7 iin I nae Manat UO 2. oN (Nt a yt Wriarnr. + Fis kev, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION HEARINGS BEFORE THE oe we ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THD COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION | ON __-HLR. 921, H.R. 2218, H.R. 3310, H.R. 3352, H.R. 5175, aR: 5654, H.R. 5884, H.R. 6009, H.R. 6457, H.R. 6512, H.R. 7301, H.R. 7798, H.R. 7849, H.R. 9064, H.R. 9483, OSs H.R. 9617, H.R. 9667, ue 10432, and S. 944 AUGUST 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 18, 17, 18, 19, 1965 Serial No. 89-13 © ran Printed for the use of the Ga ‘Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries oe \ * Sond : uae ie ‘ : ; we PSN: \ 3 Cc ee Re | OW A ; BO X Ne > we a [ a NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THD COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION . ON H.R. 921, H.R. 2218, H.R. 3310, H.R. 3352, H.R. 5175, H.R. 5654, H.R. 5884, H.R. 6009, H.R. 6457, H.R. 6512, H.R. 7301, H.R. 7798, H.R. 7849, H.R. 9064, H.R. 9483, H.R. 9617, H.R. 9667, H.R. 10432, and S. 944 AUGUST 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 18, 17, 18, 19, 1965 Serial No. 89-13 Printed for the use of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries’ - ae U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 53-367 WASHINGTON : 1965 0 0301 OObT4be & NNO UL COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES HERBERT |C, BONNER, North Carolina, Chairman EDWARD A. GARMATZ, Maryland WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD, California LEONOR K. (MRS. JOHN B.) SULLIVAN, THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington Missouri STANLEY R. TUPPER, Maine FRANK M. CLARK,, Pennsylvania ‘ CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio. THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio ' ‘JAMES R. GROVER, JR., New York JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan ____ ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Maryland ALTON LENNON, North Carolina “2. WASTINGS KEITH, Massachusetts THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia “ JACK EDWARDS, Alabama BOB CASEY, Texas G. ROBERT WATKINS, Pennsylvania JAMES A. BYRNH, Pennsylvania ED REINECKE, California HARLAN HAGEN, California EDITH GREEN, Oregon PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida FRANK A. STUBBLEFIELD, Kentucky . JOHN M. MURPHY, New York | if JACOB H. GILBERT; New York ; J. RUSSELL TUTEN, Georgia WILLIAM L. ST. ONGH, Connecticut JOHN G. DOW, New York RAYMOND F. CLEVENGER, Michigan JOSEPH BH. KARTH,? Minnesota JOHN M. Degas Chief Counsel BERNARD J. ZINCKE, Counsel NED P. EVERETT, Assistant Counsel g WILLIAM B.( WINFIELD, Chief Clerk of Pau. S. BAvER; Consultant ef : ) ARTHUR PANKOPF, JR., Minority Counsel S- e © ’ $ ’ a! ’ % * ' SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY ALTON LENNON, North Carolina, Chairman JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan ©: “' ' CHARLES A. MOSHER, Ohio BOB CASEY, Texas THOMAS M. PELLY, Washington EDITH GREEN, Oregon ~—————- STANLEY R. TUPPER, Maine PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida toe HASTINGS KEITH, Massachusetts JACOB H. GILBERT, New York...’ ~'2*. .© BD REINECEE, California THOMAS L. ASHLEY, Ohio THOMAS N. DOWNING, Virginia eisipn HARLAN HAGEN, California JOHN G. DOW, New York 1 Appointed to committee on Aug. 5, 1965, II CONTENTS Hearings held— August 3, LAOS) cnt SEIS MN ee les elena linia: CST INE § August 4, TG ane seen nee Vie Obi August) 19GosUes. fe. Fk L SPL. oT noldelinad) Peed waa. AupustelOmiO@ovs 20 -u ee elle ee eel Seoul Auguste WoGaee stile 22. 2 IEC) Use 2202) aiitiniootl anism) Auguste? MOOG lo. ea (vn) dnomdieag! seusioth Parsusttls S065! SUS So 04. ee PIS PELL L ETE” YeomdaudoCh abingdal Aupusi#liG? 0602. -222~2 2222. LL. eoonsied to varohaok lnioijelt _ AurpustslsS 1065222422200 1922 1! abi ab not ogiolse lnaobni AupustelO 965. - 2.2222 222s vablog dss bas sorainy ni aah. Text of bills and agency reports received— HGR oeies esse oe ake be ANS alot tenet, sua dabal Wreasury ‘Department ls. 22.2502) Sienna) ypeaalh” ERS oN S ewes Se Le SS PG EL AS Sc = ORB EC Atomic’ Hnergy:Commission..2/ vee) dss raat) oanciat Budget Bureau 22.2.4 ata Hy | BORBAT nol dt tee pT ” Commerce’ Department.21_ 0282525) taamtaneatl animated HER? 6512.) a WOigebricepo: } yap iT ieee es IV CONTENTS ee eis oe en ee Ee /“Atomie'Nnerzy Commission... ..-2 222 _2 = 2 See Commerce Department_____-.--.-=122 25-22 222224 Health, Education, and Welfare..._..__-.-_.-2-==2 interior Meparimeripe jo). ge oe ee ety National Academy of Sciences___--_--------------_- National Science Foundation___------------------- Office of Science and Technology_-------_---_-__-_- Smithsonian Institution__--.-------------_-------- ‘Treasury Department=-_222- =. 2 het ae ee ee ee H.R. 5884 H.R. 6009 Atomic Energy Commission_-_--------------------+ Budget: Buresus_ 2% 20 she ee AS ee Commerce Department... .. 252282. 22. ALLL EL ce Defense Department (Navy) ---------------------- Interior Department... £2.25. 2822 5. 2 cae oak National Academy of Sciences___---_--------------- National Science Foundation____---._------------=4 Office of Science and Technology --___-_-_--------- State Department. __ - ---_-.=-hodeseeetenrss-eease Breaguiry. Weparhinenian2. 602. 2 lo Salk ce Sew ee GAR eA Caren ej. oo SE eae reat al) shee Atomic Energy Commission_-_--------------------- Commerce Department_.___~_--------vexeteqei = Interior Department .._....----Giee 2% 5-sene ee seue Justice Departinent.........-stets 22 cc ,a6BRe He National Academy of Sciences_-------------------- National Science Foundation_--------------------- Office of Science and Technology -----------.------ Smithsonian Institution... y-toadoet_ bie sees State..Department —. —. ....-2---4>4--sEe 2s Hest ae Treasury Department _._._._.- --- - -—-=.- +@322sa6 6th H.R. 7849 Atomiec.Energy.Commission, __-.--~.<: - 2 ~~ === Coramerce Department. --"2 ..-2...-----5--422-54 Defense Department (Navy) ---------------------- Health, Education, and Welfare------------------- Interior Department + 22-2 2.422222 see esos y- 2 National Academy of Sciences_-------------------- National Science Foundation-_-_-------------------- Office of Science and Technology ------------------ Smithsonian Institution. - -.-----=2=5.<- feces set State:Department _....-... ..- ---seusetes sop ete Treasury Department-_----.------2//45+255¢ 3424 -R. 9064 Atomic Energy Commission----------------------- Bucget. Bureau... -- 5 ----:2-2--besdea28€ National Academy of Sciences_-_------------------- National Science Foundation___----.-------------- Office of Science and Technology------------------ Smithsonian Institution __-------------------+----- Treasury.-Department..__ -.. ---<25-2--:-=-?8ee¢Hiag Tt 80032 oe Ne eS eee eee Atomic. Knerey. Commission... 520-2 --=s2- LL eee Budget. Bureet 22 23 oo ee ee os cee Commerce Department... -----2-=-..-_._ -28 ge Defense Department (Navy) -_--------------------- Interior Department... _...5--..--2-L~2. 2-2 eee Office of Science and Technology------------------ CONTENTS Vv Statement of— . Abel, Robert, executive secretary, and panel chairman, Interagency Page COMmmiches GUA CeMMOL MN pliy See sos Vy eamee hi ces e REE Dee 315 Ashley, Hon. Thomas L., a Representative in Congress from the State Of Ohio 22 See sete ts CO lcs sate Sein Se See Pee eee 267 Bader, Richard G., Program Director, National Science Foundation-- 519 Bartlett, Hon. Bob, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska_-_------ 116 Benson, William, Head, Earth Sciences Section, National Science HOUNG AIO hms f new programs and has been effective in the development of oceanographic policy in the United States. An integral part of the normal programs of numerous Federal agencies relates to oceanographic activities. The Smithsonian Insti- tution would be greatly weakened in its operation of the Museum. of Natural History if its competence in biological oceanography were removed to some other agency. The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, therefore, recommends against the enactment of H.R. 921. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely yours, S. Dinton Riprey, Secretary. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Washington, D.C., July 30, 1965. Hon. Herserr C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee an Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuairman: This is in reply to your request for the views and recommendations of this Department on H.R. 921, to establish the National Oceanographic Agency. The bill would establish an independent National Oceanographic Agency headed by an Administrator. The Agency would have the re- sponsibility for establishing a coordinated national program for ocean- ography and related sciences including meteorology. The bill would transfer to the Agency all functions relating to oceanography and re- lated sciences which are vested, on the date of enactment, in any offi- cer, employee, department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States. Further, the bill would transfer to the Agency so much of the personnel, property, records, and unexpended balances of ap- propriations, allocation, and other funds of any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States with respect to which any function is transferred as the Director of the Bureau of the Budget determines necessary in connection with the exercises by the Agency of the functions so transferred. The Coast Guard’s mission in oceanography constitutes an impor- tant but collateral part of its activities. Normally, oceanographic tasks are accomplished in conjunction with or as a part of the ac- complishment of other Coast Guard activities. There is only one vessel of the Coast Guard whose functions are primarily oceanographic and this is a vessel used in connection with the International Ice Pa- trol. Most of the other major vessels of the Coast Guard, although engaged in work involving oceanography, carry out these tasks in con- nection with the performance of other statutory functions. Such methods have resulted in the accumulation of significant data with a minimum expenditure of funds. As proposed, H.R. 921 presents difficulties of application. One dif- ficulty relates to the role of the proposed Agency and a second to that Agency’s scope of operations. 14 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Tf the bill contemplates the role of the Agency as chiefly operational, it would introduce a division of responsibility and action of an impre- cise and artificial ground. Where does the “oceanography” aspect of, for example, ocean-station vessels begin and end? Clearly, under 14 U.S.C. 90, the maintenance of an ocean station is not primarily an oceanographic task. The personnel directly engaged in taking bathy- thermograph readings are obviously engaged in oceanographic work. The personnel who maintain the position of the vessel at an ocean station for this purpose as well as others assigned to the vessel as an ocean-station vessel are just as obviously not engaged directly in oceanographic work. Yet, the latter personnel are essential both to oceanographic and nonoceanographic functions of the vessel. The joint accomplishment of separate tasks to which the organization of the Coast Guard so readily lends itself seems to suggest that a working sysienl a ie which would be jeopardized if the proposed will were enacted. If the bill contemplates the role of the Agency as chiefly coordinat- ing, the result will be dual and competing channels of authority; one in the new Agency and others in the agencies having facilities used to carry out the work. Such a duplication would lead to confusion and unnecessary expense. At the present time, coordination is achieved by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, formed by the Fed- eral Council for Science and Technology. It has been suggested that this present cooperation be put on a more formal basis. H.R. 2218, a bill to provide for, among other things, a coordinated national pro- gram in oceanography offers a workable program without involving the transfer of personnel, equipment, and funds and without duplicat- ing unnecessarily the organization which would be required to trans- late the program of the new Agency into execution by the various cooperating agencies. This Department supports the enactment of H.R. 2218. The second difficulty in interpretation of H.R. 921 relates to the vagueness and uncertainty surrounding the scope of operation of the proposed Agency. The Department suggests that an agency limited only by the generic term “oceanography” can cause chaos in the field. The very real difficulty is the lack of a precise definition of “ocean- ography.” Oceanography cannot be defined in clear-cut terms of reference. It covers basic disciplines of science and engineering. The broad spectrum of the basic sciences (i.e., marine biology, geol- ogy, physics, and chemistry) as well as their practical application (1.e., charts, harbor improvements, aids to navigation, fisheries, ocean forecasting) makes most difficult the resolution of the term “oceanog- raphy” into workable and practical guidelines, both for the transfer of personnel, equipment, funds, and functions to the new Agency and for the determination of the powers and authority to be exercised by the new Agency. . The Department has stated its support of H.R. 2218 as a construc- tive measure for assuring coordination of the efforts of the various Government agencies in the area of oceanography. For the reasons given above, the Department believes that the establishment of a new agency, as outlined in the proposed bill, will not achieve that result in as desirable a manner. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 1 Accordingly, the Treasury Department opposes the enactment of H.R. 921. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration’s pro- gram to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, a Bs reD B. Smiru, Acting General Counsel. [H.R. 2218, H.R. 3310, H.R. 3352, 89th Cong., Ist sess. ] BILLS To provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “‘Oceano- graphic Act of 1965”. 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 oceanography for the benefit of mankind, defense against attack from the oceans, and operation of our own surface and subsurface naval forces with maximum. efficiency, rehabilitation of our commercial fisheries, and increased utilization of these and other resources. Furtherance of this policy requires that adequate provision be made for continuing systematic research, studies, and surveys of the ocean and its resources, and of the total marine environment, the development of new and improved techniques, instruments, or equipment for oceanographic research and surveys, the education and training of scientists and technicians through a sustained and effective program, and encouragement of international cooperation in marine research and surveys in the national interest. It is further declared to be the policy of the United States to implement the national program through the balanced participation and cooperation of all quali- fied persons, organizations, institutions, agencies, or corporate entities whether governmental, educational, nonprofit, or industrial. (b) It is the purpose of this Act to carry out and effectuate the policies de- elared in subsection (a) of this section. Sec. 3. (a) In conformity with the provisions of section 2 of this Act, it shall be the duty of the President to— (1) issue a statement of national goals with respect to oceanography ; (2) survey all significant oceanographic activities, including the policies, plans, programs, and accomplishments of all Federal agencies engaged in such activities; (3) develop a comprehensive program; of oceanographic activities to be conducted or supported by Federal agencies ; (4) designate and fix responsibility for the direction of oceanographic activities ; and (5) resolve differences arising among Federal agencies with respect to oceanographic activities. (b) In the planning and conduct of a coordinated Federal program the Presi- dent shall utilize such advisory arrangements, including the Office of Science and Technology, as he may find necessary and appropriate. Departments and agencies concerned with oceanographic problems or having capabilities in the field shall be consulted in planning a Federal program. The views of non- Federal organizations and individuals with capabilities in oceanography shall also be solicited. Sec. 4. (a) The President is authorized to appoint an Advisory Committee for Oceanography to consist of not less than seven members. The Committee shall contain adequate representation of scientists selected on the basis of compe- tence from universities and other non-Federal institutions and agencies, and from industry. (b) The Advisory Committee shall meet at the call of the President. The Advisory Committee shall review the national program of oceanography and revisions thereof and may make recommendations with respect thereto. 16 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Src. 5. The President shall report annually during the month of February to the Congress. Such report shall contain the following: (1) the general status of oceanography ; (2) the status of research, development, studies, and surveys ebvaidied (directly or indirectly) by the United States in furtherance of oceanography, together with application of such research, development, studies, and surveys ; (3) a financial analysis on a horizontal basis showing the totality of the amounts proposed for appropriation by Congress for marine sciences, by functions; (4) a detailed analysis. of the amounts proposed for appropriation by Congress for the ensuing fiscal year for each of the departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Government to carry out the purposes of this Act; (5) current and future plans and policies of the United States yi ge respect bi oceanography ; and ‘ (6) requests for such legislation as may be necessary to carry out as rapidly as possible the purposes of this Act. Src. 6. As used in this Act the term ‘‘oceanography” includes, but is not limited to, the acquisition, assembling, processing, and dissemination of all scientific and technological oceanographic and related environmental data, including, but not limited to, physical, geological, biological, fisheries, hydrographic and coastal survey, meteorological, climatological, and geophysical data. U.S. Atomic EnerGy CommMIssIoNn, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1968. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Bonner: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to comment on H.R. 2218, a bill “[t]o provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes.’ As you are aware, the AEC was one of the four Federal agencies that first suggested and participated in efforts to coordinate an effective national program in oceanography. We believe that H.R. 2218, which directs the President to establish a comprehensive Federal program in oceanography and to fix respon- sibility for its conduct, could effectively achieve this important objective. Accordingly, the Commission recommends the enactment of H.R. 2218. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the adminis- tration’s program. Sincerely yours, JoHN V. VINCIGUERRA, General Manager. EXEcutTIvVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BuREAU OF THE BuDGET, Washington, D.C., March 11, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuairman: This will acknowledge your letter of Jan- uary 26, 1965, inviting the Bureau of the Budget to comment on H.R. 2218, a bill to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 17 The proposed legislation contains three principal provisions: (a) The President is directed to establish a comprehensive Federal program of oceanographic activities and to fix responsibility for its conduct; (6) the President is authorized to appoint an Advisory Committee for Oceanography; (c) The President is directed to report annually on specific aspects of the program to the Congress. The Bureau of the Budget commented on a predecessor bill, H.R. 13, in a letter to your committee on May 6, 1963. Subsequently, we made suggestions for improvement of the bill which have been reflected in the drafting of H.R. 2218. The provision in the bill for development. of a coordinated national program in oceanography conforms with the objectives of this admini- stration. Similarly, the Office of Science and Technology, the Federal Council for Science and Technology, and the Bureau of the Budget have been seeking to improve the process of reporting to the Congress on the status and future plans for the field. Consequently, the reporting procedures in the bill are welcomed as useful guide- lines in keeping the Congress informed of developments in the fast moving field of oceanography. - The Bureau of the Budget recommends enactment of H.R. 2218. Sincerely yours, PuiItiie S. HueHEs, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., April 15, 1964. Hon. Herserr C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to H.R. 2218, a bill to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes. This bill would require the President to issue a statement of national goals with respect to oceanography, to survey the oceanographic activities of all Federal agencies, to develop a comprehensive Federal program in oceanography, to fix responsibility for the direction of oceanographic activities, and to resolve differences among the Federal agencies with regard to these activities. The President would also be authorized to appoint an advisory committee and would be required to furnish the Congress with a detailed annual report. This Depart- ment recommends enactment of this legislation, if amended as set forth below. The national interest requires effective planning and coordination of the oceanographic effort, and this bill will establish the mechanism whereby this can be accomplished. It should be noted that with the exception of the required annual report to the Congress, the provisions of this bill are now being carried out in effect by the Interagency Com- mittee on Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. The bill would provide for the continuation of the executive responsibilities which that committee was established to meet and would ensure that oceanography, an important aspect of 18 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION the national scientific program, continues to receive the coordinated attention it deserves. In addition, it provides that the Congress annually be apprised of the general status of oceanography, of the planned financial support, and of the present and future plans and policies in this field. : The cost of oceanographic operations of this Department should not be affected by this legislation, although some economy may result in the national program. We recommend that page 5, lines 2 and 3, be amended to read “hydrographic and coastal survey, and geophysical data, and those aspects of marine meteorology directly related to oceanography.” It is felt that climatology and most meteorology do not pertain to ocean- ography. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely, Rosert E. Gixss. DEPARTMENT OF THE Navy, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Orricr or LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. My Dear Mr. CuHarrMan: Your request for comment on H.R. 2218, a bill to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordi- nated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes, has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense. The proposed legislation, in assigning the responsibility for establish- ing a coordinated national program in oceanography to the President, is consistent with the objectives of the administration. Further, it is consistent with the actions which have been taken during the past few years by the executive branch to improve the state of our marine sciences. Of major importance are the features of the bill which provide a statutory foundation for executive responsibilities as well as for an annual review of the field by the Congress. The objections previously transmitted by this Department on predecessor bills have been effectively overcome in H.R. 2213. There- fore, the Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, supports and recommends enactment of H.R. 2218. This report has been coordinated within the Department of De- fense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration’s program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely yours, M. K. Disney, Captain, U.S. Navy, Director, Legislative Dimsion (For the Secretary of the Navy). NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 19 CompTrRoLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, D.C., February 4, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. CuHatrMan: This is in reply to your letter of January 26, 1965, requesting our comments on H.R. 2218, 89th Congress, 1st session, entitled ‘‘A bill to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes.” We have no special information or knowledge concerning the pro- posed legislation and, therefore, we make no recommendation with respect to its enactment. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. DerartTMEeNntT oF Heattu, Enucarion, AND WELFARE, Washington, D.C., August 2, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. Bonner, Chairman, Commuttee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuatrman: This is in response to your request of Jan- uary 26, 1965, for a report on H.R. 2218, a bill to provide for a com- prehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanog- raphy, and for other purposes. The bill would vest in the President responsibility for issuance of a statement of national goals with respect to oceanography, develop- ment of a comprehensive program of oceanographic activities, and designation and fixing of responsibility for the direction of such ac- tivities. Further, the bill would direct the President to report an- nually to the Congress on stated aspects of the program and would authorize him to appoint an Advisory Committee for Oceanography. This Department is represented on the Interagency Committe on Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Through the work of the Committee, many of the objectives of H.R. 2218 are presently being achieved. The Committee prepares each year a coordinated, comprehensive plan for the achievement of na- tional goals in the field of oceanography. The national oceano- graphic program for fiscal year 1966 was recently transmitted to the Congress by the President. H.R. 2218 would provide specific statutory basis for interagency coordination of programs in oceanography. It could serve to focus wider attention on this broad area in inquiry in its many aspects. We would, therefore, have no objection to enactment of the bill. We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no ob- jection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program. Sincerely, Witeur J. Conen, Under Secretary. 