed in a morass of testimony from the various agencies of the Federal Government as to what it was doing and intended to do in this field of oceanography, and all the while I sat and listened I have been wondering when someone at the management level would come here and suggest how we could put this program together. The gentleman to my left was very charitable in his remarks, in which he stated he agreed with you, in substance, with respect to your statement as found on page 12. I think the guts of your statement are found on page 6, beginning at line 6 and ending at line 14. I do not see how anyone who attended a majority of these hear- ings could fail to agree with you. The Chairman of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, testified day before yesterday, and he indicated that even this legislation was not necessary, in his judgment. The representative of the Bureau of the Budget on the same day testified in his opinion the legislation was not necessary ; that we were making all the progress that seemed to be necessary in this important field. Of oceanography I think we have got to decide once and for all: Is this an important program, sufficiently so as to establish a separate and independent agency for the adminis- tration of it? I am led to believe that it is. Perhaps others may not be. You say— Speaking then to the professor— this is the minimum. You have made three suggestions. You say this is the mod- erate course, the minimum that we can do. And you say even the provisions of this bill, in your judgment, will not meet what you see for the future in this 309 program, unless it is amended along the lines that you have suggested in your statement. And I agree with that. I am inclined to go the full way, myself, but I can perhaps see, as you have pointed out so clearly, the disadvantages certainly for the next reasonable period of time in going that far, in establishing a separate and independent agency such as we have in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We got shot down by the executive branch of the Government on that bill of establishing this National Oceanographic Council which would be a nonoperating agency such as you have indicated. So, when the distinguished Chairman left and went to chair the Committee on Astronautics and Space and the distinguished ranking member went to chair the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, the responsibility then fell on me. We had a series of hearings that lasted months and tried to cover everything like we are trying to cover it now, and we established the Commission and mandated them to make the study in depth, to make the recommendations based upon their individual studies, their con- centrations with every facet of the marine sciences here and even abroad through their separate panels, and tell us what in their judg- ment we should do. We decided at that time that we ought to also establish a national council. We there again met with obstinancies and friction and even the all-out effort to cripple us in our efforts to establish it. We did it in spite of the administration, and it is the finest thing that we ever did. So that I find myself at this point, here in 1969, almost 8 years later. And are you satisfied with the way we are moving now in this broad program? I find myself in agreement with you in your colloquy with the gentleman from California with respect to the fact that, as to the oceanographic vessels that we built through ESSA, the Department of the Interior and some others, maybe that money ought to be spent in programs and not in capital inprovements. I have come to the conclusion, and tried to keep an open mind about this, that we must bring together a governmental structure as recom- mended by this Commission, who I think are conscientious people. Perhaps even more important is the establishment of the National Ad- visory Council that the Commission recommended, which I think would play a very important part in bringing together and focusing upon the governmental structure, the private sector which you so clearly indicated is the one which is going to be primarily responsible for the exploitation of the oceans’ resources. Would you want to comment on my remarks? Mr. Beckmann. Yes. I think that when the Interagency Committee on Oceanography was formed, it was a very good idea. They have made a lot of useful suggestions through the years but unfortunately that is all they have ever been in ‘a position to do. Mr. Lennon. What? Mr. Beckmann. I say that is all they have ever been in a position to do is to make suggestions. Mr. Lennon. They were not at a sufficient level so that they could make a policy. Mr. Beckmann. Well, they couldn’t make a policy. More impor- tantly, they didn’t have any money, no funding of their own, or funds they could control. Therefore, they could never get anything done. 360 Mr. Hanna. If the Chairman will yield, I would like to make an observation as to what my experience leads me to conclude in the State of California when they moved even a step further, and instead of having an interdepartmental committee, they established a sort of a masterhouse of natural resources. It was my observation that prior to that they had disorganized chaos, and subsequent to that, they had organized chaos, and we didn’t have too much output that was supe- rior but it was a lot better organized. Mr. Lennon. I don’t know which of you gentlemen came in first, Mr. Karth or Mr. Downing. I recognize whichever one came in first, Mr. Downing. Mr. Downtne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I didn’t hear the gentleman’s testimony. I was at another committee meeting. I read the statement and it is an excellent statement, but one with which I do not agree, and I find it a little hard to understand because you are definitely interested in oceanography. What is Alpine doing now, Mr. Beckmann? What is it engaged in now ? Mr. Beckmann. Manufacture of oceanographic equipment for sale to competitors, academic institutions, governments. We make marine protein concentrate which is fish protein concentrate. Mr. Downtne. Are you selling that commercially now ? Mr. Beckmann. No, we are not. We work in some fish product areas, including salmon and crabs. We perform oceanographic surveys for foundation work for offshore towers, bridges, tunnels, and we do quite a bit of oceanographic surveys in connection with A.S.W. problem and application of various types of sonar. We have five tankers and bulk carriers which we use to carry grains, coal, ammonium sulfate, and we have three leases for offshore mining rights in Cornwall, the south island in New Zealand, and in North Carolina. Mr. Downtne. Do I understand your statement correctly to mean that you would rather have the effort go on as it is now, mostly in the hands of private industry, rather than have the Government intervene with a Federal organization? Would that be a correct interpretation of your statement ? Mr. Beckmann. No, I don’t believe I meant to say that, if I did. I think that there should be Federal direction to oceanography, but I don’t think that the way to give the Federal direction would be to make another operating agency or to bring together various pieces of different operating agencies into this group. IT would rather see it as I stated with a steering committee which defines missions, plans long-range objectives together with a nonoper- ating agency which provides the funding and makes up its own mind as to who gets the funds to solve the problems, whether they go to various Government agencies, they go to various universities, or they go to different industries. Mr. Hanna. Or combinations. Mr. Beckmann. Or combinations thereof. Mr. Downtne. I respect your judgment, but I do disagree with you. Thank you very much. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Karth. 361 Mr. Kartu. Mr. Chairman. I am not really sure, Mr. Chairman, that I understand what the gentleman has proposed. This is the arduous exercise I am going through at the moment. For example, on page 3, Mr. Beckmann, you say: “We are not after developing the hardware, we—industry—seek the exploitation of the oceans.” I am not sure that you are speaking for all of the industry because I do think that, no matter what we do in this area, if we do anything meaningful at all, there obviously must be developed some system of ocean buoys, some research housing, perhaps at the bottom of the sea, and oceanographic research vessels. There is going to be any amount of hardware to be developed. I am not sure that with the cost of that kind of hardware being what it is and having experience in another research and technological com- mittee, that private industry is going to undertake that as a private industry investment. Iam not sure that they could afford it. You say, “Put this money into joint academic, industrial, and Gov- ernment programs where the unique capabilities of each group are utilized to the maximum.” I think we all agree with that, except, that we don’t spell out how it will be done or what you really mean. There is a big question mark there. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we could have some further explanation or at least more time to study it. Mr. Lennon. I am going to take the liberty, because I recall it so well, of finishing my comment to the witness on that date in June of 1961. I continue: I want to commend the gentleman, Mr. Chairman. I think he has brought us a very important policy statement, here, as to how we should proceed, and I just regret that all the members of the committee are not here to hear what he has said. I for one hope very much that the counsel of this subcommittee and our tech- nical adviser, here— The distinguished Capt. Paul Bauer -will confer at length with Professor Lewis, in the hope that this bill, as a mini- mum, can be amended to meet the criteria that you have established here. If we do not, I think we have just wasted time, last year and again this year. I do not think that anything could be clearer to all of us than that if we do not at least go as far as you have recommended in the passage of this bill, we have just simply wasted the taxpayers’ money in our efforts to arrive at a conclusion as to what should be done in this important field. Then Mr. Miller came in with a very fine statement. Incidentally he complimented me, and I said: I wish you would go further. I wish you would submit to the agencies involved, who are enumerated in the bill as possible members of this Council, the professor’s statement, and tell them that in the judgment of the committee this ought to be required reading on their part. Mr. Miller commented on the fact that most of them were sitting here that day. Anyhow, the history of that was that we finally passed a modified version, it went over to the Senate and it finally passed over there, and it got a veto, and here we are 8 years later, and I agree with you, sir, that if we had gone on and established that, we wouldn’t be here today, if the President had not vetoed that bill. 26-563—69—pt. 1-24 362 The philosophy of the administration was that the Congress was telling the administration what direction it ought to follow, and to me that is a mandate under the Constitution of the legislative body not the executive. But it was vetoed, the recommendation of all the echelon of the agencies and departments and bureaus, on the philosophy that we were trying to set the stage, and I hope we won’t have that experi- ence again this year. I think that if that bill had been signed into law, that we wouldn’t be here today. We wouldn’t have to be here. I think we would have subsequently amended it and established what you have described as maybe a nonoperating government agency to take it on from there. But that is history now. So, if you go back and read history, you see why sometimes some of us make up our minds that we just have to take a direction. We could hase done worse, and I don’t believe we would do worse in the future even if we follow to the letter the recommendation of the Commis- sion’s report, which I don’t say that we will but hopefully we will in substance. Are there any other questions of the gentleman ? Thank you very much, sir. We do appreciate your help and we are going to take the liberty to call on you from time to time to come back and help us with the problem. Mr. Beckmann. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Beckmann. IT have already identified our next witness, Dr. Sidney R. Galler, and I will ask unanimous consent that immediately preceding his state- ment, and you have a prepared statement, I see, Doctor, that your biographical data be incorporated in the record. (The data referred to follow :) BIoGRAPHICAL DATA OF SIDNEY R. GALLER Dr. Sidney R. Galler, Assistant Secretary (Science) of the Smithsonian In- stitution, formerly Head of the Biology Branch of the Office of Naval Research (ONR), was born in Baltimore, Maryland, November 9, 1922. Dr. Galler is a graduate of the Baltimore City College and received his Ph. D. degree in hydro- biology from the University of Maryland. After serving as a consultant in ecology to ONR, he was appointed to the position of Head of the Biology Branch in 1950. Shortly thereafter he conceived the Navy’s programs in hydrobiology and bio- logical orientation. Dr. Galler has been a member of many governmental, national and international committees and panels. For his role in advancing international scientific col- laboration he has received letters of commendations from the Secretaries of the Navies of Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Peru and Brazil. Among his many awards are the Navy Civilian Service Award, several out- standing performance awards and the Navy Distinguished Civilian Service Award by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research and Development). This award, the highest the Department of the Navy confers on civilian employees, was given to Dr. Galler for his outstanding contributions in the fields of hydro- biology and biological orientation and for the establishment of highly effective communication between the United States Navy and the community of biological scientists in Europe and Latin America as well as in this country. His pioneering work in bio-instrumentation led to the development of the first U.S. orbiting Biological experiment launched from Cape Kennedy on February 4, 1958. In addition, his designs in the field of bio-instrumentation led to the development of a series of radio telemetric devices which are being used to moni- tor the movements of birds as well as terrestrial and marine animals for scientific purposes. Dr. Galler’s work in bio-instrumentation also has resulted in the con- struction of the first experimental underwater audio-video observatory, a remote 365 controlled system of underwater television cameras and acoustic devices for observing from a laboratory on land the behavior of marine organisms in the sea. Also, he has designed a series of collecting devices which have been used to collect living material from a submarine. Among his more recent efforts to im- prove biological research field instrumentation, Dr. Galler conceived the idea of Research Ships of Opportunity for utilizing commercial freighters and passenger ships to carry mobile laboratory trailers for collecting oceanographic and bio- logical measurements and samples. His two most recent inventions consist of underwater temperature controlled panels for studying the effects of elevated temperatures on both fixed and free moving marine invertebrates. These devices show considerable promise of developing into practical systems for controlling and studying organisms responsible for biological fouling and deterioration. The author of numerous technical publications, Dr. Galler is a member of the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Society of Sigma Xi, Re- search Society of America, the Natural History Society of Maryland, the Ameri- can Institute of Biological Sciences and the Cosmos Club. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; The Marine Technical Society, the Maryland Academy of Sciences and the Washington Academy of Sciences. STATEMENT OF DR. SIDNEY R. GALLER, MARINE BIOLOGIST, BALTIMORE, MD. Dr. Gautier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Oceanography, my name is Sidney R. Galler, and I reside at 6232 Woodcrest Avenue in Baltimore, Md. Mr. Chairman, I consider it a high honor to be invited to appear before this subcommittee and present my views as a private citizen on the report of the Commission for Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources entitled “Our Nation and the Sea.” I emphasize the honor that is associated with an appearance before this subcommittee because of the historic role that it has played in the development of our national consciousness of the importance of oceanography in the United States. The efforts of this subcommittee to direct attention to the oceans as a national resource have been most successful. Indeed, the Commission for Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources owes, in large meas- ure, its existence to the leadership and dedication of this subcom- - mittee. This subcommittee has earned the recognition and appreciation of scientists and laymen alike for developing so successfully the thesis that the oceans represent an integral and central part of man’s environment. The Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources, under the distinguished chairmanship of Dr. Julius A. Stratton, has prepared, after 2 years of intensive study, a report entitled “Our Nation and the Sea.” This report respresents the most comprehensive assessment of the status of marine science and technology in the United States that has ever come to my attention. The report is, in effect, a kind of master plan, or blueprint, to be followed in developing a truly national pro- eram of both ocean exploration and marine resource utilization. I will not attempt to rephrase the many plaudits that have been bestowed upon the Commission and its report by the distinguished witnesses who have already appeared before this subcommittee. How- ever, I seize upon this opportunity to salute Dr. Stratton and the members of the Commission for their outstanding contributions to- 364 ward improving our understanding of where we stand today in re- gard to marine science and technology as well as for their insights in delineating the technological and scientific targets for the future de- velopment, of the national program. It is the latter aspect, the one that deals with targets or objectives and the means of achieving these objectives, that is of particular interest to me and will serve as the basis for the rest. of my presenta- tion before this distinguished subcommittee. Let me be more specific. The Commission report is replete with the descriptions of objectives or opportunities as well as the scientific and technical requirements that will have to be met in order to achieve these objectives. The need for an improved technology to facilitate the development of mineral re- sources, the need for more scientific information to open new fisheries, the need for improved technology and more basic science to advance our capability for environmental monitoring and prediction are all examples of the variety of requirements and goals that are so well presented in the report. At the same time, however, I recognize the need for a more compre- hensive treatment of the requirements and goals in those fundamental sciences that provide the corpus of basic knowledge for advancing oceanography and marine technology. I am particularly concerned with the need to identify clearly the requirement for basic biological information that serves as a foundation for the development of pro- grammatic marine science and technology. I wonder how many of us are aware of the fact that our success in developing new fisheries as well as aquaculture will depend, to a great extent, on our ability to support a balanced program of taxonomic research. ‘Basic information derived from the identification and classification of marine organisms constitutes an essential requisite for understand- ing the behavior as well as the geographic and seasonal distribution of marine and animals and plants of importance to man. Yet, ironically, the information gap between taxonomy and the pr ogrammatic marine sciences 1s widening in inverse proportion to the increase in support of oceanography and the related marine sciences. The incongruity can be understood only if one measures available resources in taxonomy against the growing demand for taxonomic information. The increase in oceanogr aphic activity within the last decade, including the increase in the number of collections of marine organisms made from oceano- graphic ships, has resulted in a tremendous and still growing backlog of specimens waiting to be identified and classified. At the same time, our national resources for taxonomy have not increased to any appreciable extent. Today the front line of taxo- nomists is a thin one indeed. Even within the Smithsonian Institution, with its relatively large concentration of competent taxonomic scien- tists as well as with its Oceanographic Sorting Center, it is not possible to keep up with the demand for taxonomic information. As a conse- quence, our country is unable to derive full benefits from the very substantial investment of dollars and manpower in the acquisition of collections and oceanographic data. Indeed, the world situation with regard to taxonomy is not an en- couraging one. Until such time as we recognize taxonomy’s essential role and provide the necessary resources commensurate with its high: 365 priority, we will find it ever more difficult to achieve some of our im- portant objectives in marine science and technology. With regard to taxonomy and in relation to the Commission’s laud- able recommendation for the establishment of national laboratories, I am of the opinion that there already exists a unique national labora- tory, namely the Smithsonian Institution. Increased support for the urgently needed training of additional taxonomists as well as for taxonomical research, both in the Smithsonian Institution and in uni- versities around the country, is the only reasonable solution to a most serious but little understood problem. The Commission report also addresses itself to the requirement for improved technology and more research in order to achieve an im- proved capability for environmental monitoring and prediction. Cer- tainly, I can give this recommendation my enthusiastic support. At the same time, however, the report barely touches on a collateral ob- jective in marine sciences which should receive our most earnest con- sideration—namely, the need to develop a capability for ecological prediction and assessment. Man’s rapidly increasing capability of manipulating his environ- ment is not limited to the 25 percent of the earth’s surface which we eall land. His capability extends into the oceans as well as into the atmosphere around us. Statistically the chances of producing irrever- sible and deleterious environmental changes are Increasing signifi- cantly. We dare not continue to regard with complacency the con- struction of such monumental projects as an Aswan Dam or a plan for an interoceanic sea level canal without first predicting and assessing the ecological risks involved. I regret to have to inform this subcom- mittee that our present capability for predicting the ecological con- sequences of man’s manipulation of his estuarine and oceanic environ- ment is vanishingly small. Here, too, we have a rapidly widening gap between need and capability. Oil spills, thermal pollution, chemical and domestic contamination, and land filling are but a few of the man- produced insults to estuarine and coastal environments. If, in addition, we divert the flow of rivers leading into estuaries, and indeed, change the pattern of coastal currents, we can anticipate major and possibly catastrophic changes in the ecology of many of our coastal zones. I cannot overstress the importance of developing a national capa- bility for ecological prediction and assessment. We must be prepared to make substantial investments in the education and training of marine ecologists and related biological specialists. We must be pre- pared to make the investment in the very near future if we are to have any reasonable expectation of closing the gap between need and copay. n concluding this statement, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I wish to emphasize once again my support of the Com- mission’s report, especially the principles and guidelines which are so clearly presented. What we need now, in my opinion, is a matching inventory and assessment of the goals and needs both in terms of man- power, as well as money and facilities of the basic scientific disciplines that undergird and support marine science and technology. We must be especially diligent in identifying those fields of scientific endeavor, that although not usually recognized as an integral part of marine science and technology, nevertheless contribute in an essential way to 366 the intellectual nourishment of the programmatic marine sciences. This is especially true of such basic biological disciplines as taxonomy, ecology, bacteriology, paleobiology, as well as invertebrate and verte- brate physiology to name a few. These fields or disciplines should be considered as the underpinnings of oceanography and marine tech- nology, and should be strengthened accordingly. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, T have appreciated the opportunity of coming before you today, and I wish to assure you of my continued admiration and support of your leadership in the de- velopment of our national program of marine sciences and technology. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. Thank you very much, Doctor. Mr. Schadeberg. Mr. Scuaprperc. Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that I have to learn an awful lot. I think there is a saying in literature some place that, “He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool... He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is simple.” I am some place in the middle of that. I appreciate this opportunity to have men like the doctor here to inform us. Doctor, in page 6 you made some statement with regard to the Panama Canal and the Aswan Dam. ~ Dr. Gatier. Yes, sir. Mr. Scuaprserc. Could you enlighten me at least as to the possible damages that might result from construction of the dam or construc- tion of the sea level canal ? Dr. Gautrr. With regard to the proposed interoceanic sea level canal, Mr. Congressman, there is a controversy that is heating up between those who feel that we do not have to worry about possible deleterious effects and those who feel that indeed there is a possibility of having some very serious and possibly irreversible changes occur as a result of cutting through and connecting two oceans that have been separated according to estimates by geologists for a period of between 6 and 9 mil- lions of years. In that period of time there may have developed separate but related species of marine organisms, both plants and animals. One of the questions that arises, for which we don’t have the answer, is what happens when you simply cut through a land bridge and per- mit organisms that have been separated to come together and mix. Are they going to produce hybrids that may in turn wipe out popula- tions of endemic forms that have had some commercial importance ? Are they going to become predators on other organisms? Will this permit organisms that we know to be deadly to man to transverse the canal and go from the Pacific into the Caribbean and possibly be carried by the Gulf Stream up the coast of North America ? We don’t know. I submit that the acquisition of these kinds of data and capability of assessment is of paramount importance before we decide to go ahead tampering with the environment. In the case of the Aswan Dam, it has been demonstrated even ‘at this early stage that the damming of the River Nile seriously reduces the volume of fresh water and its burden of dissolved organic nutrients that flows into the eastern Mediterranean. | | 367 It has been suggested that this in turn may produce warming of the waters, depleted oxygen, reduced circulation, inadequate nourishment for the organisms, and eventual elimination of important coastal fisheries. I do not say that all the changes that may be wrought will be dele- terious. In fact, I am not even sure that there will be any substantial ecological change. I am suggesting, however, that we cannot afford to run the risk of producing irreversible changes without first knowing what those changes might be and determining whether we are willing to put up with them. Mr. Scuaprserc. Doctor, that is a very fine statement. Would the same possibility of deleterious effects in the area of the Aswan Dam apply to dams that we might build in this country ? Dr. Gautier. Yes, sir. I think that to some extent that is also true for dams that we have built in this country and plan to build in this country, | Mr. Scuapeperc. I remember the testimony the other day that we had in the hearing where one of the witnesses said that we didn’t know it but if we had a sea level canal it might make a difference in the changes of the temperature of the water in the oceans which might affect the world weather. I think this has caused us some real second thoughts, Mr. ‘Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Schadeberg. Mr. Karth. Mr. Kartu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Dr. Galler’s obvious interest in ecology and the total environment, Mr. Chairman, because unfortunately there are not enough people who are really interested in it, perhaps because there are not enough people who really understand its serious consequences. We continue to pollute the atmosphere of the earth and the oceans but I do want to assure Dr. Galler that there is great interest today in this whole question in Congress; more than ever before. I am on another subcommittee of this full committee, Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation, and we are now holding hearings on a bill, which would establish a 3-man advisory commission to the President on this very question and study not only the pollutants that are going into the sea but also the pollutants that are going into the air and the land; study the whole ecological question. The feeling that you must relate to the atmosphere and the earth and seas all at one time, and cannot just study these things as separate parts is understood. So we do want to assure the Doctor that it is getting some attention. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Karth. Mr. Ruppe. Mr. Rupee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. el parte that on the bottom of page 3 and the top of page 4 you say a ) ; The information gap between taxonomy and the programmatic marine sciences is widening in inverse proportion to the increase in support of oceanography and the related marine sciences. I wonder if you would expand on that a little, if you would. Dr. Gater. I will try, Mr. Congressman. 368 Taxonomy is essentially the science of identification and classifica- tion of the organisms of the earth according to their natural relation- ships. If I may interject a moment of levity, it has been described as an extension of Noah’s work. Taxonomy or systematics is the ordering or the natural classification of minerals and the species of plants and animals under man’s dominion. It is the basis for studying natural selection and the mechanisms for explaining the distribution of plants and animals, both geographically, seasonally, and in the case of the oceans the vertical distribution as well. It gives us the background that we need for studying evolutionary biology, how organisms have under- gone a series of changes up to the present, and provides clues of both geological and economic significance. For example, the taxonomy of foraminifera, very small, shelled protozoans that are found in bottom deposits in the oceans, often provides geophysical exploration orga- nizations with geological clues as to the location of oil deposits in certain areas. Taxonomy is of direct economic importance but at the same time of basic importance to some of our more “modern” sciences. We have not yet discovered how to examine, how to study and iden- tify and classify animals and plants by machines alone. It takes a scientist with many years of training and experience to examine or- ganisms and by means of an elaborate classification system developed over a period of hundreds of years derive new knowledge about the biology of the organism, its distribution and how it evolved. This is the basis for ecology which attempts to study the interrelationships of organisms and the environment and of course it is one of the mainstays of modern oceanography, the distribution and ecology of marine or- ganisms in the oceans. By virtue of the fact that it takes trained men, and an almost exclusively human endeavor to produce these classifica- tions and identifications, we must have many more taxonomists to handle the rapidly increasing number of specimens and the associated environmental data that is being collected from oceanographic ships and through other means. Without an improved opportunity of feeding back the information that is derived from taxonomic studies of marine organisms we will continue to maintain an attenuated feedback system where there is a lot going in and a relatively small amount of data coming out. Until such time as we improve our support of taxonomy there will remain the problem of the backlog. We may end up as we have with the col- lections from the Challenger Expedition of 1872 some of which are still sitting on shelves waiting to be identified. Today we can’t afford to wait that long if we want to obtain the oceanographic information that we need to advance our national program. Mr. Rurre. The science of taxonomy, then, identifies and classifies but it does at the same time give an indication of the location and movement and depth ? Dr. Gauimr. Yes, sir; and the biology of the organism, information about its life cycle. Mr. Ruere. Is that achieved through actual field study, or is it achieved as I say, through cumulation of data, more or less a fallback? Dr. Gauer. It is achieved both ways, Mr. Congressman. The scien- tists engaged in toxonomic research frequently do go into the field and 369 collect and make field observations. Later they bring their collections back to the laboratory where they are carefully sorted out and sep- arated into component collections. Then, taxonomic specialists, per- haps a man who is a specialists in crustacea, another who may be con- cerned with mollusks, specialists concerned with the classification study those components or fractions of the collections that are of special interest to them. There is a tremendous amount of information in these three-dimen- sional data and that is what organisms are. They are three-dimensional concentrates of data ‘and we have to improve our means for extracting that data and putting it to work. Mr. Ruerr. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Ruppe. Doctor, are you suggesting that there is a shortage of those in your field to make these studies ? Dr. Gautier. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. We are not training enough, there is not enough inter- est generated, enough financial attraction to have people enter your field in sufficient numbers to provide the number of people we need in the area that you are talking about ? Dr. Gatier. Exactly so, Mr. Chairman. — Mr. Lennon. I was interested, I think, just a couple of days ago in some poll that was taken I believe in Princeton University giving a percentage of the students who indicated what they hoped to be doing or expected to be doing 20 years from now. I think 2 percent expected to be in medicine while 29 percent ex- pected to be teaching, and it was spread out from there. But only 2 percent of our people at this university indicated any desire or hope that they would be in the field of medicine. Dr. Gautier. Mr. Chairman, the field of taxonomy up to the present ee compete financially with many other areas of science and tech- nology. MREDRR NON: That is the point I was making. I thought from the stories I had read about medicare and medicaid, with two brothers getting some $380,000 in some 12-month period it seemed that the most lucrative thing a man could do was to get into medicine, but only 2 percent wanted to do so in this survey. Dr. Gattrr. I wanted to conclude by saying that we have to find ways of attracting bright young men and women into the field of tax- onomy. It is a very exciting area of science but it is an undersupported one. It is very difficult for a taxonomist to “retail” his science if I may use the vernacular. He is really a producer and “wholesaler” of funda- mental scientific information, that is then picked up in other disci- plines and incorporated, serving as the base for their own advances. The glamour comes through oceanography but the inputs are derived at least in the biological end of oceanography from some of the classic fields of science, especially taxonomy. Mr. Lennon. Counsel ? 370 Mr. Drewry. Dr. Galler, on your ecological studies, wouldn’t it be fair to say that a real good simple example of the problems is that represented by the sea lamprey invasion of the Great Lakes and the ultimate killing off of the trout population in Lake Michigan? ~ Dr. Gatirr. Sir, I think that would be a classic example. It is an example of what I call “pathological” ecology where we try to treat an ecological disease that might have been prevented. Indeed, in this par- ticular case, in 1937 a distinguished scientist, Dr. Car] Hubbs, pointed out the dangers of cutting through the Weyland Canal and pointed specifically to the dangers of permitting the sea lamprey to enter the Great Lakes. His advice was not followed and so we have inherited a whole series of consequences. We started with the sea lamprey that wiped out the trout fishery, the white fish industry. Then after the sea lamprey was controlled came the alewives. Without natural predators they in turn proliferated to the point where they constituted a very serious public health menace. . Now we have introduced salmon to control the menhaden. Let’s hope it works, but this is what I call ecological empiricism in which we are operating by the seat of our trousers if I may speak candidly. What we need is an ecological model, a means of helping industry, helping the States, and helping the Federal agencies to predict and assess what could happen if they go forward with specific plans that involve manipulating the environment. 1 Mr. Drewry. Incidentally, it has been extremely expensive since the sea lamprey came, aside from the fact that the fishery was wiped out. On this taxonomic question, how extensive is the education and training of a competent taxonomist ? Dr. Gatier. It is quite extensive, Mr. Drewry. However, it is limited and I am afraid becoming more limited to a relatively small number of universities and the Smithsonian Institution. The Institution with its own limited resources works closely with scientists in universities to help with the training of graduate students, but we can not as a Nation right now count on very much help from the academic institu- tions because there just aren’t very many institutions engaged in the training of taxonomic scientists. eat Mr. Drewry. Well, as I say, it is fundamental science. The taxono- mist makes what kind of compensation? What kind of pay would a competent taxonomist get atthe Smithsonian? Dr. Gauumr. I would say that the taxonomist within the Smithsonian Institution does have a reasonable parity of salary with his confreres in the other sciences in the Federal service. Where he is at a disadvantage is that he finds it very difficult to convince his peers, both in the execu- tive branch and in the legislative branch and the granting agencies, that his science merits sufficient financial support to permit him to go forward with his research. i dec So, we are in the position as in the case of the Smithsonian Institution and also the USDA and the Department of the Interior employ small groups of taxonomists, providing adequate salaries, but not enough support for research. rronorced wileined wifekt 371 Mr. Drewry. In other words, the problem is not so much with the salary but rather inadequacy of funds for the overhead, shall we say, or the materials or the laboratory space or whatever ? Dr. Gatier. Correct. This is peculiarly true of the Federal or quasi- Federal agencies. In the university hierarchy we find that there does not exist any real salary parity between most taxonomists and their colleagues in some of the other better known, more glamorous fields of scientific endeavor, and as a consequence, young people are not en- couraged to move into taxonomy as a lifetime career. Mr. Drewry. Is this an area where the sea-grant college program could be helpful in stimulating interest ? Dr. Gatimr. It could, indeed. It could make a tremendous contribu- tion, Mr. Drewry. Mr. Drewry. Does industry use taxonomists in any extent? I re- member I was recently down at Houston and saw a remarkable ma- chine for analyzing fossils. I would assume that the oi] industry must be concerned about this type of thing, and I would assume that prob- ably ESSO Production Research Corp. would probably have some taxonomists on hand. . Dr. Gauier. They have, indeed, I would say. My guess is that our petroleum and geophysical exploration industry represents the largest industrial user of taxonomists. But they employ taxonomists that are already trained and experienced and have usually come up through the academic ladder. I don’t believe that they make substantial investments in the educa- tion and training of taxonomists. Mr. Drewry. That was my next question. Should industry be en- couraged and can industry be encouraged to speak out for and provide greater support for an incentive for a young man to go into this field ? Dr. Gauurr. I think there is that possibility, Mr. Drewry, provided that industry is encouraged to recognize that it has divested interest in taxonomists and taxonomic information. For example, the Commission report invites special attention to the potential of drugs from the sea, the pharmacologically active sub- stances that are derivable from a variety of marine organisms. Here is where taxonomy must play a key role in identifying and classify- ‘ing important organisms and informing other kinds of scientists, sych as pharmacologists about the life cycle and the ecology as clues to the potential value of an animal or plant.as antibiotic sources. Our recreational industry has to be encouraged to recognize that they depend heavily on taxonomic information both to identify economi- cally important sports fishes as well as to identify potentially danger- ous fishes like sharks. Until recently we had a National Shark Re- search Panel that provided our country with much taxonomic infor- mation about sharks. However, it has faded out because of lack of support. Mr. Drewry. Thank you very much, Dr. Galler, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you very much, Dr. Galler. 372 We will feel free to call on you for advice and counsel and assistance to determine the course we will take in the future. Dr. Gatier. Thank you very much. Mr. Lennon. Let me take this minute to announce that the hearings will be continued tomorrow, and we will have the pleasure of having Mr. Roger J. Pierce, of the Hydro-Space Systems Corp. We will have Mr. Robert M. Clark, vice president of Hayden, Stone, Inc. We will go off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. While I am here we also will announce the Tuesday schedule: Dr. William Hargis, director of the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences; and Dr. Bruce Halstead, director of The World Life Research Institute. : With that, we will conclude the hearings for the day until tomorrow morning at 10. Thank you for your presence. (Whereupon, at 12 noon the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 28, 1969.) NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1969 WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 1969 Hovusr or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE CoMMITTEE ON Mrercuant Marine AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1834, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alton Lennon (chair- man of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Lennon. Gentlemen, the meeting will come to order. The witness today whose name and identification were mentioned yesterday is Mr. Roger J. Pierce of the Hydro-Space Systems Corp., and he is accompanied by the distinguished Representative from Iowa, Mr. John C. Culver, who will present him at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN C. CULVER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. Cutver. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and distin- guished members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure for me to be able to introduce to you this morning Mr. Roger J. Pierce, the president of Hydro-Space Systems Corp. of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Mr. Pierce founded Hydro-Space in 1964, after more than 30 years’ experience in engineering and advanced electronic systems. He came to Hydro-Space, having played a leading role at Collins Radio Co. in Cedar Rapids in the development of sophisticated com- munications equipment and systems which have made possible the radio and television transmissions which have impressed all of us in the Apollo space efforts. He has been one of the earliest and most articulate exponents of a national effort to exploit ocean and marine resources, similar to the commitment which was made to the exploration of outer space with such successful results. During the first 5 years of its operation, Hydro-Space has made pioneering contributions to the vast and still largely untapped field of oceanography. As president and architect of that company, Mr. Pierce is well qualified to address this subcommittee on the formation and funding of a National Ocean and Atmospheric Agency, and I am pleased to introduce him to you. (373) BYE: (The biographical sketch of Mr. Pierce follows :) BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF ROGER J. PIERCE Mr. Pierce is a businessman/scientist and is President and founder of Hydro- Space Systems Corporation, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. This company is four years old, and its main thrust is in the field of advanced projects in oceanography. He is a veteran with 35 years’ experience aS an engineer and administrator in ad- vanced electronics systems for the commercial, military and space programs. His past assignments have been with Collins Radio Company, Harvard Uni- versity and Motorola, Ine. until he founded Hydro-Space in 1964. He is an inven- tor and holds several U.S. patents related to electronics, missile systems, and oceanographic vehicles. He is also an author of several technical articles in his field which have been published nationally. He is a charter member of The Marine Technology Society, member of The American Association for Advancement of Science and of the honorary scientific fraternity Sigma Xi and a Fellow of the Institute of Hlectrical and Hlectronics Hngineers. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Culver. Weare delighted to have Mr. Pierce. Mr. Pierce, I see you have a prepared statement. Do we have the résumé of Mr. Pierce’s biographical information ? ts) STATEMENT OF ROGER J. PIERCE, PRESIDENT, HYDROSPACE SYSTEMS CORP., CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA Mr. Pierce. The résumé is in the back of the statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. We have a wonderful one given by your distinguished representative, Mr. Culver. I am sure that will suffice. You may proceed, Mr. Pierce. Mr. Pierce. I should like to thank this committee for giving me the opportunity to come here and giving you my views on the formation of a National Ocean and Atmospheric Agency to lead the national eifort. In general, I support the recommendations of the Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources Commission for the formation and fund- ing of a National Ocean and Atmospheric Agency as the best plan for national action to start substantive exploitation of the oceans. However, I differ somewhat from the Commission recommenda- tions in two areas related to staffing of this agency and to the pro- grams suggested. These are matters upon which I will discuss later on. Before doing so, I would like to express myself on some of the socioeconomic-technological implications of the establishment of a Central Government agency such as NOAA to lead the national effort in the ocean challenge. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE VIS-A-VIS GOVERNMENT CONTROL Some fears have been expressed by a few groups in private enter- prise and the scientific community that a Central Government agency directing, sponsoring, and funding the ocean effort would be unduly restrictive and inhibiting in the full free exercise of the prerogatives of private enterprise in expanding the ocean effort. As one representative of private enterprise, I do not agree with this position and feel that a NOAA would ultimately result in a greater 375 freedom and capability by private enterprise to engage in ocean proj- ects on their own initiative. My reason for saying this is that I believe that initial expenditure of money to develop the basic ocean technology required for substan- tive accomplishments in the sea is far beyond the means of even the largest of private business organizations. I believe the effort should be a partnership between Government and industry together to do a big job without serious limitations in manpower and money to get the job done. The partners’ roles in this effort is clearly defined. The Government to formulate, direct, and supply the billions of dollars required and industry to spend these dollars to implement the programs. I feel that once the basic technology is developed by Government expenditure, that private industry can reproduce this hardware and carry out ocean operations on an economical basis for commercial use entirely on their own without future Government support. A good example of this type of evolution from Government spon- sorship to sponsorship by private enterprise is our commercial jet air- liners. The Government originally spent billions of dollars developing their military jet predecessors. Private enterprise then took this tech- nology and experience and produced commercial jet airliners which could be manufactured and sold at a profit without further sudsidy from the Government. So it can be with ocean hardware. PARITY IN PRESENT TALENT AND TECHNOLOGY FOR EASY TRANSFER TO THE OCEAN EFFORT I believe that the sector of American industry that has been asso- ciated with the advanced military and space program already has the technology and much of the physical plant facility to redirect to the ocean effort without retraining in oceanography. The same talent, the same scientific disciplines, most of the same plant and equipment apply to oceanography as apply to aerospace and advanced weaponry. The only difference is that the medium of Operations is water rather than land or air. In short, we presently have the national scientific and physical resources to use in this area, and it is not necessary to develop a new breed of scientists, engineers. and techniques to carry out this effort. We already have them and they could be reconverted almost overnight to new jobs related to the oceans. PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE I believe the U.S. public will accept the formation and expenditure of a NOAA as meaningful and publicly acceptable usage of our sur- plus scientific resources to useful and valuable effort in the national interest. As we train more and more scientists and engineers, it will be an economic necessity to find useful employment and outlet for the talents of the expanding scientific community which cannot be totally absorbed in the commercial sector. What better usage for this talent could there be than one which not only helps solve an economic problem but has such great potential in economic returns as exploitation of the oceans? 376 I tend to feel the public will accept this with as much enthusiasm as the national space effort—perhaps with even more enthusiasm, since it is not hard for even the layman to see the possibilities of almost im- mediate economic returns from exploitation of the oceans. STAFFING BY SHIFTING OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INTO NOAA In general, I support the recommendatioss of the Commission in staffing the agency by shifting other related Government agencies into the new organization. However, I would suggest that, first, the Congress authorize and establish NOAA with at least the level of funding now being spent by the Government in oceanography. This agency would then be charged by Congress to first review the recommendations of the Commission and suggest modifications they feel make a better national program. Once a sound program has been established and authorized by the Congress, the matter of staffing would be a proper consideration. After this is thoroughly considered by the Administrator and his staff, NOAA could then recommend to the Congress which Government agencies or segments of such agencies would best fit their plans to carry out the program planned. The Congress could then act on the recommendations of the NOAA as they see fit. I feel that this would be a better plan than the immediate shift of the specific Government agencies recommended by the Commission. It would give the NOAA Administrator a voice on the composition of the various task groups to carry out the program for which he has the ultimate responsibility. : DEVELOPMENT OF BASIC OCEAN COMPONENTS FIRST I differ somewhat from the report of the Commission in that I be- lieve a large amount of the initial program should be directed at de- veloping the basic components for man’s occupancy and exploitation of the sea. In short, develop the tools before you try to do the job. The main components which need intensive and massive research and development are: (a) Stable sea structures, or sea buildings. (6) High-speed surface and subsurface transportation. (c) Ocean robots. (z) Communications. (e) Primary power sources. While the programs suggested by the Commission are excellent and do to some extent recommend development of deep submersibles and nuclear power, I believe the scope suggested could be expanded. I believe that a wide range of these basic components mentioned albove should be developed first. If this were done, I believe that some of the programs they suggest and others that will come up in the future could be accomplished more efficiently and faster. These basic components or “tools” would eventually enable man to work in the sea with almost as much facility as he now does on land. 377 At this point, I would like to expand briefly on these components by showing you some charts of imaginative drawings of these items. Tf I may have the lights out, I would like to project the slides on the wall. I regret that I do not have a screen. Mr. Downrne. I think we can see them all right. (‘Slide presentation. | Mr. Pierce. [Slide.] This is a recap of the basic components I men- tioned, of sea buildings, sea structures, fast surface and subsurface transportation, ocean robots or ocean work horses, communications, and primary power services. Now, these items here are comparable to the things that we have on land today and consider commonplace. For example, buildings. There is an infinite variety of buildings that we use in all areas of land activity. In transportation, we have again a wide spectrum from automobiles, to buses, planes, trains, and so on. In workhorses, we have the cranes, the bulldozers and all the heavy construction machinery necessary to industry today. In communications, it goes without saying that on land we are tied together by wire communications, voice communications, messages of record, television, and so on. On primary power, we have power packages from the tiniest bat- teries on up to nuclear reactors on Jand. ; ‘So, you can see that these components have been developed to a very high degree of sophistication and we can do all the things you; see a in our very advanced technological society. Now we are just at the threshold of ocean development. If we expect to do substantive work and have man occupy the oceans, we will have to make a start on these basic components. Tam sure it will be many years before we will have all the facilities in the oceans that we do on land but this is, in my opinion, where you start, to develop the basic tools first and then go ahead with the spe- cific programs and expand them into the complexity which I am sure we will eventually see in the next 10 years. If we address ourselves to the effort of developing these basic com- ponents, the other things that the Commission suggests will become a reality perhaps a lot sooner than we think. Mr. Pierce. [Slide.] This is an imaginative concept of an ocean building. In an ocean structure, the main consideration is in having a stable structure that is decoupled from the surface environment where winds of 100 knots and 50-foot waves, do not greatly affect the stability of the structure so that man can work with relative ease in this kind of environment, and where he is not pitching or heaving as you do on surface platforms. Also, it is possible to hold the station or the building in position by dynamic electronic station keeping without the use of anchors. This particular structure would be submerged a considerable dis- tance below the surface where the water is quiet and the exposure at the surface would be rather minimal, offering a possibility for a very stable structure. Now, these would be very complicated, very expensive, and would be somewhat analogous to a space ship in the ocean. These can be scaled 26-563 O—69—pt. 1——25 378 up and down from very small ones to very large ones to fit a wide variety of purposes for whatever you want to do in the oceans, whether to produce oil from offshore, factories, food processing or just plain office buildings or recreational hotels. Mr. Pierce. [Slide.] This slide gives you some imaginative, rather speculative dimensions of such sea buildings which are technologically possible today, this sketch shows a building 300 feet down, 1,000 feet in diameter, disus shaped with a high density stabilizing mass at the bottom and 100,000 square feet area in the low-density chamber. As I say, this is purely speculative and gives you some ideas of what might be done. Mr. Prerce. [Slide.] Now, another component is that of transporta- tion. Here we will have to go to new concepts and new techniques in get- ting very fast transportation above the surface of the ocean and below the surface of the ocean. Present surface ships and hydro foils are too slow. What we need is a generation of surface effects craft that cruise above the surface of the waves on a cushion of air at speeds possibly from 100 to 150 knots. These could be in very large sizes from thousands of tons down to very small sizes for personal transportation. I believe considerable work has already been started on this and that the Maritime Administration has a study program on a large vehicle of this kind for transoceanic freighting and passenger service. Now, in the subsurface realm, we have already made a start in small submersibles. Here again I think you need a fairly wide spectrum of components for transportation such as a small two-passenger “sub- mobiles,” possibly “bus” type submarines and on up to the very large passenger and freight-type submersibles that will cruise at consider- ably greater speed than the present by technological advancement in reducing the drag coefficient which reduces the power required to make these vehicles go at 100 knots below the surface of the sea. Much work needs to be done in this area. (Mr. Prerce. [Slide.] The other area I mentioned is ocean robots or work horses. In working in the sea it is necessary that we be able to work with facility from the surface all the way down into the ocean depths. The “Man in the Sea” program for the shallow coastal areas has a useful application but as we advance into the oceans it will be necessary to go way down and be in an environment that is very diffi- cult for a human to withstand. So, they must be enclosed in an almost normal environment similar to the submarine but with facility to do very delicate manipulations, to pick up things or to do heavy work such as the imaginative bulldozer shown here. This is technologically possible with the work that has been done in “man machines” where the motions of a man’s hand can be transmitted to external steel muscles and fingers to exert great power with great delicacy. Here again I think we will need a wide variety of this type of thing to really work in the oceans. Mr. Pierce. [Slide.] I mentioned communications. At present, above the surface of the ocean it is relatively easy with present technology to communicate with vehicles traversing the skies and relaying via a synchronous satellite to shore. However, with all the fixed and moving vehicles in the ocean we will need an intergrated system of surface elecromagnetic radiation equipment and sonic underwater communi- 379 cation equipment so that a submarine, for example, could talk to the home office by some communication to a sea station which has equip- ment to relay electromagnetically to a synchronous satellite on to shore. Then there would be an integrated continuity of communica- tions with all this activity in the sea, on the sea, in the air and on shore. If we envision a very busy ocean with many, many structures, vehi- cles, communications of all kinds; voice communications, messages of record, and television will be very important to tie all this activity together. [Slide. | The last is the component of power. Here again with all the various types of activity that can be envisioned; surface and subsurface plat- forms, bottom installations, and submersibles, it will be necessary to develop seagoing power supplies from very small power packages to middle-sized ones on up to megawatt nuclear reactors such as that suggested in the Commission’s report, for all these important com- ponents of ocean exploration. So, in general, it is my feeling while these drawings are imaginative and I would not attempt to support the designs technologically at this time, they serve to give you some idea of the amount of work we will have to do in these areas to make a beginning that eventually will enable us to work in the sea with nearly the same facility that we do on land. In conclusion, as a scientist and engineer with many years’ experi- ence in the Government/industrial partnership for the military and space sectors, I feel that we in the field of technology can do about anything we can conceive and set our minds to do in the oceans, pro- _ vided we are properly supported by Government direction and money. I would strongly recommend this committee of Congress act to approve and recommend funding the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency as soon as possible, and make the remainder of the 20th century a significant one in terms of the challenge of the “wet frontier”. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. Thank you very much, Mr. Pierce. I will ask unanimous consent that immediately following the splen- did introduction by our colleague and friend, Congressman Culver, of our witness today that there be inserted in the record following the presentation the biographical sketch of Mr. Roger J. Pierce. | Now, Mr. Mosher. Mr. Mosuer. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I think it is very good to have this strong testimony in support of the program. It is a very stimulating and imaginative statement, esepcially the illustrations. I think it is good to have this from the private sector particularly _ from land-locked Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, sir. Mr. Downing of Virginia. Mr. Downtne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, think it was most interesting and informative. I just have one question. What do you envision as the purposes of an underwater building? Mr. Pierce. I would at present envision it as a possible factory or facility, say, for underwater operations, for offshore oil, for example, 380 also food processing or in the areas of mining, of bringing up nodules from the bottom of the ocean where it could serve as ‘a base for opera- tions and storage until they can be transferred to a surface craft to bring them to shore where they could be processed. In short, as a stable operating base out where the raw materials are located rather than trying to use a surface platform or a vessel which is exposed to the very severe ocean environment of pitching and rolling which is not conducive to the efficient operations. Particularly in very severe weather where operations might have to be suspended and crews go to shore which would be very uneconomical. Mr. Downt1ne. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. ‘Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Pelly. Mr. Petiy. In looking through your biographical sketch, I do not find that you are descended from Jules Verne but I think it could well be the case. T don’t think there is anything unrealistic or impractical about some of these imaginative uses of the ocean. I, myself, feel that eventually we are going to have fish farms and seafood product farms under the sea and other means of providing the protein that will be needed to feed the population of the world. So, while we might have large community centers such as the struc- tures you suggest, perhaps smaller individual habitations for humans to conduct necessary aquacultural operations, would seem very prac- tical to me. Mr. Pierce. May I say, Congressman, that while part of it is imagi- native, quite a bit of it is due to my experience in the space field where in 1958 I saw the first Sputnik go across the sky and some 12 short years later, as we see all the tremendously wonderful things that have been accomplished in space from the recent trip to the moon and all the various unmanned sophisticated satellites that are in the sky today, at that time I would not have dared predict the amount and complexity of the present accomplishments in the space field. T am sure with this same type of technology and the same type of imaginative thinking we can do these imaginative things in the oceans too. In 10 years, if we go about it properly we may be quite surprised at what we can do in the oceans, possibly along some of the lines I have talked about here. Mr. Peiiy. It is hard for me to conceive of utilizing the Moon or Mars as a means of providing food for mankind. I can see so many better opportunities here at home. Really, we are going far afield too fast and too soon relative to the way that we have conducted our own exploration here on this particular planet. 'T want to thank you for your contribution here. I certainly think that the farmers of Iowa might well be interested in oceanography as opposed to outer space because they can see some of the beautiful pigs that we have heard about actually grunting and running around under the sea some day. Mr. Lennon. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Karth. Mr. Karru. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Mr. Pierce for having brought to us one of those rare presentations where on the one hand it is spe- cific and on the other hand it is also imaginative and evolutionary. 381 ‘We don’t get too many papers of this kind, Mr. Pierce. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, in addition to that, that I was most interested in his proposal on page 4 where he proposes or suggests a means of setting up the new organization or the new agency, NOAA. T think, Mr. Chairman, it has given us a new dimension to consider in setting up the agency because he has delineated a plan that may well be less difficult for us to accomplish in the initial legislation by proposing that we set up NOAA first without attaching to it immedi- ately, all of the components of the various agencies that are today work- ing in the field of oceanography. It may well be, Mr. Pierce, that this is the most expeditious, al- though it appears to be a bits and pieces suggestion; it might be the most expeditious one for us to follow. At any rate, I think it is cer- tainly worth our looking at and considering. I want to thank you very much for bringing to our attention this new possibility. Mr. Pierce, it is not also true that in addition to those commercial possibilities you see for work under the sea that one of the first things we will probably have to do is to establish rather sophisticated under- sea laboratories to do the basic and applied research that must be done properly, prior to the time that we can in fact extract some of the mineral wealth, prior to the time that we can in fact extract some of the food wealth we know exists in great quantities in the ocean ? So, I would assume that you are also thinking about rather complex and sophisticated research laboratories in the initial phases of oceano- graphic research. Mr. Pierce. Yes; I think that is also a very necessary component. Mr. Kartu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Biaggi. Mr. Bracer. Thank you, Mr. Pierce, for your presentation. On page 3, you say that the public will accept this program with as much enthusiasm as the national space effort. I think in view of the development economically and the progress we have made in the space effort, that is a question that remains to be answered. _ I have several other questions. You mentioned something about offshore drilling and farming, and the like, and mining. How far offshore are you talking about? Mr. Pierce. In the deepest water on the Continental Shelf of 1,000, 1,200 feet, for that type of operation. However, these structures I suggested could be used in any depth of ocean. For example, if you were going to use one for a fish process- ng eo ceEy: it could be put wherever the fish are regardless of the epth. Mr. Bracer. Would these be permanent buildings? Mr. Pierce. The concept that I have is that they would be towed to site and held in place dynamically, much like the Mohole platform or the Glomar Challenger ship. They could essentially be permanent if you wanted them to be. If not, you could move them around by towing. Mr. Bracer. Frankly, I think the mobile feature of it is more attrac- tive than the permanent. When you talk in terms of cities, I envisage structures that are per- manently established and when the utilization is completed, you are left with a ghost city. 382 Thus, the mobile feature seems more desirable. On page 4, you say something about a layman seeing the possibilities of almost immediate economic returns. ‘Would you be kind enough to spell out to me some of those economic returns? Mr. Preece. First, by immediately, I am speaking of the next 4 to 5 years. I would say the field of food processing would be one of the areas; also mining and offshore oil as well as synoptic ocean data net- works and weather forecasting which could provide economic benefit to the various people who are interested in the worldwide picture of the weather. Those are some of the things that I believe would result in economic benefits. It is probably substantial when you relate it to minerals, and oil, and food. Mr. Bracer. Are you in a position to estimate what the initial cost would be? : Mr. Pierce. No; I am not. Mr. Brace. That is all. Thank you, Mr. Pierce. Mr. Lennon. Thank you very much. Mr. Pierce, I want to go back for a minute, if I may, to the colloquy between you and Mr. Karth of Minnesota, where on line 8, on page 4, I quote: However, I would suggest that, first the Congress authorize and establish NOAiA with at least the level of funding now being spent by the Government in oceanography. Now, I am trying in my own mind to envision what that would en- tail. I assume that you are suggesting that legislation be passed estab- lishing an independent agency such as recommended by the Commission, NOAA, but yet not transfer to NOAA of any of the agencies which are existing in Government today which involve any facet of oceanography. Ts that true? Mr. Pierce. That is correct. Mr. Lennon. But you say at the same time authorize a level of fund- ing in NOAA that is now being enjoyed by the various agencies and departments of the Federal Government who are involved to some degree in the marine sciences. Just how could that be done? For instance, who is to tell and when are we to tell in point of time that NOAA is going to recommend that Agency A be transferred to NOAA but in the meantime you have defunded an agency, that is still engaged in a field of oceanography ? If we take the funds and put them in NOAA and leave them out in limbo until a year or two later NOAA recommends that they be brought in NOAA, then we have to go back through the legislative and execu- tive process to get them in NOAA. T wish you would clear that up for me. Mr. Pierce. It was my intention to state that when NOAA is formed and when they have their initial program set, that these programs start with the level of funding that you have right now. 383 Mr. Lennon. When you say the level of funding, the level of fund- ing related to oceanography and the several agencies which would ultimately come into NOAA ? Mr. Prerce. Right. Perhaps I did not state it as I meant it, but the appropriations and spending would be accomplished after the organization is set to go and those agencies that are going to be transferred are transferred. Mr. Lennon. Let us go back to 1961, in June again, if we might. I don’t know whether you recall or not the hearings that were then conducted by the chairman of this committee, George Miller of Cali- fornia, and how we ran into a stalemate even on the moderate recom- mendations of that Commission study. We ran into a roadblock with the Executive. Then, of course, thereafter we tried to make a deter- mination of bringing into being this Commission and at the same time bringing into being the National Council of Marine Resources and En- gineering Development which would be a coordinating body at the top policymaking level headed by the Vice President and some six Cabinet officers, as well as other individuals in high places in Government. Now, we are inclined to the opinion that this Commission made a study, and we mandated it to make a study in depth and to try to relate all the factors before they made a recommendation to the Con- gress as to what type, if any, governmental structure we should have and what agency should go into this particular new governmental structure referred to as NOAA. Now, some of us are inclined to believe that we would be delayed another 2 or 3 years on the part of NOAA making its recommenda- tion as to what agencies would go into NOAA, and I think that is more than a possibility. It is a very strong likelihood. We have been waiting now all these years. What I want to get your judgment about—the National Council, as you know, has been mandated by the administration to make a study in depth of the Commission’s report. I think the record should reflect the fact that the same staff today headed by Dr. Ed Wenk, whose staff formulated the action of the Council under the former administration, is now staffing the National Council under the present administration. ~ That was done through the very splendid cooperation of Mr. Mosher of Ohio, a member of this committee. I was happy to join in that request. Now they have been mandated to make a study in depth, keeping in mind that we have actually been working with the Commission since its conception back in June 1966, up until today. They have been man- dated to make a study and they have indicated their intention to appear before this committee some time after approximately the 16th of June and I assume then the National Council will make its reeommenda- tions, either pro or con, on the Commission’s report. Tassume, too, that they will give the position of the national adminis- tration. I can appreciate your thinking about it, but it gives me a little concern to have it suggested that we bring into being a new govern- mental independent agency, just a shell, or a paper organization, but with no transfer into that agency of any of the agencies or departments or bureaus that are now engaged in any of the fields of marine sciences or oceanography. 384 Don’t you think that we could rely on, No. 1, the Commission’s report and recommendation in this particular regard; don’t you think we could rely to a considerable degree upon the recommendation of—well, let us see who they will be, the Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Com- merce, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Director of the National! Science Foundation, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Secretary of the Treasury ? Now, that is about as strong a policymaking body as you can possibly get at the executive level. If they make the determination that this is the way we should go, in other words, if they give their OK to the Commission’s report, in my own mind I think it will do a lot to make these agencies recognize that they ought to come in and give their cooperation in spite of the fact that one or two of them who are not members of the Council at the Cabinet level, one in particular, has expressed his opposition, which is human nature, of course, that a certain native component of his Department of Transportation be transferred to this new Federal agency known as NOAA. ‘That is what we are confronted with. We have been frustrated now for years in trying to get this thing started. We had difficulty in 1966 persuading the administration to permit us to establish this National Council. They insisted that the Ad Hoc or Interagency Committee on Oceanography was doing a job; in fact, it was doing the best it could with the authority and policy level at which it operated. Would you speak to that, please, sir ? Here we are soliciting your support for what we are trying to do, the way we are trying to move. Mr. Pierce. I cannot speak with much authority on legislative reor- ganization. However, from purely an administrative standpoint, my counsel is to go slow in attaching a lot of agencies to a new agency such as this until it has been determined that they really fit in the program. Mr. Lennon. Right at this point now, you create NOAA, the Presi- dent appoints an administrator and authorizes staffing. Are you going to have any more expertise in that administrator and his staff. The chances are he will associate himself with people who have been staff members of one or two places, either the National Council or the former Commission. Are they going to have ‘any more expertise in making a determination of what agency should come in there than the agency or council which has been involved in this thing in depth since 1966 ? How long do you think it will take these people to do again what we have been trying to get them to do and they have done now since 1966? Mr. Pierce. It is my opinion that it could be done in a considerably shorter period than that time, I think the programs recommended by the Commission would probably form the basis or major nucleus of the program to be handled by the administrator and that the reeommenda- tions on which agencies the administrator and his staff thought fit very well could be made very quickly. Let us say 6 months from the time the agency is formed and they have had a chance to review the Com- 385 mission’s report and the program they have recommended. Then orga- nize the program from an administrative standpoint of how do you organize to do the job specifically that you have in mind? Then they say, fine, ESSA fits perfectly into this or the Coast Guard fits perfectly into that and so on, or maybe parts of the Coast Guard don’t fit. I don’t know enough about these agencies to make any com- ment on what would fit or would not fit. I guess about all I am saying is that before an immediate decision is made that at least a reasonable period ought to be allowed this new agency to review and see if that is what they want to live with the rest of their career rather than mandating a program and mandating spe- cific agencies at the start of the program. I am saying, let us have a little more consideration. Not years—I am opposed to years, too, because it has been too many years now that we have been at this thing. But now that we are on the verge of doing it, on the threshold, let us take just a little more time, say 6 months. Mr. Lennon. What concerns me, if we don’t use the impetus, the thrust which has been built up to an action level through the Com- mission report and ultimate recognition by the National Council, I feel that the interest will wane to the extent that we cannot get the thrust that we need because even if we follow the Commission’s re- port, assuming that the Council’s recommendations are comparable, it is not going to be easy, in my judgment, to bring this into being. It is going to take a long time. That is the reason that we are trying to build a record from people who have had expertise like you offer before we hear the witnesses who will testify representing the Government sector. You were discussing and showing some pictures of undersea habitats. Is it true that the Japanese have indicated their intention to build underseas habitats? Do you know anything about it? Mr. Prerce. I have no definite knowledge of the extent of their plans in this area, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Do you have any information that Florida is thinking about an underseas motel maybe off Biscayne Bay, so that people can go down there and be near the President when he is vacationing? Mr. Prerce. I have no definite knowledge of that. Mr. Lennon. Somebody handed me up a little memorandum that they had read of such a suggestion. I wondered if you know about it. Your corporate contacts have been both with the military and with space, NASA, and with many phases of the military, I assume? Mr. Pierce. Yes. Mr. Lennon. And building of components. Are there any other questions ? Mr. Counsel, do you have any questions? Mr. Karrn. Mr. Chairman, may I just amplify one point that you are suggesting in terms of attempting to get an answer from the wit- ness eee might be a little bit more specific than one he has already given ? Mr. Pierce, if it is administratively and legislatively possible to do this in one fell swoop, as the chairman has suggested, particularly after this in-depth study which has been made by the Commission and whose 386 recommendations have been well thought out, if it is administratively and legislatively possible to do it in one fell swoop, would you oppose doing it that way ? | Mr. Pierce. I would not. I would say if it were easy and possible to do it without any more study on it, I would favor that even though I don’t consider it the ideal way to do it. I would say if you could do it I would not oppose that type of operation. Mr. Karr. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. I think the record should reflect the fact that in most of these hearings that we have had the preponderant majority of the members attending are members of the space committee, too. I think that is an indication of their great interst. Mr. Downing and Mr. Karth and Mr. Mosher and Mr. Pelly, of course, are ranking members, and it is a great indication to me that the members of this Subcommittee on Oceanography are practical, yet experienced people in this field. They are the ones who have demonstrated, in my judgment, to a great degree the greatest interest in what we are trying to do. 'T don’t have the honor of serving on that committee, but I have great admiration for people who serve there and on this committee, for I know how dedicated they are. Now, Mr. Counsel. Mr. Drewry. Mr. Pierce, as a slight extension of the chairman’s question concerning your business in the missile and space field, I won- der if you could supply for the record a memorandum indicating some- thing about the types of contracts you have. In other words, a little bit of the extent of your business that you have been able to develop over the past 4 years. Mr. Prerce. Yes. Mr. Drewry. We have this which you sent in before; we appreciate it. That is one reason we are anxious to have it here. Mr. Pierce. Are you referring to my past experience with the mili- tary and space or the present composition of hydrospaces? Mr. Drewry. The volume of business you have and the type of con- tract you have, whether in the commercial field or in the military, both in the hydro and aerospace field. Mr. Pierce. Would you like me to summarize an answer now? Mr. Drewry. That would be fine. It does not have to be detailed. I just thought for the record it might give us a little better idea of who it is that we are hearing from today. Mr. Pierce. Our company was originally chartered to do advanced work in the fields of oceanography and space. However, since the ocean markets have not developed, we do not consider ourselves an ocean company as yet but we hope to be when these new ocean projects are implemented. At present, we have done considerable research in the field of ocean- ography and have for the past 4 years maintained research work on stable sea platforms along the lines that we have discussed here. We have also done work in ocean wave measuring equipment, underwater communications for military purposes, and sonar fish tracking systems. We have not as yet been successful in getting con- tracts in the space field although in the aerospace field we have several 387 contracts with the Federal Aviation Agency in advanced solid state navigation equipment, instrument landing calibration systems, and voice communication transceivers. Then we have some strictly military work. The company’s posture is one that we want to be in the ocean busi- ness but until it develops we are in these related fields as close to the type of business we want to be in, at the same time while waiting we feel these other activities exercise our talents, increase our physical facilities so that when the ocean markets develop we will be ready to capitalize on that. Although we do not have the contracts in these fields, we are con- tinuing the research and development and scientific discussions on this with our scientific committee which has on its membership Dr. James A. Van Allen of the University of Iowa, Dr. James Snodgrass of Seripps and Dr. Landweber of the University of Iowa Hydraulics Institute. So far, all of our contracts have been with the U.S. Government. We do not have any contracts in what I would call the commercial sector, as yet. That is a brief sketch of the composition of the company. Mr. Drewry. That is what I wanted to get. I was not probing but I wanted to get some idea. Mr. Pierce. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Pierce, I am advised that industry has invested approximately $100 million in so-called submersibles. Is that the figure that you are familiar with? Mr. Pierce. I don’t know the exact figure. Mr. Lennon. You know it is considerable. Mr. Pierce. Yes; it is considerable. Mr. Lennon. I have an editorial in my hand from a national pub- lication the Undersea Technology magazine to the effect that industry has invested a little over $100 million in submersibles. In spite of the plea by the Navy and the Marine Science Council, $3 million which was originally in the budget to provide for commercial leasing of submersibles by the Navy to other agencies and laboratories involved in the marine science ‘field, has been cut out. Do you know anything about that? Mr. Prerce. I have read about it. I am not familiar with the details and issues and why these funds were cut out. Mr. Lennon. It goes on to say in spite of the fact that the Govern- ment spends approximately $2,500 to $6,000 a day to run its various oceanographic research vessels that this $3 million would make pos- sible for leasing purposes up to 300 or 400 differences by these sub- mersibles to be funded. If you find out anything about that, I wish you would supplement it for the record. I took the liberty of writing to Secretary Laird about the matter when it was called to my attention. I am going to take the liberty today to insert in the Congressional Record this editorial and the reference to my letter. _ We appreciate your appearance, Mr. Pierce, and particularly your interest in what all of us hope to be some action in the very near future. 388 Thank you so much. Mr. Prerce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Our next witness today, if he will present himself, is Mr. Robert L. Clark, vice president of Hayden, Stone Incorporated. Without objection, the biographical sketch of Mr. ‘Clark will appear at this point in the record. (The biographical sketch follows :) Robert L. Clark is a vice president and director of institutional research with the world-wide investment firm of Hayden, Stone Incorporated, with headquarters at 25 Broad Street, New York City. He has conducted major forums and prepares reviews and forecasts on Oceanography. He has given a number of addresses on the investment outlook for Oceanography. He joined Hayden, Stone in 1958, following 12 years spent with the Standard Oil Company (New Jersey) and its affiliates in Europe and the United States. A native of London, England, he received his early education in this country at Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts, and subsequently took his bachelor’s degree from Dartmouth College (1940) and his master’s degree from the Tuck Business School (1941). He served in the U.S. Navy from 1941 to 1946, and held the rank of lieutenant commander. Mr. Clark is a member of the New York Society of Security Analysts, the Oil Analysts Group of New York, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Inde- pendent Petroleum Association of America. He and his wife, Mariana (Loyd) Clark have four sons and one daughter and live in Weston, Connecticut. STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. CLARK, VICE PRESIDENT, HAYDEN, STONE, INC., NEW YORK CITY Mr. Crarx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is indeed an honor to appear before you today and discuss the report of the Commission on both “Our Nation and the Sea.” First of all, my appearance here before you is as a citizen and any opinions given represent my own personal views and not necessarily those of the organizations with which I am affiliated. I would like to present to you some data and observations on ocean- ography contained in this pamphlet for your review and recording, as you deem appropriate. With your permission, I will forego a verbal presentation of this material and limit my remarks to a few comments about the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. The Commission has done a fine job in bringing together a very thorough review of all the various aspects of oceanography with em- phasis on the civilian side from a Government point of view primarily, although adequate attention has been given to industry and other private institutions. The main message that I have to bring to you is how important it is for the Government to show industry that it means “business” by effec- tively organizing itself now for launching, coordinating, and directing an active aggressive program in marine science and technology. We recognize that Government funds for this purpose are under pressure right now. Nevertheless, evidence that the Government is go- ing to organize itself to formulate and administer such a program, even if funds are limited at the present time, is vital to keep industry interested and committed to further expenditure of private funds in 389 this important area. A long period of drift and inaction in reviewing and studying the Commission’s report would be most discouraging to industry and the investment community. Tt is felt that a coordinating agency certainly is needed to provide communications among all the various different departments and agencies having marine programs, both military and civilian. Natu- rally, all concerned want to avoid duplication. The proposed National Advisory Committee for the Oceans (NACO) would perform this function. It should, perhaps, be established first, and at least, on the same level as any executive agency such as the proposed National Oceano- eraphic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) and be clearly independ- ent of this latter agency. We would encourage strong representation be given to industry on the advisory committee and that all major spheres, large and small, such as petroleum, fisheries, recreation, pollution and construction, be included. It is also most important to have well-qualified vepresenta- tives from the States of the regions along the coast and Great Lakes on such a committee. . An executive agency, such as NOAA, to formulate and direct many of the more important marine operations of the Federal Government in the civilian sector would seem to be desirable, even essential. Naturally, an interdepartment agency mechanism to coordinate the various marine functions of the departments and other agencies is vital and should, of course, provide coordination with the Navy. The modernization of the U.S. fishing industry, particularly the catching and harvesting end of it, is urgently needed and requires en- couragement from the Government. It should be made clear that a leading mission of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is to place pri- mary emphasis on increasing the U.S. fish catch on an economic basis. Perhaps encouraging the Bureau with a new sense of purpose could be best accomplished by assigning it to this new agency, 1f established. In addition, the civilian operations of the Coast Guard might well be more attuned to assisting in the accomplishment of oceanographic mis- sions, if it were assigned to NOAA as long as it did not jeopardize its important military mission to the Navy. If the atmosphere is to ‘be considered a part of NOAA, as proposed by the Commission, and ESSA is to be included in this agency, then perhaps air and water pollution control programs, so vital to our en- vironment, should be very closely coordinated and supported and maybe even affiliated with NOAA. Certainly, it is vital to encourage programs which will improve the accuracy of forecasting the weather. Advances here would have tremendous benefits both to the Government as well as industry. We definitely agree that the main Government role should be to provide seed money to act as a catalyst in activating industry in its marine research and development operations and that direct Govern- ment subsidies should be avoided at all costs, except possibly in the construction of modernized fishing vessels. However, even this subsidy might. be unnecessary if U.S. operated fishing vessels could be built in the lower cost shipyards abroad. The building of plants by the Government, for example, to make fish protein 390 concentrate, should not be authorized. Purchase of the product by Gov- ernment contract would be the much preferred approach. Where resources are involved, and there are not pressing security considerations, economics should be the determining factor in deciding whether, for instance, fish is the cheapest source for protein or is there some more economical product. The test of whether the land or sea is the cheaper source for any resource must, naturally, be applied to minerals, chemicals, and drugs, as well as oil and gas. It is clear that the petroleum industry is by far the largest natural resource factor in oceanography. It is now well recognized that more stringent offshort drilling regulations are not only required but must be strictly enforced. They should be practical and not punitive so as to encourage development of the extensive oil and gas reserves off our continental shelves. Larger lease blocks should probably be offered in strictly exploratory areas, such as off the east coast, than the present 5,760-acre blocks. After all, the prospective structures do not stop at the Canadian line of our Continental Shelf. A lot of leases have been granted north of the border and further drilling is planned off Nova Scotia and Newfound- land. Programs for conservation and development of our coastal areas, both lake and ocean, are urgently needed. Here, the cooperation of State and municipal authorities is essential together with the invest- ment community. One approach would be to form quasi-public corporations, at least, partially financed by revenue or even discount bonds which might have preferred tax-exempt status. Here, the initiative and leadership of the Federal Government are vital to energize such programs for the vari- ous regions concerned such as the Atlantic, gulf, and west coasts, and the Great Lakes. Urban renewal in many of our large cities, pollution control, and marine recreation are all involved here. Although controversial, still having merit, at least, part of the sub- stantial funds received by the Federal Government and many coastal States from offshore bonuses on lease sales and royalties on production, be used to assist in funding oceanographic research and development, pollution control, as well as all the excellent objectives to be achieved by the proposed Coastal Management act and State coastal zone authorities. It is also very important to clarify, as soon as possible, the many open jurisdictional questions of who owns what, where. I would per- haps take exception to the 50-mile or 200-meter depth limit proposed by the Commission in reference to the natural resources a country could claim as under its sovereignty off its shores. It might be more practical to operate under the principles estab- lished by the United Nations Convention for the Continental Shelf, namely, determining a jurisdiction beyond the depth of 200 meters by the technical ability to exploit the ocean bed. I would not like to see us give up a claim to the sovereignty of the ocean bed embraced by the Continental Shelf, the slope, and the land- ward portion of the rise. I would be much more inclined to support the proposals on jurisdiction over the natural resources of the ocean bed 391 contained in the National Petroleum Council’s recent report on “Pe- troleuam Reserves Under the Ocean Floor” to the Department of the Interior. Furthermore, the coastal States and the Federal Government need to settle offshore jurisdictional claims much more expeditiously than heretofore and to establish property rights in leasing the ocean bed out for development to encourage aquaculture and other marine opera- tions on our Continental Shelf and along our coasts, Private industry needs to have property rights established for it to commit funds. Tn conclusion, I would emphasize again that the Government basic- aily “has the ball” right now. Even though there are obviously other vital programs pressing for Government funds, still an organization could be established now as a start, by forming NACO to work with the Council during its 1-year extension period. The further organization of the Government for its oceanographic program could then be planned under the direction of a new agency, either as part of a newly formed Department of Natura] Resources or as an independent agency appointed by and reporting to the President. One final thought that is not in the prepared remarks. It is important for Congress to centralize in its committee structure its handling of oceanography and marine-related programs and per- haps the focus in the House rightfully belongs here in this Subcom- mittee for Oceanography. Thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, to appear before you. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Clark. We hope to agree with you ultimately that the jurisdiction and au- thority will be not necessarily in this subcommittee but in this general committee, at least; because of the agencies that are proposed to go into NOAA this committee or the subcommittee has jurisdiction of all of thew except ESSA and actually we have jurisdiction over part of ESSA. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Pelly. Mr. Petry. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to Mr. Clark that I agree with you almost 100 percent in your approach to this problem. I have listened to you with tremendous interest. I could not find anything with which I could quarrel at all. On one point, however, I don’t recall that the Commission in its consideration of either the 50- mile or the 200-meter mark ever went so far as to make a definite recom- mendation. I thought that their program called for clarifying the vagueness in this field. Mr. Crark. Maybe I might be allowed to address myself to that comment, sir. The Commission did make, as I understand, and I am not a lawyer, did make a recommendation of exclusive sovereignty over the natural resources at 50 miles or 200-meter depth, whichever embraced the larger area. Then they went on and proposed an intermediate zone which I believe would be composed or 2,500 meters or 100 miles, which- ever embraced the larger area, and that the coastal State would have the right of access to this but that an international registry agency would be formed and an international funding organization also would be established to which certain royalties on any natural resources that 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 Regard- 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. Petxy. 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. T 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. Karta. 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. Crarx. Yes; I would welcome the opportunity of clarifying this point here. It 1s not my intent at all to suggest that NACO take over the execu- tive responsibility of directing the program. 393 To keep the record straight here, on page 2, at the start of the last paragraph there, “An executive @ agency to formulate and direct many of the more important marine operations,” I am referring to NOAA in that context. That would be the executive agency, sir. Perhaps I should have spelled it out. Mr. Lennon. Will you yield to me? Mr. Karru. Yes. Mr. Lennon. That is exactly the point I was going to raise. It con- fused me, too. Thank you. Mr. Crarx. Does that clarify it? Mr. Kartu. I am glad the witness clarified that. I was also associating that with the previous paragraph where you talked of the executive agency. Mr. Cuarxk. No; the first paragraph refers to the committee; the second to NOAA. Mr. Karts. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Karth. Mr. Keith? Mr. Keiru. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. T think that from two points of view this is a very worthwhile state- ment you have made. IT would gather that as one who is sort of an agent of the business community that you know that you cannot get funds for a develop- ment unless the title is clear. This is particularly true when you are dealing with the matter of stocks and bonds and borrowing from banks. So that part of your statement points up a problem that must be recognized. The second contribution is one which I think this committee has recognized and that is that you have to have clearly defined lines of communication and policymaking and responsibility for funding so that your operations are not so open ended and fuzzy that you can’t proceed with some confidence that this won’t be changed from day to da The i implementing of the report and creation of the agency asked for here will go a long way toward resolving many problems that have confronted the Congress before in connection with oceanography and related projects. This would be the case when there is a difference of opinion between one agency of the Government and another. We should have a prestigious organization that could help to make a decision. For example, in the case of operation Mohole, there was no agency of the U.S. Government that said it was right in the first place, no central agency. There was no central agency 7 to come to us when it ran into rough seas. The organization that did more or less implement that act was an ad hoc one. I think this committee is moving forthrightly in its effort to resolve the problems that it has seen and to enlist the public support-such as yours that we need. We are hopeful that we can generate through this series of hearings, leaders like yourself, Dr. Stratton and others. Now, just one little observation or question to get you onan operat- ing level. ‘You say that the Coastal States and the Federal Government need to settle offshore jurisdictional claims much more expeditiously than 26-563 O—69—pt. 126 394 heretofore and to establish property rights in leasing the ocean bed . out for development to encourage aquaculture and other marine opera- tions on our Continental Shelf and along our coasts. Private industry needs to have property rights established for it to commit funds. What is the situation in Connecticut with reference to aquaculture ? Do you happen to know ? Mr. Cuark. You see that I am a resident of Connecticut, I guess. Mr. Kerr. That is right. : Mr. Cuarx. Of course, the pollution situation is acute there. The former clam and oyster beds are really declining to a point where there is very little industry left. There are, I understand, some efforts being made to revive this up along the northeastern part of the coast but it is still on a very low key, I would say. I do know in Long Island, for instance, that there are a few oyster farms you might say this might be aquaculture, oyster raising projects going on there, but this is more on the New York side than on the Connecticut side. I would like, if I may, to make a couple of observations on your comments. No. 1, we in industry and in the investment community are very encouraged that this committee has taken the initiative in holding these hearings and to get the ball rolling. I think you are performing a very important function here by holding them and we are delighted that you are receiving and hearing representatives from industry in con- nection with your deliberations. The other comment that I would like to make—you referred to the Mohole project and the JOIDES, by Global Marine. That is what resulted after the overall Mohole project was abandoned, that they have found cores taken in the deep ocean waters that are very inter- esting, very significant. And here is a very excellent example of where a Government research project is providing valuable data to industry that may eventually be of commercial use. Mr. Kertru. Do you happen to recall how much money was spent on Mohole before it was abandoned ? Mr. Cuarx. I do remember that the final cost estimates, if there is ever a final cost estimate these days, ran into hundreds of millions of dollars and the JOIDES project is perhaps finding a lot more out for a lot less money. Mr. Kerrn. I wondered what the JOIDES project has reaped in _ dollar value from the inheritance from Mohole. Your statement indi- cated that there was a spinoff from Mohole that has some value and you gave an illustration of how industry profits from such an effort. I would like to find that it is substantial but I would rather suspect with reference to the $35 million or $40 million that was expanded. Mr. Cuarx. I am not in a position, sir, to be able to detail what spin- off there might have been from Mohole to JOIDES. Mr. Kerru. By the way, with reference to aquaculture, I think that that is a States rights responsibility at the moment. Most of the aqua- culture effort is within the 3-mile limit. We have the same problem in my district that you have along the Connecticut shoreline. We had an extraordinarily competent witness here yesterday or the day before from the National Oyster Institute before Fisheries and 395 Wildlife who described some of the problems they had had. In 1908, I believe a doctor, I think from Massachusetts, wrote a treatise that is just as applicable today as it was then with reference to the culture of oysters and I believe clams and quahogs. It is worth studying today because of the problems not only of pollu- tion but of local politics. If you want to improve the plans for aquaculture, I think the State level is the place to go and that would be a good source of information. Other countries, as you know, are doing much more than we. I think Japan exports to this country tremendous amounts of shellfish. I was interested in what you have to say about the fishing vessels and about fish protein concentrate. I basically share your feelings with reference to the building of plants by the Government. Of course, you get into the political position of who gets it and where it gets located. Private industry in that case could not proceed and I begrudgingly went along with the committee’s recommendation that we fund a fish protein concentrate plant. The Government had so handicapped the industry that eventually the private sector had to be subsidized in order to make it successful. You talk about the construction of modernized fishing vessels and how the subsidy might be unnecessary if U.S.-operated fishing vessels could be built in the lower cost shipyards abroad. We have a Fishing Vessel Subsidy Act which expires June 30. I think it is a fact of political life that Congress is not going to repeal in the foreseeable future the act that makes the building of fishing vessels mandatory in this country. So, we have to dea] with that reality. If you have any observations as to how that act might be improved to make it easier for us to operate fishing vessels and how it would relate perhaps to this report, I would be interested. Mr. Crarx. Well, sir, I do not represent myself as an expert on the fishing industry. There really isn’t a fishing industry as such in Wall Street. Most of the fishing operations have been done by independent fishermen. The distribution, of course, is handled by divisions of many of the large companies. So we do have some exposure there. I would say that the recommendations in the Commission’s report in this area are sound and we would support them. I think they did make reference to certain improvements that could be made in this subsidy, the Fishing Vessel Subsidy Act. So, 1f I could just refer to those as perhaps what should be considered in the extension of the act. I appreciate very much what you say about living with the political facts of life and that this suggestion about constructing vessels abroad probably, you know, is—I hate to use the word—but is academic. I thought that might be the reaction. Mr. Kerru. It is a long way from Wall Street to this committee occasionally. One final observation. _You suggested that they could go ahead with NACO first. This was discussed by the committee, and I think Dr. Stratton spoke to this sub- ject in response to some observations that were made by Mr. Lennon and myself, and so you may find that the hearings will be very helpful to you in answering those observations that you made. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 396 | Mr. Lennon. Thank you. Mr. Bracet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clark, your presentation is salutary. On the question of where you projected industry in relation to the proteins resources and the like, I posed a question earlier to the pre- ceding witness, Mr. Pierce, and received a general response which really was not as detailed as I would like. He stated that the program would be received with as much enthusi- asm, if not more than, the current space program. My observation was that the space program’s enthusiasm is waning despite the successes because of the economics of the day and the needs domestically, hence a proposal to undertake this oceanography pro- gram might not be received as well by the people unless we can justify it. The question I asked was, what would be the spinoff, what would be the immediate returns to the public? I wonder if I could obtain from you something more specific, some- thing that could be translated and quickly recognized by the laymen as justification for this program. Mr. Cuarx. I am trying to search for a direct way of answering this question that the laymen could feel and sense, like putting up a new apartment building in a ghetto area of the city that he could move into and feel and sense. I think there is a lot of competition for funds, in the social area here, if I have the thrust of your question. This is some of the thrust of it, perhaps. Mr. Bracer. Confined to the construction of the ghetto areas or so- cial problems, let us deal with food problems, why can’t this protein process be just as effectively handled on shore from the practical point of view. What would be the difference ? We talk about minerals. How necessary are these minerals? What impact would they have on the Nation or on people ? Those are just a few things that come to my mind. Mr. Crark. Yes. I can answer the question for the country and for people and their future, but to be able to say that if we put a lot of money into KPC, that the man in the street 1s going to be able to eat better and get more protein in the United States, I think the FPC, you know, this food from the sea talk, is a way of making the man in the street feel the program and has really been overdone. This perhaps is not in line with many people’s feelings on this. I must say that I think it has to come down to economics. We are in a research area on FPC and the economics are still in question, as far as I can determine, and the sources to which I am exposed, as op- posed to other sources of protein. . I think here we are dealing with the security of the country. We are dealing with our natural resources. We are dealing with weather. I think on better forecasting of the weather, for instance, as an indi- vidual I hardly ever look at the weather forecast because it is so un- reliable. I am asked what is the weather forecast for today. I rarely know what it is because I don’t plan on the basis of the forecasting that is done now because, as I say, it is unreliable. This is not a criti- cism. It is just the primitive state of the art. Maybe weather, this touches everyone, if we could show through ESSA and through the buoy program, which, as you know, I think 397 is suffering here, that to the boatowner and to the fellow who is going away for Memorial Day, that he can go to Maine like I am looking forward to doing this weekend and, you know, count on good weather ; this would mean a lot. This would mean a lot to industry and business to know and even be able to control the weather. This, I think, is down the road as a possibility. But we do need, I think, a strong, energetic, and well-funded weather research program. I am all for the atmosphere and the en- vironment being brought into oceanography. They are interrelated. Mr. Bracer. I do not quarrel with the research aspect of it and I agree with you. The point I am making is from where you sit, and from where Mr. Pierce sits, you should address yourselves with the same amount of vigor to selling this so that we have public acceptance. I can foresee resistance. We are finding it now to be one of the most successful programs in the Nation, the NASA program, reaching the moon. It is probably one of the most successful and productive in our Nation and yet we are finding increasing resistance. So, it is almost mandatory that the public acceptance facet of your presentation should be really addressed with additional vigor. Mr. Pretty. Would you yield, Mr. Biaggi? Mr. Bracer. Yes, sir. Mr. Petry. I am conscious of the fact now that a great deal of thought has been given to malnutrition and there are said to be 16 million people in this country that are either hungry or undernour- ished. Yet, I gather from what you have said that you don’t see any economic benefit that might be obtained from fish protein plants. Well, we have developed an experimental plant to try to lower the cost of this product and we have sent fish protein abroad to be fed to other undernourished people. I think anybody who has studied popu- lation growth and the problems of this terrible situation in which the world finds itself, and the need that we are going to have for fish pro- teins, will conclude it will be one of the most economic and exciting programs if properly presented. The private food people said that they didn’t have an economic capa- bility to do the experimenting. They so testified before our committee and we provided for a fish protein experimental pilot plant. With all this resource that we have off North Carolina and the west coast it seems to me that we have a magnificent opportunity for private invest- ment to go in and develop a product for which there is a tremendous need with 16 million hungry people in America. So, I think that Wall Street should see the opportunity that exists here and get into this business. Thank you. Mr. Brager. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, sir. I think we should recognize the fact that the Department of the In- terior in its oil leases, petroleum, oil, and lubricants, brings in to my recollection somewhere around $600 million to the Federal Treasury - each year and that is projected in the next few years to go consider- ably beyond that. We must recognize that that is related to the field of marine engi- neering, not necessarily oceanography. 398 I am reminded of the fact that the discovery of phosphate magne- slum, by some oceanographic vessels has resulted in leases which in turn has brought a considerable amount of money into the Federal Treasury through the Department of the Interior. IT am reminded, too, of course, that we must increase our fishing ca- pacity. I would say 70 percent of the edible fish that are consumed in this country come from other countries. We have that potential. We heard yesterday—of course, we knew it before—that last Febru- ary or a year ago the Federal Food and Drug Administration finally approved the so-called fish protein concentrate and the Alpine Co. has a contract now with AID for 2 million pounds. They have already de- livered several thousand pounds. We have asked them to furnish for the record those companies overseas that have the contracts to purchase that under AID. . IT am reminded of the fact that we are trying to get the Federal Food and Drug Administration to authorize the sale of the fish protein concentrate in quantities other than in one pound packages which can be used by any number of our food manufacturers, Heinz, Campbell’s, General Foods, you name it, for use in various types of macaroni and soups and cereals and other things. It is a concentrate which they say to us quite excitedly will alleviate malnutrition. Now, coming back to your statement, sir, I commend you for it. [am impressed by it because I do believe that you have read the Commis- sion’s report so I know that you know that this committee and the Con- eress has extended the life of the National Council for another year. I will get to that in a minute. But, on lines 2 and 3, you make this statement : A long period of drift and inaction in reviewing and studying the Commission’s report would be most discouraging to industry and the investment community. With that, I agree. Yet here on page 6, you suggest a possibility of reforming the National Advisory Committee on Oceanography to work with the council during its 1-year extension. You say that then we may move to an oceanographic program such as through the media of a newly formed Department of Natural Resources or as an independent agency. What is the objection, Mr. Clark, in your judgment, to moving ex- plicitly and directly as the Commission has recommended in its report, No. 1, establish NACO? Now, that leads me to raise this question that you raised in my mind in which you suggest on page 2 of your statement, at about line 9, that NACO should probably be established first, that would be the National _ Advisory Committee on Oceans. Now, that. suggestion has come from a previous witness. Now you go on to say that it should be established on the same level as an executive agency such as is proposed under NOAA. Now, a National Advisory Committee on Oceanography which would have in its membership representatives of the petroleum, fishery, recre- ation, pollution, construction, and so forth, could not be an executive agency. Now you may have that in the country of your birth under the par- lamentary procedure where if you don’t get a majority you get a new 399 election, but not in this country. In other words, you could not have a Commission with executive authority that was composed of people at the private level. Do you see what I am talking about ? Mr. Crarkx. Yes, sir. I welcome your questions in this area. Mr. Lennon. Under the recommendation of the Commission’s re- port, the members of NACO would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but they would be a presidentially appointed Commission, but they would be authorized to advise and counsel with NOAA and to represent all of the spectrums of private industry that you have enumerated in lines 15 and 16 on page 2. , Now, I can see that if this committee ever comes to the conclusion that it cannot move in the direction all the way with the establishment of a governmental agency such as NOAA that it certainly would be practical, in my judgment, for us to go ahead and insist upon enact- ment into law of the recommendations related to the establishment of the National Advisory Committee on the Oceans and let the President appoint that committee. Hopefully to go back and pick up at least several of those people who served so splendidly on the Commission that was appointed by the previous President because it was a non- partisan group, as could possibly have been appointed. What is your objection or do you see any objection why we can’t do both simultaneously even in the same draft legislation? Provide just as we did under the other bill, we established a National Council and we also established the authority of the President and mandated him to appoint the Commission. Why can’t we, in the same piece of legislation, establish the Advisory Committee on the Oceans that you have recommended, and in the same legislation establish NOAA and bring in the basic groups from the several agencies that are related to oceanography ? Then when we move on the National Advisory Committee on the Oceans they will be re- Senin to make their recommendations to the Congress and to the Presi- ent on an annual basis under the recommendations of the Commission, as to whether or not we should keep in NOAA those agencies that we put in there originally. Whether we should take some out or whether we should bring some others in could be decided then. What is your basic feeling about that recommendation, that thinking? Mr. Crarx. Well, sir, perhaps someone coming from industry should - not consider the political problems that may be faced and should present his views on an ideally efficient and effective systematic ap- proach. Perhaps I was addressing myself to some of the political prob- lems that obviously arise when recommendations are being made to transfer agencies from one department to a new agency, let us say. I have no objections, I would like to emphasize, to the establishment of NOAA with the transfer of the various functions basically as pro- posed by the Commission at the same time as NACO, the advisory com- mittee, 1s appointed. _ I would have objections if there were going to be an unusual delay in doing anything because we were getting politically bogged down due to this interdepartmental question as to what was going into NOAA and what was not, so that nothing happened. 400 I would prefer to have the Government show its interest by at least appointing the committee rather than doing nothing for some time, you see. Mr. Lennon. With that, I can agree, and that may be exactly what the witness had in mind a few days ago when he suggested that the first action of the Congress should be the creation of the National Advisory Committee on the Oceans. He didn’t say so but he might have been anticipating the inability of the Congress, working with the executive branch of Government, to enact legislation that would create not only NACO but also NOAA, the governmental structure for the administrative organization. But we have the responsibility to proceed in both directions, and if we are in a stalemate in the future we will just have to move that way. Now, I would like to ask unanimous consent, gentlemen, that there be placed in the record immediately preceding Mr. Clark’s prepared statement his career résumé. T have had an opportunity to look over rather hurriedly but yet to the extent that I am gratefully impressed with it, some material which was submitted by Mr. Clark and by someone else, I assume, Mr. Stuart Clement, Jr. Mr. Crarn. Yes, sir; he is an associate of mine; second vice presi- dent. Mr. Lennon (continuing). “Data and Observations on Oceanog- raphy,” presented to the committee, dated May 28, 1969, and which seems to me to be an analysis of the report of the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineering, and Resources, Is that a fair statement ? Mr. Cuark. The first section is devoted to an analysis of the Com- mission’s report; that is correct, sir. Mr. Lennon. And American Management Association considera- tions in the field of oceanology operations, which meeting was held in New York on February 26, 1969, at the Americana Hotel. -I think it is a very fine document. I am so much impressed with it because it covers so many areas that I would like to ask unanimous consent of the committee that it be placed in the record following your colloquy with the several members. Mr. Petiy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to second that motion. I think it 1s a very fine document to add to our record. Mr. Lennon. There is only a small part of it that is related to finance but that in turn is inextricably related to the development of marine science as I read what is said here with respect to the various com- panies which have considerable investments in the various marine science fields. I will ask unanimous consent that it be placed in the record imme- diately following the colloquy with the members of the committee. (The document referred to follows :) 401 DaTaA AND OBSERVATIONS ON OcrANOGRAPHY REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCES, ENGENEERING AND RESOURCES The Commission has proposed new Federal Government programs in marine science and technology which would require additional funds of around $800 million a year, nearly doubling the estimated $900 million currently being spent for civil oceanographic activities. Thus, the combined programs, present and proposed, if continued and approved, would involve Federal Government expen- ditures of close to $18 billion during the decade of the 70's, including an annual provision of 3% for inflation. The increases would probably be more rapid in the early part of the coming decade and level off as the programs reach maturity toward the end of it. As a result, there could be a rapidly increasing trend of Government funding for oceanography during the early 70's. The table shows that spending by the Federal Government on civil oceanographic activities may triple from the present level of $900 million to $2.7 billion by 1980 and grow at an average annual compound rate of 12% including a 3%-inflation factor. LEVEL OF SPENDING ON CIVIL OCEANOGRAPHY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERN MENT Annual 1969 $0.9 Billion Decade of 70's $17. 0 Billion Proposed new 3%-a-year inflation programs by 1980 1.1 factor a 2.0 3% Inflation factor eat Total-1980 $2.7 Billion $17.7 Billion Annual growth rate 12% The Commission, in its terms of reference, has taken a broader view of what encompasses oceanography than has the Council in its present budget, _ which is approximately $525 million. The Coast Guard and Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA), are two activities which would become a part of the proposed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), accord- ing to the recommendations of the Commission. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the National Sea Grant Program, the U.S. Lake Survey, the National Oceanographic Data Center and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife would likewise be transferred to this new independent federal agency which would re- port directly to the executive branch of the Government. The Council is currently reviewing the Commission's report for the Vice President so that the new Administration may decide what action to recommend to Congress and to the other executive agencies of the Government in implementing ate ; 402 Congressional hearings will probably take place some time later on this spring and hopefully, concrete action will result in launching at least a good part of the new program as proposed by the Commission during the coming fiscal year. The Government now plainly has ''the ball’ to convince the private sector of the economy that it means "business" in oceanography. The Council will probably continue to function until Congress and the Administration have acted on the Commission's report. It is obvious that some sort of effective coordinating agency is needed to spearhead existing and proposed programs. If it is established with sufficient authority, it should result in an energetic and aggressive program for oceanography in the 70's. The thrust from the Government would be research, leaving development mainly to industry. We feel encouraged at the breadth ofthe proposals by the Commission. We hope that the Administration and the Congress will provide the necessary follow- through. This year may well be a decisive one in determining the Government's role in oceanography. We are glad that subsidies have not been recommended and feel that the Government's role is properly to concentrate on research and, of course, security together with clarifying legal questions with other govern- mental bodies. Industry will respond, we are sure, as it has already started to do, when the government program starts to shape-up and seed money is laid on the line to provide the catalytic effect and incentive to business,as well as to the many coastal states and municipalities. Involving the Coast Guard in more of an active oceanographic role, especially in peacetime, makes a great deal of sense as does bringing the Bureau of Com- mercial Fisheries directly into an ocean-oriented agency, where it would prob- ably be a more effective influence in providing leadership and guidance to the fishing industry. As air and water are so inter-related in providing our environment, including the weather and avoiding pollution, we are strongly in favor of including the atmo- sphere in the proposed agency's domain. It should help spark lagging pollution abatement programs, Our views about the relative investment merits of oceanography's main areas of activity were discussed in the following talk. AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION MEETING ON OCEANOLOGY Tuesday - February 26, 1969 - - - Americana Hotel, N. Y. SUBJECT: "Management Considerations in Oceanology Operations - Financial!’ By: Robert L. Clark, Vice President, Hayden, Stone Incorporated We, in Wall Street, are often accused of setting and following fashions in the Stock Market. Certain groups of stocks are in style - like those of companies in the nursing and mobile home business, including house boats and now even floatels! . : y | . 403 Such companies, whose stocks are currently in vogue and are selling at relatively high price-earnings multiples, find making acquisitions and financing them much easier than those in groups which are out of favor - such as conglomerates and offshore drilling companies, for instance. Right now, I guess one can say nearly the whole stock market is out of style with investors except for hedge funds with short positions! But it will pass, it always has, and new styles will take over. We in Wall Street try to take a hard-headed approach in appraising the fin- ancial outlook for various aspects of oceanology. A very simple question must be posed: which is the more economical source for materials, supplies, food, in the commercial market, now and during the next several years - the land or the sea? Naturally, security and defense considerations are decisive in the military market. The amount of funding by the Government will be vital in de- termining how attractive the civil government market will be. The Commission has proposed that the current expenditures for marine research and development, on an annual basis, be doubled to the $2 billion level by 1980, without allowing for inflation. To try to set the stage in briefly outlining our views about the financial out- look of the diverse sections of oceanology, which we think management should be considering in searching for and developing a participation in the growing oceanic market, let's break it down into its many components. First, oceanic companies are forming, which are providing an integrated, systematic approach to operating in and on the water, including the ocean beds. Zapata-Norness, represented here today by Bob Gow, is an excellent example of an oceanic company which is now proposing to enter the shipping business. It already is engaged in offshore dril- ling, fishing and marine construction operations. Those companies which already have a public market for their stocks are in a much stronger position to finance other operations and attract firms to be acquired. We would advise smaller, privately-owned companies to go public only if they have a recent record of profit- able operations. Now, what is the financial outlook for the main sectors of the market? 1. Petroleum Offshore is a dominant part of the commercial oceanic market and is providing a strong thrust for industry to enter the ocean on a profitable basis. The extensive oil and gas reserves which are located in the continental shelves of the world, represent a substantial reservoir of energy for the future, not to overlook the present. Increasing amounts of oil company budgets are going off- shore providing a great opportunity for firms to service and supply these re- quirements. Over $2 billion a year are being spent by this industry in the world- wide offshore search for oil and gas. Such expenditures are increasing at an annual rate of some 15% and will probably total over $30 billion during the coming decade. We would encourage the smaller independent oil and gas companies to take participations in offshore leases especially off the U.S. continental shelf. We also feel that there are opportunities for business in providing services and supplies to the offshore operations of the oil companies. Financing, if the com- pany is public, can be done by offerings of security issues generally having an equity ''kicker''. Loans against two and three year drilling contracts may be another 404 approach in financing multi-million dollar drilling vessels despite the relatively high interest rates. Obviously, insurance is a financial consideration for man- agement and these rates have increased. Some self-insurance may be used in minimizing these expenses. It is clear that more stringent offshore drilling regulations are going to be adopted as a result of the well publicized oil spill in the Santa Barbara Channel in federal waters off the coast of California. We anticipate that offshore op- _ erations in the Channel, which have been temporarily suspended in the federal area, will be resumed, at least in some sections, The service and supply companies should be the main beneficiaries of these new regulations which will, undoubtedly, involve the use of more casing, cement, mud and blow-out preventers. The discovery in Alaska's North Slope bordering the Arctic Ocean of sub- stantial oil reserves is developing a big market for firms which can operate and transport supplies in an extremely cold climate. There will be a market for platform installations in and through very deep ice formations overlaying the Arctic Ocean and the earth. We, therefore, would recommend that offshore construction firms develop an expertise in Arctic operations. 2. Mining Offshore, we agree, is relatively unattractive for some years to come and should be regarded as in a very preliminary exploratory stage. It is still considerably cheaper to mine hard minerals from the land as opposed to the ocean bed. Companies willing and able to be patient, as some are doing, might accu- mulate acreage positions in prospective coastal areas where the water depth is minimal. 3. Marine Construction, we consider to have considerable potential, not only in view of the petroleum industry's growing operations offshore and its substantially larger and deeper draft 200, 000-to-300, 000-ton tankers now being launched, but particularly because of the need to improve our harbor and dock areas tied in with the urban renewal programs of many of the large coastal cities. Planning should provide for city transportation centers for air, land and sea service. Furthermore, security considerations undoubtedly will provide a requirement for some sort of underwater installations on our continental shelves. Thus, we would encourage shore-oriented construction firms to enter and expand their marine construction business. 4. Marine Recreation is a rapidly growing sector of the oceanic market. Scuba diving has become very popular and house boats are the rage rather than trailers. An excellent example of the profit motive in marine recreation working to support research efforts is Tap Pryor's Oceanic Institute in Hawaii. Here, a seaquarium, with popular shows for the public, is supporting a growing research institute and test range for marine science and technology. Companies might consider enter- ing into such ventures in other coastal sectors of the Mainland. There are already examples of such activities in Southern California, for instance, at least on the recreation side. Yesterday, Vice President Agnew referred to public-private partnerships for coastal development. California, and also Florida, have been 405 considering the establishment of public-private corporations, a la Comsat, to develop projects along the coasts and estuaries of their states as a source of financing. 5. Water Pollution Abatement or Water Management Control is gaining momen- tum, but requires not only government regulations at the federal, state and municipal level, but also adequate financing. Yesterday, Vice President Agnew spoke of his success in gaining the approval of the Maryland Legislature, while he was Governor, of a $130-million bond issue for pollution abatement in his state. 6. Desalination presents limited opportunities in certain areas. New processes are being developed to lower the cost of making fresh water from salt water. The outlook here has been setback considerably by the scrapping, due to the substan- tially higher projected costs, of the proposed Bolsa Chica project for generating electricity and making fresh water out of salt using nuclear energy in Southern California. 7. Chemicals and Drugs from the Sea, we regard as relatively unattractive as synthetics and natural sources from the land are generally much more compete- tive. A great deal of research needs to be done here. 8. Food - much is being said about what needs to be done to stimulate our domes- tic fishing industry. Progress will take time, money and research. Undoubtedly, viable projects will develop in certain areas which will be profitable. Here government initiative is needed to remove the many local jurisdictional problems about which Mr. Crutchfield spoke yesterday. The FPC program has government support. Here again, the test must be, what is the cheapest source of protein? 9. Shipping and Shipbuilding are very cyclical and receive government subsidy. Containerization does provide opportunities for economies. Perhaps there are some opportunities for specialized shipping and shipbuilding. 10. Marine Electronics and Instrumentation are areas of great potential which need research and development as the Commission has pointed out. Communications in the sea, sonar, T.V., lighting, underwater habitats, submersibles, rescue and safety operations in great depth, all need support. Here government research funds must become an important source of financing as budget pressures from Vietnam ease. We look at government funds as seed money providing the cata- lyst to activate industry in the sea and particularly in this area. ll. Weather Forecasting and Control, including the monster buoy and the balloon program, data gathering, mapping the ocean bed, are additional activities which will be receiving increasing attention. We have touched on many sectors of oceanology. Venture capital funds are available for projects which may not render immediate returns. I could foresee that the growth of mutual funds and particularly ones featuring investments in oceanology, such as the Oceanic Fund, represented here today by Dick Peffenbach, 406 would be a source of capital for private companies, especially when circumstances seem favorable to their becoming public in a year or so. Wall Street may then be ready for oceanography in answer to Admiral Waters' aptly put question ''Is ocean- ography ready for Wall Street''? There is, indeed, a continuing interest in the financial community in oceanology. It is regarded as a new industry with great potential in the years to come as it emerges onto the industrial stage. As the needs develop and the budget pressures lessen from Vietnam, fin- ancing, both private and public, will, we feel sure, be available to make our waters and ocean beds contribute an increasingly important share of our Gross National Product and to our country's security. In conclusion, it might be well to turn part of our title for this meeting around to say that there is a Challenge to Government and how it organizes itself to do the job in responding to the Commission's report. An effective civilian agency seems to be needed for direction and funding and showing industry that it means "'business''. There is a great deal for Government to do to provide industry with the necessary incentives and favorable economic environment in many areas of oceanology. Government initiative is needed in fisheries, in pollution, in shipping and shipbuilding, in research and development, in underwater search and rescue, in coastal and harbor development. Some progress has been made. We hope it continues and without undue delay. FR SOK A OK I aK aK A a a a ak a a OCEANOGRAPHY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE Proposals to Bar Arms from the Ocean Beds The Russians have submitted a draft treaty at the disarmament conference currently underway in Geneva prohibiting the use for military purposes of the sea bed and the ocean floor and the sub-soil thereof beyond the 12-mile maritime zone of coastal states. Nuclear weapons or any types of weapons of mass destruction, military bases, structures, installations, fortifications or other objects of a military nature would be forbidden. Territorial waters would be excluded. The United States, through a letter submitted by President Nixon to the con- ference, in its first item has proposed that an international agreement be worked out that would prohibit the emplacement of nulcear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction on the sea bed. In responding to the Russian proposal, Gerard C. Smith, Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, indicated that the U.S. would oppose the Soviet proposal to include in the ban, military bases, structures, installations, fortifications and other objects of a military nature either on the ocean floor or beneath the sea bed. There would be no ban on the operation of submarines in either proposal. 407 It is both significant and unusual that the Russian proposal is broader than the one from the U.S. and perhaps indicates that we have a greater expertise and technical competence in constructing such facilities underwater at the depths that would be involved than have the Russians, The U.S, reaction to the Russian proposals would seem to imply that we do plan to extend our defense facilities to our continental shelves off our coasts and beyond our own territorial waters. This development reinforces our conviction about the favorable outlook we foresee for marine construction. The Navy certainly represents a significant source of potential business in the construction of underwater facilities on our continental shelves. Satellite Photo Reconnaissance of the Oceans and Land Areas In our November, 1968 issue of this report, we noted that Admiral Rickover, the father of the nuclear submarine, had succeeded in convincing the Department of Defense that the Navy should proceed to build an experimental new nuclear- fired, electrically propelled silent submarine and also a prototype high speed attack submarine. The apparent reason for Admiral Rickover winning his battle recently became apparent in the course of an extraordinary American Broadcast- ing Company television program February 9, 1969. This program was the second in a series entitled ''Man and His Universe'' sponsored by the North American Rockwell Corporation. This instalment entitled ''The View from Space" (copy- right American Broadcasting Company - 1969), was highly significant for several reasons. The color photography of the earth and moon from Apollo 8 was extraordinarily beautiful. The program also gave a number of specific examples of how the nation has been benefiting from its space program. The solving of a particularly frustrating shrimp fishing problem through Gemini photography, in particular, was cited for one. The program's outstanding contribution, however, was its revelation of the value of military and commercial satellite photo-reconnaissance. The program explicitly reviewed communication and weather satellites, and showed some actual sequences of recovery of film packages in mid-air which had been ejected on command from the Air Forces! Space and Missile Observaticn Satellite (SAMOS). As recently as last year even the use of the name of this satellite in print was discouraged. In the course of the program,the ABC television narrator, Mr. Jules Bergman, pointed out that both Russia and the United States have large and very active space reconnaissance programs with satellites that use both television and film cameras. We launch our recon spacecraft into polar orbits so that Red China and Russia are visible beneath them in daylight hours every day. What they have discovered since we started launching them regularly in 1963 has saved America billions of dollars in unneeded armaments and possibly prevented a war based on miscalulation of enemy strength. These satellites first uncovered Russia's new nuclear-powered missile-equipped submarines which were subsequently closely watched. It was re- ported that one fantastic picture taken last year - none of them has ever been released and this one was not shown - spotted more Soviet nuclear submarines being built in one yard on the Baltic than were being built in all the American ship- yards. This rang the alarm bell since it was realized that Russia had a submarine 1 ” 408 that was faster and deeper diving than many of our nuclear submarines. This was discovered in time and continued aerial reconnaissance confirmed the situation and a program to develop faster deeper diving United States submarines has now begun. The programs also showed some examples of photographs which approxi- mated real reconnaissance pictures shot from aircraft and spacecraft. According to the narration,against the sun glitter on the ocean could be seen ships' wakes viewed from an airplane. The ships had long since gone but where two wakes came together a submarine and its tender had rendezvoused. By the use of infra- red and other photographic devices it was revealed that the speed of these ships could be determined and whether or not they were nuclear powered. Finally, the program pointed out a statement of ex-President Johnson's in a little-noticed speech last year, in which he remarked that more than enough billions of dollars have been saved through satellite reconnaissance to pay for the entire military and civilian space programs. Incidentally, this is a striking example of the relation between space and the ocean and why the advanced technology companies of the aerospace and electronics companies are interested in oceanography. It is our uuderstanding that this ABC-TV program is to be repeated April 7th at 7:30. We urge those of our clients who missed it on February 9th to watch for it again. U.S.S. Dolphin (AGSS -555) This new nuclear deep diving Navy submarine prototype has recently com- pleted its design depth test dive which is thought to be about 6,000 feet. By the mid- 1970's itis believed the Navy will have submarines capable of operating at such a greatly increased depth. The Thresher, it will be recalled, apparently collapsed at a depth of about 1, 000 feet, while undergoing design depth test dives and sub- sequently sank to the bottom where it was found at 8,400 feet. Present high speed nuclear attack submarine hull profilesare patterned after that of the specially built diesel powered USS Albacore which was the prototype test unit in the 1950's for the optimum fully submerged and highly successful high speed hull. The Dolphin is to play the same role as a prototype for advanced deep diving nuclear powered sub- marines. It is more than just a research vessel, as it is designed and built to test deep o¢ean weapons and tactics to develop weapons capable of being fired to and from much greater depths than is possible with systems now operational. THE RISING SOVIET SEA POWER Dr. John J. Clark, Dean of the College of Business Administration, St. John's University, New York, in a prize essay appearing in the March edition of the U. §. Naval Institute Proceedings had the following to say about the emerging Soviet naval threat: '' The single most ominous episode of contemporary history, largely underrated by West European states, is the gradual shift of emphasis by the Soviets to a maritime strategy. The Russian bear senses that in any struggle of global dimensions, control of the sea constitutes 409 the center of gravity. The bear also senses that if he is checked on land by alliances of independent states, the use of the ocean allows him to get behind his prey. Thus the Russian fleet has ac- complished what the Red Army can not do, it has turned the NATO flank in the Mediterranean. The bear must surely now perceive that the Indian Ocean offers equally bright prospects. Conversely, a modern maritime stragegy widens the area of maneuver for the United States. Where land intervention in the Eurasian land mass is contemplated, gains and costs must be weighed. A maritime strategy will permit its possessor to intervene at a time and place of his choosing and to define the area of conflict in the most favorable terms..... Secretary of Defense, Melvin R. Laird, is testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Non-Proliferation Treaty affecting nuclear weapons, reported that the Soviet Union is pursuing a crash program to build a fleet of ballistic missile submarines comparable to the U.S, Polaris submarine fleet. This could bring the Soviets to an equal status with the United States in missile firing submarines by about 1973-1974. The U. S. Navy's most urgent problem is the development of its mastery of the oceans depth, so that it can at all times detect, locate, tract, identify, and if necessary, destroy this primary strategic threat. Former Defense Secretary, Clark M, Clifford, in the outgoing administration's final defense budget reported that the Russians had surpassed American intelligence estimates by moving from 250 ICBM's in mid-1966 to 900 by last September. They have now drawn about even with the American land based ICBM force at around 1,000. He also re- ported that the Russians had only about 45 Polaris type missiles compared to the 656 accounted for by U. S. Navy fleet of 41 feet ballistic missile submarines (each carries 16 missiles). Nevertheless, the Soviet submarine threat continues to grow and Mr. Clifford reported that this fact had led the Defense Department to a number of moves in the anti-submarine warfare field. For instance, last year's plan to cut back anti-submarine aircraft carriers from six to five has been scrapped, as was a plan to decrease the number of anti-submarine patrol aircraft. More land-based Lockheed P-3C Orion patrol aircraft will be bought, and a new carrier-based ASW plane will also be procured. A team composed of Lockheed and LTV-Aerospace is presently competing against General Dynamics Corp.to be the procurement source for this new airplane presently designated ‘VSX, It is anticipated that one of these companies will be selected as a procure- ment source by March 3lst. Furthermore, Secretary MacNamara's old plan to limit to 69 the number of nuclear powered attack submarines to be used in combat- ing the Soviet submarines has also been scrapped. Plans are being made to buy a number of new types of faster and quieter nuclear-powered submarines, the first three of which are proposed in the new fiscal 1970 defense budget. We reported on these new submarine types in the previous issue of this report. . 26-563 O - 69 - 27 410 The major portion of the Soviet fleet threat is its 50 nuclear-powered sub- marines backed by another 300 conventional submarines, It should be remem- bered that Hitler only had a total of 55 conventional submarines at the start of World War II. The Russian surface fleet has become second only to the U.S. in size, and it includes 25 missile ships and over 100 destroyers, many of them gas turbine powered. It also has 300 minesweepers, 230 landing ships and 750 patrol craft. The latest worrisome additions are two 25,000 ton, 650 foot helicopter carriers, one of which is now based in the Mediterranean. Most of this fleet has been built in the past 20 years, whereas only one-third of American naval vessels are that young. Russia's worldwide fleet of intelligence ships is almost as dangerous strategically as its warships, since these are the ones responsible for the sur- veillance of our surface fleet, including our FBM submarines. It is believed that Russia is turning out about 10 nuclear submarines each year. Because of the demonstrated technical capability of the Russians in space, rockets and missile building, itis highly probable that in four or five years, the Soviets can match or exceed our present fleet of 41 Polaris-type submarines with their 656 1500-mile range missiles. Such submarines could lie undetected off our coasts and reach any inland city in the United States with this missile. Until recently, our entire ballistic missile warning system has been oriented to the north over the Arctic. (We currently have no actual defense against ICBM's, such as the proposed Sentinel ABM system would provide). We are now becoming rapidly exposed to submarine-based ballistic missiles coming from the east, west and south. We believe this is the major reason why the Navy's oceanography budget, excluding procurement of weapons systems, accounts for slightly over half the present $500 million annual National Oceanographic Program Budget. It is for this reason that many of our investment recommendations in Oceanography in past issues of this report have been the high technology companies found among the aerospace, electronics, shipbuilding, computer and anti-submarine warfare equipment companies. A nuclear attack submarine, such as we represented by the ill fated Scorpion which was recently found and photographed lying in 10,000 feet of water, is one of the most effective anti-submarine weapons we now have. Apparently, the Navy has decided to expand significantly its fleet of attack submarines. We would ex- pect to see General Dynamics, for one, begin to see a resurgence in its nuclear submarine building. General Dynamics is already under contract for design work on the new silent submarine mentioned above. The Newport News Ship- building and Dry Dock Company, subsidiary of Tenneco, Inc., is designing the prototype of the ''superfast'' nuclear powered attack submarine. Nuclear submarines have been developed and designed under the systems concept so highly developed by the aerospace industry. General Dynamics did the primary work. Later, companies such as Litton Industries established themselves in this business because it was a highly developed systems business, demanding advanced, integrated electronic and electro-mechanical equipment, guidance systems, computers and weapons systems. These are also designed and built by other aerospace companies, for example, North American Rockwell, 411 Sperry Rand, United Aircraft, Aerojet-General, etc. In effect, these submarines are highly-efficient machines, employing considerable automation. In the last five years, we have spent less than $50 million on research and development for sea lift and sea transport, while spending over a billion dollars for air lift and air transport. Systems equipment, made possible by the development of nuclear submarines, can be applied to surface ships--both military and merchant marine. In addition, we can automate this surface shipping to effect crew reduction, with increased efficiency. With the U.S, merchant fleet deteriorating -- and, way down the totem pole compared to the merchant fleets of other nations, the country faces a tremendous need to modernize its surface Navy, as well as to strengthen its underseas fleet. We believe we are on the brink of an era of shipbuilding of very advanced and specialized vessels, both military and commercial, including surface effect ships, gas-turbine-powered ships, nuclear-powered destroyers, missile ships and specialized logistics ships. Im fact, the fiscal 1970 defense budget,as sub- mitted, contains $2. 4 billion for 19 new ships including a nuclear-powered carrier, three fast nuclear attack submarines, a nuclear-powered missile ship, five ultramodern destroyers, and 19 conversions, including six Polaris sub- marines to carry the new Poseidon missile, successor to the Polaris. The pressure is rising in Congress to start modernizing the Very and the Merchant Marine. UNDERWATER HABITATS Sealab III The tragic death of Berry Louis Cannon,a civilian electronics engineer from Panama City, Florida,last February 17th, while working on the continental shelf 600 feet beneath the Pacific Ocean on the first day of the Navy's scheduled but delayed 60-day ''Man-in-the-Sea'' experiment,received wide attention in the press. The Sealab II] experiment to test a man's ability to live and work for long periods at great depths had reportedly been plagued with trouble for months. Back in November, the personnel transport capsule, used to transfer aquanauts to the undersea habitat from the surface under pressure, was accidentally flooded which forced a two-month delay in the placement of the Sealab on the sea bottom to com- mence the experiment. Mr. Cannon apparently died of a cardiac arrest induced by carbon dionide poisoning from a faulty breathing apparatus which is now being investigated by the Navy. He had gone down to repair a leak of helium gas used in the breathing atmos- phere inside the vessel. It was decided to raise the habitat to the surface, not because of Mr. Cannon s death, but because enough helium was not available on the site to keep up with the increasing rate of the leak which had-reached some 10, 000 cubic feet per hour at the time of the decision to raise it. Failure to keep the vessel pressurized undoubtedly would have resulted in flooding and disastrous damage to the whole rig. According to the Navy, it may take three or four months 412 to repair and modify Sealab III and expects to restart the experiment in the late summer. Sealab III is part of the Man-in-the-Sea phase of the Navy Deep Sub- “mergence Systems Project established as a result of the nuclear submarine Thresher loss in 1965. Another part of the project, the Navy's Deep Submer gence Search Vehicle now under development, has top ey, in testing so that further delay of Sealab III could conceivably occur. The Sealab III habitat was specifically designed, fabricated and outfitted by the Navy for use as a sea floor laboratory. Its structure is essentially the same as that of its successful predecessor, Sealab II, although it contains modifications reflecting the experience acquired in earlier ocean work. A 57-foot long 12-foot diameter cylinder accommodates five teams of aquanauts for successive 12-day periods during the 60-day experiment. ‘The aquanauts will perform tasks in six general areas,namely, oceanography, engineering, construction, salvage, biology and human performance. Sealab III is supported on the surface by the "Elk River", a converted World War II landing ship which provides complete decompression facilities, personnel transfer to and from the habitat, physiological monitoring and medical facilities, storage of equipment and maintenance of communications, in- strumentation and gas sampling lines. The objective of the Sealab III program is to gain knowledge and "'know how"! pertinent. to the adaptation of man to the deep sea environment at ambient pressure. The primary interest of the Defense Department and the Navy in the "Man-in-the-Sea'' experiments is to provide a capability for rescue and salvage operations, maintenance of bottom-mounted equipment, use of the continental shelf for military operations associated with, for example, mine defense and amphibious assault. However, this program has vast potential secondary peace- ful uses for the nation. Technology gained in the program will hasten to make possible exploitation of the world's continental shelves for food, minerals and re- creation. By 1970, the U.S. Navy plans to have diver-aquanauts living in advanced sea habitations on the continental shelves for 30 days or more without coming to the surface. The depth capability of the aquanauts will ultimately be extended from the average 600-foot depths of the shelves down to the as yet unknown physiological limits of man. Fortyaquanauts, five teams of eight men each, including civilian Scientists, will occupy the underwater habitat alternately for 12-day periods for a total of 60 days. Commander M. Scott Carpenter, the former astronaut who was team leader for 30 days during the 1965 Sealab II operation is serving as senior aquanaut directing the activities of the five team leaders, although he will no longer participate in actual diving because of medical considerations. A number of U.S. Navy activities as well as the Department of Interior's Bureau of Com- mercial Fisheries and the Philadelphia General Hospital are involved in developing the tasks the aquanauts will perform. In carrying out the project's physical oceanography work, devices will be installed in the ocean floor including current meters, thermographs, a tide gauge, an underwater ''weather station'', temperature recorders, bio-luminescence meters, a radiance meter, and salinity meters. Aquanauts from the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries will conduct work in the areas of marine biology and ecology. Porpoises and sea lions will also be used as they were in Sealab II to demonstrate the feasibility! of aiding lost aquanauts, delivering tools, messages and other obiects. 413 The Geological Oceanography program will observe sedimentological processes. Current measurements and time-lapse photography will be used to support the sediment transport studies. Work in the engineering phase involves communications, evaluation of diving equipment and extensive engineering evalu- ation of the sea floor habitat and systems. The construction experiment will help determine the ability of divers to assemble structures on the ocean floor. Salvage techniques will be tested,such as a chemical bottom overlay spray to reduce bottom turbidity and salvage lift systems. Tools such as explosive cable cutters, stud drivers, and electric powered hand tools will be evaluated. Human performance will be measured during execution of various work in salvage operations to develop procedures and work doctrines. During the experiment, the aquanauts will be ob- served by a closed circuit television, monitored by open microphones and extensive- ly interviewed. The living compartment is essentially a cylindrical pressure vessel 57 feet long by 12 feet in. diameter. Two 8 X 12 foot square rooms are attached to the bottom of the hull. One serves as a diving station with diving lockers, diving gear, hot showers and an open hatch for access to the sea, The other is an observation and storage compartment fitted with large portholes, a refrigerator-freezer unit and an emergency escape hatch. The living compartment is divided into a laboratory, galley and bunk room. Electric power, fresh water, communications, television links, and other life support needs are supplied through lines to the surface from the ''Elk River'' surface support vessel. The "Elk River'' is equipped with two deck compression chambers each designed to support four divers during the six hour decompression period needed to return saturated divers from the pressure found at 600 feet to normal atmos- pheric conditions. A pressurized elevator system known as the Personnel Transfer Capsule will transport divers from the ship to the bottom habitat... This capsule also mates with the deck decompression chambers so that at all times whether on deck, or at 600 feet, the aquanauts can be kept at pressures equivalent to the ambient ocean pressures at the bottom. Tektite I On February 15th, four aquanauts entered the water off Beehive Cove, St. John, Virgin Islands, and entered an underwater capsule moored 42 feet. below the surface to begin living in it for two months - twice as long as man has dwelt sub- merged before. The long range purpose of this $2.5 million joint federal agency program is to open exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf. Unlike Sealab III, which is a Navy project, Tektite is non-military. Three of the four aquanauts are employees of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and one is with the United States Geological Survey. The capsule was built by the Missile & Space Division of the General 414 Electric Company and is remarkably similar to the command and service module of the Apollo vehicle. It is composed of two connected vertical cylinders 18-feet high by 12-1/2 feet in diameter mounted on a rectangular base. Although the Navy's Seabees have been responsible for placement and support of the Tektite on the bottom, other federal agencies involved are: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the National Park Service and the United States Geological Survey. The National Park Service is involved because the waters surrounding land on St. John make up a national land and under- water park. The four marine scientists will conduct extensive studies of marine life and geology and the men themselves will be subjects of intense physiological and psychological examination, as they live isolated from the surface under sat- uration diving conditions. General Electric is the prime contractor. Some of the observations of the scientists will be of value to geologists in providing clues as to where to seek petroleum or other mineral deposits, and sonar will be tested for fishery applications as well as to determine the effectiveness for differentiating between fish species. Major emphasis of the ocean bottom studies will be on marine animal behavior and habitats as well as how these animals inter- act with their environment. Other studies will include marine geology, underwater mapping, and monitoring of various oceanographic phenomena. Another major purpose is to determine how men function in prolonged is- olation and confinement in an effort to adapt the knowledge through long duration Space missions, such as the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), being planned by the Air Force and NASA. Both the Air Force and NASA in the future hope to be able to ferry replacement crews to orbiting vehicles in space,with smaller and less complicated and less expensive boosters, Spacecraft thus, permanent orbiting spacecraft may be used indefinitely rather than being discarded after each mission. The Navy is also interested because it is studying the feasibility of placing submarine detection stations along the continental shelf which could be either manned or periodically serviced by divers. UNDERWATER RESEARCH AND WORK VEHICLES - RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Heretofore, we have been referring to underwater manned vehicles as underwater research vehicles because they have been largely experimental or built as one-of-a-kind for a specific purpose in underwater research, exploration, or salvage. Few of these have been profitable for their builders, but many of them have recorded some extraordinary achievements and the development of new and more useful types seems to have accelerated. We are now beginning to see the appearance of some second generation manned submersibles which are capable of being put to work on a truly economic basis. These submersibles offer promise of quanity production, particularly for work on the continental shelf, in the offshore petroleum industry and in underwater search, exploration, as well as, pipeline and cable maintenance, salvage and etc. In past issues of this report, we have described how essentially research vessels performed some amazing feats when.requisitioned for the search for the atomic bomb off the coast of Spain and to search for the U. S. Navy submarine, Thresher. We believe the following items about what we consider second generation or working submersibles should be of significant interest to 415 investors. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation - In January, Lockheed's ''Deep Quest!’ located and positively indentified visually, through ports, the tail section of the Scandinavian DC-8 jet airliner that crashed January 13th in Santa Monica Bay, six miles from the Los Angeles Airport in 325 feet of water. On February 5th, it was reported that the wreckage of a United Airlines Boeing 727, which had crashed into the sea off Los Angeles on January 18th had been found 11 miles offshore, scattered around on the ocean floor in 924 feet of water. All 38 persons aboard died in this accident which occurred shortly after takeoff. United Airlines chartered the Lockheed Missiles & Space Company's ''Deep Quest'' submersible in an effort to recover the flight data and voice recorders from which it might be possible to determine the cause of this accident. On February 28th, the cockpit voice record- er was recovered and on March 4th the flight recorder was recovered by a team working from the ''Deep Cuest''’, This submersible also found and assisted in the raising of all three engines of the 727. ''Deep Quest!'' received Navy safety cer- tification late last fall, when it was successfully tested to 8, 050 feet. Westinghouse Electric Corporation - Scientists from the Westinghouse Ocean Research Laboratory have been diving in the Santa Barbara Channel in the company's ''Deep Star 4000" to study the status of sea life as a result of the recent oil spillage from an offshore oil rig there. They will continue to monitor the area periodically to determine any changes, other than natural changes, that may have been caused by the oil slick over a long period of time. General Dynamics Corporation - Last December, General Dynamics launched ''Sea Cliff'' and ''Turtle'', identical deep diving submarines built by the company's Electric Boat Division. Raadm. Thomas B. Owen, Chief of Naval Research,said at the launching ceremonies that these vessels will enable the Navy to investigate 16% of the ocean floor, a portion equivalent in size to the surface of the moon. He also indicated that ''Sea Cliff'' would be used in an attempt to raise the research submarine ''Alvin'' which sank in 5, 000 feet of water south of Cape Cod last October. We reported on this incident in our November 1968 re- port. ''Turtle'' will be assigned to the Atlantic Underwater Test and Evaluation Center (AUTEC) in the Bahamas for the purpose of maintaining the underwater components of the AUTEC range including miles of cable, some of which lie at depths of 6,500 feet. On January 25, 1969, the world's first nuclear-powered research sub- marine, the NR-1, was launched for the Navy. This vessel is equipped with rollers to let it ride on the ocean floor and mechanical arms to pick up objects and perform useful work. It will demonstrate the feasibility of nuclear propulsion in a small vehicle and the ability to perform a variety of ocean engineering and military tasks. Until the advent of NR-1 all deep submergence vehicles have been extremely limited in operations in endurance and range by the fact that they have been powered by batteries. Like a nuclear-powered Navy submarine, the propulsion and auxiliary power source for NR-1 is,for all practical purposes,unlimited. She can stay down as long as on-board food and supplies hold out. The 140-foot 400-ton boat will be manned by a crew of five navy men and two scientists. Vice Admiral Hyman G, 416 Rickover, the Navy's nuclear propulsion expert, has said that this $67.5-million vessel's depth capability (which is classified) is equivalent to that of exploring an area several times the area of the United States. He believes that-a tremendous potential discovery by the NR-1 should keep the Navy busy for a long, long time. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation - We recently observed Grumman's PX-15 "Ben Franklin" deep diving research vessel undergoing tests at its base in West Palm Beach. Since then it has successfully been tested down to 2,000 feet. Sometime this year,the ''Ben Franklin'is expected to drift a thousand feet down in the Gulfstream from Palm Beach to Cape Cod with a crew of six. The "Ben Franklin'' was built to demonstrate Grumman's capability and establish a reputation for reliable underwater vehicles in the same way that its reputation for reliable aircraft and space vehicles has been so well established. The Navy is interested in it for accurate bottom profiling surveys in order to determine where submarines could hide at considerable depth. The Navy is also interested because this vessel offers the first opportunity for extended submerged surveys, as is NASA because it provides an opportunity to study the problems of living aboard a sealed vessel for long periods of time which many will be required to do in future manned space flights. The oil and gas company pipelines are also interested because the "Ben Franklin" could perform long distance continuous pipeline surveys for which it is felt there will be a large market. Finding and preventing one potential pipe- line break or pipeline foundation washout, according to Grumman, can more than pay for the cost of such a vehicle. "'OCEANOLOGY INTERNATIONAL '69" In order to keep the United States Oceanographic program in proper per- spective,a brief review of 'Oceanology International '69"', a joint ocean technology conference and exhibit held in Brighton, England, on February 17-21, 1969, as reported by Ocean Science News for March 7th seems relevant. Well over 2, 000 people from 32 countries registered, considerably more than expected. Every session of the technical meetings apparently was oversubscribed. Papers from over a dozen countries were read and some four volumes of preprints of the papers totaling over 800 legal size single spaced pages were submitted. In reviewing the papers, Ocean Science News reports that although the United States is certainly the most active and advanced nation in terms of effort, technological development and activity in oceanology, there are other nations in the world whose ocean interests are mounting and who are doing some things better than the United States. It might be said that an international oceanographic race is developing. There were 34 U.S, exhibitors among the 200 total. Russia was strongly represented and intent on establishing sales outlets for its oceanographic instrumentation. So were the Germans, Japanese and French, and of course the British. U.S. companies reportedly made over $1 million in sales on the floor of the exhibit hall with another $5 million in prospect over the following 30 days. This was primarily a technology rather than a science meeting and was well publicized and promoted in advance. The Soviet delegate announced his nation's intention to double the size of 417 its ocean program in a few years, The U.S, representative, Dr. Richard Gyer, Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Marine Sciences Commission, reviewed the Com- mission's recently released report. Senator Claiborne Pell, (R.1I.) Chairman of the Senate Sub-Committee and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, pleaded for international cooperation in ocean space to prevent using the ocean bottom for the emplacement of advanced weapons. Sir John Foster, leader of the British group for world government, agreeing with Senator Pell that there should be international control over the seabed, proposed that licensing of its use should be controlled by some worldwide organization rather than governments. In general the papers were of good quality and many of them have been widely reported in the press. PETROLEUM OFFSHORE Recent Court Decisions The World Court in The Hague has recently ruled that the equidistance principle of determining rights to the Continental Shelf for countries facing each other, as in the North Sea, is not necessarily a rule of customary international law, despite its adoption in the United Nations Convention on the Continental Shelf. It rather establishes that such offshore boundaries should be negotiated in accord- ance with equitable principles. Germany, which did not sign the Convention, has claimed that it should be entitled to more than the 8,900 square miles of Continental Shelf in the North Sea. Neighboring Denmark and The Netherlands received some 23,200 square miles, because their coast lines are convex rather than concave as is the case in Germany, which feels it should receive a larger portion of the Con- tinental Shelf. The Court set out certain guidelines to be followed in future negotiations between these countries in establishing exact boundaries, namely general con- figuration of the coast, physical and geological structures, natural resources of the area involved and regard for the length of each party's coastline and existing offshore boundaries. The effect of this ruling could cause disputes between countries in other parts of the world, especially in the Middle and Far East. Undoubtedly, this will be taken into consideration during the forthcoming discussions and negotiations re- garding any amendments which may be made to the United Nations Convention re- garding the Continental Shelf. Petroleum companies. would naturally be inclined to - avoid exploration and development of areas which might be in dispute. The U.S. Supreme Court has just issued a ruling in the case of Louisiana's claim to the Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico that will give the Federal Government some 75% of the contested area in Zones 2 and 3. A special master will be appointed to determine the actual seaward limit of the inward waters from which the 3 miles seaward are to be measured. This line is to be drawn in accor- dance with the principles of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Tributary Zones. It endorsed the principle of an ambulatory coastline to determine where the state's starting point should be. 418 In the Texas ruling, the Court also defined the coastline as the modern ambulatory coastline. It pointed out that if any alleged inequitable resolutions or detriments to orderly mineral development were to tollow from this ruling, Congress could provide relief. Thus, further delay could be anticipated before the exact area of the Con- tinental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico, over which Louisiana and Texas have jurisdict- ion,is delineated. The substantial funds being held in escrow, now over $1 billion, will continue to increase. Exploration and Production While the problems of working in the offshore area are still numerous, the advances in technology which have occurred over the past several years, have not been remarkable, and amply demonstrate what can occur when thought and ingenuity are brought to bear on a problem. The discoveries to date in the off- shore area, even considering the disaster offshore Santa Barbara, continue to provide us with a great deal of enthusiasm for the rapid growth which we foresee in the offshore petroleum industry. Major onshore discoveries like those on the North Slope of Alaska and in the foreign sectors, such as the prolific Libyan wells, do not diminish our expectationsfor the offshore area. Demand for petroleum in the future is such that all the reserves will be needed. Our enthusiasm, naturally, spreads to the services provided by the drilling contractors and equipment man- ufacturers who will stand to benefit significantly from this increasing offshore participation. In fact, Shell Oil and Continental Oil direct more than 60% of their total exploratory budgets to the offshore area. Postponement of offshore lease sales may well result in increased exploration and development of existing leased acre- age, as the oil companies would have more money this year for operations and less needed for bonuses. The offshore service and manufacturing companies would be the obvious beneficiaries. Over the past year, new offshore production commenced in many different areas, including Iran's giant Sassan Field and offshore Cabinda where Gulf Oil will be producing about 40, 000 B/D in 1969. Initial discoveries included the first successes in the Norwegian and Dutch sectors of the North Sea, offshore Brazil and off the northwestern coast of Australia. About 12 additional countries will record initial exploratory efforts off their coasts in 1969. They are centered in the African and Far East countries. 1. Domestic Offshore Two important lease sales, one offshore Texas and the other offshore California, occurred in 1968. In May of last year, the industry spent $600 million to bid on 141 tracts offshore Texas and $603 million for acreage offshore California in the Santa Barbara Channel. These two highly distinct areas have turned out to be a mixed blessing, so far, for the industry.The acreage offshore California is, for the most part, in deep water and involves highly faulted structures and complex geology; offshore Texas, the water is generally shallow and the geological problems are miniscule when placed in perspective with some other areas, 419 The Santa Barbara Channel has been, for the most part, a disappointment to the industry. Up until the time of the recent disaster offshore Santa Barbara, only three announced discoveries had been made with a possibility of two additim- al. One was by Union Oil and its three partners, Gulf, Mobil and Texaco, each with a 25% interest in Block 402, The second by the Sun Oil Group (Sun Oil, Marathon, Superior Oil and Sunray DX Oil, which was recently merged into Sun) in adjoining Block 401,and the third by Humble Oil (Standard Oil of N. J.) in Block 342. In add- ition to these three announced discoveries, there is a possibility of two additional ones although no firm announcement has been made so far. Also, three active tests were being drilled when the Federal Government announced a suspension of drilling because of the oil spill in the Channel. But more importantly, there have been 31 dry holes or abandoned wells drilled so far in the Channel. Most of the drilling results on acreage leased in the offshore Texas sale have been kept secret due to asubstantial amount of acreage which is still unleased in the nearby vicinity. There have been two known discoveries and a possibility of about five additional ones. Firm discoveries have been announced by Texaco, the highest bidder in the Texas sale, and by the Alamos Group, a six company con- sortium led by Sun Oil, which received the greatest amount of acreage in this sale. The Texas offshore lease sale benefited the contract drillers who had idle shallow water equipment. The average offshore Texas water depth is only about 80 feet, with the deepest portion being about 120 feet. The SLAM Group (Signal, Louisiana Land and Exploration, Amerada Petroleum and Marathon) recently set a bid record of $94.2 million for a 3,400-acre drainage block which adjoins other acreage held by the same group. The reserves in this block are apparently large. Development of the Block will commence shortly and add importantly to 1970 pro- duction for these companies. In the Santa Barbara Channel, however, water depths extend from 200 feet to 1,600 feet, even though the farthest acreage is only 15 miles from the coast. This is due to the small continental shelf which exists off the West Coast. The Santa Barbara accident, in which some 6, 000 barrels of oil floated into Pacific waters from the initial leak, is covered in another section of this report. It appears that offshore Louisiana acreage, still has the most potential left. A vast assortment of pipelines criss-cross Louisiana's offshore waters and numerous development platforms dot the area. Platform and pipeline construction is continuing at a high pace in order to bring the large gas and oil reserves to market. A substantial portion of the development work presently underway in this acreage resulted from the 1967 offshore Louisiana lease sale which amply demon- strates that if reserves are found in commercial quantities, a minimum time is needed to bring these reserves to market. Discoveries have been made by a vast assortment of individual operators and groups. Over 25 good discoveries have been made so far on acreage leased in the 1967 Louisiana offshore sale. Alaska is quickly becoming a major source of domestic oil reserves. While the focus is on the two North Slope discoveries of 1968, other areas appear good. A substantial amount of production is already coming from the Cook Inlet area in southern Alaska. Vast amounts of the State's offshore acreage are frozenout 420 for the better portion of the year; Alaska has more Continental Shelf off its coasts than the rest of the United States, excluding Hawaii. . It appears that lease sales originally scheduled for the latter part of 1969 in the Gulf of Alaska and Bristol Bay may be deferred until 1970, because of the Interior Department's suspension of bid requests for new offshore leases. Once more definite rulés have been laid down for drilling in offshore areas, we believe that these lease sales will be rescheduled. Because of difficult year-round working conditions, a hiatus of only a few months in studying the Alaskan acreage coming up for bid. would defer a lease sale offshore Alaska for about a year. While the cost of drilling in the Alaskan water is approximately five times that of drilling in the Gulf Coast, the possibility of large structures existing in the offshore area is quite high, as the Cook Inlet has proven out. Even the North Slope, which is so far primarily a landplay, adjoins the coast; the initial discovery well was only seven miles from the sea. In fact, General American Oil holds two leases which are seven miles away from the original Atlantic-Jersey discovery well. These two leases are 85% offshore. In future years, we expect that advances in the state of the art will develop so that petroleum can be produced from areas in which the ice forms a 25-foot thickness, with ridges extending to 75 feet during the mid-winter months. 2. Other Western Hemisphere Offshore areas in the Western Hemisphere are receiving more attention. Exploratory and seismic efforts are being conducted off no less than 18 Central and South American countries. New petroleum laws in various nations, especially Argentina, are bringing-seismic crews back into an area which once was one of the most promising in the Western Hemisphere. But while Argentina, under a new government, is now spurring the development of its offshore provinces, the Peruvian Government for one, is creating a cloud over Western Hemisphere oil exploration. Concessions have recently been awarded offshore Peru to Texaco, Gulf and Occidental Petroleum, and Belco Petroleum is already a producer in Peruvian waters. But the seizure by the Peruvian Government of Standard Oil of New Jersey's onshore Parinas Field, which was the result of a dispute of many year's standing, leaves that country in somewhat of a grey area. Acreage off some Central American countries is now, however, being explored more actively, especially Nicaragua, Honduras and the Islands of Trinidad and Jamaica. Drilling in the Canadian Arctic is starting with the Panarctic Group (45% owned by the Canadian Government and the balance by 19 Canadian companies and Barber Oil) putting down its initial wellon Melville Island. A second well is slated for April 1969. Sun Oil and Global Marine will conduct a magnetometer program this summer on a portion of 6 million Canadian Arctic acres, as will Pacific Petroleums on its vast Beaufort Sea acreage. If initial drilling in the Canadian Arctic by Panarctic proves favorable, this area should receive much more interest over the course of the next several years. Hudson Bay and the east and west coasts of Canada will also continue to be areas of intense activity. Eo 421 3. The Near East One of the hottest areas this year and next will be offshore Indonesia where Sinclair Oil (now a part of Atlantic Richfield) has reported an apparent discovery on a large offshore Block. The liapco Company, which is 100%-owned by Natomas, has a 36% interest, and Atlantic has 46%. Atlantic, the operator, is continuing to drill at an accelerated pace. In nearby Sumatra, Asamara holds 60% of a contract operation covering 1.5 million acres which entitles it to 40% of the production proceeds, Rumors continue to persist, and the price of Asamara's stock reflects this speculat- ion, that Japan Petroleum Company has made an excellent discovery on acreage which borders on Asamara's. In nearby Papua, Phillips Petroleum has confirmed a strike of nearly 33, 000 mcf/d of gas and 2,500 b/d of condensate. While drilling in this area has also yielded numerous dry holes, the amount of condensate in this, Phillips' second discovery well, is highly encouraging. Phillips is the operator for a five company group (including Superior Oil, Canadian Superior, Sun DX division and Atlantic Richfield) and is already proceeding on drilling a third well. Australia is an excellent, politically stable captive market for reserves discovered in Papua, a possession of this country. Promising oil and gas finds are still being made offshore Australia and it now appears that the nation will be self-sufficient in petroleum in only a few years. Petroleum laws are being drawn up by the Australian Govern- ment to provide for the export of crude. An improved political climate in Thailand is attracting a number of com- panies to conduct seismic operations in the Gulf of Thailand.. Exploratory drilling operations have also commenced offshore Brunei by Ashland Oil and offshore Pakistan by the Royal Dutch-Shell Group. Numerous companies are also drilling offshore New Zeaiand's extensive Continental Shelf, hoping to find large Australian- type structures there. 4. Africa Due to the continued closure of the Suez Canal and the remote possibility of its opening in the near future, offshore African provinces have been receiving increased attention, especially off the western coast of the Continent. Operations offshore Nigeria are accelerating as conditions improve and the civil war diminish- es. In neighboring Gabon, Union Oil is conducting an extensive seismic program. The possibilities of Nigerian-type structures off Gabon provides a good climate for the operators. Gulf Oilis already developing its large reserves offshore Cabinda. - The first discovery, after several tries, offshore South Africa has recently been made by the Superior Oil Group. The waters surrounding South Africa, because of proximity to two oceans and dangerous currents, is an extremely hazardous working area and drilling can be quite treacherous. 422 DRILLING CONTRACTORS AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS Hayden, Stone's Petroleum Offshore Contractors Index The securities of most offshore drilling companies have been the subject of a great deal of selling pressure over the past two months. In some cases, the recent weakness in certain securities was warranted; in other instances, we feel it has created unusual values. At year-end 1968, the Hayden, Stone Petroleum Off- shore Contractors Index stood at 138.18, up a hardy 19.7% for the year, more than ~ double the 8.7% gain for the S & P 425 Industrials. The Index has slipped from 138.18 to 121.10 for a 12.4% drop between January lst and March Ist of this year, a more rapid decline than the 4.0% posted for the Industrials Index. We expect the Hayden, Stone Petroleum Offshore Contractors Index will stay around its present level of 121 for a short while longer, but we forecast that within a month or so it will begin rising. We expect our Index to out-perform the S & P 425 Industrials and the S & P Oil Composite Indices for 1969. We certainly do not see the boom in offshore drilling stocks ebbing, although their full potential may not be realized until the stock market as a whole takes on a more positive tone. Our target for the Index in 1969 is 135, or about 12% above the present level. STOCK PRICE INDICES 4 % Change % Change 5 1/3/68 12/31/68 1/3/68-12/31/68 3/5/69 12/31/68-3/5/69 — Hayden, Stone's Petroleum Offshore Contractors 115.43 138.18 +19.7% 121, 10 -12.4% ) Standard & Poor's ; 425 Industrials 104. 09 113.02 + 8.6% TO Seesalt - 4.0% Standard & Poor's Oil Composite 130.24 152.23 +16.9% 146,65 - 3.7% Offshore Petroleum Technology Advances in offshore technology are continuing to develop. Especially significant is the design of offshore platforms which are capable of working in various worldwide locations and at different water depths. A vivid example of this is the contract recently awarded by Kerr McGee to a Japanese shipyard for the construction of the Transworld Rig 61. The rig is a combination self-elevating drillship, and a semi-submersible. The rig can move to a new drilling site like any other drillship would, which provides for greater speed and more efficient towing, Once on location, the legs are jacked up and the rig takes on the characteristics | of a semi-submersible, capable of drilling in 600 feet of water. Another example of flexibility in rig design is Santa Fe International's Mariner i, which is narrow enough to traverse the Panama Canal, rather than having to take the long route around the Cape from one ocean to the other. This eliminates a significant loss of nonproductive time and cost. Bethlehem Steel Shipbuilding is working on the 423 design of a rig which could also traverse the narrow Canal. Upon its arrival at the chosen drilling site, four pontoon-type legs would swing-out and provide for even greater stability in rough areas. Other companies are redesigning existing rigs. Zapata Norness accomp- lished this with a third of its fleet last year and permitted all three of the rigs which were involved to work in greater water depths. The usual procedure chosen is to add members to the existing legs, replacing the legs with longer ones or converting a bottom-supported vessel to one which is buoyant in the water, thereby permitting it to operate in greater depths. While the cost of these improvements can exceed 50% of the rig's value, the revenues which can accrue from the rig's increased daily working rate as well as its being able to obtain a greater utilization factor, can more than pay for the improvements, Not only are the rigs changing, but so is the equipment. Improved drawworks, better air and hydraulic systems, and more efficient cranes are - materially upgrading their use, value, and efficiency. Further advances are expected in the future as the need for flexible, tough and reliable equipment which can work in any area, ranging from the Arctic cold to the Equitorial heat, increases. Im- proved pumping systems for deeper wells and more reliable blowout preventers to insure the safety of man and machine are being developed. Lighter weight turbine engines are being improved so that they can be made capable of jobs where the horsepower requirement is greater than the capabilities of today's existing models. But while exploratory rigs are being constructed with increasing flexibility, production platforms are being geared to incorporate the latest designs for the specific area in which they will work. Union Oil's monopod platform in ice-swept Cook Inlet, helicopter transported rigs, rigs which are drilling on a 40 degree angle into shallow offshore sands near Peru, and special purpose rigs for use on the THUMS project, a series of man-made islands offshore California are but a few examples. We expect that within the next several years one or more of several deep- water production systems will be placed in operation. Such Systems have already been designed by: 1. Mobil Oil - North American Rockwell; 2. Fluor Corporation (Western Offshore Division) 3. Compagnie Francaise des Petroles (CFP) - Westinghouse Electric with two separate systems. Offshore deep-water tanker terminals, including underwater storage systems, will be used with greater frequency in the future. Some are already being placed into service. Companies involved include: 1. Gulf Oil-three offshore loading stations; one in Bantry Bay, Ireland, the second in the Persian Gulf and one in Nova Scotia, with several more planned throughout the world, including one at Okinawa. 