20 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Hrerpert C. Bonner, ) Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatwes, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonner: Your committee has requested our views and. recommendations on seven specific bills concerned with the problem of planning, coordinating, and financing the national oceanographic program. This Department, through the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Bureau of Mines, and the Geological Survey, is greatly interested in, and directly concerned with, the science of oceanography. We are primarily concerned with the development of the natural resources of the oceans. Consequently, we desire that this form of research and development proceed efficiently and effectively in the national interest. Described briefly, the bills before the committee are: * * * * * * * H.R. 2218 provides a declaration of policy concerning a long-range national program in oceanography and lists specific duties of the President in conformity with such policy. He is directed; to utilize such advisory arrangements as he deems necessary, including the Office of Science and Technology. Departments and agencies haying problems or capabilities In oceanography are to be consulted in planning a Federal program and non-Federal organizations having such capability are to be consulted. The President is authorized to appoint a seven-member Advisory Committee for Oceanography from universities, non-Federal institutions, and industry to review the national program of oceanography and make recommendations. H.R. 2218 is identical to H.R. 6997, 88th Congress, which passed the House but was not acted upon by the Senate. It is identical to H.R. 3310 and H.R. 3352, introduced in the 89th Congress. * * * * * * * All of these bills deal in various ways with the problem of planning, coordinating and financing the national oceanographic program. This is a large program of research and development which involves several Federal Government departments and specialized agencies. It is largely based on the recommendation of a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, which in 1959 proposed that the Federal Government embark on a 10-year program. of expanded research on the oceans. The program involves studies of the physics, chemistry, geology, and biology of the ocean and its contiguous waters; the relationships and interactions between ocean and atmos- phere; and the living mineral, and fossil resources of the ocean waters and seabed, and methods of conserving and harvesting these natural resources. Since 1960 the program has been coordinated and its budgets planned by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Funds are appro- priated through the budgets of the individual cooperating agencies. The large number of bills which have been introduced in the Congress in recent sessions proposing to alter this coordinating machinery or to begin new studies of the ocean and its resources reflects the concern NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 21 of the legislative branch of the Government that the present mech- anism for planning and review may not be adequate. The varying nature of the individual solutions to the problem represented by these bills is a fair indication of the complexity of the problem. We believe that there is a growing need for a perspective in which the oceanographic programs of the Federal Government can be more clearly seen in relation to each other and in relation to the national goals which they support. All of these bills contain some features which could be helpful in carrying out a national oceanographic pro- gram. ‘The position of the executive branch, however, is that H.R. 2218 should be enacted, but that the enactment of any of the other bills would be premature at this time. This position is based on the premise that the President’s Science Advisory Committee’s Panel on Oceanography is at the present time making the kind of investigation and study that is contemplated by H.R. 9064. When the Panel completes its study and submits its report Congress can more ap- propriately decide whether additional legislation dealing either with a further study or with a revised governmental organization to adminis- ter the national oceanographic program should be enacted. The recommendation that legislative action should be deferred is not intended to cast any doubt on the importance of the subject. President Johnson has recently stated his intention that the United States shall maintain leadership in ocean science and technology and their economic, military, and social applications. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the adminis- tration’s program. Sincerely yours, CuaREencE F. Paurzxe, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Natrona ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Washington, D.C., April 23, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Drar ConeressMAN Bonner: Over the last 3 months you have been kind enough to refer to us for our information, and such comment as we might wish to make, several bills having to do with the Federal Government’s arrangements for developing, coordination, and funding the national oceanographic program. Our Committee on Oceanography has welcomed the opportunity to review these bills. The Committee has long recognized the need for a more unified approach to the oceanography program among the Federal agencies. The Committee considers such an approach to be especially desirable with reference to those elements of the program that involve the missions of several different agencies, for example, the study of air-sea, interactions, the development and use of deep- diving vehicles. and other means of deep-sea investigation, and the study of ocean resources. While the Committee does not have an adequate basis for recom- mending a particular mechanism for achieving the desired unity of 22 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION approach, its members feel that efforts at the appropriate level of the executive branch, for example, the Office of science and Technology, in’ consultation with the congressional committees concerned, can undoubtedly result in an effective solution of the problem. Yours sincerely, FREDERICK SEITz, President, . NATIONAL ScrENCE FouNDATION, OFrFicEe oF THE DiREcTOR, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. BonNER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. | Dear Mr. CHairMAN: This is in further reply to your ebueb of January 25, 1965, for the views of the National Science Foundation on H.R. 2218, a bill to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes. Under the terms of the bill, the President is directed to establish a national oceanographic program and to assign responsibility for carry- ing out the program. In addition, the bill authorizes the President to appoint an advisory committee for oceanography and directs him to report annually to the Congress on the status of the program. We believe that legislation such as that proposed in H.R. 2218 would be useful in helping to establish guidelines for carrying out the eee oceanographic program and recommend that the bill be enacte The Bureau of the Budget has advised us it has no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely yours, Letanp J. Hawortu, Director. _ EXEcuTIvVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OrFicE oF ScIENCE AND ‘TECHNOLOGY; | Washington, D:C., February 17, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuatrman: Thank you for sending me with your letters of January 22 and January 26, copies of H.R. 921, a bill to establish the National Oceanographic Agency, and H.R. 2218, a bill to provide for a comprehensive long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography. My testimony of June 23, 1964, before the Subcommittee on Ocean- ography of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee (two copies enclosed) continues to represent what seems to me to be the essential considerations to be taken into account in organizing the executive branch for an effective oceanographic program. H.R. 912 and H.R. eels ere quite different approaches to this NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 23 question. I do not believe that H.R. 912 provides a satisfactory solution because it would centralize in a single agency many aspects of oceanography which must be carried on by many parts of the Federal Government if they are to discharge their statutory obliga- tions. On the other hand, H.R. 2218 provides a policy and actions which would strengthen oceanographic activities without centralizing them. This I consider the preferable general approach, and I would be glad to discuss these matters, as well as more recent developments. in the Federal oceanographic programs, in greater detail at the appropriate time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these measures. Sincerely yours, Donatp F. Hornic, Director. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, ' Washington, D.C., March 19, 1966. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatwes, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonner: Thank you for your letter of Januray 26, 1965, requesting the views of the Smithsonian Institution on H.R. 2218, a bill to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes. This legislation would (1) set forth as national policy the develop- ment of a national oceanographic program; (2) place the responsibility for the development of the national program with the President; (3) authorize the President to appoint an advisory committee on oceanog- raphy; and (4) require the President to make an annual oceanographic report:?!"' GGA The Smithsonian Institution favors enactment of this legislation. We have a deep interest in the science of oceanography, are included in the membership of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, and welcome further participation in the biological and geological portions of the sustained national oceanographic effort. From this effort significant advances of knowledge will occur that will result, in economic benefits and the increased utilization of food and other resources of the sea. an helio That portion of H.R. 2218 providing for the utilization of advice from non-Federal sources is significant. Such advice is essential to the intelligent operation of a program as broad in scope as the national oceanographic program. atid ; _. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. i adi ah ; We appreciate this opportunity to indicate our support of H.R. 2218. Sincerely yours, | it S. Ditton Ripiey, Secretary. 24 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION GENERAL CouUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Washington, D.C., July 30, 1968. Hon. Herpertr C. Bonner, BO) Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, ’ House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuamman: This is in reply to your request for the views and recommendations of this Department on H.R. 2218, to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes. ®t In addition to declaring a national policy on oceanography, the bill would delineate the duties of the President in that field, authorize him to utilize such advisory arrangements as he finds desirable, and author- ize him to appoint an Advisory Committee for Oceanography. This Committee would review the national program in oceanography and make recommendations concerning it. The bill would provide for a report by the President to Congress which would contain, among other items, a financial analysis of the amounts proposed for appropriations for oceanography for each department and agency of the Government. The bill is clearly intended to advance the national program in oceanography. The Department is in full sympathy with this objec- tive. The bill would appear to be a constructive step toward the ad- vancement and improvement of this program without derogating from the authority of the President or the heads of the agencies supporting oceanographic activities. The Department, therefore, supports its enactment. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration’s pro- gram to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, Frep B. Sorru, Acting General Counsel. (H.R. 5654, H.R, 6512, H.R. 7301, H.R. 7798, 89th Cong., 1st sess. ] BILLS To provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establsih a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Sec. 101. This Act may be cited as the National Oceanographic Act of 1965. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE Src. 201. The oceanographic and marine activities of the United States should be conducted so as to contribute to the following objectives : 3 (1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in and related to the oceans, the marine environment, and the Great Lakes, their boundaries and contents. (2) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in oceano- graphic and marine science and technology. (3) The enhancement of the general welfare and security of the United States. (s) The advancement of education and training in marine science and tech- nology. (5) The development and improvement of the capabilities, performance, and efficiency of vehicles, equipment, and instruments for use in exploration, research, surveys, the recovery of resources, and the transmission of energy in the marine environment. (6) The coordination of activities of the various agencies concerned with the marine sciences, and the collection, storing, and distribution of significant data acquired as a result of these activities. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 25 (7) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to the United States economy, security, health, and welfare to be gained from the opportunities for, and the problems involved in, utilization of scientific marine and Great Lakes research and surveys. (8) The effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities and equipment, or waste. (9) The making available to agencies directly concerned or affected by oceano- graphic or Great Lakes phenomena of knowledge obtained through U.S. scientific marine research and surveys which is of value or significance to the agency. (10) The cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in oceanographic and marine research and surveys when such cooperation is in the national interest. THE NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COUNCIL Src. 301. (a) There is hereby established, in the Hxecutive Office of the Presi- dent, the National Oceanographic Council (hereinafter called the “Council” ) which shall be composed of— (1) The Vice President, who shall be Chairman of the Council. (2) The Secretary of State. (3) The Secretary of the Treasury. (4) The Secretary of Defense. (5) The Secretary of the Interior. (6) The Secretary of Commerce. (7) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. (8) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology. (9) The Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. (10) The Director of the National Science Foundation. (11) The Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. (b) The President shall from time to time designate one of the members of the Council to preside over meetings of the Council during the asbence, disability, or unavailability of the Chairman. (ec) Each member of the Council may designate another officer of his depart- ment or agency to serve on the Council as his alternate in his unavoidable absence. (d) Hach alternate member designated under subsection (c) of this section shall be designated to serve as such by and with the advice and consent of the Senate unless at the time of his designation he holds an office in the Federal conan’ to which he was appointed with the advice and consent of the enate. (e) It shall be the function of the Council to advise and assist the President, as he may request, with respect to the performance of functions in the field of e eaer Phy and the marine sciences, including but not limited to the following nctions: (1) survey all significant oceanographic and marine science activities, including the policies, plans, programs, and accomplishments of all depart- ments and agencies of the United States engaged in such activities; (2) develop a comprehensive program of oceanographic and marine science activities, including, but not limited to, exploration, exploitation and con- servation of marine resources, oceanographic engineering, studies of air-sea interaction, transmission of energy, and communications, to be conducted by departments and agencies of the United States; (3) designate and fix responsibility for the direction of major oceano- graphic and marine science activities, including, but not limited to, explora- tion, exploitation and conservation of marine resources, oceanographic engi- neering, studies of air-sea interaction, transmission of energy, and com- munications; (4) provide for effective cooperation among all departments and agencies of the United States engaged in oceanographic and marine science activities, and specify, in any case in which primary responsibility for any category of the oceanographic and marine science activities has been assigned to any department or agency, which of those activities may be carried on concur- rently by other departments or agencies ; 53-367— 65 _— 3 26 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION (5) resolve differences arising among departments and agencies of the United States with respect to oceanographic and marine science activities under this Act, including differences as to whether a particular project is an oceanographic and marine science activity ; and (6) review annually all existing oceanographic and marine sciences activities conducted by departments and agencies of the United States in light of the policies, plans, programs, and priorities developed pursuant to this Act. (f) The Council may employ a staff to be headed by a civilian executive secre- tary who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at a rate established by the Presi- dent at not to exceed that of level II of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule. The executive secretary, subject to the direction of the Council, is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel, including not more than seven persons who may be appointed without regard to civil service laws of the Classification Act of 1949 and compensated at not to exceed the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, as may be necessary to perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Council in connection with the performance of its functions. (g) The Council shall submit to Congress within one year from the date of enactment of this Act, a comprehensive program of proposed legislation in furtherance of oceanography and the marine sciences, Sec. 401. (a) The Council, under the foreign policy guidance of the President, may engage in a program of international cooperation in work done pursuant to this Act, pursuant to agreementts made by the President with the advice and con- sent of the Senate. (b) The President shall transmit to the Congress in January of each year a report, which shall include (1) a comprehensive description of the programed activities and the accomplishments of all agencies and departments of the United States in the field of oceanography and marine science activities during the preceding year, and (2) an evaluation of such activities and accomplish- ments in terms of the attainment of, or the failure to attain, the objectives de- veloped pursuant to this Act. (c) Any report made under this section shall contain such recommendations for additional legislation as the Chairman or the President may consider neces- sary or desirable for the attainment of the objectives developed pursuant to this Act, and shall contain an estimate of funding requirements of each agency and department of the United States in the field of oceanography and the marine science activities for its projected program activities during the succeeding fiscal year. (ad) No information which has been classified for reasons of national security shall be included in any report made under this section, unless such information has been declassified by, or pursuant to authorization given by, the President. Sec. 501. (a) The Council shall arrange with the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation for the conduct of such security or other personnel investigation of the Council’s officers, employees, and consulted, as it deems appropriate, and if any such investigation develops any data reflecting that the individual who is the subject thereof is of questionable loyalty there shall be a full field investiga- tion of the matter, the results of which shall be furnished to the Council. (b) The Atomic Energy Commission may authorize any of its employees, or employees of any contractor, prospective contractor, licensee, or prospective li- censee of the Atomic Energy Commission under subsection 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165(b)), to permit any member, officer, or em- ployee of the Council to have access to restricted data relating to oceanography and the marine sciences which is required in the performance of his duties and so certified by the Council but only if (1) the Council or designee thereof has de- termined, in accordance with the established personnel security procedures and standards of the Council, that permitting such individual to have access to such restricted data will not endanger the common defense and security, and (2) the Council or designee thereof finds that the established personnel and other securi- ty procedures and standards of the Council are adequate and in reasonable conformity to the standards established by the Atomic Energy Commission un- der section 145 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165). Any individual granted access to such restricted data pursuant to this subsection may exchange such data with any individual who (A) is an officer or employee of the Depart- ment of Defense, or any department or agency thereof, or a member of the Armed NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 27 Forces, or a contractor or subcontractor of any such department, agency, or armed force, or an officer or employee of any such contractor or subcontractor, and (B) has been authorized to have access to restricted data under the provi- sions of section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2168). ‘Src. 601. Information obtained or developed by the Chairman in the perform- ance of his functions under this Act shall be made available for public inspection except (a) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, and (b) information Classified to protect the national security: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall authorize the withholding of information by the Chair- man from the duly authorized committees of Congress. ‘Src. 701. (a) For the purposes of this Act the term “marine sciences” shall be deemed to apply also to scientific endeavors in and with relation to the Great Lakes. (b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be neces- sary to carry out this Act, but sums appropriated for any one fiscal year shall not exceed $500,000. U.S. Aromic Engrcy Commission, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1966. Hon. Hrersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Bonner: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to comment on H.R. 5654, a bill to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. As you know, the Atomic Energy Commission was one of the four Federal agencies that first suggested and participated in efforts to coordinate the national program in oceanography. The Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST) created by Executive Order No. 10807 on March 138, 1959, established the permanent In- teragency Committee on Oceanography (ICO) by letter dated March 3, 1960, from George Kistiakowsky, Chairman of the FCST, to the Honorable James H. Wakelin, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development. A primary function of the ICO has been to coordinate the activities of various agencies having an interest in oceanography and related marine sciences. There is also an FCST Committee on Water Resources Research which is concerned with coordinating research activities of the various agencies on fresh water resources, including research pertaining to the Great Lakes. It is the AEC’s understanding that the proposed bill would in effect substitute a National Oceanographic Council for the ICO as the pri- mary coordinator of agency activities in the field of oceanography, and for the FCST Committee on Water Resources Research as the primary coordinator of agency research activities in the field of fresh water resources to the extent that those activities concern the Great Lakes. While the Commission is in accord with the substantive purpose and intent of the proposed legislation, it is our belief that such a substitu- tion is not necessary or appropriate at this time in view of the effective coordination of agency efforts in this field by the ICO and the FCST Committee on Water Resources Research. Should the bill be considered for passage, however, the Commission suggests that changes as set forth below be made. The Commission urges the deletion from the bill of subsection 501 (b). This subsection would authorize ‘‘any member, officer, or em- ployee of the Council to have access to restricted data relating to 28 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION oceanography and the marine sciences which is required in the per- formance of his duties * * *” as certified by the Council, provided the Council determines that its established “‘security procedures * * * are * * * in reasonable conformity to the standards established by the Atomic Energy Commission under section 145 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165),”’ and provided the Council has determined in accordance with such procedures ‘‘that permitting such individual to have access to such restricted data will not endanger the common defense and security.” In our view subsection 501(b) would have the effect of diluting the Commission’s control over restricted data without adequate demon- strated need. Such a certification procedure for access to restricted data, as proposed by subsection 501(b), has been accorded to only two agencies, the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because the nature of the duties and func- tions of these agencies have so required. However, we believe that such a statutory provision for the National Oceanographic Council is not necessary. There does not appear to be extensive restricted data pertaining to oceanography and related marine sciences, and we believe that need for access to such restricted data, which the Council’s members and officers as well as its relatively small staff may have, can be effectively handled through the Commission’s usual security procedures. In this connection, it should be noted that Public Law 87-206 (75 Stat. 475) amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, on September 6, 1961, by adding a new subsection 145(c) in order to expedite clearances in such cases as this. In order to allow the Council to make full use of the clearance procedure con- tained in section 145(c) of the Atomic Energy Act, it is also recom- Sea that section 501(a) of the proposed bill be revised to read as ollows: “Src. 501. (a) The Council shall arrange with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the conduct of investigations, including full field investigations, of the character, associations, and loyalty of the Council’s officers, employees, and consultants, as it deems appropriate. The results of such investigations shall be furnished to the Council.’’ The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the adminis- tration’s program. Sincerely yours, Joun V. VINCIGUERRA (For General Manager.) GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., July 26, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuairman: This is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department concerning H.R. 5654, a bill to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 29 H.R. 5654 would set forth national objectives for oceanographic and marine activities and would establish a National Oceanographic Council composed principally of Cabinet-level officers. The Council would advise and assist the President by surveying present oceano- eraphic activities, developing an oceanographic program, coordinat- ing the agencies’ oceanographic activities and annually comparing Federal oceanographic accomplishments against the Council’s oceano- graphic program. The Council would be authorized to employ an executive secretary and staff. H.R. 5654 would also require the President to report annually to Congress on his oceanographic pro- gram and on present accomplishments. _ The Department strongly supports improvement in and greater emphasis for the national oceanographic program. However, we doubt that H.R. 5654 would have enough beneficial effect upon oceanographic activities to offset the detrimental effect it would have upon the administration of oceanography as a whole. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography has had considerable success in coordinating and stimulating Federal oceanographic activities, and we are therefore not aware of overriding reasons for replacing it. The proposed National Oceanographic Council would not change the realities involved in setting priorities and apportioning limited funds among less limited demands within the agencies. There is no reason to believe that Council review of the national oceanographic program before its submission to the agencies would keep any agency from balancing its oceanographic program needs against the needs of its other programs. On the other hand, creation of the proposed Council would place additional demands directly upon Cabinet officers and agency heads who already have heavy burdens of responsibility. If the Council supplants the Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography, the limited amount of personal time which the Council members could devote to Council activities might result in less con- sideration of oceanography within the executive branch than presently exists. If the Council and the Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography both exist there will be substantial duplication of efforts and possible conflict of proposed programs. We think it is better to leave oceanographic planning and coordination in the hands of the policy and operating officials who work with the oceanographic program, serve on the Interagency Committee on Oceanography and who are thus most qualified to advise the President on its needs. For these reasons, the Department strongly favors the objectives of the bill but is opposed to the establishment of a Council to accomplish these objectives. If the bill were amended to permit the President to establish such mechanisms as he believes necessary to accomplish these objectives, we would favor the bill. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely, Burt W. Roper (For Robert E. Giles). 30 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION DEPARTMENT OF HeautH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Washington, D.C., August 2, 1965. Hon. Hervert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. CuarrmMan: This letter is in response to your requests of March 4, 1965, and March 24, 1965, for a report on H.R. 5654, a bill to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes, and H.R. 6457, a bill to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes. These bills would provide for the establishment in the Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Office of the President a Na- tional Oceanographic Council, composed of the heads of the depart- ments and agencies having an interest in oceanography. The bills would also set out objectives to be sought in oceanography. H.R. 5654 and H.R. 6457 would extend to the Great Lakes the sci- entific endeavors being conducted in and with relation to the oceans. This Department carries on widespread activities in the Great Lakes region. There are respects in which the behavior of the Great Lakes is the same as that of the oceans. The inclusion of the Great Lakes in the national oceanographic program would, in our judgment, be appropriate. With respect to the organizational setting of the oceanographic program, we prefer the provisions of H.R. 2218. That bill would vest in the President the responsibility for issuing a statement of national goals with respect to oceanography, for developing a comprehensive program of oceanographic activities, for fixing the responsibility for the direction of such activities, for reporting annually to the Congress on stated aspects of the program, and for appointing an Advisory Committee for Oceanography. This bill would provide a specific statutory basis for interagency cooperation in programs in oceanog- raphy and could serve to focus wider attention on oceanography. We would therefore recommend that H.R. 5654 or H.R. 6457 not be enacted. We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objec- tion to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the ad- ministration’s program. Sincerely, Wier J. CoHEN, Under Secretary. © U.S. DeparTMENT oF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Hrersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonner: Your committee has requested our views and recommendations on seven specific bills concerned with the problem of planning, coordinating, and financing the national oceanographic program. This Department, through the Bureau of Commercial NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 31 Fisheries, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Bureau of Mines, and the Geological Survey, is greatly interested in, and directly concerned with the science of oceanography. We are primarily con- cerned with the development of the natural resources of the oceans. Consequently, we desire that this form of research and development proceed efficiently and effectively in the national interest. Described briefly, the bills before the committee are: * * * * * * * H.R. 5654 provides for the establishment of a National Oceano- eraphic Council composed of the Vice President, certain Cabinet mem- bers, including the Secretary of the Interior, and certain other heads of agencies, including the Director of the Office of Science and Tech- nology. The function of this Council is to advise the President on oceanography and the marine sciences. H.R. 6512, H.R. 7301, and H.R. 7798 are identical bills. * * * * * * * All of these bills deal in various ways with the problem of planning, coordinating and financing the national oceanographic program. This is a large program of research and development which involves several Federal Government departments and specialized agencies. It is largely based on the recommendation of a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, which in 1959 proposed that the Federal Government embark on a 10-year program of expanded re- search on the oceans. The program involves studies of the physics, chemistry, geology, and biology of the ocean and its contiguous waters; the relationships and interactions between ocean and atmos- phere; and the living, mineral, and fossil resources of the ocean waters and seabed, and methods of conserving and harvesting these natural resources. Since 1960 the program has been coordinated and its budgets planned by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Funds are appro- priated through the budgets of the individual cooperating agencies. The large number of bills which have been introduced in the Congress in recent sessions proposing to alter this coordinating machinery or to begin new studies of the ocean and its resources reflects the con- cern of the legislative branch of the Government that the present mechanism for planning and review may not be adequate. The vary- ing nature of the individual solutions to the problem represented by these bills is a fair indication of the complexity of the problem. We believe that there is a growing need for a perspective in which the oceanographic programs of the Federal Government can be more clearly seen in relation to each other and in relation to the national goals which they support. All of these bills contain some features which could be helpful in carrying out a national oceanographic program. The position of the executive branch, however, is that H.R. 2218 should be enacted, but that the enactment of any of the other bills would be premature at this time. This position is based on the premise that the President’s Science Advisory Committee’s Panel on Oceanography is at the present time making the kind of investigation and study that is contemplated by H.R. 9064. When the Panel completes its study and submits its report Congress can more appro- priately decide whether additional legislation dealing either with a further study or with a revised governmental organization to ad- minister the national oceanographic program should be enacted. 32 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The recommendation that legislative action should be deferred is not intended to cast any doubt on the importance of the subject. President Johnson has recently stated his intention that the United States shall maintain leadership in ocean science and technology and their economic, military, and social applications. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administra- tion’s program. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE F, PAvuTzKE&, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. NationaL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C Dear ConcressMAN Bonner: Over the last 3 months you have been kind enough to refer to us for our information, and such comment as we might wish to make, several bills having to do with the Federal Government’s arrangements for developing, coordinating, and funding the national oceanographic program. Our Committee on Oceanography has welcomed the opportunity to review these bills. The Committee has long recognized the need for a more unified approach to the oceanography program among the Federal agencies. ‘The Committee considers such an approach to be especially desirable with reference to those elements of the program that involve the missions of several different agencies, for example, the study of air-sea interactions, the development and use of deep-diving vehicles and other means of deep-sea investigation, and the study of ocean resources. While the Committee does not have an adequate basis for recom- mending a particular mechanism for achieving the desired unity of approach, its members feel that efforts at the appropriate level of the executive branch, for example, the Office of Science and Technology, in consultation with the congressional committees concerned, can undoubtedly result in an effective solution of the problem. Yours sincerely, FREDERICK SeE1vTz, President. NATIONAL SCIENCE FouNDATION, OFFIcE OF THE DiREcTOR, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This is in further reply to your request for the views of the National Science Foundation on H.R. 5654, a bill to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 33 The primary purpose of H.R. 5654 would be the establishment of a national oceanographic council consisting of the heads of 10 Federal departments and agencies with the Vice President of the United States as chairman. The function of the council would be to advise and assist the President in connection with matters involving oceanography and the marine sciences. The council would have a staff headed by a civilian executive secretary appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. H.R. 5654 is aimed at insuring that the United States has a strong oceanographic program. We fully concur with this objective. As you know, the nator program in this area is being coordinated through the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. We believe that this organizational arrange- ment is proving satisfactory for carrying on the Nation’s oceanographic effort, and that such problems as have arisen do not warrant establish- ment of the high level council envisaged by H.R. 5654. In view of the above considerations, we recommend against enact- ment of H.R. 5654. The Bureau of the Budget has advised us it has no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely yours, LELAND J. Haworts, Director. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C., May 6, 1968. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. CuHatrman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 5654, a bill to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. Weare in full accord with the objective of the bill, and concur with the Deepen that the Great Lakes should be a part of a full oceanographic elrort. With respect to the functions to be performed by the proposed Council, the President has had available to him since 1959, through the Federal Council for Science and Technology, a means of coordinating and planning Federal activities relating to oceanography. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography, a group established under the Federal Council, is this instrumentality. The ICO is a working group com- posed of senior officials with both technical and policy responsibilities. The members of the group can work directly on matters involving oceanography with the members of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. The Council is composed of the top officials responsible for research and development policy in each of the major departments and agencies. Through the Special Assistant for Science and Tech- nology, who is the Chairman of the Federal Council, important policy questions relating to oceanography are considered by the Executive Office of the President and by the President himself. Scientific ques- 34 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION tions arising from oceanography and related fields are considered by the President’s Science Advisory Committee and discussed with the Chairman of ICO. These links between oceanography and the points of decision in the executive branch give considerable strength and. flex- ibility to the existing system. The ICO has to its credit a number of significant accomplishments. ICO has: (1) surveyed all significant oceanographic and marine sci- ence activities, including the programs of all Federal departments and agencies; (2) developed a comprehensive, long-range program of oceanographic and marine science activities of Federal agencies, and has transmitted this program to Congress; (3) served as the means of fixing responsibility for major oceanographic activities of Federal agencies; (4) provided for effective cooperation among Federal agen- cles; (5) resolved differences among agencies; and (6) reviewed an- nually all oceanographic activities of Federal agencies, and transmitted to Congress annually a report on Federal oceanographic activities. These are the functions that would be assigned to the proposed Na- tional Oceanographic Council. Whether they would be performed more effectively by the proposed Council is open to question: The bill raises a general question relating to the structure of the executive branch for dealing with questions of science policy. The Office of Science and Technology was established with the concur- rence of the Congress to advise the President on all matters relating to science and technology and to coordinate the activities of the Federal agencies. The bill raises in principle the desirability of estab- lishing a series of national councils, for areas of high importance to science and technology, which report directly to the President. This way of organizing to deal with problems of science and technology would raise complicated problems, both for the President and for the major departments. It seems to me that at this time, questions of scientific and tech- nological substance relating to oceanography should take precedence over questions of organization. A prerequisite to decisions relating to the future development of oceanography is a thorough analysis of the state of the field, identification of points of priority in terms of science, technology, and resources, and the potential contributions of all parties (industry, government, universities, foundations, and private laboratories) to the field. A study group composed of out- standing scientists is being established under the auspices of the President’s Science Advisory Committee to review these questions. They are also under study by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography. It would seem prudent to withhold judgments on organizational matters until the results of these studies, plus the results of any inquiries that may stem from congressional action, are available. The net effect of the considerations noted above is to leave me unconvinced of the advantages of the National Council approach to the organization of the Federal Government’s activities in ocean- ography. At this time, it seems to me that concentration upon Means of making the essential elements of the existing system more effective is the wiser course. This would be done under H.R. 2218, and it is for this reason that my favorable comment on that bill was sent to you on February 17, 1965. Sincerely yours, Donaup F. Hornie, Director. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 35 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Ohairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonner: Thank you for your letter of March 4, 1965, for the views of the Smithsonian Institution on H.R. 5654, a bill to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. This legislation, designated as the National Oceanographic Act of 1965 and identical to S. 944 introduced by Senator Magnuson on February 2, 1965, would (1) set forth the objectives of the oceano- eraphic and marine activities of the United States; (2) establish a National Oceanographic Council on which the Vice President would serve as Chairman and whose membership would include the heads of Federal departments and agencies concerned with oceanography and marine science activities; (3) set forth the mission of the Council as the advisory body to the President concerning the performance of specified functions in the fields of oceanography and marine sciences; (4) authorize the Council to employ the necessary staff; (5) direct the Council to present to Congress within 1 year from the date of enact- ment of H.R. 5654 a comprehensive legislative program in furtherance of oceanography and marine sciences; (6) authorize the Council, under the foreign policy guidance of the President, to engage in a program of international cooperation in these fields; (7) provide for the issuance of an annual report by the President describing and evaluating the activities of the United States in these fields and containing such legis- lative recommendations as the President may deem necessary; (8) prescribe certain security provisions relating to the Council’s employees and activities; (9) provide that information developed by the Chair- man of the Council under this legislation will be made available to the public, unless authorized or required by statute to be withheld for security reasons; and (10) authorize appropriations not to exceed $500,000 to carry out the purposes of the bill. It is noted that the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution is ae in the membership of the proposed National Oceanographic ouncil. The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution will be asked to consider this legislation at its next meeting. I shall be pleased to advise you of its views at that time. Sincerely yours. Frank A. TAYLor, Acting Secretary. GENERAL CoUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Washington, D.C, July 30, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington. D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This is in reply to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 5654, to establish a National Oceano- graphic Council. The bill would establish a National Oceanographic Council in the Executive Office of the President. The Council would be chaired by 36 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION the Vice President and composed of the heads of certain executive departments and agencies. The Council would employ a staff headed by an Executive Director. The chief responsibility of the Council would be to coordinate the work in oceanography being carried out by the various departments and agencies of the Federal Government. The bill is clearly intended to advance the national program in oceanography. The Department is in full sympathy with that objec- tive; however, it questions whether the proposed bill offers the most effective method of achieving the desired purpose. At the present time, coordination is achieved by the Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography formed by the Federal Council for Science and Technology. The Department believes this basic approach should be continued and is opposed to the creation of another office or agency with independent authority and responsibility in the field. The latter would result in duplication of effort and organization in oceanography as well as derogate from the authority and responsibility of existing agencies in this field. The Department has stated its support of H.R. 2218 as a construc- tive measure for assuring coordination of the efforts of the various Government agencies in the area of oceanography. For the reasons given above, the Department believes that the establishment of a new administrative organization, as outlined in the proposed bill, will not achieve that result in as desirable a manner. Accordingly, the Treasury Department is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 5654. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration’s pro- gram to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, i Frep B. Smirx, Acting General Counsel. [H.R. 5884, H.R. 6009, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] BILLS To provide a program of marine exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ‘Marine Exploration and Develop- ment Act”. DECLARATION OF POLICY Src. 2. The Congress finds and declares that — The United States acquired under international law on June 10, 1964, sov- ereign rights to the exploration and development of resources of the Continental ‘Shelf under the Convention on the Continental Shelf adopted at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Pursuant to the internationally recognized and exclusive rights so secured, the United States assumes the re- sponsibility of executing an accelerated program of exploration and development a ae physical, chemical, geological, and biological resources of the Continental elf. It is the policy of the United States to encourage private investment in the economic utilization of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf; to deter- mine the benefits from use of these marine resources for increased investment and economic growth; to make available discoveries and information which may NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 37 have value to United States industries and to Federal and State agencies con- cerned with missions on the Continental Shelf; to develop an engineering capa- bility for operating on the Continental Shelf and to fashion and operate vehicles and equipment for use in the waters above the Continental Shelf. DEFINITIONS Src. 3. As used in this Act— (1) The term “Continental Shelf’ means the seabed and subsoil of the sub- marine areas adjacent to (a) the coast of continental United States to a depth of two hundred meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the super- jacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of.such areas, or (b) the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands which comprise United States territory. (2) The term “Commission” means the Marine Exploration and Development Commission established under section 4. COMMISSION ESTABLISHED Src. 4. (a) There is hereby established a Marine Exploration and Development Commission to be composed of five members as follows— (1) two members to be appointed from private life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; (2) the Secretary of Defense; (3) the Secretary of the Interior; and (4) the Secretary of Commerce. One of the members appointed under clause (1) shall be designated by the Pres- ident at the time of appointment as Chairman of the Commission. Each member specified in clause (2), (3), or (4) may designate another officer of his depart- ment to serve on the Commission in his absence. (b) Members of the Commission appointed under subsection (a) (1) shall re- ceive compensation at the rate of $100 per diem while engaged in the business of the Commission, and while away from their homes or regular places of business they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons in the service of the Federal Government who are employed intermittently. Members specified in subsection (a) (2), (8), and (4), including persons designated to serve in their absence, shall not receive compensation in addition to that to which they are otherwise entitled as officers er employees of the Government but shall be reimbursed for travel or other ex- penses incurred in carrying out the business of the Commission. (ec) The Commission shall have an Executive Director, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Hx- ecutive Director shall serve at the pleasure of the President and shall receive compensation at the rate prescribed for level IV of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule established by the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964. Subject to the general supervision of the Commission, the Executive Director shall perform such of the functions conferred upon the Commission under this Act as the Com- mission shall prescribe. (d) The Commission shall appoint and fix the compensation of such other officers and employees as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its functions. However, the Commission shall utilize the capacity of existing governmental agencies to the maximum extent consistent with the purposes of this Act. The Commission may also procure, without regard to the civil service laws and the Classification Act of 1949, temporary and intermittent services to the same extent as is authorized for the departments by section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946, but at rates not exceeding $75 per diem for the individuals. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Src. 5. It shall be the function of the Commission to formulate and carry out programs for purposes of exploration and development of the marine re- sources of th Continental Shelf and waters above the Continental Shelf. Such programs shall include but shall not be limited to the following: (1) Marine exploration, expeditions, and surveys necessay to deserike the topography and to identify, locate, and economically develop physical, chemical, geological, and biological resources of the Continental Shelf; 38 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION (2) Cooperative expeditions for these purposes with other Federal agencies having missions on the Continental Shelf ; (3) Development of an engineering capability that will permit exploration and development of the Continental Shelf and superjacent waters; (4) Fostering participation in marine exploration and economic development by scientific institutions and industry, through grants, loans, and cost-sharing arrangements; and (5) Providing for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning marine discoveries, development of instrumentation, equipment, and facilities, and other information as the Commission may deem appropriate. POWERS OF COMMISSION Src. 6. In carrying out its functions under section 5, the Commission, is authorized— (1) to enter into agreements with other Government agencies for the carying out by such agencies of any activities authorized by this Act, and for the reimbursement from appropriations made pursuant to section 8(a) of expenses incurred by such agencies in carrying out such activities; (2) to enter into agreements with public or private scientific institutions, or with private enterprises or individuals, for the carrying out of any activities authorized by this Act, and for the payment from appropriations made pursuant to section 8(a) of all or any portion of the expenses in- curred by such institutions, enterprises, or individuals in carrying out such activities ; and (3) to make loans, grants, or other cost-sharing arrangements from the fund established under section 7 to public or private scientific institutions, or to business enterprises or individuals, for the purpose of enabling them to carry out activities to further the programs of the Commission. MARINE EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT FUND Src. 7. There is hereby established on the books of the Treasury a Marine spe oueiae and Development Fund which shall be available to the Commission for making loans, grants, or other cost-sharing arrangements authorized by section 6(3). The fund shall consist of amounts appropriated thereto pursuant to section 8 together with amounts received as repayments of principal and payments of interest on such loans. In establishing terms for loans, grants, or other cost-sharing arrangements made from such fund, the Commission shall give due weight to the benefits inuring to the Government from the activities carried out with the proceeds of such loans. FINANCING Sec. 8. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums, not to exceed $50,000,000 for any fiscal year, as may be necessary to enable the Com- mission to carry out its functions under this Act. (b) In addition to appropriations authorized by subsection (a), there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the fund established by section 7 of the sum of $100,000,000 to remain available until expended. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION Src. 9. The Commission shall make available to other interested Government agencies and, to the extent consistent with national security, to public and pri- vate institutions, business enterprises, and individuals any information obtained by the Commission in carrying out its functions under this Act. REPORTS TO CONGRESS Src. 10. The Commssion shail transmit to the Congress, at the beginning of each regular session of the Congress, an annual report of its activities under this Act, together with such legislative recommendations as it may deem desirable. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 39 U.S. Atomic Enerey Commisston, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1965. Hon. Hersertr C. Bonner, Ohairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Bonner: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to comment on H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009, identical bills to provide a program of marine exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf. H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009 (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the bill’) would establish a Marine Exploration and Development Commission composed of two members appointed from private life by the President, as well as the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense, Interior, and Commerce. The function of this Commission would be to formulate and carry out programs for purposes of exploration and development of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf and the waters above the Continental Shelf. Among the specifically described programs are those for marine exploration necessary to describe the topography and to identify, locate and economically develop physical, chemical, geological, and biological resources of the Continental Shelf and for fostering participation in marine exploration and economic development by scientific institutions and industry. Marine exploration of the Continental Shelf is one segment of the study of oceanography. As you know, the Atomic Energy Com- Mission was one of the four Federal agencies that first suggested and participated in efforts to coordinate the national program in oceanog- raphy. The Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST) created by Executive Order No. 10807 on March 13, 1959, established the permanent Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO) by letter dated March 3, 1960, from George Kistiakowsky, Chairman of the FCST, to the Honorable James H. Wakelin, Jr., Assistant Secre- tary of the Navy for Research and Development. A primary function of the ICO has been to coordinate the activities of various agencies having an interest in oceanography and related marine sciences. These activities include exploration of the Continental Shelf as well as research involving the physical, chemical, geological, and biological processes of the marine environment. The Commission considers that appropriate efforts for the accumu- lation of knowledge respecting the Continental Shelf are currently being exerted by those Federal agencies carrying out activities of exploration and research with respect to the Continental Shelf under the coordination of the ICO, and that the institution of a program of economic development of the resources of the Continental Shelf, which would be a primary function of the Marine Exploration and Development Commission under the bill, would be premature at this time. For example, agencies participating in the ICO are currently conducting a program to develop a comprehensive understanding of the distribution, ecology, physiology, behavior, response to environ- mental changes and interrelationships of marine organisms in order to permit proper planning for the greater use of the sea, including the waters of the Continental Shelf, as a source of food. Intensive commercial development at the present time could adversely affect the satisfactory conduct of this program, In addition, exploration of the Continental Shelf has been under way for a considerable period of 40 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION time; the results of such efforts will be invaluable when our knowledge is sufficiently developed to permit extensive economic exploitation. At the present time, however, the creation of a new commission to carry out such activities is likely to result in an unnecessary duplica- tion of effort between the Marine Exploration and. Development Commission and the ICO and its member agencies; moreover, it could result in a premature commercial exploitation of vital resources and the loss of the opportunity to study and develop such resources systematically to the best advantage of the Nation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the adminis- tration’s program. Sincerely yours, JOHN V. VINCIGUERRA (For General Manager). EXxsEcuTivE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BurREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., July 27, 1966. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1965, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009, identical bills to provide a program of marine exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf. The bills would establish a new agency to carry out programs for exploring and developing the marine resources of the Continental Shelf and its overlying waters. The agency would be headed by a Marine Exploration and Development Commission, composed of five members: the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, and the Interior, and two members appointed from private life. The agency would carry out programs with its own staff, cooperatively with other agencies, and through grants, loans, and cost-sharing arrangements with private organizations. As explained in our letter to your committee of March 11, 1965, on H.R. 921, Federal oceanographic activities are being conducted by a number of agencies in support of their respective basic missions. This is the traditional way in which science has been organized in the Government, with operational requirements guiding the direction and pace of scientific programs. Additionally, there is close inter- agency coordination through the Federal Council for Science and Technology to assure that an integrated program is developed to meet broad national objectives in oceanograhy. Establishment of the proposed commission would deviate from this organizational pattern. With the creation of the commission, the Department of the Interior would have to look to another agency to develop certain resources for which that Department is now responsi- ble. Such resources would often be the same as those existing in areas other than the Continental Shelf, thereby dividing program responsi- bility between two agencies on a geographic basis. Creation of the commission would make even more difficult than at present the achievement of balance programs for developing the scarce resources of our country. In addition, establishment of a new agency would NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Al complicate the coordination of related scientific and technical activities. Moreover, the proposed commission would deviate from sound principles of organization. Agencies established to carry out operat- ing functions are generally headed by a single individual in order to provide unity of direction and clearly fix responsibility. Placing a plural body at the head of the proposed agency would not be consonant with its operating functions. The fixing of responsibilities would be additionally complicated because the ex officio members of the com- mission would have dual, and sometimes conflicting, responsibilities with respect to similar programs in their parent departments. In our view significant progress is being made in developing and conducting a sound oceanographic program under existing arrange- ments. It is noteworthy that the Department of the Navy and the Atomic Energy Commission are jointly developing a nuclear powered deep submergence research and ocean engineering vehicle and the Department of the Interior is participating in the design and engineering of the vehicle. The technology developed through this project is to be used for investigating ocean resources as well as for defense purposes. The President’s Science Advisory Committee is currently: under- taking a broad-gaged review of the Nation’s oceanographic activities, drawing upon experts from related fields. The findings of this study will help to illuminate the opportunities in oceanography and the best way for their realization. In view of the progress being made in developing and conducting Federal programs in the field of oceanography and the cited difficulties that would be created in establishing a new agency for exploring the Continental Shelf, the Bureau of the Budget recommends against enactment of H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009. Sincerely yours, Puiturr 8. Hueuss, Assistant Director for Legislatwe Reference. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuairman: This letter is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to H. R. 5884, a bill to provide a program of marine exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf. This bill would encourage utilization of the resources of the Conti- nental Shelf; establish a Marine Exploration and Development Commission composed of Cabinet officers and private appointees to formulate and carry out programs for exploration and development of the continental shelf; create a marine exploration and development fund for loans, grants, or cost-sharing arrangements; and authorize an annual appropriation of $50 million to the Commission and an initial appropriation of $100 million to establish the fund. 538-367— 654. 42 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The Department favors an increase in exploration and development of the Continental Shelf; but opposes enactment of H.R. 5884 be- cause, among other reasons, the establishment of a commission to manage the Federal Continental Shelf program and to fund private Continental Shelf activities is unnecessary and undesirable. The Federal program, including any funding of private Continental Shelf activities, should properly be managed by the agencies having missions concerning the shelf under supervision of the President. Under the Convention on the Continental Shelf, which entered into force for the United States on June 10, 1964, the United States and other signatory states have jurisdiction over their continental shelves to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to such depths as admit of exploitation of the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil. In view of the importance of these resources, it has become imperative that the United States intensify its efforts to explore, survey, and map its Continental Shelf to locate potential exploitable resources, and to encourage industry to develop the technology to recover these resources so that the country as a whole will be able to take full advantage of them. Present activities of the Department are directed toward accomplishment of these objectives. The Secretary of Commerce presently has the authority, which he has delegated to the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA), to survey and map the Continental Shelf. ESSA has the competency through its Coast and Geodetic Survey for these activ- ities. From its surveying activities, ESSA obtains knowledge about the Continental Shelf including the locations of its mineral resources. Furthermore, ESSA cooperates with the Department of the Interior and other agencies while surveying the Continental Shelf so that mineral, biological, and other resources can be located in the same operation. Accordingly, we do not think that creation of a new agency, such as the Marine Exploration and Development Commis- sion, will increase the efficiency of Federal exploration of the Con- tinental Shelf. Rather, creation of such a commission is likely to result in duplication of activities and facilities and waste of experienced manpower. Admittedly, section 4(d) of H.R. 5884 requires the Commission to “utilize the capacity of existing governmental agencies to the maxi- mum extent consistent with the purposes of this Act.”” However, the Commission can avoid the limiting sentence of section 4(d) by deter- mining that its staff, or a private organization under a loan, grant or cost-sharing arrangement, is better able to carry out the “purposes of this Act”? than the staff of another Federal agency. Such determi- nations would result in considerable duplication of the activities and facilities present in Federal agencies. In this connection, it appears that (except for administration of the proposed fund) H.R. 5884 creates no new authority in the executive branch of the Government, or sets no priorities, but merely duplicates existing authority. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report from the stand- point of the administration’s program. Sincerely yours, Burt W. Roprr (For Robert E. Giles). NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 43 DEPARTMENT OF THE Navy, OrFicE oF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1966. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatwes, Washington, D.C. My Dear Mr. CuHarrman: Your request for comment on H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009, identical bills to provide a program of marine explora- tion and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf, has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense. H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009 would encourage private exploitation of the resources of the U.S. Continental Shelf by establishing a Marine Exploration and Development Commission and a Marine Exploration and Development Fund. The Commission working closely with other agencies, would administer the fund to carry out programs of engineer- ing and exploration as required to exploit the Continental Shelf for the benefit of the United States. Numerous Federal agencies are already engaged in the exploration and survey of these submerged areas. Some of these agencies, such as the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Geological Survey, and Bureau of Mines are specifically concerned with the exploitation of the resources contained therein. ‘The Department of Defense has many programs of marine research, surveys, and engineering directed toward the solution of Department of Defense problems which, at the same time, provide information directly applicable to the purposes of the bills. These multiagency efforts are presently coordinated by the Interagency Com- mittee on Oceanography. It is considered that the purposes of the bills would be better accomplished by strengthening the existing capabilities and organiza- tion in this area to achieve maximum utilization of these efforts before any attempt is made to set up a special commission to do the job. For example, the Navy’s deep submergence program might take on additional responsibilities in marine engineering development and thus provide an effective mechanism for exploiting the shelf while at the same time satisfying the mission requirements of the Navy. In view of the foregoing, the Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration’s program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report on H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009 for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely yours, M. K. Disney, Captain, U.S. Navy, Director, Legislative Division (For the Secretary of the Navy). 44 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, | Osta Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonntr: Your committee has requested our views and recommendations on seven specific bills concerned with the problem of planning, coordinating, and financing the national oceanographic program. This Department, through the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Bureau of Mines, and the Geological Survey, is greatly interested in, and directly concerned with, the science of oceanography. We are primarily con- cerned with the development of the natural resources of the oceans. Consequently, we desire that this form of research and development. proceed efficiently and effectively in the national interest. Described briefly, the bills before the committee are: ** *k * * * * * H.R. 5884 establishes a commission for the exploration and develop-. ment of the resources of the Continental Shelf. The commission is. composed of five members, including the Secretary of the Interior.. The commission will have its own staff and will have specific functions, including authority to make loans and grants. It has the authority to utilize the capabilities of other Federal agencies in carrying out its. functions. It may also carry out these functions directly. H.R. 6009 is an identical bill. * *k * * * * * All of these bills deal in various ways with the problem of planning,. coordinating and financing the national oceanographic program. This is a large program of research and development which involves. several Federal Government departments and specialized agencies. It is largely based on the recommendation of a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, which in 1959 proposed that the Federal Government embark on a 10-year program of expanded research on the oceans. The program involves studies of the physics,. chemistry, geology, and biology of the ocean and is contiguous waters}. the relationships and interactions between ocean and atmosphere; and the living, mineral, and fossil resources of the ocean waters and seabed, and methods of conserving and harvesting these natural resources. Since 1960 the program has been coordinated and its budgets planned by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Funds are ap- propriated through the budgets of the individual cooperating agencies, The large number of bills which have been introduced in the Congress in recent sessions proposing to alter this coordinating machinery or to begin new studies of the ocean and its resources reflects the concern of the legislative branch of the Government that the present mechan-. ism for planning and review may not be adequate. The varying nature of the individual solutions to the problems represented by these bills is a fair indication of the complexity of the problem. We believe that there is a growing need for a perspective in which the oceanographic programs of the Federal Government can be more clearly seen in relation to each other and in relation to the national: NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 45 goals which they support. All of these bills contain some features which could be helpful in carrying out a national oceanographic pro- eram. The position of the executive branch, however, is that H.R. 2218 should be enacted, but that the enactment of any of the other bills would be premature at this time. This position is based on the premise that the President’s Science Advisory Committee’s Panel on Oceanography is at the present time making the kind of investigation and study that is contemplated by H.R. 9064. When the Panel com- pletes its study and submits its report Congress can more appropri- ately decide whether additional legislation dealing either with a further study or with a revised governmental organization to administer the national oceanographic program should be enacted. The recommendation that legislative action should be deferred. is not intended to cast any doubt on the importance of the subject. President Johnson has recently stated his intention that the United States shall maintain leadership in ocean science and technology and their economic, military, and social applications. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the admin- istration’s program. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE F. PauTtzxKz, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interwor. Nationat ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Washington, D.C., April 23, 1965. Hon. Hrersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear ConeressMAN Bonner: Over the last 3 months you have been kind enough to refer to us for our information, and such comment as we might wish to make, several bills having to do with the Federal Government’s arrangements for developing, coordination, and funding the national oceanographic program. Our Committee on Oceanography has welcomed the opportunity to review these bills. The committee has long recognized the need for a more unified approach to the oceanography program among the Federal agencies. The committee considers such an approach to be especially desirable with reference to those elements of the pro- eram that involve the missions of several different agencies, for example, the study of air-sea interactions, the development and use of deep-diving vehicles and other means of deep-sea investigation, and the study of ocean resources. While the committee does not have an adequate basis for recom- mending a particular mechanism for achieving the desired unity of approach, its members feel that efforts at the appropriate level of the executive branch, for example, the Office of Science and Technology, in consultation with the congressional committees concerned, can undoubtedly result in an effective solution of the problem. Yours sincerely, FREDERICK SEITz, President. 46 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION NATIONAL SciENCE FOUNDATION, OFFicE oF THE DrREcTOR, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This is in further reply to your letter of March 19, 1965, requesting the comments of the National Science Foundation on H.R. 5884 and an identical bill, H.R. 6009, to provide a program of marine exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf. The bills in question would establish a Marine Exploration and Development Commission, consisting of two members appointed from private life, one of whom would be Chairman, the Secretary of De- fense, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Commerce. It would be the responsibility of the Commission to formulate and carry out programs for exploration and development of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf and waters above the Continental Shelf. Such programs would include, among others, marine explora- tion, expeditions and surveys, and the making of grants, loans, or cost- sharing arrangements for marine exploration, and economic develop- ment activities by scientific institutions and industry. We consider the aims of these bills highly worthwhile. In our view, however, the problems involved in the exploration and de- velopment of the Continental Shelf are still largely undefined. In- formation is not yet available regarding the kinds of programs that should be undertaken or the amounts of money which might be necessary to carry out such activities. We believe that the ad- ministrative mechanism for carrying out such activities should be considered in the light of the programs to be conducted. In this connection, the President’s Science Advisory Committee has estab- lished a Panel on Oceanography, which will be considering recom- mendations regarding national policies with respect to oceanography, including matters such as those with which these bills are concerned. In view of the above considerations, we recommend against enact- ment of H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009. The Bureau of the Budget has advised us it has no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely yours, Bowen C. Dess, Acting Director. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, June 1, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Charman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatwes, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonner: This is in response to your request for com- ments on H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009, identical bills to provide a program of marine exploration and development of the Continental Shelf. The recent acquisition by the United States of sovereign rights to the natural resources of the Continental Shelf offers economic oppor- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 47 tunities which may add substantially to the wealth of this country. As the bills point out, efforts to exploit this source of wealth are called for. Nevertheless, in my opinion, it would be premature for several reasons to enact H.R. 5884 or H.R. 6009. At this time, the extent to which industry is prepared to invest private funds in the extraction of wealth from the Continental Shelf is not clear. For this reason, it is not clear that the provision of funds to industry, as provided by the bills, is the necessary or proper direction of Federal activity. The primary need may well be for guidance and consultation at this stage and further clarification of the legal status of resource exploitation. Furthermore, I have some reservations with respect to the pro- posed administrative provisions. The addition of councils, com- missions, boards, committees, and similar groups reporting directly to the President is generating a situation which tends to make an existing difficult situation almost impossible. For this reason, if any of the functions proposed in the bills are established in law, serious considera- tion should be given to placing them under the general jurisdiction of an existing Major agency or department. My reservations with respect to the bills relate not to the significance of the subject with which they deal, but rather with the wisdom of enacting a law which would establish functions and allocate responsi- bilities and funds when it is not clear that the approach taken in the bills is the one which would be adopted if all of the alternatives had been thoroughly explored. At this time, I think that a thorough and detailed review of the enormous potentialities of the Continental Shelf, and of priorities among surveys, research, and development of tools and instruments in the context of the entire set of problems, needs, and opportunities should take precedence over the enactment at this time of a statute of the kind proposed in H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009. Sincerely yours, Donatp F. Hornice, Director. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 30, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. CuartrmMan: Your letter of March 19, 1965, requested the Department’s comments on H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009, bills to provide a program of marine exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf. The following comments and suggestions are made for your consideration. The Department would interpose no objection to the enactment of the bills from the standpoint of foreign relations. In fact, the Department believes that the bills might prove most useful in the development of oceanic capability and use which would not only provide a source of raw material for our economy, as the bills contem- plate, but forestall domination of the ocean by forces inimical to our welfare. The following specific comments would apply if the Congress decides to take action on the bills. 