424 z. Continental Oil - an inverted funnel storage facility being installed offshore Dubai. Built by Chicago Bridge & Iron. 3. Santa Fe International - prestressed concrete cylinders laid on the ocean floor. 4. Bethlehem Steel - bottom supported, large diameter bottles. A second innovation is specifically designed for non-water, soluble refined products storage. ' Standard Oil (New Jersey) will conduct a research program this summer for the purpose of testing a new type of icebreaking device and to ply the fabled Northwest Passage. The S.S. Manhattan, the largest U.S. merchant marine ship, is being outfitted for this journey. An icebreaker designed at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is being attached; the MIT device lifts the ship over the ice and then proceeds to crash down on the ice floes. Present icebreaking devices merely attempt to crash through the ice, head-on. We believe that the MIT breaker, as well as the recently developed Canadian Alexbow system, in which the breaking prow lifts the ice from underneath through the natural buoyancy of the ship, will be able to penetrate thicker ice masses than conventional icebreaking systems. If the results of this summer's program prove favorable, it would open a channel for North Slope crude to the Eastern Seaboard. Standard Oil (New Jersey) and British Petroleum, who recently acquired 9, 700 Sinclair service stations from Maine to Florida would benefit most by the opening of the Northwest Passage. Longer range, huge submarine tankers which could deliver North Slope and Canadian Arctic crude to Europe via an undersea North Pole route, are being investigated. Drilling in offshore areas is creating a paradox. On the one hand, it is bound to become more expensive. On the other, costs of associated drilling op- erations are decreasing materially. The science of drilling for oil offshore is still in its infancy and there will certainly be tremendous breakthroughs in the future, both in terms of available technology and in lowering the costs per well drilled. Santa Barbara Oil Spill The recent blowout of a well offshore California in the Santa Barbara Channel was a rare, but most unfortunate accident. It was reported that this was the first occurrence of a wild oil well causing mass pollution problems since offshore California drilling began some sixty years ago. As a result, stringent new rules have currently been issued in order to obviate, or at least,lessen the chances of this situation recurring. Methods are needed to cope with the special problems-associated with the complex faulting in the Channel. Furthermore, offshore drilling regulations have not been updated in many years. These new rules encompass the following provisions: 1. More frequent testing of blowout preventors. 425 2. The quick availability of skimming apparatus, anti-pollution equipment, and booms, in the event of an emergency. 3. More rigid drilling procedures, especially in cementing, mud handling, and completion techniques. 4. Additional installation of well casing, sometimes including as * many as four strings. It appears likely that no further lease sales will be made in the Santa Barbara Channel and that drilling operations may be terminated, at least in certain sections of it. Results to date have been disappointing anyhow. The Interior Department has estimated that if it were to order drilling operations in federal waters in the Channel to be stopped permanently that it would cost the Federal Government maybe as much as a billion dollars or more in return of bonuses, prospective royalties and other expenses incurred by the oil companies which have already been awarded leases. We would expect, nevertheless, that offshore operations would be permitted to continue in other areas of the West Coast and for lease sales to be resumed in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska as soon as the new regulations have been issued. Programs of this nature, no doubt, will increase the operators’ costs, but some costs are decreasing. Certain types of seismic work in the Gulf of Mexico now cost as little as $0.01 a shot, whereas only several years ago the cost wason the order of $0.20 a shot. One group of companies will benefit from tighter rules. These are the companies who supply the casing, the drilling muds, the tubing and the cementing services. Although there are a vast assortment of such firms, some of the im- portant ones include Halliburton, Dresser and Fluor's Republic Supply Company division. Robert L. Clark Stuart H.Clement, Jr. C.F.A. 426 Mr, Lennon. Any other questions? Mr. Cuark. Thank you very much, sir. Could I just make one further comment about a point that you raised regarding the NACO and NOAA being independent of each other and on the same level ? The point that I perhaps was taking exception to in the Commis- . sion’s report was the proposed dependence of the committee on NOAA, the staff and certain administrative functions. It might be better to have the committee stand on its own and not be dependent. Mr. Lennon. You are saying that the committee ought to be inde- pendent in the sense that it have its own staff funded by the Federal Government ? Mr. Crark. Right. Mr. Lennon. Just as the National Commission which brought this report had a budget under which it had its own staff. Mr. CrarK. Yes. Mr. Lennon. Although they occasionally borrowed from the staff of the National Science Council. I certainly agree with you. Mr. Cuarx. And I think that this is, perhaps, an important point of deviation from the Commission’s report insofar as I would like to testify here before you. Mr, Lennon. That isa point we can clear up. T agree with you, it should not be dependent on the staff of NOAA. It should have an independent staff so that they can make independent determination and judgment and recommend without influence from any Government agency. Mr. CuarK. Yes. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Counsel. ; Mr. Drewry. Mr. Chairman, there was mention of the amounts of money involved in, I believe you mentioned the figure, in the oil indus- try last year Mr. Lennon. You can correct that figure because I have taken it off the top of my head. Mr. Drewry. The table appears on page 123 of the Commission’s report and shows that for 1968 the estimate of domestic offshore ex- penditures for private industry was $2,850 million, and the cumula- tive amount through 1968, which I suppose goes back to the time when the leasing first began, was $12,750 million. Mr. Chairman, I think it might be appropriate to insert this table in the record at this point. Mr. Lennon. I think it is appropriate in light of the very inquisitive question made by the gentleman from New York related to the rejec- tion of such a program in light of our problems in our cities. I think the basic difference between the space program is that so far we have not perceived, have not yet realized, any financial reward to the Federal Government as we have with funds spent in the other areas. Every nickel which has been spent has been spent by the Federal Government for which we have had no return except for employment in these various companies which are building hardware for the pro- grams, which means a great deal to our country. Here we have the potential of actually bringing wealth to the Fed- eral Government from the oceans and seas of the world. I do think 427 that this is a criterion on which this program will ultimately be ac- cepted with the help of our fine friends of the news media if they tell the story because this potential is there. I will ask unanimous consent that there appear in the record at the request of counsel the table which he referred to. (The table follows :) TABLE 4-2.—DOMESTIC OFFSHORE EXPENDITURES [In billions of dollars} Cumulative 1968 (estimate) (through 1968) ease bonusvand-rental!paymentsea ss 202 22° ee sek 8 Sets Re a ee 1,25 4.00 Royalty paymentsas. S22 2-2 - ses ssze cies. BA se bis ie oe eee ee aby 25 1.85 SEISMIC ErAavITy, anu MaPeLiCISUIVCYS..2 5 Monae ee ont een ce eg. . 10 1.10 Drilling and completing wells....._-..._.._.._.-_____-____-__.--___-___-_-___- .35 3.10 Platforms, production facilities, and pipelines__...__.___________________________- .25 1.85 Operating GOStGH MORSE LP iadd LAd as CP EL 1906 DIET E AE St AS AE yk! 15 . 85 WAGE: 2 yeep apa lected Con olla eta ender ated a pene Ae ovine 2.35 12.75 Source: Richard J. Howe (Esso Production Research Co.), ‘‘Petroleum Operation in the Sea—1980 and Beyond,”’ Ocean Industry, August 1968, p. 29 Mr. Crark. Might I just please come back to the Representative from New York’s very salient question about how do you sell the pro- gram to the public. This, I think, is vital. First of all, we have said money coming from the Government is having a catalytic effect. This is a concept that maybe we don’t sell it in those words but it has, I think, a generating effect on industry. Just as you said, sir, the space program is all out go and this is going to bring a lot ‘of income and benefit to industry and to the people and I think, sir, that the marine recreational field, the work along the coast, the conservation, the improvement of our beaches and our coastal resources which have become so depressed and depredated in many areas, that this is something that one can go out and certainly I would think get votes on if you can improve a v beach and improve facilities so that the people can enjoy the recreation of a weekend that they perhaps could not have before. Mr. Brager. I do not quarrel with that, Mr. Clark, but the real thrust of my question was directed at the problem of selling it. Mr. Crarx. I would, if I may, sir, just clarify the FPC discussion that we have had. T am not against FPC. I am for the most economical source of pro- tein. And I am in favor of having an experimental program in this area, and I am very much aware of the malnutrition not only in our own country but in the world. Mr. Prtuy. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the space program has been represented as having a lot of sex appeal as far as selling it to the public is concerned despite the fact that the New York Times has been trying to get Congress to reduce it all the time, whereas on the other hand we have a little trouble with funding marine rec- reation and some of the other programs which are more basic to peo- ple’s needs, and I am sure the Times has been for them 100 percent, increasingly So. It indicates that the public is not necessarily influenced by the New York Times. 428 In your colloquy with Chairman Lennon, you expressed some con-— con regarding the dependence of the committee and NOAA on one stall. On page 246—and I will say this for the record because the chair- man thought we should amplify it—in the second paragraph, there is a reference to what I think you took exception and that is that the committee should be administratively attached to NOAA. Mr. Crarx. Yes, sir. That is the section that I would take exception to; yes. I appreciate your referring specifically to it. ‘Mr. Petty. Your exception does then refer to the fact that the rec- ommendation on page 246 suggests that the committee should be ad- ministratively attached to NOAA. One witness today has indicated that it should be independent. Mr. Lennon. I think in the light of what you have said, and I agree with you in the light of this recommendation, that the time may come when we have to bring back Dr. Stratton at least to find out definitely what he means by that being administratively attached. There could be a dialog or rapport with all nations but if it is going to be a national | committee, advisory committee, it should not be attached to a Govern- ment agency in such a way that it has to rely upon that agency to make its decisions. Mr. Crarx. It perhaps should be as independent as the Commission was. Mr. Lennon. It should be more comparable to the Commission we had. Mr. Crark. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Thank you very much for your presentation and at- tendance. Tt is the intention of the committee to continue its hearings next Tuesday morning, June 3, at which time we hope to have and will have Dr. Bruce Halstead, director of the World Life Research Institute of Colton, Calif., and Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., director of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Va., representing the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and the Council of Maritime States, Commonwealths, and Territories. I would like to ask the staff, if they would, to go into executive session if we find time after these witnesses to discuss our program and our hearings for the future. I understand that there are some 80-odd persons who have indicated a desire to come before the committee and testify. We have to resolve when we shall hear them and to what extent we will be able to hear all of them, rf at all. Thank you very much. ‘That concludes the meeting this morning. (Mr. Crark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 3, 1969.) NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM—1969 TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1969 Hovusr or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE CoMMITTEE ON MrercuHant MARINE AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul G. Rogers presiding. Mr. Rocers. The subcommittee will come to order, please. Our first witness today is Dr. William J. Hargis, J r., who is director of the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, and he is representing the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and the Council of Maritime States, ‘Commonwealths, and Territories. Dr. Hargis, it is a pleasure for the committee to have you and we will be delighted to receive your testimony. First the gentleman from Virginia may wish to make some remarks. Mr. Downtne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The witness, of course, is a constituent of mine and I think one of the most knowledgeable ‘people i in the field of oceanography, that I know of anyway. Tam so pleased that. he is up here before this commit- tee on this important subject. I think that in the days to come you will see more of Dr. Hargis on a national scale. I hope it is not detrimental to Virginia, but I am sure that that will be true. It is a pleasure to have you, Dr. Hargis, (The biography of Dr. Hargis follows :) BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH William J. Hargis, Jr., Director. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point, Virginia. Dean. School of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary. Chairman, Department of Marine Science, The University of Virginia. Date and Place of Birth: November 24, 1923 Lebanon, Russell County, Virginia Parents: William Jennings Hargis, Sr. (dec.) of Lebanon, Virginia Addie Corbett Harris of Tangier Island, Virginia Marital Status: Married—Wife, former Dolores Elsie Martin of Oxford, Maryland Four Children (Laura Anne, Thomas Jonathan, Susan Combs and Emily Martin) Academic Training: University of Richmond, A.B., 1950. University of Richmond, M.A., 1951. Florida State University, Ph.D., 1954. (429) 430 Research and Research Administration Experience: Actively engaged in research since 1950. Associate Marine Scientist, Virginia Institute of Marine Science (formerly Virginia Fisheries Laboratory), 1955-59. Acting Director, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 1959. Director, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 1959-. Teaching and Academic Administration Experience : Instructor in Biology, University of Richmond, 1951. Assistant Professor of Biology and Chemistry, The Citadel, 1954—55. Associate Professor of Marine Science, Department of Biology, College of William and Mary, 1955-59. Professor of Marine Science and Head, Department of Marine Science, Col- lege of William and Mary, 1959-61. Dean, School of Marine Science and Professor of Marine Science, College of William and Mary, 1961-. Chairman, Department of Marine Science and Professor of Marine Science, University of Virginia, 1963-. PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES, SERVICE COMMITTEES, AND HONORS Chairman Pro-Tem—Council of Maritime States, Commonwealth and Territories. Chairman Pro-Tem—Interagency Coordinating Committee on Water Resources. Past President and Member—Atlantic Estuarine Research Society. Chairman—Society for Exploration of the Atlantic Shelf. Chairman—Atlantiec Bight Subcommittee, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Past Chairman and Member—Chesapeake Research Council. Member Advisory Committee on the Jellyfish Program. Member—National Sea Grant Colleges Committee. Member—Biological Committee, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Member—Governor’s Inter-Agency Committee on Environmental Health. Member—Virginia Academy of Science, Committee on Science Education in Vir- ginia. Member—Virginia Academy of Science, Visiting ‘Scientist Program. Member—National Technical Advisory Committee on Water Quality Criteria for Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Department of Interior. Member—Commission to Study Seafood Laws of Virginia, 1960-61. Member—Marine Resources Study Commission, 1966-67. Member—Statewide Advisory Committee—Water Resources Research Center. Member—Hditorial Committee. Helminthological Society of Washington, D.C. Member—Biology-Marine Biology Study Committee, William and Mary, 1959-61. Member—American Institute of Biological Scientists. Member—Association of Southeastern Biologists. Member—American Society of Limnology and Oceanography. Member—American Society of Parasitologists. Member—American Microscopical Society. Member—Helminthological Society of Washington, D.C. Member—National Shellfisheries Association. Member—Board of Administration, VFL 1959-62 & Secretary, Board of Admin- istration Virginia Institute of Marine Science 1962—Present. Member—Board of Trustees, Mariners Museum of Newport News, Virginia. Member and former Director—Gloucester County Chamber of Commerce. Member—Marine Resources Committee, Virginia Chamber of Commerce. Member—Board of Directors, York River Yacht Club. Fellow—American Association for the Advancement of Science. Member—Beta Beta Beta, Honorary Biological Fraternity. Member—Sigma Xi. Member—Board of Trustees, Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Member—Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Policy and Scientific Review Committee. Member—Advisory Panel for Sea Grant Projects. Member—Hditorial Review Board, Contributions of Marine Science Institute of the University of Texas. Member—Chesapeake Bay Task Group of the Committee on Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone of the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. Director—Virginia Salt Water Sport Fishing Association. Member—Board of Directors, Bank of Gloucester. 431 Designated by Governor Mills E. Godwin, June 27, 1967, as a primary contact in carrying out the comprehensive study of the pollution problems in the Nation’s estuaries by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U.S. Department of Interior. Biolgraphical Listings in American Men of Science, Who’s Who in America, Who’s Who in the South and Southwest, Who’s Who in American Education, Leaders in American Science. ; Representative for Virginia, appointed March 8, 1967, by Honorable Mills E. Godwin, Governor of Virginia, on Chesapeake Bay Study in connection with Chesapeake Bay Model. Representative for Virginia on matters concerning Sea and States and Law o the Sea. : Contributions Author of 41 Research Publications, Editor of 15 Scientific Translations, author of several statements and letters concerning pending and passed major Oceanography legislation to the Congress of the United States during last 10 years (General Subjects—National Oceanography Program. Fisheries Re- search, Sea Grant Colleges, Marine Resources). Military Service U.S. Army Air Force, T/Sgt. 1948-45 ; USAAF Enlisted Reserve 194548 ; USAAF Officers Reserve Second Lt. 1948—55. Hobbies Sailing, powerboating, painting and photography. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. HARGIS, JR. PH. D., DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, REPRESENTING THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE; THE COUNCIL OF MARTIME STATES, COMMON- _WEALTHS AND TERRITORIES Dr. Harets. Thank you. Mr. Rocers. You may proceed, Dr. Hargis. Dr. Hareis. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, as the chairman has indicated, I am representing today the Council of Maritime States, Commonwealths and Territories; the Commonwealth of Virginia; and its research agency in the executive branch of the Commonwealth government, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. I think it would probably be more orderly if I read directly. How- ever, I would welcome any interjections, comments and questions at any point, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rogers. Very well. You may proceed. Dr. Hares. This committee and the Congress have done much for the marine environment, its resources, the marine resource-based ac- tivities of society and for marine science—oceanography—engineering and technology and do not have to be reminded of their importance. These hearings and the various congressional activities preceeding them are ample testimony to this. Having had the privilege of serving and working with you on ocean- ographic matters several times in the last 10 years, I am pleased to appear again to comment briefly on some of these topics with emphasis on the developing—now very slowly, unfortunately—national oceano- graphic program, the COMSER or Stratton report and certain of its recommendations, the marine resources and related items. I have already named the organizations that I am representing. The Council of Maritime States, Commonwealths, and Territories is 432 in the early stages of formation. Designed ‘to represent an especially important but, heretofore, largely silent segment of the Nation’s total “oceanographic” effort—the official State oceanographic programs, the council is in the process of developing its charter and organization based upon plans made and actions taken at the November 1968 con- ference—sponsored by the chairman’s home State, the State of Florida and Governor Kirk—entitled “The Sea and the States: Mutual Prob- lems and the Solutions.” Later meetings in Oregon—the “Coastal States Conference on a Multiple Use Approach to Ocean Mining Law” called by Governor McCall—and in Washington, D.C.—in association with the National Security Industrial Association—OSTAC annual meeting—have been arenas for further action. At these meetings the various representatives designed by the Gov- ernors’ offices have met and discussed this program. I wish also to make several comments on behalf of the Common- wealth of Virginia and its principal oceanographic research, service and educational agency, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. The Executive Committee of the Council of Maritime States, Com- monwealths, and Territories met in Washington on April 23 and 24, 1969, and arranged the following statement and authorized me to make it on behalf of the council. The States of Alaska, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Rhede Island, and Maine were represented. (Representation included four of the seven members of the executive committee. ) Despite the fact that State governments, and this is the statement of the council, have not been well represented in the development of the national oceanographic program thus far, they should be because they are the chief beneficiaries and managers of that most important seoment of the oceans, the coastal zone. Hopefully, the council will help remove this lack. Along with in- dustry, the Federal Government, and the academic community, the States are essential to any truly national oceanographic program. During and between these meetings, the members of our executive committee have carefully reviewed the reports of the Stratton Com- mission (COMSER). We have also heard opinions from some of the Commissioners, themselves (Dr. Sullivan in the audience has talked with us), as well as from interested Congressmen, Federal executive agency representatives, and industry. Regardless of the fate of the specific recommendations of the Com- mission, this body is convinced that much greater attention must be given to the marine environment and its resources and their problems than they have received thus far. The future well-being of our country depends, in large measure, on the sea. If accomplishment of this vital objective so requires, we recom- mend that a coordinating and action organization—called the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency i in the COMSER report—be established within the Federal Government for this purpose. It must be given the stature, structure, financial support, and permanence of security to permit effectiv e action. There is no doubt that this agency must incorporate the functional responsibilities and operating capabilities now scattered widely among several Federal departments, agencies, administrations, and bureaus —— EE ee 433 as the Commission has concluded. However, at this point, the council is not prepared to specify further either the details of makeup or the operating base or home of this agency. The council wishes to point out that, despite the frequent usage of and emphasis on the words oceanography or oceanology in the reports of past commissions and committee—NAS-NRC Committee on Oceanography, PSAC, and the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, for example—and the present COMSER document, the ultimate justification for all this activity is the need that the people of the United States have, and their authorized representatives ‘and institutions, to know more about the marine en- vironment, its resources, and their innate requirements and capabili- ties, the marine resource-based needs of the United States and its political and legal entities and activities and the problems associated with their use, development, and preservation. If I can interject here, working for the past 10 years with the Gen- eral Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia and attempting to work with the Congress to persuade both bodies to allow us to invest more funds in research, in advisory services, and in development of management skills, it has become clear to me that while the Congress and while the general assembly are interested in the fact that I, as an oceanographer, am satisfying some curiosity to learn more about the marine environment, in reality, I believe what the Congress wants and the general assembly wants is hard information to help the execu- tive management agencies as well as the legislative bodies to make wise decisions on the marine resources and their uses and their future. So that I think that I am encouraged by the Commission’s emphasis on this aspect, on management, on wise management of the marine resources. It is on this basis I believe that we ought to attempt to persuade the public to put more funds into oceanography, not because of the innate interest that oceanographers have in oceanography but because of the practical value of the information that we can generate. The Council of Maritime States, Commonwealths, and Territories is especially encouraged that the Commission emphasized the impor- tance of the coastal zone—the area where sea and land merge and where the greatest direct benefits accrue and damages occur. We concur with the Commission that greater attention must be given to the tidal rivers, estuaries, bays, and bights of the coastal zone and the adjacent Continental Shelf and slope areas of the high seas. We must also express agreement with the Commission’s insistence that local governments have primary responsibility for management of the affairs and resources of the coastal zone, excluding much of the navigation, commerce, and defense which are recognized to be national in character and, hence, a responsibility shared with or assigned to the Federal Government. The concepts of coastal zone authorities as centers for coastal zone management and planning activities and coastal zone laboratories as centers for coastal zone research, advisory services, and associated edu- cational activities are interesting and should be encouraged. In our opinion these are two of the most valuable contributions that the Commission’s report has made, that is, in accordance with the 434 interests of the States. It is especially important, however, that these programs be developed in concert with the maritime States and that they be sufficiently flexible to accommodate justifiable variations. Various States, various regions will have historical and other bases for making some variations in the arrangements. The Federal Goy- ernment can function to develop model or prototype organizations, encourage their realization as operating entities with funds and advice and to assist additionally with development of regional projects and programs and financial support of large-scale facilities and programs. Details must be developed with the States and the States must be encouraged to accept their own financial] and operational responsibili- ties. This is an area which deserves specific attention. The States need assistance along these lines. Tt must be pointed out that these areas and activities are not a vac- uum in which nothing exists and no substantial efforts have been made. The Commission did not assume so and neither should we. Most States have or are developing mechanisms for management of marine resources and marine areas. Many support substantial research pro- grams, Several interstate marine resource-management arrangements exist—the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, for example, which is operating in this region of interstate marine resource management very effectively, I think. Nuclei for others are emerging in the mid-Atlantic region. For example, we hope that within the next several years the States of Maryland and Virginia will be able to make a satisfactory arrange- ment for a management approach to the Chesapeake Bay. (This last is specifically from Virginia’s point of view now, not the Maritime States Council.) Despite the complexities of the management and research efforts that have been or must yet be developed, which at times confound and confuse us all, it would be a mistake to assume that there are any simple or easy ways of achieving the necessary contro] over or accommodation to the marine environment and its resources. We always look at the complexities-of a problem and hope that simpler arrangements can be made. In this instance I don’t believe that simpler arrangements will help a great deal. I think there is no way that we can significantly simplify the system, that is the marine re- source and environmental management systems needs and its problems, except by drastically reducing the numbers of people and diminishing their demands on the seas. Our problem, as I am sure you all recognize, is that there are more people impinging on the coastal zone and they want more from it and quite often their desires and needs are in conflict and this pressure is increasing and the complexities are increasing. There is no simple way out. We have to work at it but there is no simple way out. Operations research or systems analysis can help, increased scien- tific activity will assist, greater engineering and technological capa- bilities will enhance, and new or revitalized organizations will im- prove our ability to manage the seas but as long as people and their demands and requirements grow, so also will the problems of the marine resources, the marine environment, and of effecting proper management thereof. 435 We are going to have to work at it. We are going to have to invest money and time and management skills. In my opinion one of the things that is affecting our marine resources industries, most par- ticularly fisheries, is lack of proper attention to modern management skills. Every effort should be made, as COMSER has indicated, to keep waste and unnecessary duplication to a minimum and to maximize our collective capabilities but there will be no easy solutions. We must analyze and build, reorganize, restructure and refinance, renovate, and review our scientific and management. programs. However, we must avoid the easy option of unnecessary or unjustified replication or of reorganizations and renaming’ss which accomplish hittle. It won't do merely to establish a new agency, rename it and not do anything to improve its operations capability. Turning attention briefly to Virginia you should know that our opin- ions on the COMSER report and its recommendations are essentially the same as those developed by the executive committee of the Council of Maritime States, Commonwealths, and Territories presented above. The Commonwealth’s direct dependence on the marine environment is clear. Some 30 of about 90 counties within Virginia are in the “Greater Tidewater” or “Maritime Virginia” areas. On or near the coast are her major cities, commerce, industries, tourist activities, and population pressures. I have attached a copy of Marine Resources of Virginia which is somewhat outdated but it indicates that Virginia has been aware for some time of the importance of its Coastal Zone. (The information follows :) THE MARINE RESOURCES OF VIRGINIA, THEIR DEVELOPMENT, USE AND PRESERVATION AN ABSTRACT Virginia’s marine resources encompass all the physical, biological and aesthetic attributes of her 13,000 square miles of marine waters and bottoms and 4,000 statute miles of shorelines, beaches and marshland. The economy of the Commonwealth is closely related to these valuable re- sources. Maritime Virginia, that region extending from the Continental Shelf to the fall line of the ocean’s tributaries is our most populous, productive and fastest growing area. Sixty percent of all Virginians live in one third of the counties and the population increase has been 98 percent in twenty years. A 37 percent increase is anticipated in the next six (6) years along the James. Seven billions of dollars change hands annually. The combined forces of population, industrial, recreational and shipping growth along with more military activity are placing greater and greater demands on the marine environment for water, food, recreation, building sites and waste disposal. While these sociological and economic segments enjoy the blessings of Virginia’s marine resources, they also degrade them, often in such a way that nature, unaided, cannot compensate. Destructive degradation must be prevented or minimized. To do this there is need for better planning and management, for better standards. This will involve modern decision-making techniques such as operations research or resource engi- neering using latest methods for analysis and decision, plus more adequate plan- ning—even zoning, plus more realistic legislative and executive and private regu- lation of marine resource uses and users. All these activities require facts, knowledge about the resources, themselves, and the pressures to which they are or will be subjected. This means continuing research on marine resources and continuing evaluation of their usage and con- dition. Education of and cooperation between science, the publie and political persons and groups in an absolute necessity. 436 PREFACE THE SEA—boundless source of energy, water, food, joy and wonder ; engine of weather; highway for commerce; avenue of attack; bastion of defense; re- ceptable. of society’s wastes; repository of earth’s soil; theater of history ; scroll _of the ages; cradle of life—It is Important—It Must Be Known. THIS IS THE BUSINESS OF MARINE SCIENCE. THE PAST Virginia was colonized via the sea, her early economic, social and political development was near the shores of the sea, her connection with the mother country was through the sea, protection and severance from a wrathful and oppressive government was provided in significant measure by the sea. Virginians have been succored, amused, and terrorized by the sea and her major cities are on tidal tributaries of the sea. Despite this, Virginia’s chief attention was directed landward early and this direction persisted for many years—vell into the present century. Now attention is finally returning to the marine environment. It is being forced ‘to. Except for casual mention of marine fishery products, when development, use and conservation of natural resources are considered, soils, forests, mineral re- sources, and wildlife receive the chief attention, often in that order. Though no one will deny the importance of these terrestrial resources it is necessary and timely that the marine resources receive their portion of our attention. This need is becoming increasingly apparent. Dramatic events of recent years have demon- strated that our tidal waters are not as inexhaustible or indestructible as was once thought. ECONOMIC ASSETS OF TIDEWATER VIRGINIA Though aesthetically displeasing to some, it often helps to focus attention on a subject by citing its economic and social impacts. Dollars talk! Forcefully— and sometimes crudely, roughly and thoughtlessly. For a complete breakdown of the economie assets of Maritime Virginia see Appendix I. Tidewater or Maritime Virginia consists of those counties, cities and towns located at the fall line and eastward to the sea. Included are approximately. 33— about a third—of her counties and the largest cities and suburban areas. Almost 60 percent of the people live in Tidewater, where the greatest population and industrial growth in Virginia has occurred. Almost seven billion dollars change hands in Maritime Virginia each year. Much of this commerce is directly related to activities oriented toward marine resources. The capitalized value of marine resources, whether self-renewing or depletable and of marine oriented industrial, residential and commercial activities is great, exceding several hundred billions. VIRGINIA’S MARINE RESOURCES What are Virginia’s marine resources? What makes Tidewater so important and enables it to make the major contribution to the economic well-being of the entire Commonwealth ? The marine waters The marine waters, themselves, are important. Virginia has responsibility over or ready access to 13,000 square miles of sea water. These waters serve as sea lanes, as highways, to float and facilitate movement of the merchant and naval fleets of the United States. and half the countries of the globe. They receive, re- move and purify, within limits, the wastes of these fleets. They provide water to cool the power: plants and clean and succor the sailors. It is because of the importance of these waters to coastal and international commerce and communi- eations that the major industrial units, the military bases and the major com- munities of eastern Virginia have arisen. Growing recreational fleets make use of these attributes. The lovely waters of the Virginian Sea (Captain John Smith's name for the mid-Atlantic between Capes Hatteras and Cod), Chesapeake Bay and the tidal rivers stretching far inland are sources of wonderment and beauty and provide the setting for shorebound beauties or even serve as the main attraction, aesthetic value, of eastern Virginia. People are fascinated, rested and restored or rejuvenated by the ageless, limitless, inconsistent face of the sea. This attribute in itself is of great, though not readily calculable value to society. Despite the 437 difficulty of directly evaluating the dollar worth of the aesthetic features of the marine. resources they do, however, engender vast economic activities and production. The combination of sea, sand and sun is usually irrestible. Hundreds of thou- . sands of people are attracted temporarily (tourists and vacationists) and perma- nently to the shorelines of the State, partially because of the water. Williams- burg, Jamestown and the towns, homes and river plantations of the James and other estuaries are made more attractive by the proximity of attractive waters and shorelines. Industrial and military recruiting in the area is made easier by their presence, though this is not an unmixed blessing. Marine waters with their special properties support profuse and diverse forms of life which in themselves are interesting and useful resources. The waters of the sea, especially the brackish waters of the estuaries serve as processing and, more generally, cooling waters for industry and shipping. Estua- rine and marine waters also receive, to dilute, disperse and transform, it is hoped, the waste materials and waters from the major cities. For example, they are used variously aS primary, secondary or tertiary and final sewage treatment plants for Richmond, Petersburg, Hopewell, Newport News, Norfolk, West Point, Fredericksburg and the metropolitan Washington complex, ctc. and the major industries of the State. Wastes of all types including agricultural and radioactive materials reach the estuaries and the sea. This use has saved communities and industries millions of dollars but has often been a wasteful and destructive proc- ess. We have not hesitated to put marine waters to this use—we should recognize their service in any accounting of valuable marine resources. Because they function as an almost universal solvent, the waters of the sea - receive, dissolve, hold and sometimes release, most of the important elements and compounds known. Because of this it is a rich natural nutrient for life from the lowest to the highest forms. In addition, the waters of the sea serve as Storeng hee S of energy, moderators of weather, determiners of climate and as the central reservoir of 90 per cent of the earth’s water. The ocean is our ultimate source of water—it is our great- est water reservoir. Marine waters, especially the less salty estuarine waters, will be increasingly used for drinking, irrigation and process water. To do this, special techniques of capturing less salty surface waters or of desalting the marine or estuarine waters will have to be developed. Valuable though they are, these waters also are the cause of economic loss and death. Destruction of real property by slow erosion or swift storm damage is not uncommon. Loss of life and property on land and ships and their cargoes at sea are frequent. Inereasing contamination by chemicals, sewage, radioactivity, silt, heat and multiple, sometimes destructive, use of these waters both above and below their fall lines pose serious threats to their cleanliness and utility and undoubtedly affect their habitability by marine organisms of all kinds. Shorelines, beaches and bottoms The waters of the Virginian Sea and the estuaries are bounded and contained by shorelines and bottoms which, themselves, play important roles in the ecology of the marine environment and in the economy of the Commonwealth. There are over 4,000 statute miles of tidal shoreline in Virginia. These vary from salt marshes and muddy flats to sandy ocean and river beaches and high bluffs. Some are stable—some are not. Shorelines are economically and aesthetically valuable. Almost everyone likes to wander along a sandy strand. This is a peaceful and healing pleasure. Many people wish to build permanent or vacation homes along ocean and bay beaches and water. Residential shoreline is extremely valuable, often costing over $100 a linear foot, unimproved. Pleasure beaches are particularly valuable not only in cost per linear foot but attractiveness to recreationists with money from elsewhere. So valuable are they that expensive engineering works whose sole function is to protect the beaches and resort properties and costly programs of beach replenishment are justified. To remedy damage caused to Virginia Beach by the “Ash Wednesday (1962) Storm” cost over ten million dollars and a continuous replenishment program is underway. Because of building and replenishment programs like this, submarine sand has become a valuable resource and a search is on for sources of high qual- ity strategically located sand for beach nourishment. 438 Though, perhaps, not as aesthetically pleasing as sandy shores or high bluffs, tidal marshes are nonetheless extremely valuable. Because of their high plant productivity, they supply a great deal of nutrient material to the main streams as their annual cycles of growth, death and decay continue endlessly. Many tidal flats produce as much converted energy per acre as farm land of highest pro- ductivity and they do it without any effort by man. Tidal marshes are important “respiration areas” and play significant roles in the overall circulation and energy balance of our estuaries. Salt marshes now serve as nursery areas for many species of fishes, crabs and other marine animals. In short, salt and estuarine marshes are extremely important to the marine environment and the welfare of marine organisms. Marshes also support shore and wetland birds and mam- mals. Hunters derive great enjoyment and spend $603,000 each year to hunt in Virginia’s tidal lowlands. Shorelines are being occupied at increasing rate by private property owners, resort owners, communities and industries. The era of untrammeled beaches is rapidly ending. Marshes are being drained and filled at an increasing rate. Virginia must be careful that wetland destruction does not destroy the useful and aesthetic attributes of our marine areas. Public beaches must be provided and “virgin” wetlands must be set aside. Bottoms from the low water line out are obviously as extensive in area as the waters they/underlie. Virginia’s marine bottoms are valuable, containing many valuable natural attributes and resources. The nearer the surface of the water they lie the more valuable they are, within limits. Natural growth and culture of valuable shellfish, such as oysters, hard clams and soft clams, makes many acres of bottoms extremely valuable. Those not preserved to the public, ‘.e., outside the Baylor Survey boundaries, are much sought after by private planters as oyster leases from the Commonwealth. Under lease they are nurtured, bartered and passed on as valuable land properties. Indeed, crops produced on these lands by oyster farmers can bring more money per acre than the best farm land. Properly managed, even with information now at hand, those grounds in public care can be just as productive. Perhaps the most productive oyster grounds in the world are those of the lower James estuary which have served as oyster seed beds and original sources of over 75 per cent of all oysters grown in lower Chesapeake Bay for many years. In addition to serving as beds and sources of shelter, support and nutrients for important marine animals, Virginia’s tidal bottoms contain valuable deposits of: gravel which have been dredged for use in construction and commerce for sometime. Furthermore, fossil and recent, but overlain, submerged oyster shell reefs have been exploited for years, not only for oyster repletion programs, but also to manufacture lime and chicken feed and for other industrial uses. Use of this non-renewable resource for industrial purposes is rapidly increasing and a sizeable shell-dredging operation has developed in Virginia waters. Sand has long been used in construction projects. The islands of the new Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel and much other commercially valuable land has been built of submarine sand. The bottoms also serve as substrates for many bacteria and animals and plants which may be themselves necessary to the ecological web of these marine en- vironments or may serve as food or attractants to important fishes and crabs. Indeed, unseen and unappreciated as they usually are, the sandy, muddy, light and dark bottoms of Virginia’s estuaries, bays and sea are natural resources of great value to the Commonwealth. There bottoms can become contaminated by silt, chemical and radioactive wastes. Nursery areas and clam, oyster and crab beds can be destroyed completely. Being essentially non-renewable resources, gravel and shell can be depleted. Contamination and destruction must be pre- vented and over use of shell and gravel resources must not be allowed to occur. These things can be accomplished only if we understand processes and results of contamination and if we know what our usable stocks of resources are. We do not as yet. Marine organisms In the past talk of Viriginia’s marine resources has centered around marine life, more specifically those marine organisms that could be caught, processed and marketed for a profit (see Appendix I.) We have seen above that there are useful marine resources Other than the biological; however, because they are living. transient and greatly variable in quantity the fishery resources have received much attention. ee 439 Many fishes and several molluses and the blue crab are economically valuable and are now being utilized. Others in each of these general classes of living things to which these animals belong could be utilized were markets developed or new capturing and processing techniques perfected. Still others could be utilized or utilized more efficiently were adequate cultural, aqui- or mariculture, and process- ing techniques developed. Many plants and animals, though not directly useful to Virginia, are—neverthe- less—necessary to the food chains (the web of life) that supports other valuable fishes and processes. Some marine animals and plants, for example, certain jelly fish, shipworms and grubs, fouling organisms, oyster drills, oyster worms, red- water organisms and parasites, are “natural resources in reverse.” They disrupt man’s marine-oriented activities and affect his plans and economy. Even they, however, have a place in the natural scheme of things which it may not be wise to unbalance too readily by their mass destruction. Molluscs—oysters, hard clams, soft clams, surf clams, mussels, scallops, snails, squid Of all the groups of marine organisms represented in the marine environment the molluses are the most valuable. The rich, actual or potential, economic fauna includes the Atlantic oyster, hard clam, soft clam, surf clam, sea scallop, mussels, whelks and conchs and other small snails. Though used primarily as bait for sport fishermen, some squid are caught and ‘sold for food. Almost all of \these could probably stand heavier exploitation were proper methods used and markets available (see Appendix IT). The molluses are also most likely prospects for actual farming or mariculture. It is not surprising, therefore, that oysters and hard clams are being crudely farmed and that it is on these species that actual breeding and controlled hatching and rearing work is being done by science and industry. Even under present inadequate culture methods and notwithstanding temporary short- or long-term difficulties resulting from diseases and predators, Virginia’s oyster production could be doubled or tripled in a short period of time with very little effort. The technique and scientific know-how are available. Though some of Virginia’s problems in not increasing production stem from traditional social practices, some are due to an antiquated and backward outlook by the industry and some are due to poor or inappropriate private and public management practices. As far as is known all marine animals are sensitive to the wastes of society but ‘because they are largely fixed in position and cannot readily escape, molluses are especially vulnerable to long-term contamination of their home waters by chemicals, heat or silt. Though small amounts of domestic sewage may be bene- ficial, which possibility should be considered and utilized where possible, large amounts are detrimental as are almost all industrial and radioactive wastes. Estuarine and coastal waters must remain as pollution-free as possible. Finfishes Many species of fishes live in Virginia waters. Many are already exploited and many more could be utilized were markets available or were the need for addi- tional protein really great (see Appendix III). Of those now being used, only four or five are being exploited to or beyond their probable maximum capacity. Indications are that at present levels of exploitation man’s activities have little effect on population levels of most fishes. Natural factors of hydroclimatology are of greater significance. However, long-term changes in water quality or in the nursery and spawning areas may be affecting the finfisheries, especially those whose survival depends upon the availability of special, often restricted, waters and bottoms for parts of their life histories. Crustacea Virginia predominates in production of the blue crab. Though the supply fluctuates, it has generally been adequate to meet demands. Delicious crab prod- ucts are, or should be, well known to everyone. The population might be exploited more heavily. Lobster is also caught and other crustaceans might be used (see Appendix IV). Crustacea are susceptible to overfishing, pollution and destruction of nursery and spawning areas by siltation and engineering changes. Other organisms Though not commercially exploited or perhaps even exploitable, many micro- scopic marine plants and invertebrates are useful as food for higher organisms. In addition, their qualitative and quantitative distribution may serve to indicate 440 water quality. Quite often governmental and industrial groups interested in main- taining natural waters are not brought into action until some plant or animal has clearly indicated poor conditions, e.g., severe mortalities of fishes and inverte- brates, plankton blooms, macroalgae destruction. Virginia still possesses a wealth of useful marine organisms. From them she derives revenues at landing of about 22 million dollars. About 10,000 people are directly involved. At wholesale and retail the amounts of money and people in- volved double and triple. Seafoods have long been a part of the Virginia scene, a -part worth preserving not only for the delightful variety they provide but because they will be really needed in the future. An especial value of these resources is the fact that they are largely self-re- newing. That is they replenish themselves regularly with very little capital in- vestment from man. Were we to back calculate their capital value to Virginia at 10 percent per annum, it is plain that an investment of $200,000,000 dollars, a too conservative figure, would be required as the capital investment in any manu- facturing industry in order to produce such an annual sum. It is in this way that comparisons should be made when plans are being made for industrialization and development of the marine resource systems. Sport fishing Marine organisms are more useful and perhaps more heavily exploited for recreational and aesthetic purposes than for commercial reasons. It is impossible to place values on the expectation and thrills of merely seeing animals and plants in the water. Though some are at times nuisances and repulsive, like jelly fish and watermilfoil, it is likely that most of the fascination inherent in estuarine and marine waters would not be there were animals and plants gone. Absent would be the lure of wading along and flushing and observing small fishes and crabs and no delightful treasures would be washed upon the beaches for amateur beachcombers to find and squirrel away. Sport fishermen are rapidly rivaling commercial exploiters as uers and sources of pressure on fishing stocks. Though estimates are available for sport fishing expenditures they tell only part of the story. Though not strictly aquatic or marine, ducks, shorebirds and certain fur- bearing mammals are regular inhabitants of tidal marshes. Each year 13,000 Sportsmen spend over half a million dollars to enjoy these self-renewing resources of Virginia tidal marshes. Thus, not only is marshland valuable and essential as nursery areas for many marine organisms but it is also useful recreationally. Aesthetically, marine marshes are beautiful, wild often lonely places where many wonderful birds and animals can be seen, photographed, hunted and enjoyed. As mentioned above, when marshlands are destroyed not only is estu- arine production of other marine animals reduced but these marsh animals and plants, themselves, are gone forever. It might be mentioned that the ocean of air above us is a valuable natural resource also and that an uncontaminated atmosphere is an important asset to enjoyment of marine resources.’ Airborne contaminants fall mostly on the sea (the sea occupies most of Earth’s surface) but that is a subject as vast as the sea and will be left for some other time and person. MARINE RESOURCE PROBLEMS It has been shown that Virginia has a vast treasure trove of aesthetic and economic wealth in her marine waters. Indeed it is certain that a great part of Virginia’s actual and potential wealth is marine oriented. The marine environment is complex. Most of Virginia’s marine resourees are located within, along or under the major estuaries and the coastal lagoons or the shallow reaches of the Virginian Sea. In contrast to deeper ocean waters, these are areas where the shore and sea meet, where fresh water from upriver and from other surface and subsurface drainage meets and dilutes the salt water from the sea. Here also the shallow bottoms have their greatest effect on the currents and on the contents, chemistry and biology of the brackish and salt waters above them. These coastal waters receive soil eroded from the land with its minerals and, as a consequence, are usually richer than those of the deep oceans. Estuarine and coastal seas also receive the suspended or dissolved wastes from all cities, towns, homes and industries along all coastal rivers. With the close and immediate interactions taking place between the land, the sea, the atmosphere, fresh and salt water and society, coastal waters are ex- ——————E a ’ 441 tremely complex in nature. Many factors interact to give them their natural characteristics. Because of this inherent complexity, they are difficult to under- stand and manipulate intelligently. Complex user requirements Because of their proximity and accessibility, the coastal waters are the most used and exploitable of all the waters of the world ocean. Many users wish to take their “cuts.” Sometimes these uses are in real or apparent conflict with each other and some uses are temporarily or permanently damaging to the resources. The James and Rappahannock rivers are excellent illustrations of the innate complexities of our coastal waters. In their downriver, tidal reaches, both are stratitied systems with heavier salt water from the Bay on the bottom and lighter fresh water from the upriver and shoreline drainage areas in the upper layer. The salty bottom water flow upstream even though the fresh flow is downstream. This creates problems as in the case of the lower James where it is certain that a change in the depth of the river bottom will alter the velocity of the upstream flow, change the depth of the lower layer and allow waters of greater salinity to intrude further upriver than before. Though these changes are certain the extent is uncertain. Also unknown are the possible repercussions these physical changes, certain to occur, will have on the oyster fishery. It is know that successful larval survival and spat setting and survival depend upon the upstream current and the upstream limits of salinity. This has been the chief natural resource problem in the James River development program up until now. Changes in the volume rate of flow in the upper, fresher layer are also im- portant in determining success of marine organisms. As a consequence, dams which may be operated in such a way as to change the flow may change the salinity regime and affect survival of oysters, clams and other useful invertebrates by allowing salinity-dependent predators and survivors onto productive bottoms. This prospect is being considered in the plans of the Salem Church Dam on the Rappahannock River. Hngineering projects Engineering projects such as channel enlargement and realignment and dam construction on our estuaries are numerous and increasing. Hach year sees dozens of small and large channel projects: Over 400 small and large dams are proposed for the Potomac system alone for the next several years. Reservoir construction and operation are not the only engineering difficulties that marine resources must face. Also involved are fill and drainage of salt marshes, filling and erosion of sorelines and waterways, bridge and island con- struction and siltation resulting from engineering projects. Engineering activities may pose severe threats to marine resources. Conversely, they may also be planned and operated so as to enhance those resources, e.g., reservoir operation to reduce pollution and improve water quality or actually enhance oyster and clam survival and growth, as the Institute and the Corps are attempting to do ‘with the Salem Church project. It is possible, by proper planning to minimize adverse effects. Contamination Increasing populations and industrialization along our tidal rivers will be inevitably accompanied by increasing contamination—this cannot be escaped at this time. The James and Rappahannock are, even now, being polluted (more than necessary). The preblem is one of degree. Pollution can and must be con- trolled and minimized. Difficulties in setting allowable tolerances for marine water quality are encountered because we lack the detailed information concern- ing the physiological responses of the organisms necessary to set such limits. Shoreline Use Virginia’s shorelines are rapidly being occupied. Potential shoreline for indus- trial, residential and recreational use are diminishing. In many areas the most valuable shores are already gone. It is important that those remaining be hus- banded wisely. We must be esepcially careful that the urge to grow and indus- trialize does not eliminate natural areas important to the ecology of the estuaries, the survival of important organisms, the recreational activities of man and aesthetic uses. Only the bare minimum of degradation must be allowed. For this reason plans for the use of this land should and must be developed well ahead of pressures. ee 26—563—69—pt. 1——29 442 It is a happy characteristic of our system that enterprise is encouraged and that individuals, communities and industries and even states promote their own interests, growth and development. Unfortunately, quite often these promotions create unforeseen pressures on the natural environment. Often they create pres- sures that are contrary to, or augmented by, the desires of existing users. As an example, a manufacturing industry may wish to use estuarine waters to cool or in processing and to receive its wastes. These desires even within a single eco- nomic unit may conflict. The employees of that plant and the community in which it is located may use the water to swim and fish and for the disposal of wastes and the shorelines as homesites. These may also conflict with each other and the industry that they serve. Exploitation of Marine Organisms Destruction or degradation of the marine habitats by poorly conceived and operated engineering projects, by contaminants and siltation serve to eliminate or reduce marine organisms. Also, important are the harvesting activities of man. As has been mentioned above (see also Appendices II, III, and IV) most com- mercial or sport species of finfish and molluses in Virginia waters are not being exploited to their fullest. However, a few are and great care must be taken not to eliminate these much used forms. Furthermore, we must always be careful not to exceed that fine point beyond which rational exploitation becomes too heavy and destructive. All too often we cannot even recognize this point. Because sur- vival and success of marine animals and plants depends upon so many factors including not only those actually or potentially destructive activities of man mentioned above but also natural catastrophes or changes, complete under- standing of these factors is necessary and continuous surveillance obligatory. In the past, heavy dependence has been placed upon regulation of fishing pres- sures by law. With more adequate knowledge this approach has been shown to be fruitful in only a few cases. Often the restrictions have served no useful purpose. It is especially important that laws and regulations and other management de- cisions and devices be based upon the resources themselves and not upon unin- formed whim, opinion or pressure. To have it otherwise accomplishes nothing but wasteful restriction. In order to successfully make use of and conserve the living marine resources, it will be necessary to learn more about their ecological requirements and their physiological responses. In addition, a continuous and careful monitoring of the stocks of all major species is needed. For many species, it seems unlikely that we can really do much to increase their numbers. They must, of course, be protected from over-utilization and from the problems of environmental destruction. Some species can be increased by special practices such as utilizing productivity generated by human wastes or by other environmental improvements. Hspecially susceptible to purposeful culture are the molluscs which probably will be hatched, reared and grown under con- trolled conditions to get as far away from the vagaries of nature as possible. A substantial start has been made on this. In the meantime, we can, if we will,. double production now merely by revising archaic practices and following more modern procedures. THE FUTURE We have seen that the Commonwealth’s marine resources are very valuable and much more important to her economy than most acknowledge or even suspect. Virginia is truly a maritime state. Because of their complexity and the multiple, often conflicting demands of their users, wise use and development of these re- sources will require careful planning and management. Rapidly increasing popu- lation levels in the maritime counties and burgeoning industrialization increases. the necessity for prompt action. The marine resources now suffer from poor management practices and as: pressure grows their degradation becomes more intense. Two deficiencies are especially notable. One is antiquated or inadequate deci- sion-making processes which operate inefficiently and in provincial or partisan: manner and often not in keeping with the facts concerning the natural resources themselves. The other is the prevailing lack of adequate information on which to: base wise decisions. (Obviously, the former depends upon the latter. ) In order to improve Virginia’s chances of making optimal use of her natural resources new decision- making systems are needed. Also necessary is a more- careful evaluation of goals in resource use. 443 We must recognize that increasing populations and industrialization entail costs—costs in environmental degradation which must be recognized and mini- mized, if possible. Some destruction cannot be prevented. Progress, growth and industrialization cannot be halted but they must be controlled. It is wise and businesslike to do so. The cost of failure is aesthetic and economic loss. In planning local or statewide promotional and developmental activities, care- ful attention should be given to all the ramifications of any course of action. It has been shown many times that new uses of or additional pressures on the marine resources degrade those resources and are detrimental to their desirable attributes and contrary to the interests of previous users. We must be sure, for example, that increasing industrialization on an estuary will not destroy an im- portant fishery resource or interfere with an established and important tourist or recreational industry, unless we wish to sacrifice those activities. Some uses are mutually exclusive no matter how they are planned and carried out. Others can be made compatible with careful planning. Still others are compatible from the outset. Though we may be satisfied to allow one established economic use to disappear in favor of another, we must know what we are about. One thing is certain, progress and virgin, pristine conditions are incompatible. If Virginia has any areas which should be preserved in this condition, they must be set aside at once. One of the keys to better planning is an efficient, effective evaluation system. At present, we employ numerous agencies, regular (VALC) and special appointive commissions or boards, and various executive and legislative groups to evaluate natural resource problems. In general, these have been somewhat effective but in really complex problems they often bog down in spiralling rounds of ineffectual investigation and reporting. They must be assisted. One ready way is for these bodies to make more use of the scientific or technical agencies or bodies and advice now available to them. Not infrequently, plans and management decisions are made and laws and regulations framed and even passed that have no real bearing on improvement of the resource other than intent. Quite often special study groups are established by legislative resolution to answer resource ques- tions that one or more state agencies are actively at work on and can already answer. Resource engineering Because of the increasing complexity, urgency and magnitude of these resource management problems, it would be wise to bring such techniques as Operations Research, using high speed digital and analogue computers to consider the variables and evaluate the possibilities and present a rated list of most likely decisions for further consideration by human decision groups. Through the use of all adequate modern techniques, it should be possible to improve the results of and shorten the time for decision making. This might be called Resource Engineering. Resource planning and zoning In these times when a project to benefit one area along a tributary might ad- versely affect other economic interests, often some distance away, it is important that official bodies and plans concerned with evaluation of an entire river system be developed. One technique is establishment of effective and responsible regional authorities with legal authority to, and responsibility for, zoning along an entire system. Such a group should determine well in advance what marshlands can be sacrificed, what amounts and types of wastes can be tolerated, which areas are to be preserved inviolate for historical or aesthetic reasons, where residential areas can be located, where industrial development can be encouraged and other such matters. The most critical areas for this type of activity are the James River system—and the Potomac River system estuaries in Virginia under greatest pressure. Knowledge To solve present and future problems, maintain and improve the marine re- sources, permit better planning for development and use—no matter what the mechanism for decision making—it will be necessary to have accurate and com- plete information about the resources. While Virginia’s scientists and others have made a good start on acquiring this information and we know much more than when effective work was begun less than twenty years ago, it is apparent that we must learn more. Present knowledge is inadequate because the phenomena 444 under study were vast and complex to begin with, as mentioned above, and be- cause our efforts at research have been limited in scope. Furthermore, the frame of reference for our studies and decisions have changed drastically in the last twenty years and new variables are being constantly introduced by man himself. Because of these things and the urgent need to prevent irreparable damage it is essential that information be developed at a much more effective rate than that of the present. This will require an enlarged, improved and continued research effort. It must be realized that just as society changes nature itself is not static. Increasing interaction between the two constantly causes changes in the systems science must study. Continuing research, improved decision making and planning, in that order, are necessary to the wise use of Virginia’s marine resources. Also important will be continuous efforts toward improvement in the regulations and enforcement operations of the various state management agencies involved and toward system zoning. Education of the citizenry and public officials and development of replacement scientists and new techniques are vital. APPENDIX I Outline of statistics on the marine resources of Virginia and associated economic activities (These data from the 1962 publication entitled ‘Maritime Virginia” issued by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, formerly the Virginia Fisheries Labora- tory, have been revised where necessary and possible by information from a similar study now underway. Though precise figures are often difficult to obtain, this information can be considered as reasonably accurate. ) 1. POPULATION OF MARITIME VIRGINIA, 1960: Total population of Virginia (Now over 4,000,000 as indicated by 1963 statistics of the U.S. Census Bureau) —-_-________________ 3, 966, 949 Population of Maritime Virginia______________-_______________ 2, 282, 191 Percentage of total in maritime Virginia_______________________ 57. 53 Percentage of 20-year increase for Virginia____________________ 48.1 Percentage of 20-year increase for maritime Virginia___________ 97.8 Percentage of 20-year increase for rest of Virginia______________ 11.1 Land area in maritime Virginia_______________________________ 11, 559 Percentage State’s land area in maritime area__________________ 29. 0 Number of towns and cities on shoreline______________-________ 109 Total shoreline communities’ populations______________________ 1, 562, 898 Over 57% of all Virginians live in the Maritime Area! More than 39% of all Virginians live in Waterfront Communities ! According to predictions from reliable sources the tidal James River will experience a 37% growth in population by 1970 (500,000 people). II. SEAFOOD INDUSTRY: Number of employees in 1960______________________________ 9, 599 Hstimated value of capital equipment______________________ $200, 000, 000 1962; poundage caughtil.ve 20 oye te ee be ON ke 453, 900, 000 Viakue of (1962 eatehe S62 522. Sauens JOO ee ee $21, 300, 000 30-year average annual catch in pounds_____________________ 293, 602, 000 30-year average annual value of catch______________________ $12, 888, 000 Commercial Fishing in 1960 was 24.9% greater than the past 30-year average, and 62.4% more valuable! Til. VALUE OF SALT-WATHER SPORT FISHING: LOGO estimated! value lo. ee See A ee ee $31, 500, 000 L955 estimated: Value... oes 2 Le ee ee a eee $24, 601, 500 5-year increase (28 percent) —--_-___-_______________________ 6, 898, 500 Virginia is famous for its salt-water sport fishing, a form of recreation that has increased by an estimated 28% in the past 5 years. a 445 IV. SHIPPING IN VIRGINIA, 1962: Total tons shipped (short tons, 2000 pounds) ~------------- 65, 569, 255 Moral foreign Shipments) (tons) =——-—---===-=--=—--_----~—— 34, 016, 596 Wanliies OLmcOrolemmed tC OCS. a a er ee $1, 099, 066, 514 Percentage of Nation’s total foreign shipping by Virginia Tiiay TG pee cape Se REE Se oe ee enh eee 9. 88 aMeveml “Glowavacie Chimay Naie ee Le ee 31, 552, 659 Percentage increase all shipping, 1953-1962_____--_---_--- 60. 4 Percentage increase foreign shipping, 1953—1962_____-____-_ 107.1 Rank among east coast (U.S.A.) ports, second. Virginia Ports out rank all other major ports of the United States in current growth. V. VALUE OF SHORE-BASED INDUSTRIES: Number of shore-based industries, 1960_____..-____-______- 931 Number of maritime Virginia industrial employees________ 125, 463 Increase in shore-based industries ; 1950-1960 (percent) __~ 33.6 Increase in industrial employees; 1950-1960 (percent) —___ aay, Estimated gross product value of maritime Virginia manu- PACU) MOCO Meee ee 1h feo boerat eet eel sens fens Beas & $4, 072, 255, 000 Maritime Virginia, with 931 industries employing 128,463 employees, has, in the past ten years, realized a 33.6% growth in nunder of industries, and 25.9% in industrial employment. VI. ESTIMATED VALUE OF MARITIME VIRGINIA REAL ESTATE, 1960 Value of privately owned land and buildings in mari- THUTOVEV Weegee ae eS ee ye ees ee ee ee $10, 045, 000, 000 Number of building permits = 2-2 = 22s ees eee 40, 000 Valnevof new ‘constructione: 2222722210 Seo eae ee Ses $380, 000, 000 Privately-Owned property in Maritime Virginia is worth over $10-billion, not including government-owned properties, and construction in 1960 was valued at $380-million. VII. VALUE OF THE MILITARY TO MARITIME VIRGINIA: Number of) imstallationgeite ent file eed tg Te 11 Employees, military and civilian_____-____________-_----~ 127, 900 leet base die Niaivyy sDCLSONNCL. = 22 2 ee 65, 000 Annual spending by naval installations for payroll, goods and services in the maritime area_____________-___----- $1, 500, 000, 000 Estimated annual spending by military for payroll, goods and services in the maritime area_____________---__-_-~ $2, 300, 000, 000 Maritime Virginia harbors one of the greatest concentrations of military power in the world, and the military is important to that economy of Virginia, bringing ‘over $2.3 million annually into this area. VIII. ESTIMATED VALUE OF TOURIST TRADE TO MARITIME VIR- GINIA, 1960: Number of out-of-State tourists to maritime Virginia_________ 20, 000, 000 Tourist spending in maritime Virginia______________________ $400, 000, 000 Number of businesses in maritime area partially or wholly de- MeEnGent UPON? COUTISE Trad Ca aa s Seas ee ee ere 16, 000 Maritime Virginia is one of the most visited sections of our nation. Approxi- mately 20,000,000 out-of-state tourists annually spend about $400,000,000, sup- porting an estimated 16,000 businesses here. IX. VALUE OF WETLAND HUNTING IN MARITIME VIRGINIA, 1960: We Rcouy bo Nin tence ©: mal mel abwen MMU IG: 9s nd a 3= SUD 200k 5 12a 0 ~~ a PRE 13, 180 SOC mca estate cs S eee Vahey a Se ne oe epee $602, 853 Average annual hunter expenditure (per person) —________-----_ $45. T4 Waterfowl hunting is a popular recreation in Maritime Virginia, with 15,180 participants spending approximately $602,853 in the bay area in 1960. X. VALUE OF BOATING IN MARITIME VIRGINIA, 1960: Estimated number of boats in maritime area______________________ 34,205 Approximately 37,205 boat owners in Maritime Virginia partake in the number one outdoor family sport of boating, whether pleasure-riding, water skiing, sail- ing or fishing. 446 APPENDIX II.—Useful and Potentially Useful Marine Molluscs Actually used Species Overused Underused Potentially useful CHoinginicat S21. Sera eae ee ee ety ee aaa San ee ge V. mercenaria (hard clam) Mya arenaria (soft clam) i222 Slo. cee eth es EST he Be 4 Xe Miytilusiedulis|(plieimussél) poe se ea ee x Modtlusidemissuse(ribbedhmussel) see es Ti eee x Seni SOOM) (Gist Osan) ese XS Cc eee RON Gia Cun ecataA Mars huelali) emcee - een wk en Lge Se oe be Se OU A ea a x Placopecien magollaritus (sea scallop)....._..._....--.----------------------------- 2) | gre seeneae es ZANAOIIO AIO CREDIT ND (LOE Ny, XGA o)) a SO ee se cesene xe Busy conicanaliculatunian ae ae ne a eT Sa aaa XE LAER eee -Busyconicarica (kno hed): . 5. eerie Gis Bee Eee RK yqgtaeee aes Sth SENN I EP Higa sew Wee Pome eS ney eee eee oe lane hha x NOTES Sea scallops—limited numbers off coast, some have been landed at Hampton. Busycon—shipped cooked to New York City by some dealers. Bay scallop—might be reintroduced. Rangia—thousands of bushels now around Jamestown. M. demissus—animal food. Prepared by Dexter S. Haven, head, Department of Applied Science. APPENDIX II1I.—Marine and Estuarine Fishes of Commercial or Sport Importance Commer- Scientific name cial im- Sport im- (species) Common name portance portance Level of exploitation Carcharhinus milberti_______- Sand bar shark___.. Minor_____ None--.--- Probably underexploited. Megalops atlantica__..___.--- Marpon = see eee None_-___- Minor-_-_--- Stocks unknown. Alosa aestivalis__...._.___.-- Blusback or glut Major. ___- None__--- Underexploited. herring Alosa mediocris_......-..---- Hickory shad Minor Py Eee bes Do. Alosa pseudoharengus _-_.__-- Alewife-_-__- None--..- Do. Alosa sapidissima__._....--- American shai Moderate Adequate, perhaps near maximum. Brevoortia tyrannus __-----_- Menhaden a Sas Set do_._-.- None---.- Near maximum level. Gadus morhua. _-_...-------- Coders ss Minor-__-_- Minor-__.-- Virginia stocks perhaps temporarily. Urophycis regius____-_-_-_-- Spotted hake_-_________ doses None-_.--- Underexploited. Urophycis chuss_......------ Squirrel hake-_________- Gor s. 222282 dona Stock not known. Merluccius bilinearis_..____-- Silver hake__________._ Gop a doles Probably underexploited. Anguilla rostrata_.._-_.----- American eel____-_.-_--- doi? tea do Underexploited. Mugil cephalus__._...-.----- Mulletsoo3 e225 38! Or eee doz. 2422 Stock minor in area. Centropristes striatus_._-_-_- Black sea bass__.___ Major... ._- Moderate... Exploitation moderate, not maximum. Roccus americanus.....----- White perch..._____- Minor_._.___- dosee7 Underexploited. Roccus savatilis....---_----- Striped bass_..____- Major.--__- Major-_-_--- Exploitation adequate, near maximum. Pomatomus saltatriz___.----_- Bluefish____....-.--- Moderate__-_-- dox ee Moderate, not overexploited. Rachycentron canadum.-_-..- Cobia ewes aes Minor__..---- don Exploitation adequate. SERLOLO SDD aes ae aa aaa Amberjacks________- None-_..... Minor_-_-_-- Underexploited. Coryphaena hippurus__...--- Dolphin___..__._..-.-.- Goss itt Moderate. Do. _ Orthopristis chrysopterus_.__- (PUG AIS Wee oes ee Minor____- Minor... Probably underexploited. Bairdiella chrysura_._-_-_--- Silver perch_________ None__-__-_-- dors Underexploited. Cynoscion nebulosus__...---- Spotted weakfish..._ Minor_-___- Moderate... Stocks minor. Cynoscion regalis____...----- Gray weakfish-_--___- Major_-_-__- Major_._.. Exploitation adequate. Leiostomus xcanthurus ..----- Spotie ose. tos Bee do: ates doa Exploitation moderate, not maximum. Menticirrhus saxatilis___._.-- Northern whiting... Moderate.. Moderate... Probably underexploited. Pogonias cromis__......----- Black drum____._-__-_- does Major... Exploitation adequate. Sciaenops ocellata____.------ Red drum.__.______- Minor.___._-- do.. -. Do. Micropogon undulatus. _..--- Atlantic croaker____- Major__.___-- dome =. | Stock temporarily lost. Stenotomus chrysops_._-.---- Scupezsee ates eee d0:=2-=25 Minor___-- Exploitation moderate, not necessarily maximum. Chaetodipterus faber__...-_-- Atlantic spadefish... Minor...__--- dol Stock rather limited. Tautoga onitis_..__.....-.---- Mati Cortera tee eset ts dora do__-._. Probably underexploited. Euthynnus alletteratus....... Little tuna_-___--_-- None-.-___ Moderate-- Vndereplolied. Sarda sarda__._-.----------- Atlantic bonita___..___- do__---.. Minor-.--_- Do. Euthynnus pelamis___...---- Oceanic bonita________- Gores se. do es Do. . Scomberomorus cavalla_....-. King mackerel-_-____- Minor_____-_- daa Stock rather limited. Scomberomorus maculatus... Spanish mackerel_.. Moderate---.- dota: = Stock probably underex- ploited. 447 AppenpIx III.—Marine and Estuarine Fishes of Commercial or Sport Im- portance—Continued Commer- Scientific name cial im- Sport im- (species) Common name portance portance Level of exploitation sgcomber RCOMLULIS oe eas occas Atlantic mackerel... Moderate... Minor-_--.-.- Exploitation adequate at present stock level. Thunnus thynnus.....------ Bluefin tuna do....... Stocksize unknown in local waters. Xiphias gladius....-.--.---- Swordfish._..-...... None...... Piaeks piatevly underexe ploited. Makaira albida_-_...-. .. White marlin Major_-_-_- Stock probably underfisheds Peprilus alepidotus_. _. Harvestfish__ .. Moderate. None___-_- Probably underexploited. Poronotus triacanthus_...... Butterfish_________-- aj doLee ae Exploitation adequate. Paralichthys dentatus..___-.- Summer flounder_-_-_--- dors s2As Major_-_--- Exploitation moderate, but not maximum. Pseudopleuronectes Winter flounder..... Miror..._. Minor._... Local stock small but exe americanus. panding. Sphaeroides maculatus_.._.-- Northern puffer_______. dol a= Moderate... Stock underexploited. APPENDIX IV (CRUSTACEANS OF ECONOMIC VALUE IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND THE ADJACENT CONTINENTAL SHELF WATERS I. Species actively exploited 1. Blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. In all saline and brackish waters of Mary- land, Virginia, and in inshore waters of the shelf; exploited as hard crabs, soft crabs and peelers (for bait), and crab meal from the picking residues. II. Species giving substantial financial return, but fishing is incidental to other fishing operations. 1. Northern lobster, Homarus americanus. On the continental shelf. III. Species which do not contribute significantly to the economy, because catch is small, local and seasonal. These species are economically valuable in other areas of the U.S. 1. Edible shrimp (3 species), Penaeus setiferus, P. duorarum, P. aztecus. Caught in fish pound nets, by hand dipnet, and small seine, at mouths of Virginia rivers. 2. Rock erab, Cancer irroratus. Caught incidentally in deep waters of the Bay and on the continental shelf. Cooked for crab meat extraction. IV. Species which are abundant and are exploited, but do not contribute signifi- cantly to the economy here or elsewhere. 1. Grass (glass) shrimp, Palaemonetes sp (3 species). Found in the Chesapeake area ; used as chum (bait) in fishing. VY. Species which are relatively abundant, and not presently exploited in the Bay area. Other, similar species are exploited in other areas of the U.S. 1. Sand shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa. Small-sized shrimp, 1-2 inches, most numerous near mouths of Virginia rivers, in fall, winter and spring. Used in other areas of U.S. as bait and for shrimp meal (seasoning). 2. Fiddler crabs, Uca sp. There are three species abundant in marshes through- out the Bay area. Used in other areas as bait for tautog. Prepared by: W. A. Van Engel, Head, Department of Crustaceology. [From the Virginia Forward] OCEANOGRAPHY IN VIRGINIA (Dr. William J. Hargis Jr.) Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., who authored this article, is one of the nation’s outstanding figures in the burgeoning field of oceanography. He is Director for the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at Gloucester Point, Virginia; Dean, School of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary; Chairman, Department of Marine Science, The University of Virginia. 448 No ivy-towered dweller, Dr. Hargis is easily conversant in his complicated field and his enthusiasm for a Science, which means increasingly more to all of us, is highly contagious. He’s a native of Russell County, Virginia, earned his A. B. and M. A. at the Univer- sity of Richmond, went on to Florida State University to get his Ph.D. He has been actively engaged in research since 1950. He has been an educator in Biology, Chemistry and Marine Science since 1951. His list of memberships in professional societies, service commit- tees—and his honors—fill almost a page. He is, for example, past president of the Atlantic Estuarine Research Society, Chairman of the Exploration of the Atlantic Shelf, a member of the Board of Trustees, Mariners Museum of Newport News, Va., and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has been named by Governor Godwin as a representative for Virginia to important study groups related to pollution problems in the nation’s estuaries and to a Chesapeake Bay Study in connection with Cheas- peake Bay Model. Author of 41 research publications and editor of 15 scientific translations, Dr. Hargis names Sailing, powerboating, painting and photography as his principal hobbies. INTRODUCTION Twice daily the ocean tide rises and falls in the 13 thousand square miles of the Virginia Sea and Chesapeake Bay. Along the 4,000 miles of shoreline, salt and fresh waters of Tidewater alternately cover and uncover rich shallows and marshlands—mixing fertility of soil and sea. Wildfowl], marsh animals, fish ‘and shellfish are spawned in, sheltered or nourished by the enriched broth of the sea. Mineral deposits, fashioned by the ages, are hidden by the inconstant face of the ocean. By surf, beaches ‘are built ; under ‘its turbulent roar, coasts are de- stroyed and highlands fall. Into the waters of ‘the sea, wash the soil of misused land and others of the thousand wastes of man. Houses, cities and factories rise along the shore. A newly christened ship slides silently down the ways. Upon the ocean a ship moves majestically, commerce or pleasure bent. \Silent submarines angle ‘slowly to stations below ‘the sea’s blue deck. Fishermen bring from the shallows of the Bay an abundant but varying harvest of erabs, clams, oysters and fish. From deeper shelf waters of the Virginia Sea, draggers scoop fish and scallops and other creatures. A sail shim- mers over blue-green waters, while on shore recreationists and householders are refreshed or solaced by the sea. Beaches and marsh, highlands and deeps, bottoms and shallows, fish and fowl], sea and sky all are of great aesthetic and economic value to the Commonwealth. Each year over 7 billions of dollars change hands in Maritime Virginia, much of it due directly to the marine environment, its resources and attractions. The early ocean explorer, Captain John Smith—who called that vast shallow area of ocean lying between Capes Cod and Hatteras the Virginian Sea, was among the first Huropeans who recognized and publicized the New World’s marine resources. By his voyages, observations and writings, he urged their use. Later Virginians and Virginia-based explorers extended man’s knowledge of and dominion over the seas markedly. Among those who contributed notably are: Lt. John Mercer Brooke, Virginian and early geological oceanographer, and Admiral Richard H. Byrd, scientists and polar explorer. The worldwide scientific expedition led by Lt. Charles Wilkes, which preceded the renowned yoyage of HMS Challenger, fitted out and sailed from Hampton Roads in 1888. Among the earliest proponents of marine research was Virginia’s Matthew Fontaine Maury. Maury, a primary founder of modern physical oceanography, recognized the potential importance of marine science or oceanography to man. Along with many other useful projects, he espoused the utility of properly oriented ‘and conducted marine research. As often happens, the prophecy of Maury was far in advance of its realization. Oceanography in the United States languished from his day (the mid-1800’s) until very recent times. It is only since 1940 that its military importance has been strongly realized. Civilian ocean- ography did not develop markedly until 1950. It may be safely estimated that 90 percent of all the activity in marine science has taken place since World War IJ 449 WHAT IS OCEANOGRAPHY ? At this point it is well to consider what oceanography is. What is there about oceanography that makes it so important to man? Oceanography or marine science or oceanology (for they are synonymous as used here) is the study of the oceans and their tributaries and their processes. It is not a basic discipline like physics, biology or chemistry but an interdis- ciplinary science like geology or meteorology—a science of a large natural sys- tem, the oceans. Scientists interested in phenomena of the marine environment, in the oceans, their shallow seas and tributaries are called oceanographers. Because of the interdisciplinary nature of this field, oceanographers must be able to work in several areas or with specialists from other areas of science. Those interested in biological processes in the sea, or the interrelations between environment and marine life are called biological oceanographers. Marine fishery scientists are specialized biological oceanographers. Chemical oceanographers study the chemi- cals and the chemical processes in sea water. Geological oceanographers examine the interrelations between sea and sediments and sea and the shores and bottoms. Meterological oceanographers study interactions between atmosphere and oceans, e.g., the relationships between wind and water. Physical oceanographers study the nature and movements of water masses, tides, currents and waves from the viewpoint of the water, itself. Together, all strive to understand and build a picture of that great mass of salt water that covers 71 per cent of our space ship—Harth. Thus, oceanography is a unified science—unified not because it is a basie discipline but because the sea, itself, is a single huge system of water, bottom, shore, air and marine life which must be considered as a whole. Oceanographers are assisted and accompanied in their studies and subsequent practical activities by marine or ocean technologists of many types. Many kinds of applied scientists and engineers are involved in marrying scientific facts from oceanographic research with engineering principles to produce techniques to help society live with, use and preserve the resources of the sea. Man has used the sea. As population and industry grow, distances shrink and communications increase, this dependence will increase. Because of the close relationship between the oceans and man because of the utility of the bottoms, waters, shores, life and chemicals of the sea, oceanography clearly is closely coupled with society. Hence, basic research and applied research on the phe- nomena of the oceans will usually be put to use, quickly. ‘As predicted by Maury and others, the science of oceanography has proven of great use to the country in its development. It will be even more useful in the future. The great growth of activity in the field since World War IJ has been prompted by belated realization of this fact. VIRGINIA’S OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM In the wake of interest produced by the National Academy of Science-National Research Council Report (by its Committee on Oceanography) entitled, ‘“Ocean- ography 1960-1970”, increasing activity has occurred in all areas of marine science. Many private and public institutions have established new programs or enlarged existing activities in the field. Of late, added stress has been placed on the more applied or practical aspects of marine science and to the need for coordinated efforts in the field. In this scientific movement toward the sea, Virginia has been a leader. The historical, economic, social and political importance of Maritime Virginia (the 33 tidewater counties which contain 60 percent of the people, three of the largest urban complexes and much of the commerce and industry of the state) has prompted the General ‘Assembly and executive officers of the Commonwealth to establish a major, state-supported coordinated program of research, service and education in marine science and engineering—the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Under provisions of Chapter 9, Title 28 of the Code, sometimes called the “Oceanographic Law of Virginia,” the duties and responsibilities of the program are as follows: “(a) To conduct studies and investigations of all phases of the seafood and commercial fishing and sport fishing industries; “(b) To consider means by which fisheries resources may be conserved, de- veloped and replenished and to advise the Commission of Fisheries and other agencies and private groups on these matters; 450 “(e) To conduct studies and investigations of problems pertaining to the other segments of the maritime economy ; “(d) To conduct studies and investigations of marine pollution in cooperation with the State Water Control Board and the Department of Health and make the resulting data and possible corrective recommendations available to the ap- propriate agencies. “(e) To conduct hydrographic and biological studies of the Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries thereof and all the tidal waters of the Commonwealth and the contiguous waters of the Atlantic Ocean; “(f) To engage in research in the marine sciences and, with proper affiliation with one or more accredited institutions of higher learning, provide education therein ; “(g¢) To make such special studies and investigations concerning the foregoing as it may be requested to do by the Governor. “The above studies shall include consideration of the seafood and other marine resources including the waters, bottoms, shorelines, tidal wetlands, beaches and all phenomena and problems related to marine waters and the means by which these marine resources might be conserved, developed and replenished.” Dating to 1940, this charter wisely provides for basic and applied research, technological and engineering developments and for service to the principal users, managers and developers of the state’s vast marine resources. It also provides for education in all relevant fields of oceanography and technology. In recent years, a mechanism has been developed to make the laboratories, equipment, ships and other resources of the Institute available to interested scientists and students in other institutions. Conversely, this arrangement provides a mech- anism for encouraging others to work on the marine environment and problems of the Commonwealth. Through VIMS. the General Assembly of Virginia has devoted fairly large amounts of money to oceanography. At this point, the Institute stands among the top ten of all marine institutions (and there are nearly a hundred in the nation). in total size, and among the first three or four in terms of total state-support. It is the largest in percentage of local support. Indications are that among state- supported oceanographic programs, Virginia has the largest on the Hast Coast (1967 Oceanology Yearbook). Enlightened and controlled investment in marine science by the Commonwealth has resulted in increasing use of information about the marine environment and its resources in the public and private economic affairs of the Commonwealth. Health, welfare and aesthetics are also being served more actively. Marine scien- tists and engineers are regularly available for advice and consultation to local and state public management planning and development groups such as the Vir- ginia Division of Industrial Development, the Division of Planning, the Depart- ment of Conservation and Economic Development, the Commission of Fisheries, the Water Control Board, the Department of Health, and other executive and legislative bodies. Service to industries of all types, especially to shipping, sport and commercial fishing interests, big water users, and waterfront developers. has grown. Virginia’s oceanographers also serve as advisors to state and inter- state river basin development groups and fishery commissions. EDUCATION IN OCEANOGRAPHY Within Virginia, training and educational opportunities in marine science are provided to advanced high school students, high school and college teachers and advanced undergraduates. Graduate courses leading to masters and doctors de- grees in Biological Oceanography, General Oceanography and Marine Fisheries. Biology are offered by the University of Virginia and the College of William and Mary in conjunction with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. A minor in Ocean Engineering is available through the former. Electives and research courses in marine science or related fields also are offered at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Old Dominion College in Norfolk. The latter anticipates development of oceanography graduate programs later. Several other institutions such as: Hampton Institute and University of Richmond also have employed marine scientists to teach. At this writing, the only oceanography courses leading to graduate degrees. are those offered at VIMS through the University of Virginia and the College of William and Mary. Enrollment in these has grown markedly from about 6 in 1957 to 55 in 1967. Recently, many qualified applicants have been rejected due to lack of facilities. 451 Unfortunately, few Virginians have shown interest in the two educational programs. Of 150 applying in 1967, 18 were Virginians—l1 of whom were in- eligible. Hence, most of the applicants and successful enrollees to these pro- grams are from elsewhere. This trend should and can be reversed by more em- phasis on marine sciences at the pre-college and undergraduate levels, Adult education can focus additional attention on this field. Activities to this end have been undertaken by VIMS; others should follow suit. Hach year sees an increasing interest in marine science in Virginia and it is hoped that state and local public school systems and the community college pro- grams will incorporate oceanography in the appropriate places in their curricula. All pre-college students and undergraduates should be exposed to more ocean- ographic facts in earth science and biology courses, while in some schools ocean- ography should be offered as electives. More students should be encouraged to take courses at, or seek experience at, seaside laboratories. Certain of the proposed technical and community colleges should provide programs to train field and laboratory marine technicians and fishery technicians. F ; It is certain that trained oceanographers, marine technicians and engineers resulting from these efforts will have no trouble being employed. Many oppor- tunities are open to trained people at all levels. The pre-college and under- graduate programs outlined above will marketedly increase interest in ocean- ography and provide a corps on which to build future expansion of research, engineering and industrial development in marine science. And Virginians will be better prepared for education in the academic and research aspects of profes- sional, post-graduate oceanography and engineering. OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS IN VIRGINIA VIMS operates laboratories in two locations, the main one at Gloucester Point on the York and the Hastern Shore unit at Wachapreague. In addition, Virginia has built an hydraulic scale model of the tidal James in cooperation with the Norfolk District Engineer’s Office and the Waterways Hxperiment Station of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This excellent estuarine research and engineering facility is operated jointly by VIMS and the Corps. The new Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic Model to be built by the Corps will further enhance the scientific and practical oceanographic work of Virginia’s marine scientists and engineers. The Institute operates a fleet of three medium-sized (50’-90’) vessels and a score of small ones. Several other academic institutions in the state either have individuals or groups of scientists interested in oceanography and marine problems. Included are the School of Engineering and the Departments of Geology and Geography of the University of Virginia; the College of Engineering and the Departments of Geology and Biology and Forestry and Wildlife of Virginia Polytechnic Insti- tute; the Departments of Biology, Chemistry and Geology, of the College of Wil- - liam and Mary; the Department of Biology of the University of Richmond: the Department of Biology at Virginia State College in Petersburg; the Department of Biology of Frederick College; various departments of the Medical College of Virginia, Madison and Longwood Colleges. Some schools are developing separate facilities and programs in marine sci- ence. For example, Hampton Institute has expressed a desire to develop a depart- mental program and Old Dominion College of Norfolk has recently established an Institute of Oceanography with its own laboratory and boat. It is certain that others will be involved. This selected list of institutions which have per- Sons with marine interests and capabilities is not exhaustive, but does indicate that there is considerable interest and capability in marine science and related activities throughout the academic institutions of the Commonwealth. Private research institutions and industry have been active in developing programs relevant to the marine environment and its problems. The Virginia Institute of Scientific Research of Richmond has worked on corrosion chemistry. Woodward Research Corporation of Herndon, Virginia, conducts biological stu- dies On a contract basis. Atlantic Research Corporation of Northern Virginia also does contract instrumentation and biomedical and microbiological develop- ment work. The two largest industry efforts in oceanography or related fields known to the author have been pursued by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, which has conducted global exploration of submarine min- eral deposits using its own research vessel Prospector, and Reynolds Interna- tional, Inc., whose program to develop and operate the deep submergence vehicle 452 Aluminaut is widely known. There are undoubtedly other private and industrial capabilities in Virginia and Maryland. Near Annapolis, the Undersea Division of Westinghouse with its DEEPSTAR series of deep submersibles is another developer of engineering products for oceanography. Considerable engineering and scientific talent in oceanography and related fields is present in the many federal establishments in the Commonwealth and nearby Washington and Maryland. Among those in Virginia are the Naval Weap- ons laboratory at Dahlgren, and in Norfolk, the Land of Sea Interaction Laboratory (LASIL) and the Atlantic Ship Base, both of the Environmental Science Services Administration (HSSA). In addition, the U.S. Navy ‘Weather Research Facility (Norfolk) and the Langley tow tank facility of the David Taylor Model Basin on the Peninsula are oriented toward marine research. Allied technical capabilities exist at NASA, Langley Field and NASA, Wallops Island. Cooperative research programs are underway or have been conducted between VIMS and both units of ESSA as well as with the Navy Weather Re- search Facility and NASA, Wallops. ‘Among the noteworthy non-military research and development projects that have been carried out in Virginia waters by Virginia-based institutions are the following studies (mostly drawn from VIMS’ files) : 1. Temperature and salinity distribution and circulation of ‘(Continental Shelf waters designed to develop better understanding of the factors involved and, if possible, capability of forecasting waves and currents. (The scientific and prac- tical import of this project is obvious since military activities, boating, move- ment and survival of fishes, beach erosion and many other important features are directly dependent upon circulation of inshore oceanic waters.) 2. Circulation of tidal and estuarine waters of Chesapeake Bay and its tribu- taries. (Tidal and estuarine waters figure significantly in all maritime affairs. Hence, the significance of this work to industry and public welfare is clear.) 83. Chemistry of estuarine and shelf waters, with emphasis on the effect of man’s activities on the natural environment. 4. Fate and role of radioactive particles in marine waters and sediments and organisms (significant because of the increasing use of nuclear energy in ship and electrical power. plants). 5. Distribution and fate of pesticides in marine waters and organisms. 6. Primary productivity and overfertilization of coastal waters. 7%. Distribution and abundance of molluscs, crabs and finfishes in relation to natural and manmade factors and to fishing activities. 8. Effects of pollutants on fishery populations. 9. Search for unexploited or underexploited stocks of fishery organisms. 10. Development of techniques for mariculture of oysters, clams, and crabs and other species. 11. Processes involved in beach erosion. 12. Studies of sedimentation in estuarine and coastal waters. 13. Development and use of hydraulic and mathematical models of estuarine and coastal waters in science and engineering. 14. Development of instruments for oceanography and undersea activities. 15. Use of airborne and satellite radiometry and microwave photography in oceanographic studies. These and other activities in the marine sciences and in public and private management of marine resources have begun to provide a research, development and management capability which will be useful in the future development of Virginia. As a result, Virginia is in the best position that she ever has been to advise, secure or provide services on such practical problems as location of indus- trial plants; shoreline and water-use proposals; channel, dam and ‘shoreline modification ; beach erosion and nourishment; marina location; pollution abate- ment and avoidance in tidal waters; prediction and improvement of fishery stock ; prevention of deterioration of the marine environment and other problems. In developing the various oceanographic capabilities in Virginia, especially those of VIMS, emphasis has been placed on making the results of research available and useful to the state, its industries and people. Obviously, people and industry put greatest demands on marine resources. Therefore, state-supported research should ‘serve both science and the resource users. 453 THE FUTURE It is clear that Virginia has many valuable marine resources. It is also clear that these resources are extremely useful and that they will be more widely used. As population and industry, both of which are attracted strongly to the marine environment, grow, competition and degradation will follow and the need for more careful management and use of the marine environment and its resources. will increase. In the future, Virginia must be able to 1) resolve conflicting use problems ; 2} prevent degradation and destruction of the marine environment; 3) develop the ability to secure more food from the sea by controlled cropping of naturally produced or “wild” populations and by mariculture or “marine farming’’—con- trolled production of marine organisms—first, for molluscs and perhaps algae, and later for crustaceans and finfish ; 4) increase sportfishing yields; 5) use con- verted seawater to drink, process and cool; 6) increase other recreational areas and uses and restore the quality of the marine environment; 7) wisely set aside those areas of marsh, beach and water which must be preserved for ail time; and 8) prevent or reduce destruction of life and property. These demands will call for greater understanding of the processes and phe- nomena of the ocean and its tributaries and for development of greater technolog- ical and engineering capability. These aims will be accomplished if Virginia is able to continue to provide the capabilities of equipment, personnel and shore facilities which will permit improvement of research and engineering and if efforts are concentrated primarily on the phenomena and problems of the coastal and estuarine waters. These objectives are clearly within the guidelines established by the General Assembly and Virginia and by the President’s Advisory Committee and the Na- tional Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography. Existing programs and most of those planned for Virginia will contribute markedly to the further social and economic development of the Commonwealth as well as to increasing funda- mental knowledge of the sea. Because of these factors of population and industrial growth in Virginia and of the need for more food, water and minerals from the sea, its shores and floor and for wise placement of factory, farm, home and city, it is clear that further development of oceanography, marine technology and engineering by the Com- monwealth and by the federal government and industry is warranted and neces- sary. It will be vital to the future for the General Assembly to continue to provide support and growth funds for the State’s marine science program as it has so wisely in the past. Important also will be increases in the investments of industry, academie institutions and the federal government in oceanography. For the im- mediate future, severe reductions in federal funds for oceanography appear imminent due to competition with Vietnam, fvreign aid, poverty programs and other activities of the national government. However, as these pressures ease, the growth of oceanography and its service to man will undoubtedly rocket because development of ocean resources is vital to the future of the Nation and especially to Virginia. JAMES RIVER HYDRAULIC MODEL MULTI-PURPOSE MARINE RESEARCH TOOL FOR SCIENCE, GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY, PUBLISHED BY VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, GLOUCESTER POINT, VIRGINIA Inside a hangar-like shed down at Vicksburg, Mississippi is a unique research tool valuable to science, government, and industry. This is the James River Hy- draulic Model—a miniature version of Virginia’s most important tidal river sys- tem. The model was built by Virginia in cooperation with the Norfolk District Engineers’ Office and the Waterways Experiment Station of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is operated jointly by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at Gloucester Point and the Corps. Investigators use the model to study the river’s ‘natural’? processes under con- trolled conditions. Tides, currents, freshwater flow, saltwater intrusion, and Sediment deposition as they occur in the tidal James are duplicated in it. They also run tests to determine how these processes will be affected by river and harbor 454 projects before expensive man-made changes actually occur. Thus, scientists learn more about the physical workings of the lower James Estuary. Working with engineers they examine construction and sewage discharge proposals for their possible effects on valuable natural resources, Industrialists with shoreline fac- tories that use water for transportation, waste-removal, cooling and other manu- facturing processes examine present river-oriented operations or future develop- ments and determine how these change or are changed by existing river conditions. The James River Model can be an invaluable aid to Virginia in planning an orderiy development of resource potentials throughout the entire tidal basin from Richnond to Hampton Roads—planning which calls for tailoring river and harbor projects so that desirable economic and social advantages may be realized. A MODEL IS BORN Nearly fifteen years ago municipal and industrial interests that used the James River urged deepening the 25-foot channel from Hampton Roads to Richmond to 35 feet so larger vessels could navigate upstream. The economics of inland shipping would thus be improved because deepdraft ships could dock at Richmond and Hopewell. Others felt that a deeper channel through the upper tidal James would open new avenues for industrial development in that area. Few objections were voiced at first. But as time passed, fear arose that this navigation project might have serious effects on the multi-million dollar oyster industry. Oystermen protested that valuable seed oyster beds near the James River Bridge might be seriously damaged or even destroyed. Scientists predicted that physical changes in the estuarine portion of the river would surely result. The Virginia General Assembly delayed approval of the project until a scientific study could determine the various physical and biological effects that would re- sult from channel modification. As part of this study, scientists from VIMS recommended building a physical scale model of the tidal James to test the proposed change under conditions re- sembling those in nature. The model would enable them to accurately pinpoint natural conditions before and after deepening. Funds became available for research on the problem in 1964 when the General Assembly appropriated $300,000 to the Commission of Fisheries (now the Virginia Marine Resources Commission) in Newport News. This included construction of a Suitable hydraulic model. THE MODEL MAKERS The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was selected to build and operate the James River Model. It possessed the necessary skill and facilities ; furthermore, the Corps contributed about $100,000 toward building costs. The model was built at the Waterways Experiment Station (WHS) in Vicksburg, where a dozen other hydraulic models are also housed. (WHS is the principal research and engineering study facility of the Corps). VIMS provided bathymetric information (bottom contours), and the necessary oceanographic data (salinity distribution, current speed and direction, etc.) for model construction and verification. VIMS PROVIDES DATA The Commission selected VIMS to conduct the necessary research for deter- mining the effect of channel deepening on oyster production in James River. VIMS then initiated a multi-disciplinary research project (labeled Operation James River) that provided information concerning the physical and chemical processes in the James and the effects of these phenomena on the biological activities occurring in the estuarine portion of the River. In 1967 reports were submitted to the Governor and General Assembly of Virginia stating that tests in the model had revealed channel modification would not seriously affect the oyster industry. The navigation project was approved. RETAINED BY VIRGINIA After the Corps of Engineers fulfilled its contract with Virginia for the Channel Study and completed certain studies of its own, the model could have been dis- mantled. Regulations governing WHS allow it to destroy models when there is no longer any need for them. Virginia, however, acted quickly and requested 455 that the model be kept in operating condition for future uses. The Commonwealth had invested over $400,000 in this experimental facility and VIMS scientists urged officials to retain it for continued use by the State in developing the important James River Basin and by the communities and industries located along the river. The model was saved. The Corps agreed to a program of joint financing and use by both the Commonwealth and the Federal Government. The model is kept on standby status and VIMS pays monthly rental of $300 to cover costs of main- taining it when not in use. As it has worked out, the model has been in almost eontinuous operation since the Channel Study was completed in late fall of 1966. REPRODUCES NATURE IN MINIATURE The James River Hydraulic Model is an experimental device used by scientists and engineers to duplicate nature in miniature. One horizontal foot in the model equals 1,000 feet in the river; one vertical foot represents 100 feet. Four days in nature are scaled down to one hour on the model; a normal 12144 hour tidal eycle is condensed to only 744 minutes. A protective shelter houses the model to avoid local wind effects, dilution from rain, and to allow uninterrupted operation in winter. The model is 550 feet long and 130 feet across at its widest point. The bed is molded of concrete and covers some 25,000 square feet. The entire James River Tidal Tributary from its fall line at Richmond through Hampton Roads into the ‘Chesapeake Bay and including 200 square miles of At- lantie Ocean is formed in the model. Tidal portions of all major tributary streams are included: the Elizabeth, Nansemond, Pagan, Warwick, Chickahominy, and Appomatox Rivers. Man-made obstructions that interrupt the river’s flow are also built to scale in the model. Replicas of existing piers, bridges, tunnels, and the U.S. Navy’s James River Reserve Fleet have been added to duplicate the physical effects of these structures. Model Scales Ratio Scale : Model: Prototype ELOIZON GA OIStAM COs ae ee eee Abe AA ODO tit 1 1: 1000 NAIC Shen COs ce ees ee ee Se ee 1: 100 SVE CESTSMMMV AC ONC Reyer ee ee er See ene EN SO A 1:10 ID ASCARIS J es ee Sa gE ee ae ee ee 1:1, 000, 000 ASG UN WUSOE sa Zc eee a a a eae ie a EE Be oe ee 1: 100, 000, 000 SEU, Vapapee es a ee De ee ee a ee a aT Sd ake ih UUNTCRYE: as hth aS et IE RM ele alg rN Lot NR et AVL MT el et ONE rh Same A 0 1: 100 Tides, currents, freshwater flow, saltwater intrusion, and sediment deposition are simulated with known accuracy. An automatic tide control mechanism regu- -Jates rise and fall of the water level by alternately filling and draining water in the system. Variable copper “hydraulic resistance” strips duplicate bottom roughness, and they can be adjusted to make currents behave as they do in the river. Strategically located inflow devices regulate the amount of fresh water intro- duced. Artificial sea water from a large supply tank is pumped upstream by the simulated tidal action to imitate saltwater intrusion. Gilsonite may be introduced at different points along the model bed to simulate sedimentation and scouring. Dyes may be used to study circulation and simulate introduced chemicals, sus- pended particles and even, to a degree, planktonic organisms. Measurements in the model are taken with various instruments. Tidal heights are obtained with stationary point gauges. Current velocities are measured with miniature Price rotating cup meters. Salinity samples are drawn by vacuum into vials through small intakes set in the model at various depths. Sediment erids indicate where silt may be deposited. Time-lapse photography and fluorescence detectors are used in dye diffusion and dispersal studies and in sedimentation and circulation studies. Because the model reproduces, records, and measures physical factors with known accuracy and precision, scientists and engineers can demonstrate existing conditions of the river or any new condition induced by either man or nature. 456 SERVES MANY PURPOSES The James River model is useful to private and public groups on local, state, and national levels. Some recent studies and proposed ones are as follows: _ Virginia Electric and Power Company used the model to test the environ- mental effects of heated effluent from a proposed nuclear power plant to be located at Hog Point in Surry County. The City of Newport News used the model to help choose one of three pos- sible plans for a proposed fill project at Newport News Point. The Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission used the model to help select the best site for a sewage treatment plant outfall. The Navy used the model to aid in solving navigation channel and berthing area sedimentation problems. VIMS scientists are using the hydraulic model to test the accuracy and precision of such devices and as an experimental “flume” to develop mathe- matical models of estuarine circulation. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, VIMS, and the State Water Control Board of Virginia are using the model to study the dispersal and diffusion of pollutants. VIMS projects a series of tests to study distribution of simulated plankton in the estuarine portion of the James. The Corps of Engineers plans to use the model to conduct tests relating to spoil disposal and other projects. USE COORDINATED BY VIMS AND CORPS The operational responsibility for the Commonwealth’s interests in the James River Hydraulic Model was assigned to VIMS by the General Assembly with the concurrence of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. The model is now a facility of the Institute, and its use is coordinated by formal agreement between VIMS and the Corps of Engineers. To get full benefit from the model, VIMS and WES have made its uses ayvail- able to qualified private industries, political subdivisions, state and federal agen- cies, and scientific institutions. Since a heavy demand is expected, certain condi- tions have been imposed to maintain an orderly and productive operation—as follows: 1) All use—state, city or county, public or private—must be cleared through VIMS. 2) Schedules will be established by VIMS through consultation with the pros- pective users and the Corps. : 3) Copies of all data resulting from use of the model will be forwarded t VIMS as it is generated. This includes raw data, semi-digested data, and reports of results. 4) All costs of modification, special verification, use, and reporting of model work will be borne by the user. The Commonwealth assumes no responsibility or lia- bility for results. 5) Public users, especially federal and state agencies, will have priority over private users. 6) Studies that will help solve problems of interest to Virginia will also be given assigned preference where possible. Dr. Hareis. Several agencies of the State are becoming oriented toward management of the “coastal zone” as are many localities. We are party to the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, an effective interstate body, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and hope to help develop and participate in an effective interstate compact for joint attention to the Chesapeake Bay. Hence, the “coastal zone authority,” either State or interstate, con- cept is not new at all. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science is the separate State agency responsible for research and service to these State and interstate management agencies and evidence that Virginia is developing a coastal zone laboratory. I have included an article “Oceanography in Virginia” which also indicates our interest in State support of oceanographic activities. 457 Several other points, beyond those presented above, might be men- tioned. Nothing effective will happen in developing the proposed na- tional oceanographic program without adequate funding. Oceanog- raphy is in a fund squeeze. We must maintain an effective balance of basic and applied—definitions vary—research in the marine environ- ment and to do so will require money. Where funds are short, priorities are necessary. Therefore, projects should be chosen with care. It is my firm belief that realistic priorities can be set and objectives attained. You remember that the Commis- sion’s report suggested certain national oceanographic projects and I would suggest that any of those that are going to be considered for funding should be selected in terms of the general need of the United States and of its important marine activities and selected with care, with attention to the long-range and short-range goals or needs of the States and the United States. Some of these can be identified quite clearly. Preservation of en- vironmental quality and preservation and enhancement of the fisheries are among those. In developing its suggested budget the COMSER report pointed out that ships for high seas work are costly and accordingly recom- mended a sizable amount for same in its equipment list for deep sea programs. In the budget for scientific facilities for the coastal zone laboratories, costs of major equipment figured rather lower. I believe that this dif- ferential likely is not justified because the coastal zone laboratories and coastal zone management programs will require extensive and expensive hydraulic scale models, computer systems, automated mon- itoring and research data acquisition arrays, special vessels and highly specialized physiological laboratories and ecological research devices. These I am sure will equal or surpass in cost the cost of high seas vessels. In fact, I would expect that needs for funds for the coastal zone research activities would be as high, even higher, than those for deep sea work, in the aggregate, and this would be due to the greater total activity in the coastal zone and the need for more scientific _ information in a shorter period of time. A word about an important project. I must confess that I am not unbiased but I do want to indicate to the committee a potential nation- al project, one which is already authorized by Congress and one which wants only adequate money and time to see it accomplished reasonably soon. That is the Chesapeake Bay hydraulic model and associated tech- nical center that some of your members have been urging for some time. It has been authorized for the Corps of Engineers to carry out in consonance with the States. Major emphasis in the COMSER report and in congressional actions for the last 5 years has been placed on the “coastal zone” and its estu- aries. Model systems—working combinations of hydraulic and mathe- matical models—and that is what the Chesapeake Bay hydraulic model and technical center would provide—are essential to effective science, engineering and management of major estuarine systems. Given this emphasis on the “coastal zone,” the national importance of the Chesapeake Bay system, the proximity to Washington and the spreading edge of Megalopolis—unspoiled enough to be worth atten- 26—563—69— pt. 1——30 458 tion and yet under pressure enough to demand concern—I wonder if it wouldn’t be a good idea to devote immediate effort to develop the Chesapeake Bay as a prototype for an effective estuarine management and engineering and research system—a sort of nearby national proj- ect—which would serve as a model, useful in many other areas of the country. Virginia and the Federal Government have cooperated effectively on a management problem—the James River navigation project and we in Maryland can do the same on the Chesapeake Bay. As you prob- ably know there are several research institutions of fair competence on the Chesapeake Bay and we have banded together to form a Chesa- peake research council. We hope to be able to work on this problem. We have been prepared for over a year to do so, wanting only money. A recent advisory on the James River hydraulic model and its uses is included for your interest. In case I can persuade you as to the importance of hydraulic and mathematical models in estuarine management. In order to avoid ending on this local note, I wish to reemphasize that the Council of Maritime States, Commonwealths and Terri- tories—which, by the way, was not asked to endorse the Chesapeake Bay prototype concept mentioned immediately above—the Common- wealth of Virginia and its Virginia Institute of Marine Science wish to commend the COMSER group for an excellent job and endorse its essential points to the Congress through you. We will all work with you in developing an effective national oceanographic program. Please do not hesitate to call on us. Thank you. Mr. Rocrrs. Thank you, Doctor. We appreciate your statement very much. Mr. Downing. Mr. Downtrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Hargis, I think you have made another significant contribution to the committee on this subject. There are several questions. The Chesapeake Bay model was authorized by the Congress several years ago. What is the status as of this moment ? Dr. Harets. The status is “quo”. Appropriations sufficient to carry forward the project have not yet been made and, therefore, we are waiting. Now an advisory group has been appointed by the Governors of the States and by the Federal agencies involved and several meetings have been held. We had made some preliminary plans and the Baltimore district of the corps has done some planning work and is doing some studies but essentially we are waiting. 