48 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The Department questions the relationship between the proposed Commission and the rest of the American oceanographic community, particularly that within the U.S. Government. ‘The functions of the Commission, as given in section 5, overlap to a greater or lesser extent with several existing agencies. While the Department is not in a position to question whether it might be worthwhile having these functions, as they apply to the Continental Shelf, performed by a single body, the Department does believe that coordination of the oceanic activities of the various agencies is important. The Depart- ment notes that several other bills are now pending before the Congress on this subject, such as H.R. 6457, H.R. 5654, and S. 944 to establish a National Oceanographic Council to coordinate U.S. activities in oceanography. It might be useful in H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009 to establish the relationship between the proposed Commission and the proposed Council if it should be created. Better yet, it might be useful to combine the two proposals, and especially to combine the proposed Commission and the proposed Council. It is suggested that the first paragraph of section 2 of the bill be redrafted to read somewhat as follows: “Sec. 2. The Congress finds and declares that— “The Convention on the Continental Shelf adopted at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea at Geneva in 1958 provides that the coastal State exercises over the Continental Shelf sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources. This Convention which has been ratified by the United States entered into force on June 10, 1964. Pursuant to the rights of the United States under the Convention the responsibility is as- sumed for providing an accelerated program of exploration and development of the physical, chemical, geographical and biological resources of the Continental Shelf.” ; Section 3 of the bill defines the term ‘“‘Continental Shelf’ in a way different from the way the term is defined in the Convention on the Continental Shelf referred to above. Since the rights of the United States derive from the convention, it is our view that any implement- ing or supporting legislation should conform substantially to the con- vention. As defined in the convention the term ‘Continental Shelf” includes only areas ‘‘outside the area of the territorial sea’’ where the specified depth or exploitability criteria exist. The term as defined in the bill does not exclude the area of the territorial sea but, on the contrary, would include the territorial sea at least where the depth and exploitability factors are present. The territorial sea including its seabed and subsoil, as well as the superjacent airspace, is a part of the sovereign territory of the coastal State and rests on different principles of law than those applicable to the Continental Shelf. In the case of the shelf the sovereign rights of the coastal State are con- fined to the subsoil and seabed, the superjacent waters remaining high seas in which the customary freedom of the seas exists. The super- jacent airspace also remains free. Finally, not only is the definition of ‘Continental Shelf” in the bill inconsistent with the definition in the Convention on the Continental Shelf but also with existing U.S. legislation, i.e., the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (Public Law 212, 83d Cong.; 67 Stat. 462). If, as the Department believes, the provisions of the bill should be extended to the territorial sea, it is suggested that this be done by NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 49 specific mention of the territorial sea and that the definition of the term ‘‘Continental Shelf’ conform to the definition in article 1 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf. However, in this connection, it is suggested that consideration be given to the question whether the inclusion of the territorial sea in the coverage of the proposed legisla- tion would be consistent with the rights of the States under the Submerged Lands Act (Public Law 31, 83d Cong.; 67 Stat. 29), and maybe other laws also. Section 5(3) of the bill provides as one of the functions of the Commission to be set up by the proposed legislation the development of an engineering capability that will permit exploitation and develop- ment of the Continental Shelf ‘‘and superjacent waters.’”’ As pointed out above, the waters superjacent to the Continental Shelf are high seas and while the provision in question is not necessarily inconsistent with that situation, nevertheless, it should be clear that the rights of the coastal State in such waters are not exclusive. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration’s program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, ..Dovetas MacArtuur II, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. GENERAL CoUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Washington, D.C., July 30, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Comiitiee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuatrman: This is in reply to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009, identical bills, to provide a program of marine exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf. This bill would create a Marine Exploration and Development Commission composed of five members, two members from private life appointed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secre- tary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Commerce. This Com- mission would be charged with the function of formulating and carry- ing out programs for the purpose of exploration and development of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf. These programs would include, but not be limited to, such matters as marine explora- tions, expeditions and surveys; the identification, location and economical devolpment of physical, chemical, geological, and bio- logical resources of the Continental Shelf; and cooperative expedi- tions for these purposes with other Federal agencies. The Department is in favor of the purpose of the bill which is to advance the national interest in the exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf. However, it is believed that the functions of the proposed Commission would overlap the duties and responsibilities currently vested in other offices and agencies with respect to oceanography. The field of oceanography cannot be defined in clear-cut terms of reference. It covers basic disciplines of science and engineering and contains within its spectrum such 50 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION things as marine biology, geology, physics, chemistry, fisheries, and ocean forecasting. From this partial listing, 1t can be seen that functions of the proposed Commission would include many of the phases of oceanography currently within the scope of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography formed by the Federal Council for Science and Technology. The Department has stated its support of H.R. 2218 as a con- structive measure for assuring coordination of the efforts of the various Government agencies in the area of oceanography. For the reasons given above, the Department believes that the establishment of a new agency, as outlined in the proposed bill, will not achieve that result in as desirable a manner. Accordingly, the Treasury Department opposes the enactment o H.R. 5884 and H.R. 6009. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration’s pro- gram to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, Frep B. Surru, Acting General Counsel. [H.R. 6457, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE Section 1. This Act may be cited as the “National Oceanographie Act of 1965”. Sec. 2. The oceanographic and marine activities of the United States should be conducted so as to contribute to the following objectives: (1) The exploitation of the oceans, in terms of recovery of living and mineral resources, safer waste disposal, improved recreation, expanded commerce, and extended weather prediction. (2) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in and related to the oceans, the marine environment, and the Great Lakes, their boundaries and contents. (3) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in ocean- ographic and marine science and technology. (4) The enhancement of the culture, general welfare, and security of the United States. (5) The advancement of education and training in marine science and technology. (6) The development and improvement of the capabilities, performance, and efficiency of vehicles, equipment, and instruments for use in exploration, re- Search, surveys, the recovery of resources, and the transmission of energy in the marine environment. (7) The coordination of activities of the various agencies concerned with the marine sciences, and the collection, storing, and distribution of significant data acquired as a result of these activities. (8) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to the United States economy, security, culture, health, and welfare to be gained from the opportunities for, and the problems involved in, utilization of scientific marine and Great Lakes research and surveys. (9) The effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States, in order to avoid unnecessary duplictaion of effort, facilities and equip- ment, or waste. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 51 (10) The making available to agencies directly concerned or affected by ocean- ographie or Great Lakes phenomena of knowledge obtained through domestic or foreign scientific marine research and surveys which is of value or significance ‘to the agency. (11) The cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in oceanographic and marine research and surveys when such coopera- ition is in the national interest. Sec. 3. (a) There is hereby established in the Office of Science and Technology In the Hxecutive Office of the President, the National Oceanographic Council (hereinafter called the “Council’”) which shall be composed of one representative each from: (1) The Department of State. (2) The Department of the Treasury. (3) The Department of Defense. (4) The Department of the Interior. (5) The Department of Commerce. (6) The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (7) The Office of Science and Technology. (8) The Atomic Energy Commission. (9) The National Science Foundation. (10) The Smithsonian Institution. (b) The head of each department, agency, and instrumentality to be rep- resented on the Council shall designate from among those officers of his depart- ment, agency, or instrumentality who were appointed to their offices by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, an officer to serve as rep- resentative on the Council. (ec) The President shail from time to time designate a representative on the ‘Council to serve as Chairman of the Council. (d) It shall be the function of the Council to advise and assist the President, as he may request, with respect to the performance of functions in the field of oceanograph and the marine sciences, including but not limited to the following ‘functions : (1) surveying all significant oceanographic and marine sciences activities, including the policies, plans, programs, and accomplishments of all depart- ments and agencies of the United States engaged in such activities; (2) developing a comprehensive program of oceanographic and marine ‘science activities, including, but not limited to, exploration, exploitation and ‘conservation of marine resources, ocean engineering, stuies of air-sea inter- ‘action, expanded recreational facilities and waterfront development, trans- mission of energy, and communications, to be conducted by departments and -agencies of the United States; (3) designating and fixing the direction of major oceanographic and marine science activities, including, but not limited to, exploration, exploi- ‘tation and conservation of marine resources, ocean engineering, studies of air-sea interaction, expanded recreational facilities, and waterfront develop- ment, transmission of energy, and communications; (4) providing for effective cooperation among all departments and agen- ‘cies of the United States engaged in oceanographic and marine science ac- tivities, and specify, in any case in which primary responsibility for any category of the oceanographic and marine science activities has been assigned to any department or agency, which of those activities may be carried on concurrently by other departments or agencies ; (5) coordinating all Federal activities in combating natural and manmade phenomena adversely affecting public welfare, including storms, floods, seis- mie activity, pollution and radioactive fallout; (6) resolving differences arising among departments and agencies of the United States with respect to oceanographic and marine science activities under this Act, including differences as to whether a particular project is an oceanographic and marine science activity; and (7) reviewing annually all existing oceanographic and marine sciences activities conducted by departments and agencies of the United States in light of the policies, plans, programs, and priorities developed pursuant to this Act. (e) The Council may employ a staff to be headed by a civilian executive secre- tary who shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at a rate established by the Presi- dent at not to exceed that of level IV of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule 52 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION of the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964. The executive secretary, subject to the direction of the Council, is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel, including not more than seven persons who may be appointed without regard to civil service laws or the Classification Act of 1949 and com- pensated at not to exceed the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, as may be necessary to perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Council in connection with the perform- ance of its functions. Src. 4. (a) The Council, under the foreign policy guidance of the President,. may engage in a program of international cooperation in work done pursuant to this Act, pursuant to agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. (b) The President shall report annually during the month of February to the Congress. Such report shall contain the following: (1) The general status of oceanography. (2) The status of research, development, studies, and surveys conducted (directly or indirectly) by the United States in furtherance of oceanography, together with application of such research, development, studies, and surveys. (3) A financial analysis on a horizontal basis showing the totality of the amounts proposed for appropriation by Congress for marine sciences, by functions. (4) A detailed analysis of the amounts proposed for appropriation by Congress for the ensuing fiscal year for each of the departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Government to carry out the purposes of this: Act. (5) Current and future plans and policies of the United States with respect of oceanography. (6) Requests for such legislation as may be necessary to earry out as rapidly as possible the purposes of this Act. (c) No information which has been classified for reasons of national security shall be included in any report made under this section, unless such information has been declassified by, or pursuant to authorization given by, the President. Src. 5. (a) The Council shall arrange with the Federal Bureau of Inves- tigation for the conduct of such security or other personnel investigation of the Council’s officers, employees, and consultants, as it deems appropriate, and if any such investigation develops any data reflecting that the individual who is the subject thereof is of questionable loyalty there shall be a full field inves- tigation of the matter, the results of which shall be furnished to the Council. (b) The Atomic Energy Commission may authorize any of its employees or employees of any contractor, prospective contractor, licensee, or prospective licensee of the Atomic Energy Commission under subsection 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165(b)), to permit any member, officer, or employee of the Council to have access to restricted data relating to ocean- ography and the marine sciences which is required in the performance of his duties and so certified by the Council but only if (1) the Council or designee thereof has determined, in accordance with the established personnel security procedures and standards of the Council, that permitting such individual to have access to such restricted data will not endanger the common defense and security, and (2) the Council or designee thereof finds that the established personnel and other security procedures and standards of the Council are adequate and in reasonable conformity to the standards established by the Atomic Energy Commission under section 145 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165). Any individual granted access to such restricted data pursuant to this subsection may exchange such data with any individual who (A) is an officer or employee of the Department of Defense, or any department or agency thereof, or a member of the Armed Forces, or a contractor or subcon- tractor of any such department, agency, or armed force, or an officer or employee of any such contractor or subcontractor, and (B) has been authorized to have access to restricted data under the provisions of section 1438 of the Atomic Hnergy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2163). Src. 6. Information obtained or developed by the Council in the performance of its functions under this Act shall be made available for public inspection except (A) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be with- held, and (B) information classified to protect the national security. Nothing in this Act shall authorize the withholding of information by the Council from the duly authorized committees of Congress. Src. 7. (a) For the purposes of this Act the term— NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 53 (1) “marine sciences’”’ shall be deemed to apply also to scientific endeavors in and with relation to the Great Lakes. (2) “oceanography” includes, but is not limited to, the acquisition, as- sembling, processing, and dissemination of all scientific and technological oceanographic and related environmental data, including, but not limited to, physical, geological, biological, fisheries, hydrographic and coastal survey, meteorological, climatological, and geophysical data. (bo) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $800,000 per fiscal year to carry out this Act. Atomic ENERGY CommMISsION, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Bonner: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to comment on H.R. 6457, a bill to provide for a comprehensive, long- range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes. As you know, the Atomic Energy Commission was one of the four Federal agencies that first suggested and participated in efforts to coordinate the national program in oceanography. The Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST) created by Executive Order No. 10807 on March 13, 1959, established the permanent Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO) by letter dated March 3, 1960, from George Kistiakowsky, Chairman of the FCST, to the Honorable James H. Wakelin, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development. A primary function of the ICO has been to coordinate the activities of various agencies having an interest in oceanography and related marine sciences. There is also an FCST Committee on Water Resources Research which is concerned with coordinating research activities of the various agencies an aepsh water resources, including research pertaining to the Great akes. Tt is the AEC’s understanding that the proposed bill would in effect substitute a National Oceanographic Council for the ICO as the primary coordinator of agency activities in the field of oceanography, and for the FCST Committee on Water Resources Research as the primary coordinator of agency research activities in the field of fresh water resources to the extent that those activities concern the Great Lakes. While the Commission is in accord with the substantive purpose and intent of the proposed legislation, it is our belief that such a substitution is not necessary or appropriate at this time in view of the effective coordination of agency efforts in this field by the ICO and the FCST Committee on Water Resources Research. Should the bill be considered for passage, however, the Commission suggests that changes as set forth below be made. Subsection 3(b) of the bill would require the head of each agency represented on the Council to designate from among those officers of his agency “‘* * * who were appointed to their offices by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, an officer to serve as representative on the Council.””’ The Commission suggests that a provision be added authorizing each representative on the Council to designate another officer of his agency to serve on the Council as 54. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION his alternate in his absence. The choice of an alternate should not be: limited by a requirement that he be appointed to his office by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commission urges the deletion from the bill of subsection 5(b). This subsection would authorize ‘‘any member, officer, or employee of the Council to have access to restricted data relating to oceanography and the marine sciences which is required in the performance of his duties * * *” as certified by the Council, provided the Council deter- mines that its established ‘‘security procedures * * * are * * * in reasonable conformity to the standards established by the Atomic Energy Commission. under section 145 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165),” and provided the Council has determined in accordance with such procedures ‘‘that permitting such individual to have access to such restricted data will not endanger the common defense and security.”’ In our view subsection 5(b) would have the effect of diluting the Commission’s control over restricted data without adequate demon- strated need. Such a certification procedure for access to restricted data, as proposed by subsection 5(b), has been accorded to only two agencies, the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because the nature of the duties and functions of these agencies have so required. However, we believe that such a statutory provision for the National Oceanographic Council is not necessary. There does not appear to be extensive restricted data per- taining to oceanography and related marine sciences, and we believe that need for access to such restricted data, which the Council’s mem- bers and officers as well as its relatively small staff may have, can be effectively handled through the Commission’s usual security proce- dures. In this connection, it should be noted that Public Law 87-206 (75 Stat. 475) amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, on September 6, 1961, by adding a new subsection 145(c) in order to expedite clearances in such cases as this. In order to allow the Council to make full use of the clearance procedure contained in section 145(c) of the Atomic Energy Act, it is also recommended that section 5(a) of the proprosed bill be revised to read as follows: “Src, 5. (a) The Council shall arrange with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the conduct of investigations, including full field investigations, of the character, associations, and loyalty of the Council’s officers, employees, and consultants, as it deems appropriate. The results of such investigations shall be furnished to the Council.” The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administra- tion’s program. Sincerely yours, JoHN V. VINCIGUERRA (For General Manager). GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., July 26, 1965. Hon. Hrerpert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This letter is in reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to H.R. 6457, a bill to provide NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 55. for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes. H.R. 6457 would set forth national objectives for oceanographic and marine activities and would establish a National Oceanographic Council composed principally of Cabinet department representatives. The Council would advise and assist the President by surveying present oceanographic activities, developing an oceanographic pro- eram, coordinating the agencies’ oceanographic activities and annually comparing Federal oceanographic accomplishments against the Council’s oceanographic program. The Council would be authorized to employ an executive secretary and staff. H.R. 6457 also includes detailed requirements for an annual report from the President to Congress on his oceanographic program and on present accomplishments. The Department strongly supports Improvement in and greater emphasis for the national oceanographic program. However, we doubt that H.R. 6457 would have enough beneficial effect upon oceanographic activities to offset the limiting effect it would have wen ne administration of Federal activities in oceanography as a whole. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography has had considerable success in coordinating and stimulating Federal oceanographic activi- ties, and we are therefore not aware of overriding reasons for replacing it. The proposed National Oceanographic Council would not change the realities involved in setting priorities and apportioning limited funds among less limited demands within the agencies. There is no reason to believe that Council review of the national oceanographic program before its submission to the agencies would keep any agency from balancing its oceanographic program needs against the needs of its other programs. On the other hand, creation of the proposed Council would add to the proliferation of councils and committees which the President is now seeking to reduce. If the intent of H.R. 6457 is to replace the Interagency Committee on Oceanography with the proposed Council, then little practical change from the present arrangement for coordination would occur. However, we believe it is undesirable to establish the Council by statute as the means for coordination of Federal programs. We think it is better to leave flexibility in the executive for coordinating programs, which, like the program in oceanography, are still develop- ing. Moreover, if the Council and the Interagency Committee on Oceanography are both to exist, enactment of H.R. 6457 would cause substantial duplication of effort and possibly conflict of proposed programs. For these reasons, while the Department favors the objectives of the bill, we oppose the establishment of a statutory Council to ac- complish these objectives. We would have no objection to the bill if it were amended to permit the President to establish such mechanisms as he believes necessary to accomplish these objectives. We have been advised! by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report from the stand- point of the administration’s program. Sincerely yours, Burt W. Ropsr (For Robert E. Giles). 56 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonner: Your committeee has requested our views and recommendations on seven specific bills concerned with the problem of planning, coordinating, and financing the national oceanographic program. This Department, through the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Bureau of Mines, and the Geological Survey, is greatly interested in, and directly concerned with, the science of oceanography. We are primarily con- cerned with the development of the natural resources of the oceans. Consequently, we desire that this form of research and development proceed efficiently and effectively in the national interest. Described briefly, the bills before the committee are: * * * * * * * H.R. 6457 is similar to H.R. 5654. The major difference is that the new Council established by the bill would not be a Cabinet-level council, but would be composed of representatives from member agencies and would be established in the Office of Science and Tech- nology in the Executive Office of the President. * * * * * * * All of these bills deal in various ways with the problem of planning, coordinating and financing the national oceanographic program. This is a large program of research and development which involves several Federal Government departments and specialized agencies. It is largely based on the recommendation of a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, which in 1959 proposed that the Federal Govern- ment embark on a 10-year program of expanded research on the oceans. The program involves studies of the physics, chemistry, geology, and biology of the ocean and its contiguous waters; the relationships and interactions between ocean and atmosphere; and the living, mineral, and fossil resources of the ocean waters and seabed, and methods of conserving and harvesting these natural resources. Since 1960 the program has been coordinated and its budgets planned by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Funds are appropriated through the budgets of the individual cooperating agencies. The large number of bills which have been introduced in the Congress in recent sessions proposing to alter this coordinating machinery or to begin new studies of the ocean and its resources reflects the concern of the legisla- tive branch of the Government that the present mechanism for planning and review may not be adequate. The varying nature of the individual solutions to the problem represented by these bills is a fair indication of the complexity of the problem. We believe that there is a growing need for a perspective in which the oceanographic programs of the Federal Government can be more clearly seen in relation to each other and in relation to the national goals which they support. All of these bills contain some features which could be helpful in carrying out a national oceanographic program. The position of the executive branch, however, is that NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 57 H.R. 2218 should be enacted, but that the enactment of any of the other bills would be premature at this time. This position is based on the premise that the President’s Science Advisory Committee’s Panel on Oceanography is at the present time making the kind of investigation and study that is contemplated by H.R. 9064. When the Panel completes its study and submits its report Congress can more appropriately decide whether additional legislation dealing either with a further study or with a revised governmental organization to administer the national oceanographic program should be enacted. The recommendation that legislative action should be deferred is not intended to cast any doubt on the importance of the subject. President Johnson has recently stated his intention that the United States shall maintain leadership in ocean science and technology and their economic, military, and social applications. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administra- tion’s program. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE F. PavuTzxkE, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Intervor. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Orrice or THE Deputy ATTORNEY GENERAL, Washington, D.C., August 3, 1965. Hon. Hersertr C. Bonner, Chairman. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, FHlouse of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuairman: This is in response to your request for the views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 6457, a bill to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes. The bill would establish in the Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Office of the President, the National Oceanographic Council to be composed of one representative each from the Depart- ments of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Commerce, Health, Kduca- tion, and Welfare, the Office of Science and Technology, the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Science Foundation, and the Smith- sonian Institution. It would be the responsibility of the Council to advise and assist. the President with respect to the performance of func- tions in the field of oceanography and the marine sciences. The bill provides that the Council shall arrange with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the conduct of such security or other personnel investigation of the Council’s officers, employees, and con- sultants as it deems appropriate. Other than with respect to the conduct of security investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to which we have no objection, the subject of the bill concerns primarily the operations of the execu- tive agencies represented on the Council. It is assumed that the committee will consult those agencies with respect to legislation in this field. In these circumstances, the Department of Justice makes no recommendation as to the enactment of this legislation. 53-367—65—_5 58 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administra- tion’s program. Sincerely, Ramsey CiarK, Deputy Attorney General. NationaL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Washington, D.C., April 28, 1966. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear ConGRESSMAN Bonner: Over the last 3 months you have been kind enough to refer to us for our information, and such comment as we might wish to make, several bills having to do with the Federal Government’s arrangements for developing, coordination, and funding the national oceanographic program. Our Committee on Oceanography has welcomed the opportunity to review these bills. The Committee has long recognized the need for a more unified approach to the oceanography program among the Federal agencies. ‘The Committee considers such an approach to be especially desirable with reference to those elements of the program that involve the missions of several different agencies, for example, the study of air-sea interactions, the development and use of deep- diving vehicles and other means of deep-sea investigation, and the study of ocean resources. While the Committee does not have an adequate basis for recomf mending a particular mechanism for achieving the desired unity of approach, its members feel that efforts at the appropriate level o- the executive branch, for example, the Office of Science and Tech- nology, in consultation with the congressional committees concerred, can undoubtedly result in an effective solution of the problem. Yours sincerely, FREDERICK SE1Tz, President. NATIONAL SCIENCE FouNDATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, Washington, D.C., July 25, 1965. Hon. Hrerseirt C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This is in further reply to your request for the views of the National Science Foundation on H.R. 6457, a bill to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes. The primary objective of H.R. 6457 would be the establishment, in the Office of Science and Technology, of a National Oceanographic Council, consisting of representatives from 10 Federal organizations. The function of the Council wovld be to advise and assist the President with respect to matters in the field of oceanography and the marine sciences. The Council would have a staff headed by a civilian execu- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 59 tive secretary appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. H.R. 6457 is aimed at insuring that the United States has a strong oceanographic program. We fully concur with this objective. As you know, the national program in this area is being coordinated through the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. We believe that this organiza- tional arrangement is proving satisfactory for carrying on the Nation’s oceanographic effort, and that such problems as have arisen do not warrant establishment of the Council envisaged by H.R. 6457. The Bureau of the Budget has advised us it has no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administra- tion’s program. Sincerely yours, LELAND J. Haworrtu, Director. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C., May 8, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuatrman: Thank you for the opportunity to com- ment on H.R. 6457, a bill to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography and for other purposes. We are in full accord with the objective of the bill, and concur with the proposal that the Great Lakes should be a part of a full oceano- eraphic effect. With respect to the functions to be performed by the proposed Council, the President has had available to him since 1959, through the Federal Council for Science and Technology, a means of coordinat- ing and planning Federal activities relating to oceanography. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography, a group established under the Federal Council, is this instrumentality. The ICO is a working eroup composed of senior officials with both technical and policy responsibilities. The members of the group can work directly on matters involving oceanography with the members of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. The Council is composed of the top officials responsible for research and development policy in each of the major departments and agencies. Through the Special Assistant for Science and Technology, who is the Chairman of the Federal Council, important policy questions relating to oceanography are considered by the Executive Office of the President and by the President himself. Scientific questions arising from oceanography and related fields are considered by the President’s Science Advisory Committee. These links between oceanography and the points of decision in the executive branch give considerable strength and flexibility to the existing system. The ICO has to its credit a number of significant accomplishments. ICO has: (1) surveyed all significant oceanographic and marine science activities, including the programs of all Federal departments 60 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION and agencies; (2) developed a comprehensive, long-range program of oceanographic and marine science activities of Federal agencies, and has transmitted this program to Congress; (3) assisted in fixing responsibility for major oceanographic activities of Federal agencies; (4) provided for effective cooperation among Federal agencies; (5) facilitated the resolution of differences among agencies; and (6) reviewed annually all oceanographic activities of Federal agencies, and transmitted to Congress annually a report on Federal oceano- graphic activities. These are the functions that would be assigned to the proposed National Oceanographic Council. The bill raises general questions relating to the structure of the executive branch for dealing with questions of science policy. The Office of Science and Technology was established with the concurrence of the Congress to advise the President on all matters relating to science and technology and to coordinate the activities of the Federal agencies. The bill raises in principle the desirability of establishing a series of national councils in the Office of Science and Technology for areas of high importance to science and technology. This way of organizing to deal with problems of science and technology would raise complicated problems, both for the President and for the major departments. In my judgment it would be anomalous and unwise to establish within the Office of Science and Technology a statutory national council of any kind. The Federal Council for Science and Technology already has the responsibility to advise and assist the President with respect to oceanography. The establishment of a Council reporting to the President within an Office which also reports to the President would create confusion and conflicts. The establish- ment of the staff for the Council as proposed in the bill, including an executive secretary appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, would create a staff within a staff in the Office of Science and Technology. It would be difficult if not impossible to set forth clearly the respective duties, authorities, and responsibilities under such an arrangement. In addition to the deficiencies of the bill which are rooted in its basic concepts, the bill has a number of questionable provisions. First, it would not be proper for a representative of the Office of Science and Technology, which has general responsibilities, to serve as a member of a national council which may advise the President as an official advocate of a specialized area of science. Second, the functions assigned to the Council include some already assigned by law to other agencies, or already dealt with by other interagency machinery. It seems to me that, at this time, questions of scientific and techno- logical substance relating to oceanography should take precedence over questions of organization. A prerequisite to decisions relating to the future development of oceanography is a thorough analysis of the state of the field, identification of points of priority in terms of science, technology, and resources, and the potential contributions of all parties (industry, government, universities, foundations, and private laboratories) to the field. A study group composed of out- standing scientists is being established under the auspices of the President’s Science Advisory Committee to review these questions. They are also under study by the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography. It would seem prudent to withhold NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 61 judgments on organizational matters until the results of these studies, plus the results of any inquiries that may stem from congressional action, are available. The net effect of the considerations noted above is to leave me strongly opposed to the national council approach to the organization of the Federal Government’s activities in oceanography as outlined in this bill. At this time, it seems to me that concentration upon means of making the essential elements of the existing system more effective is the wiser course. This would be done under H.R. 2218, and it is for this reason that my favorable comment on that bill was sent to you on February 17, 1965. Sincerely yours, Donatp F. Hornie, Director. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1965. Hon. Hrersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., Dear Mr. Bonner: Thank you for your letter of March 22, 1965, requesting the views of the Smithsonian Institution on H.R. 6457, a bill to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography, and for other purposes. This legislation, designated as the ‘‘National Oceanographic Act of 1965,” is essentially similar to H.R. 5654, of which the Smithso- nian’s views were requested by your committee on March 4, 1965. H.R. 6457 would (1) set forth the objectives of the oceanographic and marine activities of the United States; (2) establish a National Oceanographic Council composed of representatives of Federal de- partments and agencies engaged in oceanographic and marine science activities; (3) provide that the Council shall serve as the advisory body to the President on the performance of designated functions in the fields of oceanography and marine sciences; (4) authorize the Council to employ the necessary staff; (5) authorize the Council, under the foreign policy guidance of the President, to engage in a program of international cooperation in these fields; (6) provide for the issuance of an annual oceanographic report by the President, containing such recommendations for legislation as the President may deem necessary ; (7) set forth certain security provisions relating to the Council’s em- ployees and activities; (8) provide that information developed by the Council pursuant to provisions of H.R. 6457 would be available to the public, unless authorized or required by statute to be withheld for security purposes: and (9) authorize appropriations not to exceed $800,000 to carry out the purposes of this bill. It is noted that a representative of the Smithsonian Institution is to be included in the membership of the National Oceanographic Council. The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution will be asked to consider this legislation at its next meeting. I shall be pleased to advise you of its views at that time. Sincerely yours, Frank A. Taytor, Acting Secretary. 62 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, July 30, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: In your letter to the Secretary of March 22, 1965, you asked for comments concerning H.R. 6457, 89tb Con- egress, 1st session, introduced by Mr. Ashley. The Department of State is in full agreement with the necessity for joint planning and coordination of the multiple oceanographic activities sponsored by the various governmental agencies. Only in this way can an effective, integrated, truly national program be developed. It was for this purpose that the Interagency Committee on Oceanography was established in 1960 by the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Its membership represents each of the departments and agencies proposed for the National Oceanographic Council except the Office of Science and Technology. From the standpoint of foreign relations, the Department believes the existing structure has effectively protected and furthered its interests. It defers to the judgment of the various operational agencies whether the proposed Council will more adequately promote their domestic missions and whether, if approved, the Council should be in the Office of Science and Technology. If the bill is considered favorably, the following modifications are suggested: It is noted that Section 3 (b) contains no provision for alternate members. Since it may be expected that departmental representa- tives will not be able to attend all meetings of the Council, it is suggested that the section be amended to provide that a representative on the Council may designate alternates. Section 3 (c) provides that the President designate a representative of the Council to serve as Chairman. It is suggested, instead, that a full-time Chairman might be designated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The scope and magnitude of the national oceanographic effort demands the full attention of a high level policy officer. It is not believed an Executive Secretary can serve this purpose since his functions are primarily administrative rather than decisionmaking. Section 3 (d) (5) provides that the Council will be responsible for coordinating all Federal activities in combating natural and manmade phenomena adversely affecting public welfare and including storms, floods, seismic activities, pollution, and radioactive fallout. This section considerably exceeds the responsibility of the present Inter- agency Committee on Oceanography. It encompasses many areas presently outside the national oceanographic program and includes many activities directly related to the primary missions of several agencies, some of which have only a limited connection with oceanog- raphy. It is suggested that this section be eliminated or the stated activities be restricted. Section 3(e) provides for an Executive Secretary. If the suggestion for a full-time Chairman is accepted, an amendment of this section would be necessary providing for the Chairman to head the staff. Section 4(a) provides that the Council may engage in international cooperative activities. The Department believes this section is NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 63 unnecessarily restrictive since it appears to confine international cooperation in oceanography to formal treaties ratified by the United States after advice and consent of the Senate. U.S. agencies and institutions are now cooperating with other countries in many valuable oceanographic studies and are contemplating additional programs. All these programs fall within the normal activities of the responsible agencies and are carefully reviewed for foreign policy implications before approval. Ample authority now exists for most international ventures in oceanography. Should this prove inadequate, further authority would be sought through treaty or legislation. Since the present procedure has worked very satisfactorily, no change is believed necessary. More formal agreements can be made, of course, for any any aspect of the international programs requiring such action. It is suggested, therefore, that section 4(a) be deleted. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely yours, Doveuas MacArtuur II, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations (For the Secretary of State). GENERAL CoUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Washington, D.C., July 30, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This is in reply to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 6457, to provide for a comprehensive, long range, and coordinated national progrem in oceanography, and for other purposes. The bill would establish a National Oceanographic Council in the Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Office of the Presi- dent. The Council would be composed of representatives of certain executive departments and agencies and the Chairman of the Council would be designated from among its members by the President. The chief responsibility of the Council would be to coordinate the work in oceanography being carried out by the various departments and agen- cies of the Federal Government. Like H.R. 5654, a similar bill introduced previously in this Con- gress, the bill is clearly intended to advance the national program in oceanography. As we indicated in our comments on H.R. 5654, the Department 1s in full sympathy with that objective; however, it ques- tions whether the proposed bill offers the most effective method of achieving the desired purpose. At the present time, coordination 1s achieved by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography formed by the Federal Council for Science and Technology. The Department believes this basic approach should be continued and is opposed to the creation of another office or agency with independent authority and responsibility in the field. The latter would result in duplication of effort and organization in oceanography as well as derogate from the authority and responsibility of existing agencies in this field. 64 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The Department has stated its support of H.R. 2218 as a construc- tive measure for assuring coordination of the efforts of the various Government agencies in the area of oceanography. For the reasons given above, the Department believes that the establishment of a new administrative organization, as outlined in the proposed bill, will not achieve that result in as desirable a manner. Accordingly, the Treasury Department is opposed to the enact- ment of H.R. 6457. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration’s program to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, Frep B. Smiry, Acting General Counsel. [H.R. 7849, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To provide for the development of ocean resources, to provide for economic devel- opment of the Continental Shelf, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “Ocean Resources Development Act of 1965’. TITLE I Sec. 101. The oceanographic and marine activities of the United States should be conducted so as to contribute to the following objectives : (1) The achievement of a capability to perform and carry on operations within the marine environment for the purposes of developing, managing, and conserving the resources within and underlying the oceans for beneficial uses. (2) The exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf as recognized by the Convention on the Continental Shelf adopted at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. (3) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in and related to the oceans, the marine environment, and the Great Lakes, their boundaries and contents. (4) The development and improvement of the capabilities, performance, and efficiency of vehicles, equipment, and instruments for use in exploration, research, surveys, recovery of resources, and the transmission of energy in the marine environment. (5) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to the United States economy, security. health, and welfare to be gained from the opportunities for, and the problems involved in, utilization of scientific marine and Great Lakes research and surveys. (6) The enhancement of the general welfare and security of the United States and the preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in oceanographic and marine science and technology. (7) The encouragament of private investment in the economic utilization of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf. (8) The advancement of education and training in marine science and tech- nology and the dissemination of discoveries and information which may have value to United States industries, and to Federal and State agencies concerned with ocean resource development missions. (9) The cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in oceanographic and marine research and surveys, and in develop- mental projects when such cooperation is in the national interest. Sec. 102. As used in this Act— (1) The term “Council” means the National Oceanographic Council estab- lished in section 201 of this Act. (2) The term “Commission” means the Marine and Exploration and Develop- ment Commission established in section 301 of this Act. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 65 (3) The term “Continental Shelf” means the seabed and subsoil of the sub- marine areas adjacent to (A) the coast of continental United States to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of such areas, or (B) the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands which comprise United States territory. (4) The term “oceans” is deemed to include the Great Lakes. TITLE II Src. 201. (a) There is hereby established, in the Executive Office of the Presi- dent, the National Oceanographic Council (hereinafter called the ‘“‘Council’’) which shall be composed of— (1) the Vice President, who shall be Chairman of the Council; (2) the Secretary of State; (3) the Secretary of the Treasury ; (4) the Secretary of Defense: (5) the Secretary of the Interior ; (6) the Secretary of Commerce; (7) the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; (8) the Director of the Office of Science and Technology ; (9) the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission ; (10) the Director of the National Science Foundation ; and (11) the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. (b) The President shall from time to time designate one of the members of the Council to preside over meetings of the Council during the absence, disability, or unavailability of the Chairman. (c) Each member of the Council may designate another officer of his depart- ment or agency to serve on the Council as his alternate in his unayoidable ab- sence. (a) Each alternate member designated under subsection (c) of this section shall be designated to serve as such by and with the advice and consent of the Senate unless at the time of his designation he holds an office in the Federal Government to which he was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. (e) It shall be the function of the Council to advise and assist the President, as he may request, with respect to the performance of functions in the field of oceanography and the marine sciences, including but not limited to the following functions: (1) Survey all significant oceanographic and marine science activities, in- cluding the policies, plans, programs, and accomplishments of all departments and agencies of the United States engaged in such activities : (2) Develop a comprehensive program of oceanographic and marine sci- ence activities. including, but not limited to, exploration, exploitation and conservation of marine resources, oceanographic engineering, studies of air- sea interaction, transmission of energy, and communications, to be conducted by departments and agencies of the United States; (3) Designate and fix responsibility for the direction of major oceano- graphic and marine science activities, including, but not limited to, explora- tion, exploitation and conservation of marine resources, oceanographic engi- neering, studies of air-sea interaction, transmission of energy, and commu- nications ; (4) Provide for effective cooperation among all departments and agencies of the United States engaged in oceanographic and marine science activities, and specify, in any case. in which primary responsibiilty for any category of the oceanographic and marine science activities has been assigned to any department or agency, which of those activities may be carried on concur- rently by other departments or agencies: (5) Resotve differences arising among departments and agencies of the United States with respect to oceanographic and marine science activities under this title, including differences as to whether a particular project is an oceanographic and marine science activity ; and (6) Review annually all existing oceanographic and marine sciences actiy- ities conducted by departments and agencies of the United States in light of the policies, plans, programs, and priorities developed pursuant to this title. and agencies of the United States in light of the policies, plans, programs, and priorities developed pursuant to this title. 