2 Mr. gL LENE Do you remember the amount of the authorization gure? Dr. Harers. I think the amount ran approximately $6 million. Mr. Down1ne. Do you know whether that is to be included in this year’s appropriation ? Dr. Harets. No, sir. It is not. Mr. Downing. Dr. Hargis, you mentioned the use of the Chesapeake Bay as possibly a national model for this work. Dr. Harcis. Yes, sir. 459 Mr. Downrne. Is there any particular reason other than a local boy as why you picked the Bay over any other body of water in the country ? : : Dr. Harers. Well, this sort of work could be carried forward in any one of a number of major estuaries. However, I think that if called upon to develop the proposal of the project I would say that there are several good reasons. Among them is the fact that the Chesapeake Bay is still relatively undisturbed but it is being disturbed rapidly. It is near Washington, makes a good high visibility project. The Na- tional Capital as well as several of the State capitals have had im- pacts on the Bay itself and we have a fair amount of, a fair concentra- tion of scientific capability. We have planning. The model has already been authorized. We have also the James River hydraulic model with a fair amount of experience and it is a relatively simple system politi- cally as these things go. That is two States involved in the Greater Chesapeake Bay. I think that furthermore, the horses are at the post and we are ready to go. Mr. Downrne. Has the James River model been an effective tool ! Dr. Hareis. Yes, sir; it has. This little brochure that I have added to this if you have a chance to read it, I believe will indicate so. As you recollect the question that came before us was quite practical. That is, would the James River navigation project, the proposal to dredge a channel 100 miles approximately from the Hampton Roads area to Richmond, affect the currents and salinity structure of the James and then, if there would be such physical effects, would they have any influence on the oyster industry which is primarily depend- ent upon the James River as a seed area This model along with the associated studies was authorized by the General Assembly and funded mostly by the General Assembly al- though with some support from the Public Law 88-309 and the Corps of Engineers. The answer came out reasonably clearly, using the hydraulic model and all the studies in the laboratory and field that we were able to carry out, that the navigation of the James River Channel would - have an effect on the salinity and current. structure of the James but it would not be biologically significant in terms of oyster production. _ This is one of those times when we were able to within a 3-year pe- riod reach a conclusion which was positive, was stated, and was useful. Mr. Downing. But the dredging itself would create some damage to the oyster beds, would it not? Dr. Hares. Yes, direct damage but we judge it would be rather minor and accountable. The James River hydraulic model has been i constant use since our study was done in 1966, and in fact it has been used on pre-site studies, that is location of a nuclear powerplant at Hog Point on the James below Jamestown Island. It is being used by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and by the Corps of Engineers in various practical projects that they have con- cerning pollution and water front development, so that there is no question in my mind that hydraulic models are a, necessary and useful tool well worth the investment that we make on them. Mr. Downrne. In your statement you seem quite concerned, Doctor, that the States do not have enough authority under the Cosmer rec- ommendations. Is that a fair statement ? 460 Dr. Hareis. No. I think that 1t would be perhaps a little better to phrase it this way, Congressman Downing. . That is, that the Commission during its deliberations apparently became aware that the States do have major responsibility in the coastal zone and should be encouraged to assume their responsibilities and in this we concur. Now, my major concern over the last 4 or 5 years has been that as we talked about a national oceanographic program we should be sure that it is a national rather than a Federal oceanographic program—which this committee the Subcommittee on Oceanography has itself urged, and that in the past the States have not, either through their own neglect or for one reason or another, expressed an effective concern and involvement in the development of a national oceanographic program. I hope that this will change. Mr. Downtne. I have one last question. This is really not in connection with the statement. The Navy as you know is thinking about getting rid of 10 nuclear submarines. It has been suggested that one of them could be turned over to the NOAA for oceanographic use. Does this sound feasible to you ? Dr. Harets. Well, I think that you have me a little bit out of my element. We are primarily interested, of course, in the Continental Shelf and so forth but I would say that the use of submersibles in oceanographic work is developing. I would think that any such pro- posal as this would have to be examined extremely carefully in terms of its costs and payouts. There may be some submersibles that have been developed that would be much more useful and perhaps less costly. So that, with the note that I am not an authority on the subject and, therefore, my statement should be considered as such, I would say that we ought to look at any such proposal quite carefully. One problem with operating surface vessels and subsurface vessels is that they are quite costly and what I think we all must guard against is that the programs don’t become wagged, the tail doesn’t start wag- ging the dog and the hardware wagging the operation. Mr. Downtne. Thank you very much, Dr. Hargis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rocers. Mr. Mosher. Mr. Mosuer. Dr. Hargis, this morning you have devoted consider- able favorable attention to the concept of coastal zone authorities and coastal zone laboratories as recommended by the Commission. As you see it, does the Great Lakes area have a useful and proper role in those concepts ? Dr. Harcis. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, I should have indicated that at the meeting of the Council of Maritime States, Commonwealths and Territories the Great Lakes States were represented and they are considered to be in this instance maritime States. So that I think they do, yes, definitely. Mr. Mosuer. By definition I think Congressman Ruppe and I feel strongly that they should be considered maritime States. Dr. Harets. Yes, sir. Mr. Mosuer. Are the States of Ohio and Michigan represented in this Council ? CT 461 Dr. Hanais. Yes, sir. I could read the list. Mr. Mosner. You don’t need to. Dr. Harers. There were several of the Great Lakes States repre- sented by gubernatorial representatives. Mr. Mosuer. You have only made very fleeting reference to the sort of the heart of the Commission’s proposal, the proposed creation of NOAA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency ? Dr. Hares. Yes, sir. Mr. Mosumr. I am interested in your paragraph on page 5 which be- gins with “Every effort should be made * * * to keep waste and un- necessary duplication” and you end that paragraph by saying, “How- ever, we must avoid the easy option of unnecessary or unjustified replication or of reorganization and renamings which accomplish lithe?’ Is there any implication in that sentence that you think that NOAA would be an unnecessary and really meaningless reorganization ? Dr. Harcts. No, sir. I think that I should clarify this by saying that what I wanted to stress is that the establishment of a new agency with- out the necessary operating instructions, without the necessary orga- nizational arrangements and without the necessary long-term commit- ment in terms of finances will not accomplish what I believe the ob- jectives of Congress would be and, therefore, these things must come along with any reorganization that is brought about. Mr. Mosuer. I certainly hope that all of us would agree with that and I certainly believe that that was the Commission’s intent. A mere reshuffling of the agency boxes into a new organizational structure or chart and then just allowing them to continue to do what they are now doing would accomplish little, to use your phrase, and would be unfortunate. But I am assuming that the Commission itself intended and I would assume that any action on our part or in the Administration’s part which would reorganize would be with the idea that the very essence of the new organization would be a much broader reorganization and much greater impetus and hopefully with much better financing than would be represented merely by the present agencies that would be brought into it. Dr. Harets. Yes, sir. Mr. Mosuer. You would agree that this would be important ? Dr. Harets. Yes, sir. Mr. Mosuer. And you do in general favor the concept of NOAA? Dr. Harets. Yes, sir. These were my instructions. Mr. 'Rocrrs. Mr. Karth? Mr. Kartu. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rocrrs. Mr. Pelly ? Mr. Petuy. I would like to commend you, Dr. Hargis, for a very fine contribution. Dr. Harets. Thank you. Mr. Petty. I also want to commend you for your answer to the ques- tion of my colleague, Mr. Downing, with regard to the possible use of a nuclear submarine. J can’t imagine anything that would be more expensive to operate or probably more difficult to transfer to some scientific purpose. Surplus equipment can be very helpful and at the University of Washington in my district we lease for possibly a dollar 462 a year a surplus naval vessel which is used for offices and research work and it is very helpful at very little cost however I can’t conceive of using a nuclear submarine. In view of the technicians required and the problems involved in operating such a submarine, it seems to me that those who are trying to develop scientific knowledge would be overwhelmed by the techni- cal aspects of running the vessel. rie I think you have made a very fine statement and I appreciate it very much. Dr. Hares. Thank you. I am sure if I might comment here that the members of the subcommittee are aware that the oceanographic com- munity is facing rather difficult times now in terms of operating ships. One reason, of course, is the high personnel requirements that some ships have particularly conversions and the increasing cost of labor. So we are faced with some problems along the lines of operating major facilities. Mr. Rocers. Mr. Hanna? Mr. Hanna. No questions. Mr. Rocers. Mr. Ruppe? Mr. Rupee. I have no questions, but I would like to thank you for a very fine statement. Dr. Harets. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Counsel ? Mr. Drewry. Dr. Hargis, you are the first witness we have had so far who has brought in the State aspect of the thing as to the Com- mission report and the overall program. I think it would be useful if you could implement what you have already given us by submitting a list of those who make up the Council and any other materials you might have relating to it. It is not going to be easy particularly because of the number of in- dividuals and entities and communities and theories involved but that also is one of the most important aspects of the total picture and I think the more information we can have on it the better our record will be. Dr. Harcis. Yes, sir. Mr. Drewry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The information follows :) A RESOUTION ADOPTED BY THE (FLORIDA) CONFERENCE The Steering Committee suggests the following goals, objectives and courses of action are related to the establishment of a more effective and suitable role for the maritime states, commonwealths and territories in interstate and national marine affairs. The committee recognizes : (1) The responsibilities of the Federal Government in relation to efforts. involving the total national maritime interest : (2) The responsibilities of individual maritime states, commonwealths and territories to develop, regulate and manage the resources of their coastal zones, and their role as bases of operations for offshore activities. (3) The necessity for coordination of state and federal activities within their respective responsibilities, because of the contiguity and interaction of respective state-federal responsibility. (4) The necessity for multi-state participation in the resolution of problems. common to the maritime states, commonwealths and territories: 463 (5) The probability of early Congressional consideration and action in relation to recommendations and findings made by the President’s Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, and the need for maximum state participa- tion in the development of any resultant legislation. In consideration of the foregoing, we recognize the need for a forum to provide continuing dialogue and to establish a means of achieving coordinated state attention to these and other matters which may hereafter arise. We recommend the creation of a “Council of Maritime States, Commonwealths and Territories”. Its purpose will be to provide a means for communications about and resolution of problems common to the maritime states, commonwealths and territories in such specific areas and only to such an extent as may be determined from time to time by the membership. These areas may include: (1) Provision of a common forum and voice in matters pertaining to use and development of common marine resources: (2) Establishment of a proper balance of responsibility and authority between. the Federal Government and the maritime states, commonwealths and territories : (3) Consideration of problems regarding establishment of proper lateral, in- land and territorial boundaries: (4) Avoidance of unnecessary and wasteful duplication in state, regional and federal maritime programs: (5) Provision for communication between and among the states, common-- wealths and territories on maritime matters: (6) Participation by the states, commonwealths and territories in formation: and conduct of the developing national oceanographic program, and (7) Establishment of means to assure adequate funding of marine related pro- grams on a continuing basis. As interim steps, we propose: (a) that the delegates report these findings to their respective Governors: (b) that the Honorable Claude R. Kirk, Jr., Gov- ernor of Florida, be requested to forward copies of this document to all maritime states and territories not here represented : and (c) that there be another meeting of all interested maritime states and territories for further discussions upon the call of a committee consisting of the representatives of Virginia, Louisiana, Alaska, Florida, Maine, Michigan and California. NOTE: For purposes of sentence structure, the words “state” and “states” occasionally appear in the foregoing. In each instance, the intent is to include also “commonwealths” and “territories.” The statement representing the views of the official representatives was unani- mously approved the morning of November 23, 1968, by representatives from : Alabama Mississippi Alaska New Jersey California New York Florida North Carolina Georgia Oregon Louisiana Texas Maine Virginia Maryland Wisconsin Michigan Virgin Islands Minnesota Puerto Rico Mr. Rogers. Dr. Hargis, we appreciate your testimony. I was interested in your statement that it is difficult to operate these research vessels and certainly we are concerned with our develop- ment of submersibles. I have been concerned that there has been a re- duction in the budget for moneys for submersibles from $4 million: down to $1 million. In other words, they have reduced it $3 million. What is your feel- ing on that? Dr. Hareis. Well, my general opinion would be that it is unfor- tunate, it would be unfortunate if the development of specifically designed submersibles would be delayed by a lack of support. 464 Mr. Rogers. The use of submersibles, you see, will be limited. We have had some 1,600 to 2,000 requests for use of submersibles that would have been funded or partially funded out of this money. That is reduced. Now, has your organization had a chance to look into that and reg- ister some protest to this approach? Dr. Hareis. No, sir; we have not, Congressman Rogers. | Mr. Rogzrs. Do you think you could review the situation and let us know your feelings as an organization? Dr. Harats. I think that we might. I can contact some of the other members of the Council, the executive committee, and see what might happen. As you know, Mr. La Cerda and Mr. ‘Dover and a few of the members of the Florida Commission on Marine Science and Tech- nology have been involved in our program and so I would suspect that we would get some input from them. Mr. Rocrrs. I would hope that you would give some expression to this because I think that, unless the oceanographic community makes itself heard, then the administration will not be as impressed with what we need in certain areas and I would hope your organization could respond. | (The information will be supplied at a later date.) Mr. Rogsrs. I notice, too, that, of course, you stress the coastal zone. Dr. Harets. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. And the coastal laboratories. I presume you feel that this is a responsibility of the States? Dr. Harets. Yes. I definitely do. Mr. Rogers. Except for perhaps some funding from the Federal Government ? Dr. Hareis. Funding and some urging and support and perhaps even establishing of some models to go by, but I have been convinced for a long time that the States themselves should have greater involve- ment in both support of research and in development of effective management capabilities. Mr. Rocers. Would it be possible for you to furnish to the committee the State budgets for the development of oceanography from your member organization ? Dr. Hareis. I had thought about the possibility of getting such a listing together and I will see if I can’t do something over the next month or so. Mr. Rocers. If that is possible I think it would be helpful to the committee to know what the States are currently spending and what they project for their next fiscal year. Thank you very much. Your testimony has been most helpful and the committee is always pleased to receive your remarks. Dr. Hares. Thank you, sir. (The information will be submitted to the subcommittee as soon as it is compiled. ) Mr. Rocers. Our next witness is'Dr. Bruce Halstead, Director of the International Biotoxicological Center, World Life Research Institute, Colton, Calif. Dr. Halstead, we are pleased to receive your testimony at this time. 465 (The biography follows:) BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BRUCE W. HALSTEAD, M.D., CoLTon, CALIF. Birthplace : San Francisco, California, March 28, 1920. Married : 1941. Wife: Joy Arloa. Children : 6. Director, World Life Research Institute, Colton, Calif. 92324; Phone: 714/ 825-4778. Academic Record: 1941, A.A., San Francisco City College; 1943, B.A., Uni- versity of California (Berkeley )—Zoology; 1948, M.D., School of Medicine, Loma Linda University. Military Record: U.S. Army (Pfc), Enlisted Reserve Corps, Army Specialized Training Program 4 August 1942 to 18 August 1946; U.S. Public Health Service (Asst. Surgeon)—21 July 1947 to 20 July 1952; U.S. Navy (Commander), Med- ical Corps, USNR-R—1 January 1957—present; U.S. Marine Corps Medical Officer), 4th Force Reconnaissance Co., Force Troops, FMF, U.S. Marine Corps, San Bernardino—14 Sept. 1959-present; Consultant in Global Medicine, U.S. Naval Medical School, National Naval Medical Center, Department of the Navy, 1968—; Lecturer, Biotoxicology, School of Aerospace Medicine, U.S. Air Force, Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. Professional Hxperience: 1985-48, Research Assistant, Department of Ichthy- ology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco (part volunteer, part paid); 1948-44, Instructor in Biology, Pacific Union College, Angwin, California ; 1944-47, Student in medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California; 1947-48, Interned, Marine Hospital, U.S. Public Health, San Francisco, Calif. (Asst. Surgeon) ; 1948-58, Chairman, Section of Natural Prod- ucts (Biotoxicology), and A’ssistant Director, School of Tropical and Preventive Medicine, Loma Linda University. Also, Associate Professor, Department of Preventive Medicine, Loma Linda University ; 1950-51, Instructor in Ichthyology, La Sierra College, La Sierra, Calif. (while still on staff at LLU) ; 1957-58, On leave of absence from LLU and entered active military duty—USNR; Instructor in Tropical Medicine, Division of Preventive Medicine, U.S. Naval Medical School, Bethesda (rank Lt., later LCDR—3 February 1957-10 June 1958) ; 1958, Returned to Loma Linda University, Resigned October 1958 ; 1959=present, Director, World Life Research Institute, Colton, Calif.; 1964-present, Research Associate in Ichthyology, Los Angeles County Museum; 1964-67, Research Associate, Lab. Neurological Res., School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Los Angeles County General Hospital ; 1964-summer, Instructor in Ichthyology, Walla Walla College Marine Biol. Station; 1968-present, Lecturer, Department of Biology: Pacific Union College, Angwin; 1968, Lecturer, Medical Center, School of Medi- cine, University of California, San Francisco, Calif.; 1968, Occasional lecturer, University of Southern California, School of Medicine, Graduate School, Los Angeles, Calif. ; 1968, Lecturer, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University ; - 1969, Lecturer, School of Pharmacy, Oregon State University, Corvalis, Ore. Honorary , Positions: Editorial Consultant, Journal of the American Medical Association, 1956-58; Editorial Staff, Excerpta Medica, International Medical Abstracting Service, Amsterdam, Holland, 1959-present; Member, Board of Directors, American Association of Fish and Game Biologists, 1962; Member, Editorial Council, Toxicon. Pergamon Press, 1962—present; Member, Board of Advisors, National Assoc. Underwater Instructors, 1962—; Member, Board of Directors, International Underwater Enterprises; Member, Board of Directors, International Botanicals, Inc.; Editorial Board, Clinical Toxicology, 1966— present ; Co-chairman, Biology Committee (Drugs from the Sea) Marine Tech- nology Society. Consultantships: 1955, George Washington University, U.S. Air Force contract (AF18 (600)-1190)—Air Force Survival problems: 1958, National Institutes of Neurological Diseases and Blindness, U.S. Public Health Service; 1962-67, Pitman-Moore Co., Dow Chemical Co., Indianapolis, Indiana—new drug devel- opment; 1962—present, W. J. Voit Rubber Corporation—testing SCUBA gear: 1963—present, Marine Colloids, Inc.—seaweed research ; 1964, Marine Technology Group, North American Aviation, Columbus Division, Miami, Florida—oceanog- raphy ; 1964, Autonetics Corporation, North American Aviation, Inc., Anaheim, California—oceanography ; 1965, Member, Special Study Section on Biotoxicol- ogy and Natural Products, Research Grants Review Branch, Division of Re- Search Grants, National Institutes of Health ; 1967, Battelle Memorial Research Institute ; 1968, Biotoxicology, Global Medicine Program, School of Aerospace 466 Medicine, U.S. Air Force; 1968, World Health Organization of the United Na- tions, Marine Intoxicant Informal Committee, Geneva, Switzerland ; 1969, Mem- ber, Joint IMCO, FAO, UNESCO, WMO group of experts on marine pollution, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 1969, Marine Aqua- culture, Aquarium Systems, Inc., Wickliffe, Ohio. Membership in Scientific Societies: American Association for the Advance- ment of Science—FELLOW ; American Institute of Biological Sciences; Ameri- ean Microscopical Society; American Society of Ichthylologists and Herpetolo- gists; American Society of Limnology and Oceanography ; American Society of Pharmacognosy ; American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene; California Academy of Sciences—FELLOW ; Hollywood Academy of Medicine (Honorary) ; International Society of Toxinology—FOUNDING FELLOW; Marine Tech- nology Society; New York Academy of Sciences—FELLOW ; Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene—FHLLOW; Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales; San Francisco Aquarium Society ; Sigma XI; Society of Experi- mental Biology and Medicine; Society of Systematic Zoology; Washington Academy of Sciences; Western Society of Naturalists; Member—Great Barrier Reef Committee of Australia; National Geographic Society; International ‘Oceanographic Foundation; Academia Nacional de Medicina de Buenos Aires— Miembro Correspondente Hxtranjero. Honors: President, Senior Class, School of Medicine—1946-47; Listed as: Among 12 outstanding young men in California, by California Junior Chamber of Commerce, 1955; Listed in: American Men of Science; Leaders in American Science; Who’s Who In The West. Foreign Travel: Africa—Hgypt, Libya, Morocco (Red Sea) ; Asia—India, Ja- pan, Pakistan, Pescadores Is., Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Turkey, Thailand, Hong Kong; Hurope—Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Hngland France, Germany, Italy, ‘Greece, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, USSR, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Hstonia, Poland; North America— Baja California, Canada, Cuba, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nica- ragua, Panama, San Benitos Is., Alaska; Oceania (Islands)—Caroline, Cocos, ‘Galapagos, Hawaiian, Johnston, Line, Marianas, Marshall, Palmyra, Philippine, Phoenix, Ryukus, Wake, French Polynesia ; Sowth America—Colombia, Ecuador, Peru; Australia. STATEMENT OF BRUCE W. HALSTEAD, M.D., DIRECTOR, WORLD LIFE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, COLTON, CALIF. Dr. Hausreap. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ‘Chairman, gentlemen of the committee, I would like to direct my remarks specifically to the subject of biomedical oceanography and more directly to the line item in the recommendation of the Commis- sion reports for the establishment of a National Institute of Marine Medicine and Pharmacology. With your permission I would perfer not to read this document to you but rather to try and comment on certain sections here that I ‘believe are pertinent to any legislation that might be developed in the future regarding this subject. Mr. Rogers. That will be acceptable to the committee. Dr. Hatstrap. I would like to touch for a moment on the subject of the definition of biomedical oceanography because in the mind of many ‘people this represents a new departure from the old line concepts of oceanography. Specifically we are dealing with those areas that relate ‘to the development of new drugs, the utilization of biochemical re- sources, a better understanding ‘of our environment in terms of dan- gerous ‘marine animals, in other words, environmental hazards that relate directly to the man-in-the-sea prog ram, and when I say “man in the sea,” I am thinking of “man in the sea” in a very broad sense of the term rather than the project as referred to by the Navy. 467 We are thinking also of the use and problems relating to diving physiology, hyperbaric medicine. These are the areas that we are try- ing to point up when we use the term biomedical oceanography. I think we can illustrate this a little more graphically if I can show these pictures and if the gentlemen are ready with the projectors. I would like to show you this first film on some of the hazards that we encounter in the area of toxic marine organisms. Most of this material has now been documented based on what now amounts to a 25-year study. This study was under the sponsorship of many different Federal and private agencies. I have with me this morning two of these volumes on “Poisonous and Venomous Marine Animals of the World” which I wrote. There is a third volume that will be out late this fall on the subject of poisonous and venomous marine animals. Please keep in mind that this is only one segment of the overall field of biomedical oceanography. These volumes contain over 3,000 pages of documentation on one aspect of biomedical oceanography. Mr. Rogers. Excuse me. Come ahead and set up your projectors and the doctor will proceed with his testimony as you are setting it up. Dr. Hausreap. I would like to point up the relationship that exists between what we might term biochemical agents, nutrients, marine pharmaceuticals, and toxins. When we talk about nutrients, when we talk about marine phar- maceuticals, and when we talk about toxic agents, basically we are talking about biologically active products. In other words, we are talking about a substance that either when ingested or when injected produce some sort of a reaction, some sort of an effect in a human or an animal. If we look at the subject of drugs, we find that a drug is really not effective and it is really not of any commercial value unless this drug does have some sort of biological activity. When we have a therapeutic agent in sufficient concentration—we can take almost any of our antibiotics as an example of this—we can actually produce a toxic reaction. There is a direct relationship between drugs on the one hand and toxic substances on the other. So when we undertake a fundamental study in the area of marine biotoxicology, biological poisons produced by marine organisms, we actually have a groundwork as it were for the entire area of marine pharmaceuticals. We also find that there is a relationship between pharmaceutical products, toxic agents, and foods from the sea because in some in- stances, as you will see in this first motion picture, some of the orga- nisms that we would like to use as food and which are usually edible under certain circumstances may become very toxic and in this first film you will see an example of this. Here is a red snapper, a valuable food fish, Lutjanus vaigiensis, a member of the snapper family. In this case we had a fish which, because of its food habits and be- cause of the environmental conditions that existed in this particular island area, within a very short period of time became violently poisonous. 468 If we may have the lights out, I would like to show you this film. This red snapper is only one of a large number of fish that are members of this family. I think that if anyone were to catch this fish either in a commercial haul or by hook and line they would recognize this fish by its outward appearance to be a valuable food fish. In this case we found many of ‘these red snappers to be very toxic in the area of the Line Islands and specifically Palmyra Island, 960 miles due south of Honolulu. We took a portion of this fish and fed it to a cat, and you can see the reaction on the part of the cat. If you look over the human clinical case histories that have appeared over several centuries of time you find that you get a comparable reaction in humans. I think the pertinence of this problem at the moment is that we find ourselves launching a major effort now in trying to develop food re- sources on a vast scale in many parts of the world. We find that there is getting to be increasing fisheries operations in tropical regions of the world. As we move into the Tropics we find that we also encounter many toxic agents that are not found in temperate latitudes either in the north temperate or south temperate seas. Here we are in a group of Line Islands that are just a few degrees north of the Equator. We used kittens for the simple reason that these cats react in many ways like humans. In this particular cat you see a loss of the righting reflex. You take your own cat and try that, and you will see that the cat will rapidly right itself. There is a loss of some of the deep and superficial refiexes and a certain number of. these animals, as with humans, die of a respiratory paralysis. In the distribution of the poison you cannot predict either the edi- bility of the fish or the part of the fish that may be affected in terms of toxicity. You will notice that we have tested various sections of the fish. In this latter case we are taking the intestines and feeding it to the cat. In this next cat which became severely poisoned and did not recover you see a good example of a fatal intoxication. You will notice that this cat had heavy abdominal respiration, is breathing with great diffi- culty, has a complete loss of motor control, and can no longer control its legs; we also see this in‘a human. You may turn off the projector and go to the next film. As we start to map out the distribution of poisonous marine orga- nisms we find that it becomes a serious problem in certain select island areas particularly of the tropical Pacific islands. We find it is also a problem in many parts of the tropical Indian Ocean. It is a problem to a lesser extent in the Mediterranean. It is also a problem as the Soviet scientists have demonstrated in many different ports of the tropical Atlantic, and to a less extent in tropical West rica. In trying to develop and utilize our fisheries’ resources in the future we are going to have to take a very careful and critical look at the subject of edibility which in the past has been largely neglected for the simple reason that most of our commercial operations have not been tropical but have been in temperate zones. However, the products that we are talking about produce adverse effects. They are toxic agents. I would now like to discuss the positive 469 side of these substances and point out that many of these same products are also potentially useful pharmaceutical agents. They are agents that may have application, rather broad applica- tion to various aspects of industry. We find that some of these mate- rials are antibiotic in nature, some have antiviral properties, some are fungicidal and are believed to be potentially useful in trying to treat some of our more serious systemic fungal infections. We find that some of these materials have general effects. Some of them are psychopharmacological agents affecting the mind. Some of these drugs may be useful in the future in treating mental disorders. We have found antitumor effects, and today we see the National Can- cer Institute, for example, beginning to screen some of these com- pounds in search of antitumor agents. However, in entering this field of research we find that we do not have at the present time the necessary governmental framework to really get into this subject in depth. I would like to show you one other film and in the meantime while we are preparing to do this I would like to pass around these photo transparencies that will show you what happens when some of these poisons are injected. These are photos of two corpses. One is the photograph of the arm of a 4-year-old child that was stung by a sea wasp. This particular creature is a jellyfish scientifically known as Chironex flecheri. It is believed to be the most deadly venomous organism that lives in the sea. The father was holding this child in approximately 3 feet of water and trying to teach the little boy to swim. The child suddenly cried out in extreme pain. The father rushed the child over to the beach and started to apply sand in order to brush off the tentacles of the jellyfish; the child died about 35 minutes later. The corpse of the 10-year-old boy was a boy that was stung in the same geographical area, and I am talking about the area of Cairns in northeast Australia. He was swimming ‘and he died within about 10 minutes from the same species of jellyfish. These are very dramatic examples of many different types of sting- ing organisms that we have; at the present time we still do not know anything about either the chemistry or the pharmacology of the poi- sons, nor do we have any basic information on the ecology, in other words, the environmental relationships, under which conditions these organisms appear, and when, where, and how you are likely to en- counter them. I want to point out to this committee that I think that this informa- tion is very pertinent as we begin to pursue our man-in-the-sea pro- gram. When we begin to discuss our global capabilities of this program we may have ever so much information on closed ecological systems, as to how you maintain a man in diving gear or a submarine at a certain depth, but when you begin to talk about environmental operations you are talking about something else, because, in this instance, we do not have controlled environmental conditions. I think that this points up some very pertinent problems and deficiencies in our present knowledge. In this next film we are dealing with Minamata disease. This is still another aspect of ‘the overall field of biomedical oceanography. 470 In the problem of Minamata disease this was a situation that started about 1953 in Minamata down in the southeastern portion of Japan on the island of Kyushu. I was called in by the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness. We went down there because a number of people had been involved; at that time about 83 persons had ingested various types of marine organisms, ranging from seaweed to shellfish, crabs, various fish, et cetera, and these people were develop- ing a wide array of neurological disorders. Some of them were lisping; some of them lost their motor coordina- tion. Some of them were suffering from blindness. Before they had finished approximately one-third of them died. In the early stages of this study we were unable to determine what actually took place. Japanese scientists spent a great deal of time and effort on this prob- lem. Finally it was determined that there was a large chemical and fertilizer plant that was located on the outskirts of town, and it was producing a toxic effluent of some type. If you look on a map it seems that there was a peninsula, that ex- tended out from this fertilizer plant. To the north was the open sea and to the south was a bay that had a restricted water circulation. They had a long effluent line that extended from the plant to the open sea. The effluent line through which they discharged their industrial wastes became somewhat of a problem because of maintenance, and so they decided to reduce the length of the line by having it empty into Minamata Bay. When they did this with the restricted circulation of the bay the pollutants began to build up very rapidly. The line was shifted about 1950 and by 1953 they were already beginning to pick up cases of out- breaks of Minamata disease in which there was massive destruction of the central nervous system of these victims. As we got into this problem, and when I say we, I am speaking about everybody involved over a period of about 10 years or more, it was finally determined that the causative agent was an organic mercurial compound, an industrial waste product which, at the time it was being dumped, apparently went by undetected. They did not realize they were dumping a highly toxic agent into Minamata Bay. The significance of this situation is this: That here was a manmade contaminant that came from an industrial plant that was very vital to the local economy of the people of Minamata. But this very important industrial development was at the same time causing death to these people and while it was producing an in- come on the one hand it was destroying a valuable marine resource on the other. Just last November I participated with the World Health Organiza- tion in a series of meetings in Geneva to discuss some of these prob- lems. Today we see this same Minamata problem taking place in the North Sea, specifically in the country of Sweden, and elsewhere. We see other types of contaminants being produced on an enormous scale. I want to point out that some of these contaminants, and I am talking about industrial toxic chemical substances, become intimately involved in the marine organisms of these polluted waters and we find that they are involved in the entire food web as it were so that we see: 471 the involvement of marine plants, invertebrates, micro-organisms, fish, and finally the involvement of man. When Minamata disease once starts in a human, it is completely irreversible. We can change our legislation but we cannot change the disease in an individual. There is nothing that therapeutically can be done about it. Furthermore, we have contaminated our environment to the point that we have for at least an extended period of time an irreversible situation. So I say that we are dealing with some very serious prob- lems when we talk about pollution that go beyond the visible destruc- tion of the environment, as in the case of an oil spillage such as we recently had in Santa Barbara. In this next film I can show you what happens in a human. This little boy had picked up what appeared to be an edible crab. He took the crab home and ate it, later it was observed that when he went to school he was unable to write on the board. He had extreme difficulty in trying to button his coat. He finally had problems in walk- ing a straight line. But he was a mild case and this boy fortunately recovered. The insidious part about this problem is that these clinical develop- ments usually arise long after the time where you can really do some- thing about them. What I am trying to say is that we do not have an adequate monitor- ing system in marine environmental toxicology. When we fail to have an effective monitoring system—and may I add that we do not have one here in the United States—these things can get out of hand and finally result in disastrous situations lke this. This is a mild case. You can see the boy having a great deal of diffi- culty trying to write on the board. We have also had recent reports from Sweden where if the toxic effluent continues at the present rate we will soon approach such toxic limits that it will no longer be pos- sible to conduct commercial fishing operations in certain parts of the North Sea. This is a lady that was mildly affected. You can see her going through this test trying to touch the finger of the doctor. You can see that she does it with some difficulty. The lady recovered. This woman, as I recall, was involved in eating fish. Again, these are commercial fish species that are consumed and sold in the local markets there in Japan. In the next case, which I think is one of the worst, the man that you see in bed did not recover. You will notice that there has been a com- plete muscular wasting. This victim died shortly after the picture was made, and you will observe what takes place when he drinks just a few spoonsful of milk. He undergoes a very severe diaphragmatic spasm and at times violent convulsions. May we have the projector off and the lights back on, please? _Mr. Chairman, I showed these pictures for the purpose of trying to give you a visual concept of the definition of biomedical oceanography, and if I may, I would like to comment on some of the other points in my presentation which I believe are important to your committee. 472 One of the topics that I think we are really concerned with here is the subject of the international scope of the problem. We have talked in U.N. circles, in W.H.O., F.A.O., and elsewhere about many of these problems. We find out that they are not restricted to any nation. The pollutants and the toxicity problems of one nation become the problems of other nations. It is not realistic to isolate any segment of biomedical oceanography thinking that this is merely a national problem. These are international problems, and I strongly urge an interna- tional cooperative effort with as many different nations as possible in order to get to the heart of some of these critical matters. We are also recommending here, Mr. Chairman, the use of a systems management approach. I believe that our past and present grant-in- aid system in many ways has been very fruitful. I am not here this morning to try to condemn it. I am trying to point out, however, that I think that there are certain elements of it that are not conducive to developing a strong national problem in biomedical oceanography. If NASA was to use the present system of grants-in-aid as we utilize it in, the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Health, et cetera, I doubt very much that they would be getting to the moon within the next few decades because our present grant-in-aid system leaves too much up to the whims of the individual investigator who may be extremely knowledgeable about the hind leg of a toad or know a lot about a particular segment of molecular biology and have missed completely major facets of our national program and our international requirements. I think we have to develop certain national priorities. I believe we have to develop strong national leadership and to establish national goals. We need panels of experts that can help to establish some of these goals, and this must be done on a realistic basis that is going to meet some of our national needs. Whereas our existing grant-in-aid program has its place, I believe that when we talk about biomedical oceanography—and I can add to that the rest of the field of oceanography—we need a systems manage- ment approach that can be developed on a highly coordinated basis developing national goals and national priorities. I think that there is a need for a biomedical coordinating committee. I have already indicated that in my written presentation and I don’t think I need to comment on that further. I would like to get to the matter of the establishment of a National Institute of Marine Medicine and Pharmacology. The question has been raised in the past, Aren’t we establishing a rather large institution to take care of a rather narrow segment of business? I would like to point out that it is quite the opposite. First of all the business of biomedical oceanography is the type of thing that is everybody’s business and consequently has become nobody’s business. It is a field that has largely fallen down, as it were, between the cracks. One official in our National Institute of General Medical Sciences recently made the comment, “We do not have a mandate with- in the National Institutes of Health whereby we have to work in the field of marine medicine.” Now, I think that that is a very truthful statement and a very un- fortunate truth because I think that we need a mandate whereby an 473 agency of our Government by congressional legislation is going to establish a strong program, is going to conduct and sponsor research and going to do this in a very positive manner. I would like to point out the interrelationships of some of these agencies and what takes place when we do not have a coordinated program. We find that the National Cancer Institute is beginning to screen marine products: marine algae, invertebrates, and eventually fish, for biochemical substances having antitumor properties. Moreover, it is now known and positively documented that certain of these organ- isms possess biochemicals having antitumor activity. The National Cancer Institute is dependent upon identification, a critical documentation of the organism, data on the origin of the or- ganism, the environment from which this organism was taken and a taxonomic identification of the scientific name of the organism so that they can reproduce the field studies if necessary. The laboratory testing of these materials is very costly. Now we find ourselves with a situation in which we have the Smith- sonian Institution which is not geared in its thinking to the work of the National Cancer Institute. The work of the Smithsonian Institution is to try to develop the overall field of systematics, biology, and so forth. Nevertheless, we have medical agencies that are dependent upon systematic biology. I could include the National Institute of Mental Health, Neurological Diseases and Blindness, the National Heart In- stitute and so on, which have similar needs. What I am trying to say is that we cannot vigorously pursue as a Nation the business of trying to determine the biomedical applications of these organisms unless we are backstopped by such agencies as the Smithsonian, the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting Center, and so forth, because these are the groups, that must provide the basic data necessary to determine the name of a medically useful organism. This is a very vital requirement because we are now finding that many of these marine organisms produce valuable medicinal products. ~ We do not have a coordinated or integrated program. We need a National Institute of Marine Medicine and Pharmacology that can begin to assume by virtue of its congressional mandate the respon- sibilities for undertaking such a task. At present we do not have such a national] facility. As a result of this we do not have available to our Nation adequate field stations, or laboratories for use in biomedical oceanography. This brings up the next point that I would like to make if I may, Mr. Chairman. I would like to direct your attention to this world map. Let us take the geographical distribution of marine organisms, with reference to their biochemical constituents and the toxic agents that exist within these marine organisms. We find the greatest concentration of these organisms in numbers and varieties of species within the Indo-Pacific area. The heart of this region is the Malay Archipelago. There are about 23,000 islands that make up the Malay Archipelago. Our closest American possession to this rich resource is certain parts of Micro- nesia, namely Guam. We also have access to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and this is the single resource area that frankly we have been most negligent about developing. 26-563—69—pt. 131 474 We have on the Island of Palau which is in the Western Caroline Islands, about 600-some odd miles southwest of Guam, a very mag- nificent island area. The Pacific Science Congresses have consistently noted the great scientific and economic importance of this area. To date we have done very little for the Island of Palau. I just returned from Palau. I have had the opportunity of discussing this subject with a number of Micronesian Congressmen and they recog- nize that in an island community such as they have there are very few resources that they can develop but here is one of the wealthiest marine resources in the world and we are doing almost nothing to help them develop them. Palau does not have the manpower. They do not have the technical assistance that is needed to develop their marine resources. Moreover, here is a very valuable marine resource that we as a nation can ill af- ford to waste. Yet this is what we have done to date. I want to point out to you that in the nearby Molucca Islands, on the Island of Ambon, the Russians attempted to develop what would have been one of the largest oceanographic facilities in the world. If I may have the other projector on, I would like to show you some of the photos of this facility. I would also like to present to you two letters from Russian scien- tists as to what they are doing in the field of biomedical oceanography. Here is also a statement that I have made on the Ambon station with a recommendation to the Government of Indonesia. I have recom- mended to them that they establish a President’s Commission on Ocean- ography in order to develop this Ambon facility. I would like to pre- sent this to you. Mr. Rogers. Thank you. They will be made part of the record. (The information follows :) AKADEMIA NAUK SSSR, CUBIRSKOE OTDELENIA, DAL’ NEVOSTOCHNU FILIAL, INSTITUT BIOLOGECHESKI AKTEVNIKH VESHCHESTV, Vladivostok, July 31, 1968. Bruce W. HALsTEAD, M.D., Director, World Life Research Institute, Colton, Calif. DEAR Dr. HALSTEAD: I have just received your letter of July 17, in which you specified the time of your visit, October 1969. I am very grieved. Besides, it means the delay of my visit to you, I hope that you would have no objections against it, for one year. We are planning to make the trip together with the chemist Dr. V. Vaskovsky. In these days I have reread with a great interest “Recommendation to the President’s Commission on Marine Science, Hngineering and Resources for a National Program in Marine Biomedicine’. We are very interested in problems of marine biomedicine and now take the necessary measures for development of such researches in our Institute. Please, let us know what general materials in this field are published in the U.S.A. if possible send us the reprints. It is also interest- ing to know the further course of consideration and confirmation of your recom- mendations on the program of marine biomedicine. I have already informed you that the second volume of your book had been safely received. Now I am taking the opportunity to thank you again. Please, confirm the receipt of my book on Eleutherococcus and three more books sent a little later. The Fleutherococeus extract will be sent to you early in August, 1968. Cordially yours, ; I. I. BREKHMAN, M.D., Professor. 475 APRIL 29, 1969. Dr. BRucE W. HALSTEAD, Director, World Life Research Institute, Colton, Calif. DrarR Dr. HALSTEAD: Thank you very much for your letter of April 14, 1969. I am very grateful to you and the Drugs from the Sea Conference Sponsoring Com- mittee for the cooperation in solving financial problems connected with our pos- Sible trip. However, my definite reply concerning my participation will be forth- coming after I had contacted the Academy of Sciences in Moscow. I have already informed you that the title of my report is “Review of Phar- macological and Clinical Research of the Biologically Active Substances of Marine Origin in the Soviet Far Hast (1949-1969)”. The report is ready and presently being translated into English. I regret to say that information as to the exact date of my arrival in New York is still not available. As soon as it is, I will write you immediately. I highly appreciate your active cooperation for our participation in the Con- ference. Many thanks, and best regards. Sincerely yours, I. I. BREKHMAN, M.D., Professor. 22 Aprin 1969. MEMORANDUM From: Brucke W. HAtstTeaD, M.D., Director, World Life Research Institute, Colton, Calif. Re Ambon Oceanographic Station. The Ambon Oceanographic facility was originally developed as a result of a loan or a grant received from the USSR to Indonesia. The station is presently about 80 percent completed. The station is under the administrative jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education of the Indonesian Government and has lapsed into a period of disuse due to a lack of financial resources. The station was originally designed by Soviet technicians working in collaboration with the Indonesian Goy- ernment and was to have been developed on a mammoth scale. If completed, it would have completely dwarfed any other existing oceanographic facility. The Ambon station is physically located in the midst of the richest marine floral and faunal belt of the world. This facility offers tremendous potential for the total development of oceanographic resources of the more than 13,000 islands of Indonesia. It is recommended that this facility in the future be removed out of the Min- istry of Education of the Government of Indonesia and be placed under the juris- - diction of a special Indonesian Presidential Oceanographic Commission who would operate this station for the total benefit of all of their various ministries. The station in the future should be closely allied with a large commercial corpora- tion operating under a systems management type of a program. Although the station should be developed along education and research lines of endeavor, it should seek to meet the total nation’s needs in terms of offshore petroleum mining, fisheries, aquaculture, marine pharmaceuticals, pollution, defense, navigational, natural gas, etc. This station should serve as a hub for the total oceanographic research programs of all Indonesian agencies. Moreover, it is recommended that the station serve as a liaison operation working in close cooperation with the ted Nations program on the International Decade for the Exploration of the ea. The administration of this station should be autonomous and operate directly under the President rather than through any Ministry. This is of the utmost importance if this station is to be successfully developed for the overall good of the country. It is believed that there are sufficient commercial applications and incomes that could be developed from various and sundry sources to provide for the total operational costs of this project. It is recommended that some sort of a lease management arrangement be develped with a private commercial corpora- tion working in very close liaison with the Presidential Oceanographic Commission. 476 Dr. Haustrap. The oceanographic station that the Soviets started to establish at Ambon was on the basis of a loan to the Government of Indonesia. This project came to an end, at the time at the coup when President Sukarno went out and General Suharto took over. The station is on the edge of a deep water bay, a very beautiful bay, and is located in an area having rich biological oceanographic resources. The next slide shows the facility which is now about 80 percent com- plete—I would estimate. Several million dollars was spent there. I have heard estimates of $4 to $5 million. This is the main administration building and with it some of the classrooms. You will see that this is a part of the engineering complex, and you will notice that the entire facility today is overgrown with jungle growth. This is part of the housing area. These are very excellent houses. I have been through al! of the facilities, and there are some magnificent structures. Here are some of the engineering facilities that the Soviets had developed. This is all Russian machinery. The legends are in English. This material is sitting here today and is fully operational. It is not all rusted out. It has been well preserved. This is one of the classrooms. This was the main library. This facility was attached to the Uni- versity of Ambon. This last picture shows you the generator plant. T point this facility out to you because the Russians had planned a very extensive oceanographic program. In my discussions with Soviet scientists in the area of oceanography and pharmacology I have asked them repeatedly as to whether or not they have plans to get into the area of marine pharmacology, and develop these marine biochemical resources. They have emphatically stated that they are already beginning to work in biomedical oceanography. In fact, they are presenting a re- view of ten years of pharmacological research at the next Marine Tech- nology Society meeting which will be held in August at the University of Rhode Island on the Food-Drugs from the Sea conference. The significance of this subject is very clearly understood by Soviet scientists, and they have been working and are going to continue to work very actively in this field. I have a section here, looking at page 5, of my written presentation on The Need of Regional Marine Health Laboratories. I think this is self-explanatory. There is a need for field laboratories, and I would like to direct your attention specifically to the center of page 6 with reference to Palau. I would like to urge that we give serious attention to the establishment of a marine biomedical oceanographic laboratory at Palau. The place is uniquely situated within a short distance from Ambon where the Russians were building this tremendous facility. It is my hope that we can also give some attention to the possibility of working out a cooperative effort with the Indonesian Government in the fur- ther development of this station. I have discussed this matter with Ambassador Adam Malik of the Indonesian Government and he tells me that his Government would welcome a cooperative program with the United States. 477 On the need for a national research vessel facility: at the present time we do not have a single research vessel for use in biomedical oceanography. Such a vessel has specific requirements in terms of re- frigeration facilities and collecting facilities. We have found from past experience that biomedical activities do not operate at optimum efficiency when mixed with other oceanographic operations. I have a list here of research projects which I don’t believe I need to oo over with you at this time. I would like to turn to page 9 to discuss briefly the subject of publi- cation of results. We have a very distressing situation that exists with- in our Government where surprisingly little attention is being given to the publication of the results of scientific research. We seem to have an abundance of money to sponsor the research but when the research is completed we don’t seem to have sufficient funds to publish the results, and I am referring specifically to large monographs. There is a particular value in doing major monographic studies in which you synthesize a lot of abstract and isolated bits of information and try to begin to put it together as a whole. I know of many investigators in the field of biology, medicine, and other areas that avoid doing a major study for the simple reason that it is too difficult to get the results published. I can cite my own sad experience. These volumes were completed in 1957 even though we had over a million dollars invested in the background research we then fought for the next 5 years trying to get sufficient funds to publish the results. It was by virtue not of interest in terms of agencies as it was of the interest of two or three people that finally made it possible to publish these results. Now, I think, gentlemen, that this is a very sad commentary on our scientific system where we have people that think that this research is worthy to be done but apparently not worthy enough to be pub- lished. Moreover, in biological oceanography many of these organisms if they are going to mean anything to the individual that is going to see this material need to be published in color. There is a tremendous difference between a black and white photo and an organism that is brilliantly colored. When you are in the field you frequently identify an organism because of its coloration not because of its black and white appearance which really does not exist in nature. I mention this because I think that this is a critical area that needs very careful attention in the future. I would like to touch finally on economic returns and the problem of industry-government liaison. I work with a good many large indus- trial organizations, not only within our own Nation but also with other countries, and I find that there is need for better Government-indus- trial relations. This is going to be particularly true if we move ahead in the field of biomedical oceanography. First of all, when we talk about trying to develop our biochemical marine resources we must provide an enormously expensive and time- consuming groundwork that has to be laid before a company can begin to commercialize these biochemical products. This is a serious problem because, unless this groundwork is laid in a systematic manner, neither industry nor Government is able to develop these resources. 478 This now points up another problem. Let us assume that the U.S. Government has laid the groundwork either through grant-in-aid or through a systems management approach by contract. The groundwork has been laid. Let us say it has been done through the National Science Foundation through a university or nonprofit research institute and the basic data are available. You have finally located a substance which has valuable commercial properties, and it is released to a company for commercial development. The company begins to back away from the product because of Gov- ernment contact, because of Government contamination as it were. The question comes up, “Who is going to have the patent rights? How can we reclaim our investment that we are about to make which may mean az millions of dollars? How do we justify this to our stockholders?” So we have to try and develop some sort of a system where the Government is beginning to work for the benefit of industry here, and I think that industry in turn will be working for the benefit of Govy- ernment. As I talk with many of these industrial groups I find a very definite gap that is very difficult to bridge. I am presently involved in this situation. We are studying a toxic microorganism that may have pharmaceutical potential. The Federal Water Pollution Control] Administration has asked us to take a look at this material to evaluate it as to its commercial potential. We have a grant. The big problem we find now is trying to get a company that is willing to work with us because we have received support from the Fed- eral Government. This is a delicate area of Government-industrial liaison that re- quires immediate attention. At the present time we are suffering from a deficiency of certain types of drugs within our Department of De- fense because industry is not in a position to develop them when they have either a limited use or they have the problem of Government control in some way. I think, Mr. Chairman, that these are my remarks. (Dr. Halstead’s prepared statement follows :) STATEMENT OF BRucE W. HALSTEAD, M.D., Director, INTERNATIONAL BIOTOXICO: LOGICAL CENTER, WORLD LIFE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, COLTON, CALIF. Background data: This presentation is based on a report prepared by the Sub- committee on Marine Biomedicine, Marine Technology Society, which was sub- mitted to the President’s Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Re- sources, dated 19 December 1967. In this report the Subcommittee recommended to the President’s Commission that the U.S. Congress establish a National Insti- tute of Marine Medicine and Pharmacology. This presentation is concerned with the subject of biomedical oceanography and the need for establishing a National Institute of Marine Medicine and Pharmacology as recommended in the Com- mission’s report, Our Nation and the Sea. Members of the Marine Technology Subcommittee were as follows: Bruce W. Halstead, M.D., Chairman, International Biotoxicological Center, World Life Research Institute, Colton, California 92324. Earl Herron, Vice Chairman, Hercon, Inc., Scotch Plains, New Jersey. Paul Burkholder, Lamont Geological Observatory, Columbia University, Pali- sades, New York. Ara Der Marderosian, Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science, 43rd and Kingsessing & Woodland Aves., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Norman R. Farnsworth, Department of Pharmacognosy, School of Pharmacy University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213. ee Oe ee 479 Hugo D. Freudenthal, Long Island University, East Meadow, New York. George F. Greene, Jr., Abbott Laboratories, Hicksville, New York. Gilbert V. Levin, Biospherics Research Institute, Washington, D.C. Ross F. Nigrelli, Osborn Laboratories of Marine Sciences, New York Aquarium, Brooklyn, New York. George D. Ruggieri, 8.J., Osborn Laboratories of Marine Sciences, New York Aquarium, Brooklyn, New York. Findlay Russell, Laboratory of Neurophysiology, Los Angeles County Hospital, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Paul Saunders, Marine Sciences Program, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. John Sieburth, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. Heber W. Youngken, Jr., College of Pharmacy, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. DEFINITION OF “MARINE BIOMEDICINE” The term “marine biomedicine” as used in this presentation is concerned with such disciplinary areas as marine biochemistry, pharmacology, pharmacognosy, toxicology, nutrition, microbiology, physiology, epidemiology, taxonomy, ecology, pathology, ethnobiology, medicine, marine biomedical literature documentation and retrieval, bionics, technology and instrumentation that have a bearing on na- tional and international marine-derived solutions to health problems. Although the aforementioned areas appear to be of greatest concern, marine biomedicine is not necessarily limited to these subjects. In brief, marine biomedicine is con- cerned with those aspects of the total marine biotope that have both a direct and indirect bearing on man’s health and welfare. INTERNATIONAL SCOPE OF MARINE BIOMEDICINE International cooperation in the scientific study and use of the sea and its biomedical resources is imperative for the following reasons: The world ocean covers 71 percent of the earth’s surface. Most countries have sea coasts and make some use of the sea, although national jurisdiction extends over only a small fraction of the ocean’s area; the remainder is common prop- erty. The waters of the world ocean and their contents intermingle without serious restraint. Many oceanic processes are of large scale and are driven by forces of planetary dimension. The organisms inhabiting the sea are influenced by these processes and forces, and their distribution, abundance and behavior are often influenced by events occurring far beyond the territorial limits recognized by man. (FAO Fisheries Rept. No. 41, Suppl. 3, October, 1967.) _ In this regard, it is recommended that a national marine biomedical program should be global in scope and integrated with the international cooperative efforts of such organizations as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization, Sicentific Committee on Oceanic Research, International Biological Program, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and other international agencies. A more detailed report of the recom- mendations of these organizations appears in a booklet entitled “International Ocean Affairs; A Special Report of the Joint ACMRR/SCOR/WHO (AC) work- ing group on the Implementation of the United Nations Resolution on the Re- sources of the Sea” published in FAO Fisheries Reports No. 41, Suppl. 3, FRM/ R41 Suppl. 3(En), Rome, October 1967. In order to fulfill the need for protein for the world’s burgeoning populations, many countries including the USA will have to augment drastically both agri- cultural and marine resources. If it is decided to increase the harvesting and to start the herding of marine animals, then it is essential to study not only the health safety of potential food species but also the organisms in their food chain which are potential contributors to biotoxicity and pathogenicity in man. RECOMMENDATION FOR A SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT APPROACH It is recommended that a systems management approach be used in order to avoid useless duplication of effort and funding. The systems approach has been used with much success in the development of the space program, and it is be- lieved that it would contribute materially to the successful operation of the pro- 480 jected marine biomedical program. It is believed that present grant-in-aid methods are inadequate to meet our future national oceanographic requirements. Industrial management techniques, engineering ‘know-how,’ economie data evaluation methods, ete., can be of value in developing procedures for the utiliza- tion of marine biomedical resources. There is need for further exploration of the manner in which industry, government, and academic institutions can work together in areas of mutual interest. THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL MARINE BIOMEDICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE If our national goals are to be achieved, leadership from our national Govern- ment must be forthcoming. It is most urgent that marine biomedicine be rec- ognized by our leaders in Government as a specific disciplinary entity, that our existing deficiencies in this field be clearly understood and that adequate goy- ernmental organizations be provided to deal properly with the subject. It is apparent that some facets of marine biomedicine merit greater attention and fiscal priority than others. Since the subject matter is multifaceted and international in scope and comes within the purpose of several Federal agencies, a coordinated approach is highly desirable. It is therefore recommended that a standing Marine Biomedical Co- ordinating Committee (MBCC) be established and that this committee operate under the National Council for Marine Resources and Hngineering Development (or its suecessor—if the present Council should be disbanded). It is further suggested that the membership of this committee include rep- resentatives of the following groups: President’s Scientific Advisory Commit- tee, National Council for Marine Resources and Hngineering Development (or its successor), Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health), Department of Interior (Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and Federal Water Pollution Control Administration), National Science Foundation, Environmental Science Service Administration, Department of Commerce, Atomic Hnergy Commission, Department of State National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Defense (ONR), and a select number of consultant specialists from universities, research insti- tutes, industry, and biological and medical professional societies. The purpose of the MBCC would be to establish national goals and to co- ordinate programs of interagency, national, and international importance in the area of marine biomedicine. The MBCC could serve a useful function as a scientific advisory body to the U.S. Congress. The activities of MBCOC should be assisted by means of a full-time executive secretary and a Clerical staff. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MARINE MEDICINE AND PHARMACOLOGY The Congress of the United States should be encouraged to establish a National Institute of Marine Medicine and Pharmacology (NIMMP) within the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. The institute should be established for the purpose of conducting and supporting marine research with a view to ad- vaneing scientific knowledge in marine biochemistry, pharmacology, pharma- cognosy, toxicology, nutrition, microbiology, epidemiology, physiology, taxonomy, ecology, pathology, ethnobiology, bionics and technology as it may relate to the causes, diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and control of physical.and mental dis- eases and other impairments of man. The NIMMP should have an advisory council to advise, consult with, and make recommendation to the Surgeon General on matters relating to marine medicine and pharmacology. The institute should be authorized to provide training and instruction, establish traineeships and fel- lowships, and provide research grants to public or other nonprofit institutions. An international exchange of graduate and post-doctoral students should be encour- aged. Numerous land-locked schools and universities are desirous of obtaining ac- cess to marine field facilities. Hvery attempt should be made to provide access to adequate educational and research facilities for these inland institutions. Hdu- cational programs should also be provided for the training of skilled technicians. There is urgent need for more adequate support of educational programs in marine biomedicine. THE NEED OF REGIONAL MARINE HEALTH LABORATORIES The Public Health Service presently operates three marine health laboratories. These are situated in Washington, Rhode Island, and Alabama. These labora- tories are concerned with the general areas of the health aspects of water pollu- — we + ee 481 tion control, nutritional values and health hazards of sea resources, marine bio- toxicology, infectious agents, hypersensitivity reactions to marine products, phy- siological effects of the marine environment on man, pharmaceuticals and drugs from the sea, and other general marine health problems. The present support level of these laboratories is inadequate. These laboratories should be upgraded, adequately funded, and their operations expanded. These regional laboratories should be adequately equipped for advanced sophisticated analytical research. It is further recommened that additional sites be considered for the establish- ment of regional marine health laboratories in Alaska, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Oalifornia, Florida, Texas, or the Virgin Islands. One or more of these labora- . tories should serve as technical documentation centers. FS THE NEED OF REGIONAL MARINE BIO-MEDICAL FIELD LABORATORIES There is urgent need for international field research facilities for investigators needing to work in specific geographical (continental or insular, temperate, sub- tropical, tropical, or polar) oceanic regions. Field research units would in most instances be minimal field facilities but with maximum accessibility to field re- sources. These laboratories would be used primarily for the procurement of liy- ing specimen materials, ecological, physiological, and other types of activities that could not be conducted to a greater advantage elsewhere. Hach laboratory would be of a standard format and would have collecting gear, diving equipment, and small vessels (approx. 45 ft.) suitable for making local field studies. The following field sites are recommended on the basis of their strategic en- vironmental and geographical locations. These field units could be operated either under contract with a private nonprofit organization or directly by a govern- mental agency. Recommended sites are as follows: Trust Territory (Palau,* Jaluit) Indonesia (Ambon*) Line Islands (Palmyra) Thailand* Samoa Seychelles New Caledonia* Hast Africa* Society Islands* Aegean-Adriatie areas Great Barrier Reef* British Isles* Korea* West Africa Japan* Azores Hthiopia Brazil* India* Galapagos Islands* Virgin Islands (St. Johns*) Gulf of California* Cozumel ° Pt. Barrow, Alaska* Honduras Palmer Station, Antarctica* Canal Zone* *Indicates that there is an existing facility, but most of these present facilities are in dire need of more adequate support. Most of these localities are readily accessible by air transportation. Particular attention is directed to the fact that the greatest assemblage of marine organisms possessing biodynamic substances is found within the Malay Archipelago (Sumatra, Java, Lesser Sunda, Moluccas, Timor, New Guinea, Borneo, Celebes, and the Philippines). It is noted with deep regret that the United States has not used to advantage one of the richest biotic provinces in the world which is available to our country through Palau in the Trust Territory. Palau lies on the eastern border of the Malayan Archipelago and is about 400 to 600 miles northeast of Ambon in the Moluccas where the Soviets had almost com- pleted building an enormous oceanographic facility for the Indonesian Govern- ment. It is highly recommended that a biomedical research laboratory be estab- lished in Palau at the earliest possible moment. THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL RESEARCH VESSEL FACILITY A single large research ship (5,000 ton class) should be made available and equipped as a national facility for marine biomedical investigations. In addition, it is recommended that smaller vessels (approx. 45 ft. in length) be assigned to regional field facilities for local operations. These vessels should be specially designed for biomedical ocean work and adequately equipped for survey, collect- ing, and diving operations. Special attention needs to be directed to the problem of refrigeration and low temperature requirements suitable for the preservation 26—-563—69—pt. 1——-32 482 of venoms, enzymes, etc. Many scientists are desirous of investigating biomedical problems but are unable to obtain the necessary logistics support. Laboratory and research vessel facilities are urgently needed for biomedical studies. INSTRUMENTATION NEEDS It is imperative that the effectiveness of instrumentation to be used at sea he increased, since this is the major avenue by which the effectiveness of the re- search investigator can be improved. The design of instruments intended for use in the marine environment is at present left to the ingenuity and usually meager facilities of the individual who needs them. Although miracles are achieved by this route, it subverts time of biologically trained men, and their lack of training in engineering and some of the physical sciences is often evident in the result. It is therefore recommended that funding for research and development of instrumentation, collecting devices, diving research vehicles, and data handling and processing equipment be specifically directed towards that segment of our economy which can best satisfy this need—industry. In order to guide the se- lection of projects to be funded, it is suggested that review panels be set up within the framework of the Marine Biomedical Coordinating Committee for this pur- pose. These review panels would have the specific task of making recommenda- tions of areas of technology and instrumentation which need improvement. The means for effecting this improvement would be left to industry and engineers, working in close collaboration with scientists. RECOMMENDED AREAS OF MARINE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH The following are some suggested areas of marine biomedical research which are urgently in need of attention. Undoubtedly there are other priority areas which have been overlooked, but these suggestions provide a rough guideline to the scope of marine biomedical research that is needed. Taxonomy and ecology of medically important marine organisms, particularly dangerous marine animals of all types. Studies should include photographic documentation of their habits, habitat, identification, etc. Screening of marine organisms for biological activity. Investigation of the food web of marine organisms. Study of triggering mechanisms in the production of toxicity cycles in marine organisms. Uses of marine organisms as biomedical research tools. The investigation of industrial waste product contaminants involved in the food web of marine organisms. The use of marine organisms as sources of new drugs. Investigation of marine biochemical substances as models for the development of new synthetic chemicals. Evaluation of health safety standards for new marine-derived foods. Development of laboratory culture techniques of marine organisms that are likely to serve as sources of either new foods or useful biochemical agents. Clinical aspects, diagnoses, treatment and prevention of marine biotoxications and other marine-induced diseases. Study of disease processes in marine organisms. Epidemiology of marine biotoxications. Mass aquaculture techniques.for the production of food and useful biochemical agents. Study of the effects of aquaculture as it relates to environmental disease pro- duction and control mechanisms. Origin of toxic and other biologically active substances in marine organisms. Development of surveillance systems of commercial marine food and drug products. The study of the use of marine organisms by primitive native groups. Chemical and pharmacological properties of biologically active marine sub- stances. Marine bionics. (Chemotaxonomy of marine organisms. Investigation of food detection and sensory mechanisms in marine animals. A national file for the storage and retrieval of marine health information. Investigation of the nutritional potential of plankton. Investigation of marine pathogenic microorganisms. 483 The study of hypersensitivity reactions to marine organisms. Physiological effects of the marine environment on man. The relationship of marine organisms to the Man-in-the-Sea Program. Health aspects of ocean pollution. Anatomy of the venom organs of marine organisms. Physiological hazards relating to diving, such as: effects of pressure, inert gases, increased oxygen tensions, etc. PUBLICATION OF RESULTS There is a dearth of useful marine information that is available to both the scientific and lay public. Greater attention needs to be directed to the quality, publication and public dissemination of scientific findings. Adequate funding should be provided for the publishing of investigative results in technical jour- nals and well illustrated manuals, monographs, and books. Documentary educa- tional films are needed for civilian and the Military. The production of these films should be encouraged and funded. ECONOMIC RETURNS Benefits to be derived from biomedical research are both immediate and long- term. Laboratory studies have shown that there is a vast spectrum of marine bioactive substances having antibiotic, antiviral, and fungicidal properties. There is evidence that many of these substances will have immediate commercial poten- tial. There is also a great variety of systematic drugs affecting the nervous sys- tem, cardiovascular, urinary, gastrointestinal, and various other organ systems. Some of the greatest medical problems facing mankind today are concerned with the chronic degenerative diseases, cancer, heart disease, neurological dis- orders, mental health, arthritis, etc. Marine organisms provide an untapped wealth of plants and animals that either store or produce a fantastic array of complex chemical substances, many of which offer exciting possibilities as new therapeutic agents. World fisheries are beginning to expand rapidly into tropical seas, and greater attention is being directed to shallow-water shore fisheries operations. There is urgent need for a more effective utilization of the so-called “trash species” in warm water areas. The utilization of a broader spectrum of tropical marine organisms as food products has brought about an unprecedented confrontation with an enormous array of poisonous marine organisms. Toxic marine organisms range throughout the phylogenetic series of plants and animals. The toxicity of some of these poisons are about 10,000 times that of sodium cyanide or about 3,000 times that of our better war gases. With the necessity of developing protein concentrates from an ever increasing variety of marine organisms, it is urgent and necessary that the edibility of all marine organisms be evaluated, particularly if they are likely to be used in the production of protein concentrates. The prospects of using protein resources from the sea for human and animal consumption are becoming increasingly more difficult as toxic industrial wastes are being discharged into the marine environment. The devastating outbreaks of Minamata disease in Japan document the serious threat that industrial wastes contribute to the food economy of the sea. The Minamata situation points up the fact that in the future we must be prepared to cope with toxic products from both natural and industrial sources which become incorporated in the complex food web of the sea. In the preparation of EPC we may also encounter a con- centration effect of trace elements and other industrial chemical compounds that could eventually result in serious disease problems. This is an area of research that is going to require carefully controlled long-term chronic toxicity studies. At the moment there is no evidence that any serious consideration is being given this subject. Important economic by-products will also result from a national effort in bio- medical oceanography in the area of education. New job opportunities will be developed and new educational programs will be required. The untapped biochemical wealth of the sea offers some of our richest resources with the promise of immediate returns as nutrients and useful therapeutic agents which are likely to prove to be highly effective against some of mankind’s most devastating ills. Marine biotoxins play a dual role of being able to preserve life as well as to destroy it. We must learn how to utilize these substances for the benefit of all mankind. 484 NEED FOR INDUSTRIAL-GOVERNMENT LIAISON Provision should be made to establish an effective liaison between government and industry. If the biochemical wealth of the oceans is to be successfully utilized, there must be brought about a much closer working relationship between govern- ment and industry. Most pharmaceutical companies are not in a position to under- take the expensive logistics, procurement, and documentation program that is required before a marine organism can be assayed for its pharmacological prop- erties. These initial studies will of necessity have to be funded by government. A great deal of fundamental research will be required in order to develop com- mercially feasible aquaculture techniques for the rearing of marine organisms having marine pharmaceutical potenial. It is noteworthy that at least one com- merical company (Aquarium Systems, Inc., Wickliffe, Ohio) is presently ex- ploring the rearing of marine pharmaceutical organisms. It is important that some sort of a cooperative program be established with private enterprise so that compounds having commercial potential can be profitably marketed and thereby enhance our economy. This is a very critical area that must be carefully evaluated if these biochemical products are to be of economic value to our nation. Mr. Rocrrs. Dr. Halstead, your remarks have been excellent and most impressive. I am sure that the committee will benefit greatly from your testimony. Mr. Karth. Mr. Kartu, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. _ I want to join the chairman in suggesting strongly that this has been a very exciting presentation you have given to us, Doctor. I am not so sure, however, that you are in front of the right committee. Dr. Hausreap. That may be. Mr. Karta. Since you recommend that the National Institute of Marine Medicine and Pharmacology be established in HEW you should also make this presentation before the Education and Labor Committee. Mr. Rogers. Will the gentleman yield ? Mr. Karru. I will yield. Mr. Roggrs. I might say that I am ranking member on the Health Subcommittee which has jurisdiction. So maybe we have overlapped a little here ‘and I will make sure that a similar presentation with the Doctor is made to the Health Committee which will have jurisdiction. Mr. Kartu. That is a subcommittee of this committee. Mr. Rocgrs. Insterstate and Foreign Commerce. Mr. Karrs. Since it deals with the Department of HEW, I don’t know which subcommittee would be the proper one for you to also make this presentation to but I think it is of sufficient interest that you really ought to explore it with the chairman, Doctor. I really agree with you that something ought to be done and some of us around here have been talking about this whole ecological question for a number of years now. Since the Government has finally become interested I think by virtue — of some of the things that you have called to our attention and many that you probably know about and haven’t had time to call to our attention, I think it is encouraging that at least we are moving in the right direction or making some noises that we are going to move in the right direction. Might I ask this question, Doctor. You do propose that an Institute of Marine Medicine and Pharma- cology be established in HEW. Since it is dealing primarily with marine medicine I was wondering whether or not, if the Congress is 485 able to reorganize and restructure so that a NOAA is established would it be better perhaps to consider that this be a separate office of NOAA as opposed to being a separate office of HEW ? Dr. Haustrap. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Karth, may I comment on this that unfortunately in Government and education and science we have a way of fractionating everything; this is physics; this is chemistry ; this is astronomy and never are they going to meet. Unfortunately in nature they don’t occur this way. While I have been directing my remarks to the establishment of a National In- stitute of Marine Medicine and Pharmacology if you were to appro- priate money for the establishment of such an institution they would still be directly dependent upon a solid groundwork that hopefully is being laid in, for example, the Smithsonian Institution, the National Science Foundation, or the Department of the Interior. You see, it depends on many of these things. Mr. Karru. I agree but one of the reasons, Doctor, why we are think- ing favorably about setting up a NOAA is to bring the many splintered parts of marine sciences and marine resources together under one head to give it some direction. I am not so sure but that if we begin at the same time to fragment certain parts of it, for example the recommendation you made, by putting these things in existing agencies that really do not or will not have the interest that a NOAA might have in it, that again we would be fractionating or fragmentizing what we seek to bring together under one head and give to it some impetus and direction and I might say a reasonably decent level of funding. I just wanted to explore that with you. I don’t suppose you have any great feeling as to where it should be so long as it performs the purpose intended. Dr. Hatstnap. I think your suggestion is certainly a very valid one that it has to go into an integrated segment of Government. Mr. Karru. Just one final comment, Mr. Chairman. I know it is getting late. In many instances in our grant-in-aid programs we spend fantastic amounts of money if we really add up the programs that we fund. I agree with you that in many instances these moneys are probably not really spent in the best possible way and the systems management approach is much better. On the other hand, of course, we need some grant-in-aid programs because the grant-in-aid programs are primarily basic research in character where the systems management approach is more or less applied research and development. I don’t mean to say that it can’t be both basic research and applied research and development but the fact of the matter is that in many instances they don’t go hand in hand because of the nature of the beast of basic research. But I do agree with you that greater efforts I think ought to be made to consolidate within one agency of the Government the basic research that we do in the Nation because again there is a great deal of duplication in our basic research effort, the Department of Defense, NASA, the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foun- dation and in many instances I am led to believe that one hand really don’t know what the other is doing. 486 Resources in this area are limited at best. I do want to thank you for your contribution. Dr. Haustrap. Thank you. Mr. Petry. I would like to pursue this further but I believe we have ‘one more witness. I simply want to add my word of thanks. I think everything you have said is very pertinent to the matter which this committee now has under consideration and you have made a very great contribution. Dr. Hatsteap. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rocrrs. Thank you so much, Dr. Halstead. We are pleased to have before the committee, Dr. George Sullivan, who was a distinguished member of the President’s Commission and helped to write the report which this committee is conducting hearings upon now. Let Dr. Sullivan’s biography appear at this point in the record. (The biography of Dr. Sullivan follows :) BIoGRAPHY OF GEORGE H. ‘SULLIVAN, M.D. Consulting Scientist, General Hlectric Co., Reentry and Environmental Systems Division. Dr. ‘Sullivan has 20 years of diversified experience in medicine, biology and systems engineering in ocean systems and aerospace systems. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1948 with a Bachelor of Science degree and received his Doctor of Medicine degree from Georgetown University. ‘He was a member of the President’s Commission on Marine Science, Hngineer- ing and Resources which had the responsibility to develop a comprehensive Marine Science for the nation. Mr. Rogers. Dr. Sullivan, we will be pleased to hear your remarks. STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. SULLIVAN, M.D., CONSULTING SCIEN- TIST, GENERAL ELECTRIC REENTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS DIVISION; MEMBER, COMMISSION CN MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND RESOURCES Dr. Suttivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief so that I won’t hold the subcommittee except that I want to add to what Dr. Halstead was covering a little discussion of what I call marine medicine or bio- medicine and even more aptly defined as diving medicine. What I am talking about is really basic knowledge and is the under- standing of the movement and transport of gases into and out of the lungs, across the membrane of the lungs, and into and out of the body tissues. Most here have heard of the term bends and relate this to the small bubbles that form in the tissue and become painful as the diver returns to the surface. However, few of us relate this process to the terms of the absorption of oxygen or nitrogen or carbon dioxide or helium, or yes, even smog through the lungs, not only absorbed through the lungs but into the bloodstream ‘and then into the muscles and brain. A study of diving medicine, of course, is the study of the transport of these gases into the body. 487 This field has not progressed at what I believe is a satisfactory rate, primarily because it has been scattered as the other marine activities have been scattered, and secondly there isn’t enough of it being done to form a critical mass. With regard to Congressman Karth’s references to the National Institutes of Health, there we study the lung in the Heart Institute and in the Cancer Institute, and we study emphysema in the Arthritic Institute. In all of these they may look at the transportation of gases across the lung but are trying to build on a basic set of knowledge that doesn’t exist. They are trying to build on what I call diving medicine. Naturally these institutes have their own resource programs which are formed specifically for their own purposes, but the diving medicine program has not developed. As of today there are only two universities in ‘the United States which have diving medicine programs: Duke Univer- sity, which went on line almost a year ago, and the University of Pennsylvania, which perhaps this October will come on line. I have discussed the biomedical program at length with Dr. Robert Frosch, the Assistant Secretary for R. & D., and he has highlighted two problem areas in the Navy program: One, they do not have a source of trained personnel in diving medicine, and two, they do not have adequate facilities. A full discussion of the inadequacies of our facilities and our educa- tional capabilities relating to diving medicine is contained in the re- port of the Marine Science Council’s Committee on Marine Research, Education and Facilities. This committee was chaired by Dr. John Craven, whom I believe is well known to this committee. This leads me to the conclusion that in order to foster marine bio- medicine and to evaluate the biological active substance in the sea that we need some central focus. Initially, I would think that the focus would belong in the National Institutes of Health. However, I believe that this central focus must be supported by NOAA at least for supporting the facilities in a similar manner that we support oceanographic ships. It is not difficult to select areas in the country where such facilities might well belong. I have Miami written here. I don’t have Palm Beach. Mr. Rogers. That is too bad but that is pretty close. Dr. Sutuivan. Also areas like Galveston where the University of Texas Medical School is located, the University of California at San Diego where Scripps has a program outlined but is totally lacking funds because it doesn’t have a champion to support this program, and, similarly, in the Northwest in Seattle is another area where the medical schools and the ocean program should be tied together. Mr. Chairman, those are just my brief remarks. Mr. Rogers. Thank you. That is most helpful to us. Mr. Karth? Mr. Karru. I have no questions. Mr. Rocrrs. Mr. Pelly ? Mr. Petry. [ have no questions. Mr. Rocers. Thank you very much, Dr. Sullivan. The committee will stand adjourned until the call of the Chair. 488 (The following was received for inclusion in the printed record :) STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FE. Royce, ‘ASSOCIATE DEAN, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON The ereation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), a superagency for the oceanic affairs of the U.S. Government, has been proposed by the Commission on Marine Science Engineering and Resources. The agency would administer the nation’s civil marine and atmospheric programs. It would include the U.S. Coast Guard, the Hnvironmental ‘Science Services Administra- tion, which already includes the Weather Bureau and the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the marine and anadromous fisheries functions of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Naitional Sea-Grant Program, the U.S. Lake Survey, and the National Oceanographic Data Center. Significantly, the new agency would not include a number of marine and atmospheric functions that are integral to other agencies such as the Marine Defense Program of the Navy, the basic research of the National Science Founda- tion, the specialized programs of NASA, the Atomic Hnergy Commission, and the Corps of Engineers which have rather little relation to marine resources, and the Water Management Programs of the Department of Interior. This omis- sion emphasizes the orientation of NOAA toward use of the sea and its resources. Also recommended for the new agency would be new responsibility for (1) institutional support of University National Laboratories and Coastal Zone Laboratories, (2) development of fundamental marine technology, (3) formula- tion and implementation of national projects and grants to states for coastal zone Management, and (4) development and coordination of weather modification activities. All of the Commission’s recommendations represent an effort to strengthen greatly the nations capability in the use of the sea and its resources. They would strengthen both science and basic technology that are important to all users of the seas. They would bring together in a single agency or coordinate better the fishery management functions, the international enforcement of fishery regu- lations, the forecasting of oceanic conditions that can be useful to fishermen, the development of better charts and aids to navigatnon, and the standards for vessel inspection and licensing. Further, they would strengthen the ties between resource agencies and the universities and the coordination between state and federal fisheries. The Commission that prepared this report was appointed by President Johnson in January, 1967. The members represented diverse institutions and areas of the country, universities, a state agency, federal departments, and U.S. business. Their activities and interests were a substantial shift away from the oceano- graphic emphasis long provided by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the Seripps Institution of Oceanography, which were not directly represented. The Commission had four congressional advisors: Senators Cotton and Magnuson, Representatives Lennon and Mosher. The fisheries people in the Pacific Northwest will have an interest primarily with respect to the recommendations from the Panel on Marine Resources, which included Professor Crutchfield of the University of Washington’s Department of Economics and David A. Adams, Commissioner of Fisheries from North Carolina. The fisheries people will have special interests also in recommendations of the International Panel, which was chaired by Professor Auerbach from the University of Minnesota Law School and included as members Mr. Blaustein, a director of the Standard Oil Company, and Mr. Jaworski, an attorney. With respect to the development of the living resources of the oceans, the Commission has produced a number of specific reeommendations to guide the new agency. The emphasis and the arrangement of these recommendations stem largely from Professor Crutchfield’s economic approach to fishery problems. The Commission recommends that a major objective of fishery management should be to produce the largest net economic return consistent with the biological ecapa- bilities of the stocks. It views this course as vital to the expansion of the fishing industry, which is faced with rapidly increasing costs and slowly increasing prices for its fish. The Commission recommends the reduction of fishing effort on some heavily exploited stocks, but does not, however, suggest how this should be done. It does recognize the difficulty that the United States would have if it attempted to limit effort in international fisheries and the fact that fishermen in 489 some localities will prefer to fish with small, inefficient vessels. The Commission recognizes that changes in the direction of the objectives stated must be made slowly and only where fishermen are ready for such action. The Commission gave special attention to the rehabilitation of the U.S. fisheries, with a far-reaching recommendation that the new agency establish national prior- ities and policies for fishery development in cooperation with other federal, state, and interstate agencies. Their recommendation follows a strong criticism of the confusing patchwork of state laws and regulations. Further, the Commission recommends that, if necessary, the new agency should be given statutory authority to assume regulation of endangered fisheries. In proposing this measure, the Commission had in mind the precedent set by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in which the federal agency sets policies and gives the states oppor- tunity to adhere to those policies. The Commission recommends that the present legal restrictions on the use of foreign-built vessels be removed. The Commission recommends that specific plans be developed for expansion of fisheries where possible. The Commission also recommends greatly increased emphasis on assessing the location and size of the stocks of fish off our coasts and on technology basic to improvements in gear and fishing methods. The Commission: discusses at some length the problems of producing and using fish protein concentrate and recommends expanded support for the program. I get the impression that there might have been the feeling that this program had been oversold. With respect to international fisheries management, the Commission rejected giving each coastal nation exclusive access to the living resources over its con- tinental shelf or giving the United Nations title to the living resources beyond the 12-mile limit. Instead, the Commission concluded that U.S. objectives can best be attained by improving and extending the existing international arrangements. It went on to suggest Some ways in which these international arrangements should be extended, specifically with regard to fixing national quotas for cod and haddock fishing in the North Atlantic, and that consideration be given to national eatch quotas for the high-seas fisheries of the North Pacific, an extension of the quota system which is already in effect for Fraser River salmon, fur seals, and king crab in the Bering Sea. The Commission went on to make a number of recommendations to strengthen international fishery organizations. These are in the direction of considering ecological boundaries, in deciding on areas to be included in conventions, estab- lishing conventions before fish stocks are depleted, gaining more adherents to the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, strengthening the scientific staffs and the enforcement programs of the inter- national conventions, and strengthening the arbitration machinery. I have the opinion that some of the recommendations about international fish- eries bear on small parts of large complicated problems which the Commission did not investigate in sufficient depth. The recommendations cannot attract uni- versal approval because of the various problems in different parts of our country. Their principal point of extending the existing framework of specific bilateral or multilateral agreements is, however, an approach that all U.S. fisheries interests ean back. With regard to aquaculture, the Commission looked through aqua-colored glasses which obscured the very difficult technical and economic problems in- volved. They did recommend strengthening the programs and removal of the legal and institutional barriers that inhibit aquaculture. The Commission made many other recommendations that touch on fisheries matters, but the above are what I consider to be the more significant recommen- dations related to the fisheries of the Pacific Northwest. The most significant of all, however, is the proopsal to establish the agency, out of Interior, closer to the President, with much more weight in the government. The move out of interior to an independent agency would remove fisheries from under about two layers of administrators who have scant knowledge of fisheries or international problems and who are under major political pressure to preserve the environment. The Secretary of the Interior, for example, has officially recog- nized an endangered species of birds but not the waste of a major fish resource through nonutilization. The proposed new agency would be much larger and able to develop its whole program around clear and specific objectives related to the use of the oceans, The fish are our major oceanic resource and the fisheries a major reason for pub- 490 lic concern about the use of the sea. The case for increased support of the fisheries could be made more effectively in such an agency. It is most important to note that the first question and the major question is whether to create this new agency. If it should be created, the numerous other recommendations weuld be considered during the development of programs and would still be subject to modification by Congress. If it should not be created, then the several programs concerned with the oceans would go their separate ways and be inadequately coordinated and without the strength to obtain the support the overall program needs. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Jackson, Miss., May 13, 1969. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: Pursuant to a statement by Congressman William M. Colmer before your subcommittee in session this week, I am submitting herewith my own statement supporting that of Mr. Colmer. I would appreciate your entering these remarks and the attached Executive Order No. 45 into the documentary report of your subcommittee hearings. Thanking you, and with warm personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, JOHN BELL WILLIAMS, Governor. STATEMENT BY Hon. JOHN BELL WILLIAMS, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI Mr. Chairman, the following statement is made in order to document the efforts by the State of Mississippi, to date, in the desire to further a Federal- State program in Oceanography. All of the coastal and Great Lakes States are in accord in the recognition of the need for a strong Federal program by which the several states may formulate their own meaningful programs for national benefit. Mississippi recognized very early the impact of State planning for substantive formulation of Federal design. Federal guidelines have been designed by executive and legislative direction and the Marine Sciences Commission Report was completed and published early this year. Mississippi, by its very nature geographically at the center of the Gulf Coast crescent, has fostered and will continue to develop a strong role in oceanic en- deavor. A dramatic signal of State purpose was the announcement in 1967 that Mississippi would build the most modern shipyard in the world at Pascagoula, thereby, assisting the United States in regaining world stature it once held in this industry. The State of Mississippi, by special legislative action, demonstrated faith and endorsement of such a facility by the issuance of $130 million in bonds for construction of the huge installation. The shipyard, upon completion, will be leased to Litton Industries, Ingalls Shipbuilding Division for operation. Comple- tion is scheduled for 1970 at which time the most mechanized assembly-line method of production coupled with advanced marine technology will be in sup- port of national goals in ship construction. On May 2, 1969 it was announced that Ingalls had been awarded a $1 billion contract by the Navy for nine LHA all purpose assault ships. Mississippi has two deep water ports: at Pascagoula, and at Gulfport which the state owns and operates. Gulfport presently represents a State investment of $10 million with a bond limitation of $25 million. Gulfport is the number one banana unloading facility on the Gulf Coast and the second largest in the United States. This is also the leading combined raw jute and cotton bagging center in the United States. Four major Federal facilities enhance the position of Mississippi in the develop- ing marine sciences. The NASA/Mississippi Test Facility at Bay St. Louis rep- resents a Federal investment of over $400 million. This facility is already very much oriented toward the marine science field. Most notably and in fact presently in operation is BOMEX (Barbados Oceanographic and Meteorological Hxperi- ment) under the direction of ESSA (Hnvironmental Science Services Administra- tion), but jointly sponsored by several Federal agencies. The State of Mississippi has made available, to this project, the Gulfport harbor facilities for dockage 49] and warehousing requirements. The Mississippi Test Facility complex includes data acquisition capability, a test control center, rocket test stands, acoustic laboratories, a data handling center, an electronics and instrumentation center along with numerous office, administrative and support systems. Mississippi borders on the sea body which is one of the richest habitats of fish as well as the center of the greatest activity for offshore oil production in the world. Pascagoula is the location of the Exploratory Fishing and Gear Research Base of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. This base concerns itself with expanding present fishing grounds, locating new grounds and developing new harvesting and utilization techniques. Its research covers basic ocean engineering concepts and animal behavior, promising to lead to dramatic new harvesting techniques. Much of the direction of fishery development over the next decade will evolve from the activ- ities now in progress at Pascagoula. The Waterways Experiment Station of the U.S. Corps of Engineers at Vicks- burg offers a tremendous facility for river, estuarian studies and water resource ecology. The Navy Seabee Base at Gulfport is a fine support facility for marine engineering and training for marine activities. To further document the long term assessment of our nation’s oceanographic goals, Mississippi took a positive and dramatic step this year. On April 10, 1969 I created the Mississippi Council for the Development of Marine Resources by executive order. This select body of academic, industrial and state leaders will evaluate consultant studies already completed and establish the programs to enhance and develop marine science programs in Mississippi over the next ten years. To further document Mississippi’s interest and direct purpose in oceanography Executive Order No. 45 describes and specifies the function and authority of the Mississippi Council for the Development of Marine Resources. Thank you. MISSISSIPPI EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, JACKSON EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 45 By virtue of the authority vested in me as Governor of the State of Mississippi, and pursuant to the Constitution and applicable statutes of the State of Mississippi, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1. There is hereby created and established within the Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial Board the Mississippi Council for the Development of Marine Resources until such time as enabling legislation is adopted to establish the Mississippi Council for the Development of Marine Resources. 2. Because of the existing and increasing opportunities to the State of Mississippi through participation in the field of Oceanographics, it is essential that an orderly and diligent study be made of what avenues are open to the people of Mississippi in their achievement of their goals in this field. The purpose of this procedure is to provide for the rendering of mutual aid between educational institutions and the Marine Resources Council and with the Federal government with respect to providing suitable skilled professionals and labor in this area of development and the taking of such steps as necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Order. It is further declared to be the purpose of this Order and the policy of the State that all present plans and future programs involving the field of marine sciences be coordinated with comparable functions of the Federal government, including its various departments, and agencies of other states and localities and all private agencies so that the most effective, efficient and economical par- ticipation by the State of Mississippi may be made in the field of marine resources. 38. The Executive Director of the Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial Board shall be the administrator of the Council. Such technical, administrative, stenographic, clerical and other personnel in the employ of the Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial Board and compen- sated thereby shall be made available to the Council in the performance of its duties. 4. The members of the Mississippi Council for the Development of Marine Resources shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Governor and to the Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial Board. 492 They shall have such powers and responsibilities as may be designated by this’ ‘Order. The Governor shall serve as Chairman of the Council; the Vice Chairman ‘of the Council shall be appointed by the Governor; the following shall be members of the Council : Governor John Bell Williams, chairman; James O. Cagle, Columbia, Pearl River Electric Power Association; A. F. Dantzler, Pascagoula, Dantzler Boat & Barge Company; William Dorsett, Biloxi, Manager, Broadwater Beach Hotel; Brad Dye, Jr., Jackson, Executive Director, Mississippi A & I Board; Robert B. BPverett, Jackson, Chairman of the Board, Fox-Everett Insurance Comapny ; ¥. M. Fortenberry, Jackson, Junior College Board; Porter Fortune, Oxford, Chancellor, University of Mississippi; Ellis B. Gardner, Pascagoula, President, Ingalls Shipbuildings Company ; William Giles, Starkville, President, Mississippi State University; John K. Gresham, Greenville, Manager, WJPR; David Hal- brook, Belzoni, Mississippi House of Representatives ; Martin R. McLendon, Jack- son, Assistant Attorney General, State of Mississippi; W. D. McCain, Hatties- burg, President, University of ‘Southern Mississippi; John R. Picard, Pass Chris- tian, General Manager, General Hlectric Support Department, Mississippi Test Facility ; Ben Stone, Gulfport, Mississippi State Senate; HE. H. Thrash, Jackson, Executive Secretary and Director, Board of Trustees, Institutions of Higher Learning; W. Calvin Wells, Jackson, Attorney, Research & Development Council Member. The Governor may appoint in such numbers as he deems advisable additional members of the ‘Council. Members of the Council other than State officials shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for their reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties. 5. The Council shall have the following duties, powers and responsibilities and others as deemed necessary by the Governor and ‘the Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial Board: a. To Coordinate the activities of all State boards, commissions, agencies, institutions and offices. pb. To advise departments, agencies, institutions, offices and subdivisions of State government thereof as it deems advisable. e. To consolidate all efforts in the field of marine resources and the services of State departments, agencies, offices, institutions and subdivisions of State government so far as practical and to provide for their joint efforts. d. To assume management of any available programs related to the Fed- eral government in the field of marine resources. e. To apply for, receive, hold and allocate and, if appropriate, to assist State departments, agencies, offices, institutions and political subdivisions of State government in applying for, receiving or holding such authorizations, licenses and grants aS are necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of this Order. f. To cooperate with the various agencies of the Federal government en- gaged in the programs involving marine resources, especially with the re- search facilities of the NASA-Mississippi Test Facility. g. To study in detail and in depth the subject of Oceanography as it relates to the State of Mississippi and to report to the Governor the results and recommendations developed through the study. 6. It shall be the duty of every department, agency, office, institution and po- litical subdivision of the State of Mississippi and the officers thereof to cooperate with and assist the Council in every reasonable way. 7, The Governor and the Council shall have general direction and control over the activities of the Council and shall be responsible for carrying out the provi- sions of this Order. 8. The Council is hereby authorized to receive services, gifts, contributions, property and equipment from public and private sources to be utilized in the carrying out of its functions. 9. The Governor, the Council and the Mississippi Agricultural and Industrial Board are authorized to enter into agreements with the Federal government for the purpose of realizing Mississippi’s full potential in the area of marine resources. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of Mississippi to be affixed. Done in the City of Jackson this 10th day of April, 1969. [SHAL] JOHN BELL WILLIAMS, Governor. 493 EXECUTIVE MANSION, STATE OF MAINE, May 12, 1969. Hon. Auton A, LENNON, Oceanography Subcommittee, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LENNON: Speaking for the ‘State of Maine, with our tradi- tional interest in the use of America’s ocean resource, I most emphatically sup- port the need for an independent agency at the Federal level to coordinate and lead an oceanographic program for the nation. Such an agency is needed to focus America’s efforts in the proper exploration and exploitation of the marine world. Further, I support the concept of a National Advisory Committee on the Oceans, which would include representatives from the States. It seems to me that America has lagged badly in these last few decades in our concern for the ocean. In many areas—tishing, aquaculture, merchant marine— we have fallen behind nations such as the Soviet Union and Japan. It has been particularly disturbing recently to see this lack of thrust in our oceanographic efforts begin to have an effect on our Naval superiority, resulting in over-aged fleets and a need for massive refurbishing of our surface and sub-surface Naval forces. An independent oceanographic agency, preferably on the executive level, will help to correct this imbalance and will, I am sure, supply the dynamic impetus that is vital if America is to get moving in a meaningful way in the oceanographic field. I hope and trust your subcommittee will act favorably upon these recom- mendations. Sincerely yours, KENNETH M. CURTIS, Governor. HWXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Austin, Tex., June 4, 1969. Hon. Attron A. LENNON, Chairman, Oceanography Subcommittee, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com- mittee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LENNON: The Interagency Natural Resources Council has initiated a comprehensive Coastal Resources Plan of the Texas Gulf Coast to provide for the management and development of the human and natural resources of this urbanizing region. To continue this planning effort, the Texas Legislature has passed a Concurrent Resolution, '8.C.R. 38, and I, as Chairman of the Council, have requested $200,000 in appropriations for the next biennium beginning on September 1, 1969. The Division of Planning Coordination within my Office has reviewed and commented favorably on the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engi- neering, and Resources, ‘Our Nation and the Sea.” Thus, I support the creation of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency at the Federal level and the establishment of a National Advisory Committee on the Oceans to include repre- sentatives of the States. Texas has the opportunity to assume national leadership with its comprehensive coastal planning program, and I am looking forward to cooperating and working with you for the realization of this exciting potential. In addition, I am designat- ing my Hxecutive Assistant, Mr. Harold Dudley, to be the liaison contact with you in regards to my intention to faster a State-Federal partnership for marine resources development. Sincerely, PRESTON SMITH, Governor of Tezas. 494 HEXXECUTIVE CHAMBERS, Honolulu, May 22, 1969. Hon. Auton A. LENNON, Chairman, Oceanography Subcommittee, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com- mittee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE LENNON: Our ‘position in mid-ocean requires constant awareness of the direction of the many Federal projects and programs in ocean- ography. National programs in the marine Sciences will continue to have significant in- fluence on Hawaii’s ocean-oriented community. We have carefully studied the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Hngineering and Resources, “Our Nation and The Sea” and supports its recommendations to establish the National Oceanographic Atmospheric Agency and the National Committee on the oceans. We believe that in order to give ocean activities adequate focus and attention, they should be brought together under an independent agency. We give our full support to the Commission’s report. Aloha, and may the Almighty be with you and yours always. Sincerely, JoHN A. BURNS, Governor. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, HWXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Boston, June 20, 1969. Mr. RicHarp N. Ricsy, Jr., Executive Director, National Oceanography Association, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. RicBy: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is indeed concerned with the Oceanography Subcommittee of the House Merchant Marine and Fish- eries Comittee’s hearings on America’s ocean program. Since our earliest history, Massachusetts has had an important stake in marine resources and even today ranks among the top three states in the value of its fishery landings. Through its private, federal and state marine research facilities, the Commonwealth is in an enviable position to provide scientific support for any increased exploration or exploitation of the ocean’s resources. I endorse the concept of a new single ocean agency on the federal level since such a reorganization should provide for a greater effort in this field which is our last great frontier. I also feel strongly that as recommended in the Stratton report the capabilities of the states with regard to management of territorial waters should be strengthened by federal financial assistance. Thank you for providing the opportunity for Massachusetts to contribute to this important issue. Sincerely, FRANCIS W. SARGENT, Governor. STATE oF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND HcONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Concord, N.H., May 23, 1969. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Oceanography Subcommittee, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Commit- tee, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE LENNON: I am advised that the Oceanography Subcom- mittee of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee is currently hold- ing hearings on America’s ocean program. As chairman of the New Hampshire Advisory Council on Oceanography (a group of some 40 educators, industrialists and State officials appointed by the governor last year to develop a State ocean program), I wish to take this op- portunity to register with your subcommittee our strong and enthusiastic support for establishment of an independent ocean agency within the Federal government, along lines recommended by the National Commission on Marine Science, Engi- neering and Resources. It may interest your subcommittee to know that there is within the State of New Hampshire strong support for development of a State ocean program, pre- requisite to New Hampshire’s eventual participation in a regional oceanographic 495 effort. We believe that the program we have recommended to the governor and which is currently under legislative consideration, would be given added signifi- cance as well as considerable impetus by creation of a Federal ocean agency. Sincerely, R. J. CROWLEY, Jr., Commissioner. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, College Park, Md., May 9, 1969. Hon. Auton A. LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that your committee is now re- viewing the recommendations of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. Permit me, in a personal capacity, to offer some comments. The report ‘Our Nation and the Sea” is a monumental document. It is impres- Sive in the depth of its reasoning and its broad scope. Of particular significance from a scientific point of view is the recognition that the earth’s atmosphere and the ocean are a single system. Studies of this system and practical conclusions drawn from them will be of great importance to the nation and mankind. Several recommendations of the Commission are particularly noteworthy. Among them is the suggestion to create a single major agency to pursue the na- tional marine and atmospheric programs. This will serve to give orientation and the necessary push to these essential programs. This, together with the recom- mendations to establish university-operated national and coastal zone laboratories, would have a beneficial effect for both research and operational purposes. Let me urge that your Committee weigh these recommendations favorably and initiate the necessary legislation to bring this forward-looking report to fruition. Sincerely yours, H. HE. LANDSBERG, Research Professor. STATE OF FLORIDA, COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY, Coral Gables, Fla., May 2, 1969. Hon. ALTON LENNON, U.S. Representative, State of North Carolina, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. Lennon: This is to inform you that the Florida Commission on Marine Sciences and Teehnology has officially endorsed the report of the U.S. Commission on Marine Science, Hngineering and Resources and respectfully urges that your subcommittee approve the recommendations contained therein. One of our Commissioners, John H. Perry, Jr., was a member of the U.S. Com- mission and we therefore have been very close to the preparation and documen- tation of the report. Wishing you the best of luck with the current hearings, I am, Yours sincerely, JOHN LACERDA, Ezecutive Director. THE AMERICAN LEGION, Washington, D.C., May 26, 1969. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN LENNON: Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No. 369, approved by the 1968 National Convention of The American Legion calling for nucleariza- tion of all U.S. Navy oceanographic survey ships and an increase in all oceano- graphic efforts of the U.S. Navy. I would appreciate your including Resolution No. 369 in the permanent record of the hearings presently being conducted by your Subcommittee. The opportunity to submit this resolution to you for consideration is appre- ciated. Sincerely yours, HERALD HE). STRINGER, Director. 496 50TH NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION HELD IN NEW ORLEANS, La., SEPTEMBER 10-12, 1968 RESOLUTION NO. 369—COMMITTEE ON NAVAL AFFAIRS—SUBJECT, U.S. NAVY OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM Whereas, the oceans have been of strategic importance since the dawn of history and are becoming of increasing interest as the Navy’s operating environ- ment and as food and mineral sources; and Whereas, the oceans belong to no one nation and are a great resource to be shared by all mankind; and Whereas, Russia has a vigorous and substantial oceanographic program which is marked by increased research activities throughout the world, and ever in- ereasing capabilities; and Whereas, there is only one first-rate oceanographic fleet in the world, that of the Soviet Union ; and Whereas, it is considered most essential to our national security and economic interests to sponsor substantial oceanographic programs at ever increasing rates ; and Whereas, it is highly desirable for any U.S. Navy oceanographic survey and research ship to have unlimited range and staying power (as well as adequate research and support facilities) while conducting a scientific expedition ; and Whereas, nuclear propulsion will provide this staying power ; and Whereas, nuclear propulsion is in the last analysis cost comparative. Now, therefore, be it, Resolved, by The American Legion in National Convention assembled in New Orleans, Louisiana, September 10, 11, 12, 1968, that we urge strong support of: 1. Nuclearization of all U.S. Navy oceanographic survey ships; and 2. An increase in all oceanographic efforts of the U.S. Navy. NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE, INC., Washington, D.C., May 20, 1969. Re Hearing on the Marine Science Commission Report. The Honorable ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, House of Representatives Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. ‘CHAIRMAN: The work of the (Commission on Marine Science, Hngi- neering and Resources is of extreme interest and significance to the members of the National Fisheries Institute. The Institute is a trade association made up of companies engaged in the production, processing, and distribution of fish and seafood. Accordingly, our members are aware of the vast potential benefits of a well planned, effectively managed national oceanic policy. The National Fisheries Institute agrees with and supports the basic concept advanced by the Commission, that of a single comprehensive oceanic agency, and acceleration of marine research funding. To express this sentiment, the Institute’s Board of Directors unanimously approved the attached resolution at its annual meeting April 19, 1969. We submit this for the record of the hearings now underway. At a later date in the hearings, the Institute may request the opportunity to present an oral statement. Sincerely yours, Lest J. WEDDIG, Hazecutive Director. RESOLUTION ON REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND RESOURCES Whereas, the future security, economy, of the United States and its ability to meet increasing food demands depend greatly on its full and wise use of the sea, and Whereas, the nation’s comprehensive utilization of the oceans and their re- sources is dependent greatly upon organized government action, and Whereas, the present federal organization has divided the nation’s ocean activi- ties among many departments; and Whereas, the Commission on Marine ‘Science, Hngineering and Resources was established by Congress two years ago to determine a recommendation of a national ocean policy, and 497 Whereas, this Commission has issued a comprehensive series of recommenda- tions that would provide organized development of a national oceanic effort under a single agency, and Whereas, the interests of the fishing industry will be enhanced in an expanded, comprehensive oceans program, and ‘Whereas, certain of the Commission’s minor recommendations may not be completely in accord with the best interests of the industry, therefore, be it Resolved, That, the National Fisheries Institute support the general broad recommendation of the Commission that would establish a single, comprehensive agency to coordinate our nation’s oceanic affairs; and be it further Resolved, That, the Institute would consider on an individual basis secondary recommendations of the Commission as they come before Congress and the administrative agencies. WASHINGTON, D.C., May 22, 1969. Mr. JoHN M. Drewry, Chief Counsel, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 1334 Long- worth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. ‘DEAR Mr. DrEwry: I have read Prof. Bauer’s statement a number of times and I am sstill uncertain as to the philosophical basis of his objection to N.O.A.A. In one part of his presentation he implies that we have bitten off more than the. government can chew; nevertheless he winds up with a recommendation for creating a Department of Environmental Sciences which would indicate that we didn’t go far enough. However, I will restrict my comments to a few of his points. 1. I quite agree with Prof. Bauer’s statement that it is impossible in an ultimate sense, to separate ‘‘the atmosphere from the oceans or both from the land.” But I believe that is. a comment that can be made about the entire universe and that logically the planet Earth cannot be separated from the outermost reaches of the cosmos. This philosophical truth, however, must include the fact that arbitrary distinctions must be made if any part of the universe can be studied effectively, and those distinctions must be based on the state of human knowledge at any given time. It is the judgment of the Commission that the state of knowledge has reached the point where it would be useful to study the oceans and the atmosphere as a whole and we so recommend it. Unquestionably, a point will be reached down the road where it will be useful to study the atmosphere, 'the oceans, and the land as a whole but I believe that at this point in our history such an effort would mmerelly create an indigestible lump of knowledge. For the time being, the best we can hope for is an exchange of knowledge between those studying the atmos- phere and the oceans and those studying the land mass. 2. Had the Commission recommended a fisheries agency, a pollution agency, or an undersea technology agency reporting directly to the President, Prof. Bauer’s parallel to a cancer research agency would be apt. However, we did not do so. The agency that we proposed is sufficiently broad in scope to justify an official who can report directly to the President just as the Space Agency does. 3. I am not going to comment upon his remarks concerning the geological survey as I believe Prof. Bauer attaches a greater amount of importance to the issue than actually exists. But I certainly disagree with his conclusion that it is. unrealistic to make N.O.A.A. the lead agency in geological surveys of the ocean bottom. It is true that the crust of the earth above and below the seas is con- tinuous. But the techniques for studying the crust must differ in the two environ- ments and it is obvious that those now engaged in a study of the crust have gained very little knowledge of the ocean floor. This knowledge will only be gained when its gathering becomes the responsibility of a marine-oriented organization. 4. I do not see any way in which the functions of the Bureau of Fisheries would be hampered by placing it in the new agency. The bilateral agreements with other agencies that he discusses could be conducted just as well through N.O.A.A. as through the Interior Department. But the fisheries functions would benefit from intellectual cross-fertilization with other marine-oriented disciplines. 5. I fail to follow the logic of his opposition to removing the Coast Guard from the Department of Transportation. The Coast Guard unquestionably has the greatest amount of physical resources available for oceanographic work and this is a capability we should not overlook. I believe that this would be far more important to the United States than granting the Coast Guard responsibility for operating and maintaining civilian vessels of the federal government. 26—563—69—pt. 1——33 498 6. The proposal to change the Interior Department into a Department of ‘Environmental Sciences seems to me a genuine example of biting off more than can be chewed at ithe present time. Furthermore, Prof. Bauer only proposes to strengthen the Interior Department by giving it the Weather Bureau and the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Since he would not give it the Coast Guard (or presumably ESSA), he would not be granting it any real resources for oceanog- raphy. In other words, he would create an agency charged with a tremendous responsibility but lacking elementary tools to carry out the task. I have not commented on sall of Prof. Bauer’s statements but only those which appear to me to require a reaction. Sincerely yours, GEORGE H. REEDY. COMMENTS oF JoHN H. PERRY, JR., PRESIDENT, PERRY PUBLICATIONS, INC., ON STATEMENT BY PAUL S. BAUER, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF HARTH SCIENCE, THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY, CONSULTING HNGINEER When the Commission on Marine Science, Hngineering, and Resources filed its report, “Our Nation and the Sea—A Plan for National Action”, it anticipated -that there would be tremendous opposition to the Commission’s recommendations among those agencies whose present ocean roles and responsibilities would be reduced in favor of a strong centralized executive/administrative air and ocean environmental agency, identified by the Commission as the National Ocean and Atmosphere Agency. Professor Bauer’s statement appears to be a manifestation of this anticipated opposition on behalf of the Department of Interior. Professor Bauer raises what he terms a fundamental objection to the proposed organization of N.O.A.A. because “basically, any organization which desires to effectively study an environmental system, such as planet Harth, must consider the whole as well as its parts.” He cites as an example the structure of our Con- tinental shelves and slopes and says, “Studies of the Continental Shelf can not be interpreted without a consideration of the complete air, land and sea system.” Professor Bauer apparently has not read the Commission’s report with care be- cause it is in agreement with his views on the Continental Shelf studies. The Commission takes the position that as man’s involvement with the ocean becomes more pressing, the more people and agencies become involved, the more scattered and fragmented become identifiable jurisdiction, authority and responsibility. This is as true in the Congress—with its proliferation of committees and subcom- mittees with an ocean or marine environmental interest—as it is within Wash- ington’s administrative structure. And it is precisely this that the Commission ‘seeks to correct with the organization of N.O.A.A. It seeks to improve the capa- bility for a proper study of all parts of our evironmental system by concentrating areas of effort and cooperation and eliminating duplication and overlapping. Professor Bauer’s objection that the creation of N.O.A.A. as an agency re- porting directly to the President would eliminate any higher echelon of manage- ment which is concerned with the total environment is difficult to comprehend. ‘This level would be top echelon. Does he envision an echelon higher than presi- dential level? If so, this is as illogical as his statement about a group of en- thusiasts concerned with cancer research wanting a separate agency reporting directly to the President. Professor Bauer’s third objection that the creation of N.O.A.A. would result in the Interior Department being no longer concerned with the marine environ- ment is not completely true. But even if it were, it would not be a bad situation. In the first place, the Interior Department, I am sure, has enough other activities to keep it and its personnel busy. Secondly, its present areas of concern with the marine environment are fragmented and no doubt overlap those of other agencies. ‘So, actually it would be beneficial, as the Commission has proposed in its pro- gram, to eliminate this fragmentation and duplication. Professor Bauer’s statement that all of the current functions of the U.S. Geological Survey would be duplicated by the Coast and Geodetic Survey is not true. There is no need for this kind of duplication. Intelligent planning and co- operative effort is what is needed and it would be attained under the proposed functions of N.O.A.A. working with other government agencies. Many such co- -operative arrangements now in existence could be continued under the new - setup. Professor Bauer’s statement that to remove the Bureau of Commercial Fish- -eries from the Department of Interior would be “a disastrous backward step” is totally unrealistic. He points out that this Bureau has attained a posture of 499 excellence in conducting large scale surveys of the marine environment not only from studies of the populations in the ocean but also from the study of the para- meters (physical and chemical and atmospheric) which contribute to the ecology of marine plants and animals. If it has been able to attain this measure of suc- cess as a fragmented part of the Department of the Interior, is it not logical to assuine that it could achieve an even greater degree of excellence if it were functioning under a completely marine-oriented department ? Professor Bauer has made certain recommendations which he terms construc- tive alfernates to the recommendation of the Commission which would establish N.O.A.A. I do not believe their merit is equal to that of the Commission’s pro- posal. Also, I respectfully request that in studying them the Subcommittee bear in mind that the interrelationships in the Commission’s program were thought out at great length and without any political ambitions or motives on the part of the Commission members. New York, N.Y., June 13, 1969. Mr. Joun M. Drewry, Chief Counsel, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 1334 Long- worth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. DReEwry: Your letter of May 12 asking for comments on the state- ment by Paul S. Bauer of American University arrived while I was in Europe. Mr. Bauer’s views are so diametrically opposed to the recommendations of the Commission that it is difficult to address them in detail. I can only say that I disagree with the entire thrust of his remarks. I don’t know Professor Bauer, but he seems to be strongly influenced by a prior attachment to the Department of Interior. My answer to his recommenda- tion for continued reliance on the Department of Interior is to suggest that the Committee look at that Department’s record of achievement in the oceans in the past rather than at their press releases of what they hope to be able to do in the future. The Department of Interior has done a great deal of good work on land and its constituency is primarily a land constituency. I see no reason to believe that the Department is in any way qualified by past performance or by inclina- tion to do a better job in the future than they have in the past in the oceans. To be quite candid I think there may be a tendency on the part of some of the Department’s constituents, including some of my former colleagues in the oil industry and my current colleagues in the mining industry to continue to want to deal with Interior whose personnel they know rather than deal with a new agency whose personnel and focus might be quite different. I am sorry that I did not reply earlier to your request and I hope that these comments may be useful in some way. Sincerely, CHARLES F.. BAIRD. GREAT LAKES RESEARCH DIVISION, THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Ann Arbor, Mich., May 28, 1969. Congressman CHARLES A. MOSHER, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. MosHer: Because of my long involvement and interest in Great Lakes research. I had hoped to make arrangements for a meeting with you in early June to discuss some Great Lakes problems of mutual interest. My schedule will not permit me to do this before early summer, but I will be in contact with your office for a later appointment. I have studied with great interest the Report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, and would like an opportunity to discuss some of its recommendations with you. My general reactions to the report are: 1. That an organization such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency or something comparable, through consolidation of existing agency efforts, is essential and urgently needed to effectively administer a national program in Marine Sciences. Directing my thoughts specifically to the Great Lakes, I would like to point out that physically, the St. Lawrence Great Lakes drainage basin is one system, however, politically, it exhibits a pattern of fragmentation. This physiographic unit is shared by eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces. Heads of these 500 political units speak ionly for their unit. There is no unified plan or approach for management, utilization, or the solution of common problems in this drainage. basin. Within the United States eight or more federal agencies are charged with Great Lakes missions; each has carried out its mission in a commendable way, but none is concerned with the lakes as a complete system. Furthermore an International Joint Commission attempts to represent the combined interests of the United States and Canada, and it too has done a commendable job within. the limits of its objectives. More recently, 1967, the Great Lakes Basin Commis- sion has been established to coordinate the United ‘States activities on the Great Lakes. Basically, there exists the technical and scientific knowledge, manpower and economic need for unified programs in pollution abatements, water resources management and regional planning of the Great Lakes drainage basin, but the administrative mechanism is fragmented or lacking. The fact that these programs. are non-operative is of deep concern because decisions are made and priorities. established in the absence of a unified or regional plan or an understanding of the Great Lakes as a total system. 2. The national programs and projects recommended by the Commission are pertinent, imaginative, and meaningful in respect to the establishment of an: effective coordinated effort in Marine Sciences. The concepts involved should be earried out regardless of the administrative mechanism. Three concepts which I think are excellent as to their application to Great Lakes problems are: 1) univer- sity-national laboratories, 2) coastal zone laboratories, and 3) water quality restoration in the Great Lakes. These suggestions would supply the essential facilities, and continuity of financial support for an effective attack on the press- ing Great Lakes problems. 3. Although the Great Lakes have been adequately included in the Commis— sion’s report, nevertheless I have concern that they may not be included in the action program ‘to the same degree. Compared with the oceans they are very small in area and therefore may be slighted in the actual national program, but in terms of national economic importance they are highly significant. I hope this. point is fully appreciated and properly represented in the policy making processes. 4. One of the '‘Commission’s justifications or arguments for a national effort in Marine Sciences is that of increasing the supply of protein to meet the needs of a rapidly growing world population. This approach essentially ignores the fact that food supply cannot keep abreast of unchecked population growth. I believe the answer to the world population problems is population control not more food. I feel the Commission has weakened its appeal by implying that the food resources. of the sea will help solve world population problems. I favor harvesting food from the sea, but for other reasons. 5. In general the Commission has done a tremendous job of assembling and analyzing pertinent information on the Marine Sciences of the nation. The com- pleteness and thoroughness of the report makes it an outstanding reference which is of great value to both scientist and policy makers. Hopefully, I will have an opportunity to discuss these and other Marine Science matters with you in greater detail. Sincerely, Davip C. CHANDLER, Director. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ENVIRONMENTAL \SCIENCE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, Rockville, Md., May 22, 1969. Mr. JoHN M. Drewey, Chief Counsel, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. DREwRyY: I wish to thank you for the opportunity you have afforded the former members of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources to comment on the statement submitted by Paul S. Bauer to the hear- ings of the Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Wisheries. As I noted in my appearance before the Subcommittee last Jan- uary, I have reserved my position on proposals for reorganization of the Federal Government, being a Government member of the Commission. I feel that at this time I must still reserve comment and defer to the other members of the Commission. Sincerely yours, Rosert M. WuHiteL, Administrator. 501 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ‘COUNCIL ON MARINE RESOURCES, AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, Washington, D.C., May 16, 1969. Mr. Joun M. Drewry, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Drar Mr. Drewry: Thank you for sending me Paul 8. Bauer’s comments on the COMSER report. Mr. Bauer’s recommendations deserve serious consideration. However, my present employment with the Marine Sciences Council Staff makes it inappro- priate for me to provide detailed comments concerning his statement. Sincerely, Davin A. ADAMS. THE Texas A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, College Station, Tex., March 15, 1699. President RicHArp M. Nixon, The White House, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. PRESIDENT: The Commission on Marine Science, Hngineering, and Resources, in its report, Our Nation and the Sea, has proposed reorganization of some executive departments to meet the needs and challenges facing our nation relative to marine resources, and national decisions on this question will have a Significant effect on our future. It is important that the question be viewed in a context which encompasses not only oceanic, atmospheric and coastal zone affairs, as suggested by the Commission, but which also includes environmental affairs. I propose to you such a comprehensive reorganization context. Now is the time to make a broad and courageous step to consolidate and focus the federal executive concerns for natural resources and environments—a step similar to that which was taken when the Department of Defense was formed to consolidate concerns for national security. Specifically, I propose that there be created a Department of Natural Resources and Environments, made up of the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and a new Depart- ment of the Oceans and Atmosphere. The relationships among these units would be comparable to the relationships among the Departments of Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force. Bureau reorganizations can take place after the Department of Natural Resources and Hnvironments has been formed. The principal goal to be achieved is to replace the multi-agency program formu- lation and decision making on natural resources and environmental quality with a unified major agency focus under one Secretary. Consequently, other units of the federal executive, for example, the Atomic Energy Commission, also might be brought within this new Department as appropriate. Within this major agency, consideration could be given to administrative arrangements that have been shown to be successful within the Defense Department. For example, a parallel to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering would be a Director of Environmental Research and Engineering. My suggestion is made with the thought that future developments will bring about eventual consolidation of executive departments into a half dozen or so major departments concerned with segments of our national goals; i.e., Defense, State, Natural Resources, Human Resources, Technology and Industry, Com- muneation and Transport, and Governmental Affairs. It is too much to hope that such a comprehensive, reorganizaltion will be done in one fell swoop. The Defense components were focused following our experiences of World War II, but only after much debate. Our nations growing complexity with the multiplicity of decisions on environmental and resource problems makes this an appropriate time for a second bold consolidation. In your deliberations for implementing tthe recommendations made by the Com- mission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, I urge consideration of this more comprehensive reorganization. Respectfully yours, JOHN C. CALHOUN, Jr. ‘ « ” — Te ais eriten, oe eel ae? veld OHO} tite. PARAM TOIT Hd a eanumnnonek ry VO OE MUN CON AT AOL DIS a WRAD i ) 1 Cees “ea VAL iis ate? nak Lh trend t cn We F) 2.0, Qt OOM Weed whiay' Sie DANN: ee He & ag cost isi eh ns ghee tb phe, TOA? sre Bs AD ae nore nei Peo oy eOb Re yee ity ‘aft ys rit “es fulltivs't a{ Wee LY ergy Bey yereypyey reba? te ihe i se , os te Lear. LEAP ESP LCS ee PILATE OTN i) Syed er eb » oy Pevon ; weiccihcn tiated: 7t 4 Sa 4 Ont f i . Pe AG e ] t i BALD 5 ‘ : peytwy PHL isSps tecture it sit i't re} yes ATi oS" via A : ag or Av ERY Ltd J «f Tyan Ht EG Ween oy AY SRO TP EL TORE HH a1 H : y vc? Koy la sa ' ‘ f aut *] , ss * Hipves iVres ihe fh o erytaiveb [neoltnat Dk .esoTue: Or oh i G , east Mea woitagipiy si VALS OP ES Bie ER eT ‘fooee Tay iil a ; 3 fice. PRET nbaiiar: ‘ ; ail iH the ys f j it's q i yf Faye rayon MH ‘ , nae im) = ; i i233 ft 8 yLRA4E i oy Rite! t Hime A r ; Yt g es ; i r ete . P re (Heyaey " < 9) ; % - yh tf (poy i i. i mars t r ; ‘ dls ; ’ a j ' ; ; r i eerie j LY * 4 ‘ j , ae j 5 ; ; { ' ; f 7 ‘ ( i? : { : y { : ev fF 6 4 f t sy j ai : (re "1 ; , ny ae | *t i ry ia ’ i? f j : ()! titk SET TA] : ) ‘ { i ‘ ) : cfc.” | , eyez er , i Ree j I TRIT ; Rh i ‘ 1 : S hit cyepeyier Ay Navel arent i} } { Lists Lavi 12 LS , j Pat Tes J [yt atest fia ; : ms be ’ eLELE) i * *y ’ r (Ld tsi - , TOK ; ‘ ' 7 H i + ; if ; { { . { ee Niel FS ’ us ; i, . 5 : ¥A \ ; ‘ ‘> ¢ APPENDIX A The following letter sent to Secretary Stans, also was sent to the people listed immediately following this letter. Replies received follow thereafter. APRIL 25, 1969. Hon. Maurice H. Stans, Secretary of Commerce, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: This will refer to the recent report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources entitled “Our Nation and the Sea”, which was forwarded to the President and the Congress on January 9, 1969. The Commission report was produced and released pursuant to section 5(h) of the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-454, 89th Congress, June 17, 1966). Your familiarity with the back- ground legislation and the report is such that I am sure no further elaboration is necessary. The report, as you know, covers a wide range of matters relating to our effort to establish an effective and enduring long-range National Program in all aspects of marine science affairs. Our Subcommittee on Oceanography and our Full Committee have dealt at length with the subjects covered by the Commission’s report for the past ten years. The report brings into focus the many problems which we have already considered and raises many more. Our Subcommittee on Oceanography is beginning an initial series of hearings on the Commission’s report next Tuesday, April 29. Subsequent meeting dates for the initial series of hearings are scheduled for May 6, 7 and 8, May 13, 14 and 15, and May 20, 21, 22. It is our intention to devote the currently scheduled hearings to testimony from institutions, industry, States, ete. Hopefully, soon after the first of June, we will be able to call upon the concerned Federal Government departments and agencies to present testimony covering their views on the many aspects of the report. In the meantime, I would appreciate hearing from you concerning your general views on the report and an indication of the time period that you might be available to present testimony to the Subcommittee. Our Committee staff will keep in touch with you as we develop our hearing program. For your information, H.R. 8794, a bill to amend the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 to continue the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, and for other purposes, has been re- ported by the Committee and passed the House on Monday, April 21. Under this bill the life of the Council would be extended one year to June 30, 1970. Sincerely, ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography. Identical letter to—Honorable William P. Rogers, The Secretary of State; Honorable Robert P. Mayo, Director, Bureau of the Budget; Dr. Edward Wenk, Executive Secretary, National Council on Marine Resources & Engineering Development; Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, Director, Office of Science & Technology ; Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman, Atomic Hnergy Commission; Honorable Walter J. Hickel, Secretary of the Interior; Honorable Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense; Honorable Maurice H. Stans, Secretary of Commerce; Honorable John A. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation; Dr. Leland J. Haworth, Director, National Science Founda- tion; Dr. John C. Calhoun, Jr., Chairman, Committee on Oceanography, National Academy of Sciences; Lt. Gen. Wm. F. Cassidy, Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army; and Honorable Robert H. Finch, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. (503) 504 THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1969. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, House of Representatives, Wash- ington, D.C. Dear Mr. Lennon: Thank you for your letter of April 25, 1969, inviting me to appear before your Subcommittee and present the views of the Department of Commerce on the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. The Department of Commerce will be pleased to testify on June 18, which has been previously arranged by our staffs. We have read and analyzed this challenging report and have found it to be stimulating and innovative. In our opinion, it provides an excellent basis for the formulation of a vigorous and far-reaching national effort with enormous impli- cations for this country’s social and economic welfare. My staff and I are prepared and welcome this opportunity to discuss and elaborate upon our views of the report with you. Sincerely, MAvRIcE H. STANS, Secretary of Commerce. ~ EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., June 6, 1969. Hon. Aton LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. LENNON: This is in response to your April 25, 1969, letter requesting general views on the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources and an indication of the time period when a Bureau representative would be available to present testimony on the report to the Subcommittee. Following an initial review of the Marine Commission’s report by the Vice President in his capacity as Chairman of the Marine Council, the President’s Sci- ence Adviser, and agencies concerned, the President has indicated that: 1. He expects agencies to take the ‘Commission’s recommendations into account in considering their programs and priorities in fiscal year 1971, and beyond. 2. The Marine Council should continue to review the Commission’s recommen- dations for marine science programs and encourage further improvements in the coordination of Federal activities. 3. He expects his Science Adviser to consider the Commission’s recommenda- tions in relation to other scientific and technological activities and work closely with the Council. The President has also asked Mr. Roy Ash, Chairman of the newly established Advisory Council on Executive Organization, to place high on the Council’s agenda of matters to be studied the Commission’s proposal for the creation of a new independent oceanic and atmospheric agency. In his request to Mr. Ash, the President asked that the Commission’s proposal be examined carefully in the con- text of broader Federal organizational requirements. He further asked that the Council particularly consider related environmental and natural resource prob- lems and compare the Commission’s proposals with alternative ways of coordi- nating and advancing national development of the marine sciences. The President has emphasized that the steps outlined reflect the intention of this Administration to assure full consideration of the opportunities in the oceans and to assess the Commission’s proposals carefully in the context of national needs and priorities. We understand that your Subcommittee will be hearing testimony from the Director of the Office of Science and Technology and from principal agencies con- cerned with recommendations made by the Commission. We believe these hearings are an excellent way of highlighting the important contribution made by the Marine Commission and an appropriate means of providing an opportunity for public witnesses and representatives of agencies affected to comment on the pro- gram and organizational recommendations. We are, of course, very interested in the Commission’s organization and pro- gram recommendations. Regarding testimony by the Bureau, however, we believe it unlikely that we ‘could contribute information for the Subcommittee’s con- sideration on program recommendations beyond that provided by the interested agencies and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology. In addition, in 505 view of the study assignment to the Advisory Council on Executive Organization, we would not be in a position to comment substantively on the Commission’s re- organization proposals. In light of these considerations, therefore, we would prefer not to testify at this time. Sincerely, Rogpert P. MAYO, Director. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, Washington, D.C., June 4, 1969. Hon. AtTon LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. LENNON: This letter is in response to your letter to me of April 25, 1969, in which you requested my general views on the recent Report of the Com- mission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources entitled “Our Nation and the Sea,” and in which you requested an indication of the time period during which I might be available to present testimony to the Subcommittee. I would be pleased to testify before your Subcommittee and express my views and recom- mendations on those items of key interest in this Report. AS a member of the Marine Sciences Council and as Director of the National Science Foundation I have studied the Report carefully and have asked the Foundation’s staff to study it, with particular reference to the important responsibilities of this agency in increasing our national capability in marine science, technology and education. I have a great deal of admiration for the painstaking, thoughtful and selfiess efforts of the Commission and its staff. The extreme depth and detail of the Report require that it be given careful study, a study that will take considerable time since the Commission Panel reports have just been received and are in the process of being analyzed. We concur with several of the Commission’s recommendations regarding the augmentation of existing programs and initiation of new ones. I believe that the cognizant agencies should move as rapidly as possible to carry out the national oceanographic effort without awaiting the longer term decisions and actions that should be made before any Federal reorganization. The Founda- tion is ready to do its part in this regard and is taking steps, within available funds, to implement those recommendations that fall within its purview and responsibility. In regard to the recommendation of the report concerning the establishment of an independent agency, I believe various facets of the problem need further study. The argument that marine programs in non-mission agencies or agencies that traditionally have a land mission often receive less attention than warranted and relatively low priority from their administrators is demonstrable; however, these shortcomings could be corrected easily through assignment of higher pri- ority to marine programs by the Executive and the Congress. Moreover, we do not believe that the problems related to integrated planning and coordination required within such a large and complex agency have been fully addressed. While one of the most persuasive arguments for an independent agency is that a high priority for a national ocean program must have adequate coherence and balance to develop a constituency and to be of sufficient size to command an adequate share of the Federal budget, this must be weighed against the adverse effects upon the overall missions of agencies consequent to the removal of marine elements. Moerover, we believe that judgments on this whole matter must await the thorough consideration now being given by the Administration to the Report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. This con- sideration must take place in the context of other concerns relating to the Fed- eral Government organization in the general spheres of the environment, the natural resources, and science and technology, and, indeed, in the context of government organization as a whole. Since the Commission Report is now under study by the Administration, I believe it is premature to express my conclusions at the present time. Insofar as a time period for testifying before your Subcommittee is concerned, I will be available during any mutually convenient time during the month of June. Sincerely yours, LELAND J. HAWORTH, Director. 506 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1969. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has asked that I reply to your letter of April 25. I read with great interest of the plans of your ‘Subcommittee on Ocean- ography for an extensive series of hearings with regard to the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. We believe this report merits the very thorough consideration which you are planning to give it. We note that during the month of May you intend to devote hearings to testimony from various private groups and States and that after June 1 you hope to call upon the concerned Federal Government departments and agencies to present their views on the report. I can assure you we would be pleased to have an opportunity to discuss the report with the Committee and present our views. As I believe you know, we have been engaged within the Executive Branch in a careful review of many aspects of U.S. policy relating to the seabed; this process is continuing. Department witnesses expect to be prepared to testify before your Subcommittee in early June when you begin to receive testimony from Federal Government departments. Thank you for informing us that HR 8794, extending the life of the National ‘Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development by one year, has been reported by the Committee and passed by the House. The Council has fulfilled important functions with regard to international marine science affairs. If I can be of assistance at any time, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM B. MACOMBER, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. U.S. Atomic HNERGY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., May 15, 1969. ‘Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. DEAR Mr. LENNON: Your letter of April 25, 1969, requests my views on the rec- ommendations in the recent report of the Commission of Marine Science, Hn- gineering and Resources, entitled “Our Nation and the Sea.” Although I could present oral testimony on the recommendations of the report some time during the latter half of June if this is required, I believe I could adequately cover the specific recommendations which bear directly on AEC pro- grams (thermal pollution legislation, submerged nuclear power plants and the development of power systems) in a written statement. Please let me know if you would like me to prepare such a statement for the record of your hearings. Cordially, Gienwn T. SEABORG. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CoUNCIL ON MARINE RESOURCES AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, Washington, May 6, 1969. Hon. ALTON LENNON, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. LENNON: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 25, 1969 requesting my general views and future appearance before your Subcom- mittee on the Report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. I will be available to appear before your Committee around the middle of June. Sincerely, EDWARD WENK, Jr. 507 THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, Washington, D.C., May 9, 1969. Dear Mr. Lennon: Mr. Laird has asked me to reply to your letter of 25 April. This letter dealt with your plan to hold hearings on the Report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources entitled “Our Nation and the Sea.” I will be pleased to appear before your committee to testify on the report. It is expected that I will be available during the months of June and July, which should be compatible with your general plan. Attached are my general views on the Commission report. Only ‘the issues that affect DOD in a major way are addressed in the paper, but I will be pleased to explain my position on other aspects of the report during my appearance. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers presents a unique situation with regard to their civil functions. Because of this aspect, I strongly recommend that you con- sider scheduling the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army, to present his views on the Commission report. Sincerely, Ropert A. FRoscwH. MARINE SCIENCE COMMISSION REPORT The Commission report represents a careful and responsible analysis of the €ivilian-oriented portion of the national program, and it makes a number of valu- able detailed recommendations. The ideas put forward are imaginative and useful in stimulating a great deal of new thought about various possibilities. As the Commission states in its report, it did not specifically examine the national security aspects of marine matters, nor does it comment on these pro- grams as such, other than endorsing and emphasizing the importance of the Nayy’s research and development in this area to its operations, and noting the importance of continuing this work. I concur in this view and it is my intention to continue these programs and ‘to strengthen them in appropriate areas as noted in the Commission report. It should be emphasized that our national security is heavily dependent on the marine environment and that civil programs will interface significantly in this environment with the military operations and resources. The general tenor of the report is that military and civil functions in the ocean should be coordinated but separated. I concur in this concept, but wish to note explicitly the importance that “spin-offs” from Navy technological programs haye had for the development of the civilian side of national marine science development. It is my hope that coordination and cooperation between the mili- tary mission and civil oriented portions of the national program will continue to make this possible. It is certainly desirable. Since the National Security Program is not directly discussed, the main issues of DOD concern deal with the interactions of DOD programs (including the major civil responsibilities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and civilian programs as these may be affected by the organization of the civilian side, and with the effect of proposed legal regimes on national security matters. The Navy has played a major role in building the marine science resources of the country by supporting research programs in universities and research insti- tutions. Our requirement for this kind of research support as background to our mission oriented programs continues and, in fact, is increasing. The DOD wishes to continue to supply a major portion of the support for large marine institutions (the University/National Laboratories) since we believe that only thus can we maintain a strong contact with these civil institutions and obtain the kind of research results necessary in the subject areas peculiar to our con- cerns. I believe that our support dovetails well with the proposed NSF and NOAA support of these areas. As in the past, the major agencies involved (prin- eipally Office of Naval Reesarch, National Science Foundation, and now, per- haps, NOAA) can work together to support a well integrated national research program in marine sciences. As regards possible organizational modes for the civil side, the proposed estab- lishment of NOAA and NACO must both be considered. It seems clear that some form of consolidation of marine functions leading to a somewhat smaller group of federal organizations with major interests in the field would be highly advan- tageous to the national program, both from the point of view of coordination and 508 of critical size of the elements. Thus the idea of NOAA is attractive. However, I see several problems that need to be considered in determining the final form of the organization. The Commission report discussion of the proposed incorporation of the Coast Guard in NOAA refers to, but does not deal adequately with, the question of its continuation as a specifically identified armed force of the United States, to func- tion as a component of the Department of the Navy in a national security role in time of war. Maintenance of this identity would somewhat detract from the advantages of consolidation of the Coast Guard with the other fleet operating entities (ESSA and BCE) to be joined with it in NOAA. The Commission report also does not take sufficient account of the large proportion of the Coast Guard’s work occupied with search and rescue, and with marine safety matters not closely allied to the other functions assigned to NOAA, and the effect of this rather separate work on its participation in the main stream purposes of the agency. It also seems clear that the large number of functions assigned to NOAA will require more resources than will be brought to it by the organizations that will come together to form it initially. The matter of additional staff strengthening is not addressed adequately in the Commission report. It is probable that a natural recruiting ground for initial staff augmentation might be from the Navy program, particularly in the area of ocean engineering and technology. Some such assistance to founding the civilian program in this field might well be wise, but unless carefully thought out and accomplished, the result might really be to cripple a Navy program that the Commission wants preserved, rather than to in- crease the national program and capability. This point should be examined care- fully in the light of our earlier comments on the usefulness of Navy technological programs and the need for Navy research programs in this field, and the necessary detailed planning to avoid unnecessary difficulties accomplished before proceeding with NOAA. The relationships between the DOD program and that of NOAA would need to be carefully coordinated both to prevent unnecessary duplication and to insure that the existence of either program could not be used as an excuse to cut the other unwisely. The form in which NACO is proposed seems to us to be unwise on several counts. The mechanism suggested would appear to put One operating agency (NOAA) and what amounts to its advisory group (NACO) in an effectively con- trolling position over other operating agencies with their own special mission requirements. This nearly guarantees petty conflict arising from the natural tendency of NACO to regard NOAA jobs as more important than those of other agencies. It would seem preferable to use a management body composed of suit- able representatives from the concerned organizations at, Say, the Assistant Secretary level, with a group of outside advisors working with them. These groups might work throughout the year, but report to a more senior policy group like the present council, meeting annually to review the subject and report to the President. An alternative to a special senior policy group for annual review would be an annual review by the Federal Council on Science and Technology. None of these organizational schemes is perfect, and all seem somewhat cum- bersome, but the organization of a field that is principally defined by an environ- mental subject and area (although it does include some specific missions in it) in a government that otherwise tends to be principally functional and mission oriented cannot be easy. It might also be noted that establishment of another independent agency reporting to the President may not be entirely wise. However,. there are legitimate objections to the subordination of NOAA to any of the existing departments. At least until the establishment of the new organization proposed by the Com- mission, or such other new organization, I support the continuation of the Na- tional Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development. As indicated in a previous paragraph, some alternative organizational schemes would also benefit by continued existence of this Council in some form. The proposed University/National Laboratory System and the National Proj- ects would form a comprehensive set of organizations and programs which could serve to stimulate the whole field. Establishment of the University/National Laboratories, however, should not be used to prevent or to make impossible for- ever the entry of major new organizations to the field, since the formation of new groups is frequently a powerful stimulus to progress. The consideration implies. the necessity for and importance of the availability of support to research and development entities other than University/National Laboratories, 509 The National Projects themselves are interesting and would certainly stimulate further progress. It must be recognized, however, that some of them are already underway in several forms and to various degrees and thus the selection of what to do next must take detailed account of the current status. This matter is incom- pletely treated in the Commission report. In addition, before proceeding, a care- ful reexaminaion of the costs to be expected for the various projects should be undertaken since the Commission’s costing was admittedly crude, as it had to be considering the dimensions of their task and the time and staff available. If NOAA is established, these tasks would be a proper part of its initial program. Otherwise, special studies would need to be undertaken so that the National Council on Marine Resources and Hngineering Development could advise the President and guide the various agencies in proceeding with the National Projects. As for the international legal/political framework for seabed resources, the DOD position stated in the letter of 6 January 1969 from Secretary Nitze to Secretary Rusk on the breadth of the continental shelf, and reaffirmed in the 6 March 1969 letter from Secretary Packard to Secretary Rogers, is pertinent. Briefly, our view is the following. First, a continental shelf regime limited to the 200 meter isobath coupled with a clear affirmation of the continued freedom of the superjacent waters and air space beyond the limit of the territorial sea would be the most compatible with our national security interests. If other U.S. government departments and users propose limits to the continental shelf beyond the 200 meter depth curve, they should be asked to demonstrate that these overriding interests and activities will generate real values that would be unobtainable to the nation without some wider limit. The interests of the United States would be best served if the territorial seas and straits questions were settled before any international agreement is reached on defining the outer limit of the continental shelf. As indicated in the above paragraph, I attach great importance to the settle- ment of the territorial sea question prior to submitting any initiative on the seabed problem. The main reason is because the limited jurisdiction of the coastal states, insofar as seabeds are concerned, might be extended unilaterally to include other rights if there is no firm prior international agreement on the extent of total sovereignty. In consonance with this quoted position, I generally support the rationale con- tained in pages 141-157 of the Commission report and consider the detailed recommendations worthy of further study. However, no national decision should be made on such matters without full consideration of the vital national security interests which could be significantly affected by them. The important caveat represented by the Commission’s qualifications on page 147 must be emphasized and is quoted as follows: “We also would like to stress that our major recommendations are inter- related. Rejection of any one of these recommendations would raise serious questions in the minds of the Commission as to the advisability of continuing with the others.” It should also be noted that I continue to support strongly the position de- veloped in the Committee on International Policy in the Marine Environment to the effect that the most important immediate task is the general interna- tional acceptance of a moratorium on further claims of sovereignty and juris- diction until the whole set of questions on regimes can be adequately studied and negotiated against a background of fact. Exploration and exploitation at all depths should continue, with the agreement that these activities would not be considered as prejudicing the determination of the regime. Existing exploitation should be considered as either exceptions to the regime, or treated by compensa- tion, in the event that the regime excludes them. May 28, 1969. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DeEaR MR. LENNON: In response to your letter of May 20, 1969, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be pleased to testify before your Subcommittee concern- ing the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, entitled, “Our Nation and the Sea.” Hither I or key members of my staff will be available for this purpose at your convenience. The Corps of Engineers has major and continuing interests in the coastal portion of the marine environment. The Corps involvement in the coastal zone, 510 and the Great Lakes, goes back to the earliest days of the Republic, starting with. coastal fortification, construction of piers and seawalls, removal of obstructions to navigation, protection of islands and beaches, and deepening and maintaining harbors and tidal watercourses. Ove the years, the Congress has charged the Corps with ever-widening responsibilities in the coastal zone. The Corps principal responsibilities today may be categorized as: (1) granting permits to see that the public interest is protected in all construction activities in navigable waters and (2) planning, designing, constructing, operating and maintaining engineering works in the coastal waters and in the Great Lakes. These engineering works include harbors, Great Lakes waterways, intra-coastal waterways, interoceanic canals, hurricane barriers, shore stabilization works,. and the restoration of eroded beaches and shores. I was favorably impressed by the magnitude and breadth of the Commission’s report. It is indeed bringing into focus many of the most important aspects of our Nation’s current and future involvement with the marine environment. I agree with the Commission on the great importance of Federal-State and interagency coordination and cooperation in the coastal zone and have long em- phasized this aspect of our responsibilities. With the States, we have enjoyed a mutually-beneficial relationship. As you know, it has been longstanding Army policy not to grant a permit to any private interest if the State objects and to recommend a project only if it has been ap- proved by the State concerned. At the formative stage we, along with many other Federal agencies, participate jointly with the States in the major, long-range, comprehensive, Federal-State, interagency planning program of the Water Re- sources Council for the Nation’s water resources, both coastal and non-coastal. The Army is also the Chairman of the Comprehensive, Federal-State, Chesapeake Bay Study and a key member in each of the Federal-State river basin commis- sions, now existing in 15 of the 30 coastal states. We also had membership in the landmark San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and numerous other Federal-State groups. Within the Federal Government, the Army has established formal means of coordinating with the most concerned Federal agencies before any decision on permits is made. In addition to the extensive interagency coordination required in the normal course of business, the Army has also been a key participant in the coastal aspects of the Marine Council’s activities. Similarly, the Army regularly participates in the interagency deliberations of the Water Resources Council! which seek to insure that the inland and coastal water resource activities of the Federal Government are appropriately interrelated. We look forward to continuing this role of cooperation and coordination within: the Federal Government and with the States. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM F.. CASSIDY, Lieutenant General, U.S. Army, Chief of Engineers. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ‘SCIENCES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY, Washington, D.C., May 13, 1969. Hon. Atton A. LENNON, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. LENNON: The Committee on Oceanography is pleased to respond to your letter of 25 April asking for our views on the recent Report of the Com- mission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. We have discussed the Commission’s Report, “Our Nation and the Sea” extensively at our January and March meetings. Our preliminary statement, based on these discussions, follows. As the Panel reports of the Commission become available, we will continue our review of the Commission Report and will look forward to the opportunity to: comment in detail when public hearings are held by your Committee. The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources has produced: a milestone report. The Committee on Oceanography concurs in the Commission’s eonclusion that: ; 511 “How fully and wisely the United States uses the Sea in the decades ahead will affect profoundly its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing demands. for foods and raw materials, its position and influence in the world community and the quality of the environment in which its people live.” We applaud the recommended national marine program of the Commission as a major contribution and believe that national science needs will be well served by this program. The single most important recommendation of the Commission is that the national marine program requires a major reorganization within the Federal Government, a point also stressed in our report “Oceanography 1966, Achieve- ments and Opportunities.” We believe that a single agency, or its equivalent,. would provide the needed focal point for the development of capabilities that are essential to meet national needs recognized by the Commission. In our opinion many of the activities essential to an expanding program are unlikely to be adequately carried out in the framework of the shared agency responsibility. Although the details of reorganization and the scope of activities for the pro- posed new agency will require much study and negotiation, we support the Com- mission recommendation that efforts in this direction proceed without delay. Furthermore, we urge the Congress to give early consideration to this proposal of the Commission. As reorganization is discussed and as elements of the national marine program are considered in depth, many details and differences of opinion will need to be considered. The Committee on Oceanography recognizes the importance of con- tinuing review and discussion, but strongly expresses the hope that such debate will not obScure the main thrust of the Commission’s recommendations. The program recommended by the Commission requires both an adequate tech- nology and a firm scientific basis. In spite of the vigorous growth and development in the marine sciences and technology over the past few decades, the fact remains that our knowledge of the oceans and the factors that control its living and non- living resources are just beyond the exploratory stage. Effective exploitation of the oceans’ resources requires knowledge that can answer the fundamental ques- tions of “where”, “how”, “why”, and for certain resources, ‘“when’. At present our ability to monitor the oceans is limited by technology, our hopes to improve the ocean environment as well as our ability to predict changes in the oceans is limited by the progress of science. To achieve capabilities beyond these limits our nation will require an organization and a program such as is recommended in the Commission Report. Specifically, the Committee on Oceanography believes that the following major recommendations of the Commission will do much to accomplish these goals: (1) Establish increased understanding of the planetary oceans as a major goal (page 23) (2) Establish university-national laboratories (page 27) (3) Hstablish coastal zone laboratories (page 29) (4) Initiate a comprehensive fundamental technology program (page 27) (5) Hstablish national projects (page 37) (6) Sea Grant Program expansion (page 44) I hope these comments are helpful, and will be pleased to provide additional elaboration at a later date. Sincerely yours, JOHN C. CALHOUN, Jr., Chairman. (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon- vene at the call of the Chair.) O ; Cae Rasa Alivy) burorbha pains ike od oh votelt sine cn ap hnte ci PANT cob, adiacerran! de aensad oy wtikids + rr estas Mase tn ts Perera Dive i eld hat poseggs bis dy er OE alaggo-ef sbi th vader wi sari iY ac desi Are ehihta ds a Wie) to PO TEA i vel: PACS Sai te yh hahW@ore Devise Jlow ath Ifbee..2 beeen apres ie LAO Nd asset aveitonl Hist: ; : bht clkes a tis cba: ti ih ctiees 2 Fe ws setae) ast Ty Habe sscectts son's dendepagt Peiehs ah tll aa hpalien toot hee eis workday Ley sevlegrénti a ae DO LL Ay) OCU ACh a6 MEG hI OL Leh babs nie ye: i 4 Aalevips (Big eetes 6 oft Tas jie fh wo yak eh yy ok eoaean ugh } Lraibhh, 2c E Ech pe hee titeocoqpolo ol ancl oni hee Lewy imsestt hohoon ais, hy CHK OTTO) tel TO teeter | » Se) se hasbeen 2% 1 ips hemotth rest Oct.) (AL omhLhaaR acne sok sue oget te Barn nagie stab SODA REM aT ‘Wildienogavs vonsan batide adh te rtnoysarent oud \ ibn bei -o1g al Toh mete eiios: To oem aed, fe odin pirehwond Athos SH OLR ETO Oe tig @ “bi he Niaiph atoouttive. foouso gp totais i oged to: Lead HUET Ri 5 a) Sat vy 4yfeT uw PEPE ROTY 13 ‘nt Letontaimadd ho. eariaiale perbitn bees 7 rai bai othe nh Of Die Howey feged pout Tiby fae vel at Rito shod ahh eT LO Gruen (iP A es Cephe neds © ¢ rie 0 AA TIEG OSM: ito ¥ i ah aimee Qtech fit pitts Adios art 1 APU VAD OES BE yl Oem id bee aeeato LiLo 5 ertinent Seen iho Ayit! CRED feriys AS YE} ij f Li at FART. Ly. | xt) 7 «. F gi Pi ere Ler wee | { hs £5 i tt i he { yea | waht it " th i+ ix ? ao 3 . wn pitts ph eae f uw to ft - ‘ piyt i AF { : r ) ‘ el M ait) : : {) i i : : 1 pet esl fy : : ps fi. beaeaved. ay iisic eo pt { t : f ¥ bi eg : pied ve fi th 1 vis + ; : ) - : % ' ai 4 ff + } \ : ‘y" ; Aver LIBRO a Ts X 4 n re twti repiart: « tio t i : é > ert yAst ne: seth i’ Ke $uxh Bee The , pe * 7 f ‘ Le i fs i , eer m) eaten aS) WR Bc Pe seer d