66 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION (f) The Council may employ a staff to be headed by a civilian executive secre- tary who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at a rate established by the President at not to exceed that of level II of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule. The executive secretary, subject to the direction of the Council, is authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel, including not more than seven persons who may be appointed without regard to civil service laws or the Classification Act of 1949 and compensated at not to exceed the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, as may be necessary to perform such duties as may be prescribed by the Council in connection with the performance of its functions. (g) The Council shall submit to Congress within one year from the date of enactment of this title, a comprehensive program of proposed legislation in furtherance of oceanography and the marine sciences. Sec. 202. (a) The Council, under the foreign policy guidance of the President, may engage in a program of international cooperation in work done pursuant to this title, pursuant to agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. (b) The President shall transmit to the Congress in January of each year a report, which shall include (1) a comprehensive description of the programed activities and the accomplishments of all agencies and departments of the United States in the field of oceanography and marine science activities during the pre- ceding year, and (2) an evaluation of such activities and accomplishments in terms of the attainment of, or the failure to attain, the objectives developed pursuant to this Act. (c) Any report made under this section shall contain such recommendations for additional legislation as the Chairman or the President may consider neces- sary or desirable for the attainment of the objectives developed pursuant to this Act, and shall contain an estimate of funding requirements of each ageney and department of the United States in the field of oceanography and the marine science activities for its projected program activities during the succeeding fiscal year. (d) No information which has been classified for reasons of national security shall be included in any report made under this section, unless such information has been declassified by, or pursuant to authorization given by, the President. Sec. 203. (a) The Council shall arrange with the Federal Bureau of Investi- gation for the conduct of such security or other personnel investigation of the Council's officers, employees, and consulted, as it deems appropriate, and if any such investigation develops any data reflecting that the individual who is the subject thereof is of questionable loyalty there shall be a full field investigation of the matter, the results of which shall be furnished to the Council. (b) The Atomic Energy Commission may authorize any of its employees, or employees of any contractor, prospective contractor, licensee, or prospective licensee of the Atomic Energy Commission under subsection 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165(b)), to permit any member, officer, or employee of the Council to have access to restricted data relating to ocean- ography and the marine sciences which is required in the performance of his duties and so certified by the Council but only if (1) the Council or designee thereof has determined, in accordance with the established personnel security procedures and standards of the Council, that permitting such individual to have access to such restricted data will not endanger the common defense and security, and (2) the Council or designee thereof finds that the established personnel and other security procedures and standards of the Council are ade- quate and in reasonable conformity to the standards established by the Atomic Energy Commission under section 145 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165). Any individual granted access to such restricted data pursuant to this subsection may exchange such data with any individual who (A) is an officer or employee of the Department of Defense, or any department or agency thereof, or a member of the Armed Forces, or a contractor or subcontractor of any such department, agency, or armed force, or an officer or employee of any such contractor or subcontractor, and (B) has been authorized to have access to restricted data under the provisions of section 143 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2163). Sec. 204. Information obtained or developed by the Chairman in the perform- ance of his functions under this title shall be made available for public inspection except (A) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be with- held, and (B) information classified to protect the national security. Nothing NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 67 in this title shall authorize the withholding of information by the Chairman from the duly authorized committees of Congress. Src. 205. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this title, but sums appropriated for any one fiscal year shall not exceed $500,000. TITLE Iil Src. 301. (a) There is hereby established a Marine Exploration and Develop- ment Commission to be composed of five members as follows— (1) two members to be appointed from private life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate ; (2) the Secretary of Defense ; (3) the Secretary of the Interior ; and (4) the Secretary of Commerce. One of the members appointed under clause (1) shall be designated by the President at the time of appointment as Chairman of the Commission. Hach member specified in clause (2), (3), or (4) may designate another officer of his department to serve on the Commission in his absence. (b) Members of the Commission appointed under subsection (a) (1) shall re- ceive compensation at the rate of $100 per diem while engaged in the business of the Commission, and while away from their homes or regular places of busi- ness they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of sub- sistence, as authorized by law for persons in the service of the Federal Govern- ment who are employed intermittently. Members specified in subsection (a) (2), (3), and (4), including persons designated to serve in their absence, shall not re- ceive compensation in addition to that to which they are otherwise entitled as officers or employees of the Government but shall be reimbursed for travel or other expenses incurred in carrying out the business of the Commission. (c) The Commission shall have an Executive Director, who shali be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Execu- tive Director shall serve at the pleasure of the President and shall receive com- pensation at the rate prescribed for level TV of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule established by the Federal Executive Salary Act of 1964. Subject to the general supervision of the Commission, the Executive Director shail perform such of the functions conferred upon the Commission under this Act as the Com- mission shall prescribe. (d) The Commission shall appoint and fix the compensation of such other officers and employees as may be necessary to enable it to carry out its functions. However, the Commission shall utilize the capacity of existing governmental agencies to the maximum extent consistent with the purposes of this Act. The Commission may also procure, without regard to the civil service laws and the Classification Act of 1949, temporary and intermittent services to the same ex- tent as is authorized for the departments by section 15 of the Act of August 2, 1946, but at rates not exceeding $75 per diem for individuals. Src. 302. It shall be the function of the Commission to formulate and carry out programs for purposes of exploration and development of the marine re- sources of the Continental Shelf and waters above the Continental Shelf. Such programs shall inelude but shall not be limited to the following : (1) Marine exploraton, expeditions, and surveys necessary to describe the topography and to identify, locate, and economically develop physical, chemical, geological, and biological resources of the Continental Shelf ; (2) Cooperative expeditions for these purposes with other Federal agencies having missions on the Continental Shelf; (8) Development of an engineering capability that will permit exploration and development of the Continental Shelf and superjacent waters; (4); Fostering participation in marine exploration and economic development by scientific institutions and industry, through grants, loans and cost-sharing ar- rangements; and (5) Providing for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning marine discoveries, development of instrumentation, equipment, and facilities, and other information as the Commission may deem ap- propriate. Sec. 303. In carrying out its functions under section 302, the Commission is authorized— (1) to enter into agreements with other Government agencies for the carrying out by such agencies of any activities authorized by this title, and 68 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION for the reimbursement from appropriations made pursuant to section 305(a) of expenses incurred by such agencies in carrying out such activities; (2) to enter into agreements with public or private scientific institutions, or with private enterprises or individuals, for the carrying out of any ac- tivities authorized by this title, and for the payment from appropriations made pursuant to section 305(a) of all or any portion of the expenses in- curred by such institutions, enterprises, or individuals in carrying out such activities; and (3): to make loans, grants, or other cost-sharing arrangements from the fund established under section 304 to public or private scientific institutions, or to business enterprises or individuals for the purpose of enabling them to carry out activities to further the programs of the Commission. Sec. 304. There is hereby established on the books of the Treasury a marine exploration and development fund which shall be available to the Commission for making loans, grants or other cost-sharing arrangements authorized by section 303(3). The fund shall consist of amounts appropriated thereto pur- suant to section 305 together with amounts received as repayments of principal and payments of interest on such loans. In establishing terms for loans, grants or other cost-sharing arrangements made from such fund, the Commission shall give due weight to the benefits inuring to the Government from the activities carried out with the proceeds of such loans. Sec. 305. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums, not to exceed $50,000,000 for any fiscal year, as may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions under this title. (b) In addition to appropriations authorized by subsection (a), there is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the fund established by section 304 the sum of $100,000,000 to remain available until expended. Szc. 306. The Commission shall make available to other interested Government agencies and, to the extent consistent with national security, to public and private institutions, business enterprises, and individuals any information obtained by the Commission in carrying out its functions under this title. Sec. 307. The Commission shall transmit to the Congress, at the beginning of each regular session of the Congress, an annual report of its activities under this title, together with such legislative recommendations as it may deem desirable. U.S. Aromic Enrrcy Commission, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Herserr C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Bonner: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to comment on H.R. 7849, a bill to provide for the development of ocean resources, to provide for economic development of the Continental Shelf, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. As you know, the Atomic Energy Commission was one of the four Federal agencies that first suggested and participated in efforts to coordinate the national program in oceanography. The Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST) created by Executive Order No. 10807 on March 13, 1959, established the permanent Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO) by letter dated March 3, 1960, from George Kistiakowsky, Chairman of the FCST, to the Honorable James H. Wakelin, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development. A primary function of the ICO has been to coordinate the activities of various agencies haying an interest in oceanography and related marine sciences. These activities include exploration of the Continental Shelf as well as research involving the physical, chemical, geological, and biological NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 69 processes of the marine environment. There is also an FCST Com- mittee on Water Resources Research which is concerned with coordi- nating research activities of the various agencies on fresh water resources, including research pertaining to the Great Lakes. It is the AEC’s understanding that title II of the proposed bill would in effect substitute a National Oceanographic Council for the ICO as the primary coordinator of agency activities in the field of oceanography, and for the FCST Committee on Water Resources Research as the primary coordinator of agency research activities in the field of fresh water resources to the extent that those activities concern the Great Lakes. While the Commission is in accord with the substantive purpose and intent of title II of the proposed legis- lation, it is our belief that such a substitution is not necessary or appropriate at this time in view of the effective coordination of agency efforts in this field by the ICO and the FCST Committee on Water Resources Research. Should the bill be considered for passage, however, the Commission suggests that changes in title IT as set forth below be made. The Commission urges the deletion from the bill of subsection 203(b). This subsection would authorize “any member, officer, or employee of the Council to have access to restricted data relating to oceanography and the marine sciences which is required in the per- formance of his duties * * *” as certified by the Council, provided the Council determines that its established ‘security procedures * * * are * * * in reasonable conformity to the standards established by the Atomic Energy Commission under section 145 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165)”, and provided the Council has determined in accordance with such procedures ‘‘that permitting such individual to have access to such restricted data will not endanger the common defense and security.” In our view subsection 203(b) would have the effect of diluting the Commission’s control over restricted data without adequate demon- strated need. Such a certification procedure for access to restricted data, as proposed by subsection 203(b), has been accorded to only two agencies, the Department of Defense and the National Aero- nautics and Space Administration because the nature of the duties and functions of these agencies have so required. However, we believe that such a statutory provision for the National Oceanographic Council is not necessary. ‘here does not appear to be extensive restricted data pertaining to oceanography and related marine sciences, and we believe that need for access to such restricted data, which the Council’s members and officers as well as its relatively small staff may have, can be effectively handled through the Commission’s usual security procedures. In this connection, it should be noted that Public Law 87-206 (75 Stat. 475) amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, on September 6, 1961, by adding a new sub- section 145(c) in order to expedite clearances in such cases as this. In order to allow the Council to make full use cf the clearance pro- cedure contained in section 145(c) of the Atomic Energy Act, it is also recommended that section 203(a) of the proposed bill be revised to read as follows: “Sec. 203(a). The Council shall arrange with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the conduct of investigations, including full fielp 70 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION investigations, of the character, associations, and loyalty of the Council’s officers, employees, and consultants, as it deems appro- priate. The results of such investigations shall be furnished to the Council.” Title III of the proposed bill would establish a Marine Exploration and Development Commission composed of two members appointed from private life by the President, as well as the Secretaries of the Departments of Defense, Interior, and Commerce. ‘The function of this Commission would be to formulate and carry out programs for purposes of exploration and development of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf and the waters above the Continental Shelf. Among the specifically described programs are those for marine exploration necessary to describe the topography and to identify, locate, and economically develop physical, chemical, geological, and biological resources of the Continental Shelf and for fostering participa- tion in marine exploration and economic development by scientific institutions and industry. The Commission considers that appropriate efforts for the accumu- lation of knowledge respecting the Continental Shelf are currently being exerted by those Federal agencies carrying out activities of exploration and research with respect to the Continental Shelf under the coordination of the ICO, and that the institution of a program of economic development of the resources of the Continental Shelf, which would be a primary function of the Marine Exploration and Development Commission under the bill, would be premature at this time. For example, agencies participating in the ICO are currently conducting a program to develop a comprehensive understanding of the distribution, ecology, physiology, behavior, response to en- vironmental changes and interrelationships of marine organisms in order to permit proper planning for the greater use of the sea, in- cluding the waters of the Continental Shelf, as a source of food. Intensive commercial development at the present time could ad- versely affect the satisfactory conduct of this program. In addition, exploration of the Continental Shelf has been under way for a consider- able period of time; the results of such efforts will be invaluable when our knowledge is sufficiently developed to permit extensive economic exploitation. At the present time, however, the creation of a new Commission to carry out such activities is hkely to result in an unnecessary duplication of effort between the Marine Ex- ploration and Development Commission and the ICO and its member agencies; moreover, it could result in a premature commercial ex- ploitation of vital resources and the loss of the opportunity to study and develop such resources systematically to the best advantage of the Nation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the adminis- tration’s program. Sincerely yours, JoHN V. VINCIGUERRA (For the General Manager). NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 71 GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C Dear Mr. Cuatrman: This letter is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to H.R. 7849, a bill to provide for the development of ocean resources, to provide for economic development of the Continental Shelf, to provide for expanded re- search in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. This bill combines the features of H.R. 5654 and H.R. 5884 and would set forth national objectives for oceanographic and marine activities and would establish a National Oceanographic Council composed principally of Cabinet-level officers. The Council would advise and assist the President by surveying present oceanographic activities, developing an oceanographic program, coordinating the agencies’ oceanographic activities, and annually comparing Federal oceanographic accomplishments against the Council’s oceanographic program. The Council would be authorized to employ an Executive Secretary and staff. H.R. 7849 would also require the President to report annually to Congress on his oceanographic program and on present accomplishments. In addition this bill would encourage utilization of the resources of the Continental Shelf; establish a Marine Exploration and Develop- ment Commission composed of Cabinet officers and private appointees to formulate and carry out programs for exploration and development of the Continental Shelf; create a marine exploration and development fund for loans, grants, or cost-sharing arrangements; and authorize an annual appropriation of $50 million to the Commission and an initial appropriation of $100 million to establish the fund. The Department strongly supports improvement in and greater emphasis for the national oceanographic program. However, we doubt that H.R. 7849 would have enough beneficial effect upon oceano- eraphic activities to offset the detrimental effect it would have upon the administration of oceanography as a whole. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography has had considerable success in coordinating and stimulating Federal oceanographic activi- ties, and we are therefore not aware of cverriding reasons for replacing it. The proposed National Oceanographic Council would not change the realities involved in setting priorities and apportioning limited funds among less limited demands within the agencies. There is no reason to believe that Council review of the national oceanograpgic program before its submission to the agencies would keep any agency from balancing its oceanographic program needs against the needs of its other programs. On the other hand, creation of the proposed Council would place additional demands directly upon Cabinet officers and agency heads who already have heavy burdens of re- sponsibility. If the Council supplants the Interagency Committee on Oceacil ography, the limited amount of personal time which the Counn- ip: NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION members could devote to Council activities might result in less con- sideration of oceanography within the executive branch than presently exists. If the Council and the Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography both exist, there will be substantial duplication cf efforts and possible conflict of proposed programs. We think it is better to leave oceanographic planning and coordination in the hands of the policy and operating officials whe work with the oceanographic program, serve on the Interagency Committee on Oceanogarphy, and who are thus most qualified to advise the President on its needs. For these reasons, the Department strongly favors the objectives of titles I and II of the bill but is opposed to the establishment of a council to accomplish these objectives. If the bill were amended to permit the President to establish such mechanisms as he believes necessary to accomplish these objectives, we would favor those titles of the bill. The Department also favors an increase in exploration and develop- ment of the Continental Shelf; but opposes enactment of H.R. 7849 because, among other reasons, the establishment of a commission to manage the Federal Continental Shelf program and to fund private Continental Shelf activities is unnecessary and undesirable. The Federal program, including any funding of private Continental Shelf activities, should properly be managed by the agencies having missions concerning the shelf under supervision of the President. Under ‘the Convention on the Continental Shelf, which entered into force for the United States on June 10, 1964, the United States and other signatory states have jurisdiction over their continental shelves to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to such depths as admit of exploitation of the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil. In view of the importance of these resources, it has become imperative that the United States intensify its efforts to explore, survey, and map its Continental Shelf to locate potential exploitable resources, and to encourage industry to develop the technology to recover these re- sources so that the country as a whole will be able to take full advan- tage of them. Present activities of the Department are directed toward accomplishment of these objectives. The Secretary of Commerce presently has the authority, which he has delegated to the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA), to survey and map the Continental Shelf. ESSA has the competency, through its Coast and Geodetic Survey, for these ac- tivities. From its surveying activities, ESSA obtains knowledge about the Continental Shelf including the locations of its mineral resources. Furthermore, ESSA cooperates with the Department of the Interior and other agencies while surveying the Continental Shelf so that mineral, biological, and other resources can be located in the same operation. Accordingly, we do not think that creation of a new agency, such as the Marine Exploration and Development Commis- sion, will increase the efficiency of Federal exploration of the Conti- nental Shelf. Rather, creation of such a commission is likely to result in duplication of activities and facilities, and waste of experi- enced manpower. Admittedly, section 301(d) of H.R. 7849 requires the Commission to “utilize the capacity of existing governmental agencies to the maximum extent consistent with the purposes of this Act.” How- ever, the Commission can avoid the limiting sentence of section 301 (d) by determining that its staff, or a private organization under a loan, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 73 grant, or cost-sharing arrangement, is better able to carry out the “purposes of this Act” than the staff of another Federal agency. Such determinations would result in considerable duplication of the ac- tivities and facilities present in Federal agencies. In this connection, it appears that (except for administration of the proposed fund) title III of H.R. 7849 creates no new authority in the executive branch of the Government, or sets no priorities, but merely duplicates existing authority. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely yours, Burt W. Roper, Acting General Counsel. DEPARTMENT OF THE Navy, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, OrricE oF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C My Dear Mr. CuatrmMan: Your request for comment on H.R. 7849, a bill to provide for the development of ocean resources, to provide for economic development of the Continental Shelf, to pro- vide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes, has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense. This bill would establish a National Oceanographic Council to advise and assist the President in the field of oceanography and would also establish a Marine Exploration and Development Commission to formulate and carry out programs for purposes of exploration and development of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf. While the objectives of this bill are unquestionably worthwhile, the methods enyisioned would duplicate in large part the missions already assigned to a variety of Government agencies. The Marine Explora- tion and Development’ Commission which would be established would be not only a managing and funding agency but also would be charged with “carrying out programs.” As an operating agency, it would thus be in competition with the Navy, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Bureau of Mines, and the U.S. Geological Survey all of which already have certain responsibilities similar to those mentioned in the bill. In the coordination of cooperative expeditions it would be in compe- tition with the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. Its powers to make grants, contracts, and loans to encourage such programs would be in competition with the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research, which support related efforts. Of particular concern is the authorization for the Commission to enter into agreements with other Government agencies, to pay them for doing work for the Commission. This would put the Commission in the powerful position of controlling the work of other agencies. Fifty 538—367—65—_—6 74 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION million dollars per year is authorized for the Commission, and it is improbable that such a large sum (almost 40 percent of the current national oceanographic program funding) will be provided without equivalent reductions in the budgets of agencies now active in ocean exploration and development. The Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, is opposed to the enactment of H.R. 7849 as it would in large part duplicate what existing agencies are already doing. Its objectives could be achieved more efficiently by strengthening existing agency programs, and assigning individual agencies further statutory responsibility, as may be considered appropriate. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the administration’s program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report on H.R. 7849 for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely yours, M. K. Disney, Captain, U.S. Navy, Director, Legislative Division (For the Secretary of the Navy). DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EpucATION, AND WELFARE. Washington, D.C., August 2, 1965. }ion. Hersertr C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This letter is in response to your request of May 11, 1965, for a report on H.R. 7849, a bill to provide for the devel- opment of ocean resources, to provide for economic development of the Continental Shelf, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. Title I of the bill would set forth objectives to be sought in ocean- ography and title If would provide for the establishment in the Executive Office of the President of a National Oceanographic Coun- cil, composed of the heads of the departments and agencies having un interest in oceanography. We believe that the purposes for which the National Oceanographic Council would be established are now being pursued through the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. With respect to the organizational setting of the oceanographic pro- gram, we prefer the provisions of H.R. 2218. Title III of H.R. 7849 provides for the establishment of a five- member Marine Exploration and Development Commission composed of two private citizens appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and the Secretaries of Defense, the Interior, and Com- merce One of the citizen members would be designated as chairman by the President. An Executive Director appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate would perform under the general super- vision of the Commission such functions authorized by the act as the Commission prescribes. The capacity of existing governmental agencies would be used to the maximum extent consistent with the act’s purposes. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION ie The Commission’s function would be the formulation and conduct of programs for exploration and development of the marie resources of the Continental Shelf and waters above it, including bué not lim- ited to the following: exploration to describe the topography and to identify, locate, and economically develop the physical, chemical, geological, and biological resources of the Continental Shelf; coop- erative expeditions for these purposes with other concerned Federal agencies; development of an engineering capability for exploration and development of the Continental Shelf and superjacent waters; promotion of participation in marine exploration and economic devel- opment by scientific institutions and industry, through grants, loans, and cost-sharing arrangements; and dissemination of information on marine discoveries, development of instrumentation, equipment, and facilities, and other appropriate information. The Commission would be authorized to make agreements with other Government agencies, public or private scientific institutions, private enterprises, or individuals, and to make loans, grants, or other cost-sharing arrangements with such institutions, private enterprises, or individuals from a marine exploration and development fund, for which a $100 million appropriation would be authorized. Annual appropriations not to exceed $50 million would be authorized for the work of the Commission. The Commission would be directed to make its findings available to other Government agencies, and, consistent with national security, to others, and to make an annual report to Congress with any legislative recommendations. The purpose of title III, the exploitation of the resources of the Continental Shelf, touches on certain program interests of this De- partment. These interests include the use of the shelf for the dis- posal of municipal, industrial, and radioactive wastes, the presence of naturally occurring toxins, and the effect of these contaminants on the suitability for human consumption of the marine food resources of the waters above the shelf. Although we have no specific recommen- dation regarding title III, we do hope that, if such a Commission is established, it will be so constituted and its functions so defined as to give appropriate consideration to the program interests of this Depart- ment. Since we object to certain sections of this bill, we recommend that H.R. 7849 not be enacted. We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objec- tion to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely, Wieur J. CoHEN, Under Secretary. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatwes, Washington, D.C. Drar Mr. Bonner: Your committee has requested our views and recommendations on seven specific bills concerned with the problem 76 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION of planning, coordinating, and financing the national oceanographic program. This Department, through the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Bureau of Mines, and the Geological Survey, is greatly interested in, and directly concerned with, the science of oceanography. We are primarily concerned with the development of the natural resources of the oceans. Consequently, we desire that this form of research and development proceed efficiently and effectively in the national interest. Described briefly, the bills before the committee are: * * * * * * * H.R. 7849 combines the principal provisions of H.R. 5654 and H.R. 5884. There are no provisions of substance added in this combination of the two bills. x * * * x * All of these bills deal in various ways with the problem of planning, coordinating and financing the national oceanographic program. This is a large program of research and development which involves several Federal Government departments and specialized agencies. It is largely based on the recommendation of a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, which in 1959 proposed that the Federal Government embark on a 10-year program of expanded research on the oceans. The program involves studies of the physics, chemistry geology, and biology of the ocean and its contiguous waters; the relationships and interactions between ocean and atmosphere; and the living, mineral, and fossil resources of the ocean waters and seabed, and methods of conserving and harvesting these natural resources. Since 1960 the program has been coordinated and its budgets planned by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Coun- cil for Science and Technology. Funds are appropriated through the budgets of the individual cooperation agencies. The large number of bills which have been introduced in the Congress in recent sessions proposing to alter this coordinating machinery or to begin new studies of the ocean and its resources reflects the concern of the legislative branch of the Government that the present mechanism for planning and review may not be adequate. The varying nature of the individual solutions to the problem represented by these bills is a fair indication of the complexity of the problem. We believe that there is a growing need for a perspective in which the oceanographic programs of the Federal Government can be more clearly seen in relation to each other and in relation to the national goals which they support. All of these bills contain some features which could be helpful in carrying out a national oceanographic pro- eram. The position of the executive branch, however, is that H.R. 2218 should be enacted, but that the enactment of any of the other bills would be premature at this time. This position is based on the premise that the President’s Science Advisory Committee’s Panel on Oceanography is at the present time making the kind of investigation and study that is contemplated by H.R. 9064. When the Panel completes its study and submits its report Congress can more appro- priately decide whether additional legislation dealing either with a further study or with a revised governmental organization to admin- ister the national oceanographic program should be enacted. NATIONAL OCHANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 77 The recommendation that legislative action should be deferred is not intended to cast any doubt. on the importance of the subject. President. Johnson bas recently stated his intention that the United States shall maintain leadership in ocean science and technology and their economic, military, and social applications. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administra- tion’s program. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE F, Pautzkz, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. NationaL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Washington, D.C., April 23, 1965. Hon. Herspert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear ConcressMAN Bonner: Over the last 3 months you have been kind enough to refer to us for our information, and such comment as we might wish to make, several bills having to do with the Federal Government’s arrangements for developing, coordination, and funding the national oceanographic program. Our Committee on Oceanography has welcomed the opportunity to review these bills. The Committee has long recognized the need for a more unified approach to the oceanography program among the Fed- eral agencies. The Committee considers such an approach to be especially desirable with reference to those elements of the program that involve the missions of several different agencies, for example, the study of air-sea interactions, the development and,use of deep- divine vehicies and other means of deep-sea investigation, and the study of ocean resources. While the Committee does not have an adequate basis for recom- mending a particular mechanism for achieving the desired unity of approach, its members feel that effects at the appropriate level of the executive branch, for example, the Office of Science and Technology, in consultation with the congressional committees concerned, can un- doubtedly result in an effective solution of the problem. Yours sincerely, F. Seitz, FREDERICK SEITZ, President. NATIONAL ScrENCE FouNDATION, OFrFicE oF THE DiREcTOR, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1956. Hon. Herspert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatwes, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This is in further reply to your request of May 11, 1965, for the views of the National Science Foundation on H.R. 7849, a bill to provide for the development of ocean resources, 78 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION to provide for economic development of the Continental Shelf, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. H.R. 7849 would establish in the Executive Office of the President a National Oceanographic Council, consisting of the heads of 10 Federal departments and agencies with the Vice President of the United States as Chairman. The function of the Council would be to advise and assist the President in connection with matters involving oceanography and the marine sciences. The Council would have a staff headed by a civilian Executive Secretary appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The bill would also establish a Marine Exploration and Develop- ment Commission, consisting of two members appointed from private life, one of whom ‘would be Chairman of the Commission, the Secre- tary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Commerce. It would be the responsibility of the Commission to formulate and carry out programs for exploration and development of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf and waters above the Continental Shelf. Such programs would include, among others, marine exploration, expeditions and surveys, and the making of grants, loans or cost-sharing arrangements for marine exploration,and economic development activities by scientific institutions and industry. As you know, the national program in oceanography is being coordinated through the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. We believe that this organizational arrangement is proving satisfactory for carry- ing on the Nation’s oceanographic effort and that such problems as have arisen do not warrant establishment of the high level council envisaged by H.R. 7849. With regard to the proposed Marine Exploration and Develop- ment Commission, it is our view that the problems involved in the exploration and development of the Continental Shelf are still largely undefined. Information is not yet available regarding the kinds of programs that should be undertaken or the amounts of money which might be necessary to carry out such activities. We believe that the administrative mechanism for carrying out such activities should be considered in the light of the programs to be conducted. In this connection, the President’s Science Advisory Committee has estab- lished a Panel on Oceanography, which will be considering recommen- dations regarding national policies with respect to oceanography, iucluding matters such as those contemplated by this portion of H.R. 7849. While we consider the aims of H.R. 7849 highly important ones, in view of the above considerations, we recommend against its enact- ment. The Bureau of the Budget has advised us it has no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely yours, Bowen C. Duss, Acting Director. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 79 EXEcuTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, June 24, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuairman: I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on H.R. 7849, a bill to provide for economic development of the Continental Shelf and for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. Though fully concurring with the stated objectives of the bill, to sustain leadership for the “United States in marine science and tech- nology and their economic, military, and social applications, I regret that I cannot recommend enactment of H.R. 7849. Because my reasons differ for the two central provisions of the bil, they will be discussed separately. In regard to the provisions relating to the Continental Shelf, the extent to which industry is prepared to invest private funds in the extraction of wealth from the Continental Shelf is not clear at this time. For this reason, it is not clear that the provision of funds to industry, as provided by the bill, is the necessary or proper direction of Federal activity. The primary need may well be for guidance and consultation at this stage and further clarification of the legal status of resource exploitation. Furthermore, the addition of commissions, counsels, boards, com- mittees, and similar groups reporting directly to the President is generating a situation which tends to make an existing difficult situa- tion nearly impossible. For this reason, if any of the functions proposed in the bill are established in law, serious consideration should be given to placing them under the general jurisdiction of an existing major agency or department. In sum, my reservations with respect to this portion of the bill relate not to the eventual economic significance of the Continental Shelf but, rather, to the wisdom of enacting a law which would establish functions and allocate responsibilities and funds, when it is not clear that the approach taken in the bill is the one which would be adopted if all of the alternatives had been thoroughly explored. In regard to the functions to be performed by the proposed National Oceanographic Council, these essentially duplicate those now being performed by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO), a committee consisting of senior officials with technical and policy responsibilities established under the Federal Council for Science and Technology to plan and coordinate Federal programs relating to oceanography. The ICO, through the Federal Council for Science and Technology and its Chairman, the Special Assistant to the Presi- dent, has been a highly effective link between the President and the Federal departments and agencies in matters relating to marine science and technology. Whether this link would be strengthened by the proposed Council and substantially greater effectiveness 80 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION achieved in planning and coordination is doubtful, owing to the efficacy of the existing ICO system, now in its sixth year of operation. Moreover, the bill raises a general question relating to the structure of the executive branch for dealing with questions of science policy. The Office of Science and Technology was established with the concur- rence of the Congress to advise and assist the President on matters relating to science and technology and to coordinate the activities of the Federal agencies. The bill raises in principle the desirability of establishing a series of national councils, for areas of high importance to science and technology, which report directly to the President. This way of organizing to deal with problems of science and technology would raise complicated problems, both for the President and for the major departments. A prerequisite to decisions relating to the future development of oceanography is a thorough analysis of the state of the field, identi- fication of points of priority in terms of science, technology, and resources, and the potential contributions of all parties (industry, government, universities, foundations, and private laboratories) to the field. A study group composed of outstanding scientists is being established under the auspices of the President’s Science Advisory Committee to review these questions. They are also under study by the National Academy of Science’s Committee on Oceanography. It would seem prudent to withhold judgments on organizational matters until the results of these studies are available. Sincerely yours, Donatp F. Hornie, Director. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, Washington, D.C., June 29, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonner: Thank you for your request of May 11, 1965, for the views of the Smithsonian Institution on H.R. 7849, a bill to provide for the development of ocean resources, to provide for eco- nomic development of the Continental Shelf, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. This legislation, consisting of three titles, is designated the ‘Ocean Resources Development Act of 1965.” Title I of H.R. 7849 sets forth the objectives of the oceanographic and marine science activities of the United States. Title II of this legislation would (1) establish in the Executive Office of the President a National Oceanographic Council composed of representatives of Federal departments and agencies engaged in oceanographic and marine science activities; (2) provide that the Council shall serve as the advisory body of the President concerning the performance of functions in the fields of oceanography and the marine sciences, including certain designated functions; (3) authorize the Council to employ a staff; (4) direct the Council to submit to Congress within 1 year from the enactment of H.R. 7849 a compre- hensive legislative program to further oceanography and the marine NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 81 sciences; (5) authorize the Council, under the foreign policy guidance of the President, to engage in an international cooperative program in these fields; (6) provide for the issuance of an annual report by the President describing and evaluating the activities of the United States in the fields of oceanography and the marine sciences, containing such legislative recommendations as the President may deem necessary ; (7) prescribe certain security provisions relating to the Council’s employees and activities; and (8) authorize annual appropriations, not exceeding $500,000, to carry out the purposes of H.R. 7849. Title III of H.R. 7849 would (1) establish a Marine Exploration and Development Commission, composed of two private citizens appointed by the President and the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, and the Interior, to formulate and carry out programs of exploration and de- velopment of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf and the water above it, including certain designated programs; (2) grant the Commission authority to employ a staff, to enter into certain cooper- ative agreements with public and private scientific institutions or with private individuals or enterprises, and to make loans, grants, or other cost-sharing arrangements; (3) establish a marine exploration and development fund to be available to the Commission for making loans, grants, or other cost-sharing arrangements; (4) authorize an annual appropriation not exceeding $50 million to the Commission to carry out its functions, and a $100 million appropriation into the marine exploration and development fund, to remain available until expended; (5) direct the Commission to the extent found consistent with the national security requirements to make available to the public information obtained in carrying out its functions; and (6) direct the Commission to make an annual report of its activities, including such legislative recommendations as are deemed desirable. It is noted that the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution is included in the membership of the proposed National Oceanographic Council to be established under title I] of H.R. 7849. The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution will be asked to consider this legislation as soon as practicable. I shall be pleased to advise you of its views at that time. Sincerely yours, S. Ditton Ripiey, Secretary. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D.C., July 30, 1965. Hon. Hirsert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Cuairnman: Your letter of May 11, 1965, acknowledged on May 14, requested the Department’s comments on H.R. 7849, a bill to provide for the development of the Continental Shelf, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other pruposes. Essen- tially, the bill combines the features of H.R. 5654 and H.R. 5884 (and companion bills). The Department of State is in full agreement with the necessity for joint planning and coordination of the multiple oceanographic activ- 82 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION ities sponsored by the various governmental agencies. Only in this way Can an effective, integrated, truly national program be developed. It was for this purpose that the Interagency Committee on Oceanog- raphy was established in 1960 by the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Its membership represents the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Commerce, Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Smithsonian Institution, Atomic Energy Commission, and National Science Foundation. This Committee has achieved considerable success in furthering national goals while supporting the missions of the individual agencies. There would be no effect on the conduct of our foreign relations if the proposed Council were substitut- ed for the Interagency Committee, and, therefore, the Department would interpose no objection to the cr eation of such a Council. How- ever, creation of such a Council would more directly affect the domes- tic operation oceanographic agencies, and due consideration should be accorded their views on the matter. If the Congress should decide to create the Council, the legislation might create a position of full-time Chairman of the Council to coordi- nate policy and action and to direct the staff. The Vice President could still be given the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating oceanographic activities within the executive branch in such legislation, but would not, of course, be Chairman of the Council since the Chair- man would report to the Federal Council for Science and Technology. This change could be accomplished through minor changes in the bill. The Department does not believe that the proposed Marine Explora- tion and Development Commission would have any adverse effect on the conduct of our foreign relations, and therefore would interpose no objection to its creation. In fact, the Department believes that the Commission might prove most helpful i in the development of oceanic capability and use which would not only provide a source of raw ma- terials for our economy, as contemplated by the bill, but also forestall domination of the ocean by forces inimical to our welfare. The Department is disturbed, however, that the bill is silent on the relationship between the Council and the Commission, should it be decided to create both, or the relationship between the Commission and the existing Government oceanic community should it be decided to create only the Commission. It is suggested that, mn the first instance, the Chairman of the Commission should be made a member of the Council. If the suggestion made above regarding a full-time Chairman for the Council is adopted, he might also be the Chairman of the Commission. It should also be made clear that the provisions of section 201(e) apply to the Commission. If the Council is not estab- lished, provisions should be inserted in the sections dealing with the Commission requiring cooperation with other Government agencies engaged in oceanic endeavors. The following comments are directed to specific provisions or sa of the bill, should the Congress determine that it should be enacted. 1. Section 102(3): This section defines the term ‘Continental Sheli”’ in a somewhat different way from the way the term is defined in the Convention on the Continental Shelf, 1958. Since the rights of the United States derive from the convention, it is our view that any implementing or supporting legislation should conform sub- stantially to the convention. As defined in the convention, the term NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 83 “Continental Shelf’? includes only areas ‘‘outside the area of the territorial sea’? where the specified depth or exploitabililty criteria exists. The term as defined in the bill does not exclude the area of the territorial sea but, on the contrary, would include the territorial sea at least where the depth or exploitability factors are present. The territorial sea, including its seabed and subsoil, is a part of the sovereign territory of the coastal State and rests on different principles of law than those applicable to the Continental Shelf. In the case of the shelf the sovereign rights of the coastal State are confined to the subsoil and seabed, the superjacent waters remaining high seas in which the customary freedom of the seas exists. Finally, not only is the definition of ‘‘Continental Shelf” in the bill inconsistent with the definition in the Convention on the Continental Shelf but also with existing U.S. legislation; i.e., the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (Public Law 212, 83d Cong.; 67 Stat 462). However, the Department recognizes the necessity of including in the functions of the proposed Commission responsibility to carry out activities in the area of the submerged lands of the territorial sea similar to those carried out in the area of the Continental Shelf. The Department further recognizes that the functions envisaged for the Commission cannot be carried out completely if limited to the Continental Shelf. The rights of the states under the Submerged Lands Act (Public Law 31, 88d Congress; 67 Stat. 29) must be taken into account, of course. If, as the Department believes, the provisions of the bill should be extended to the territorial sea, it is suggested that this be done by specific mention of the territorial sea and that the definition of the term “Continental Shelf’ conform to the definition in article 1 of the Convention on the Continental Shelf. However, ia this connection, it is suggested that consideration be given to the question whether the inclusion of the territorial sea in the coverage of the proposed legislation would be consistent with the rights of the States under the Submerged Lands Act (Public Law 31, 83d Congress; 67 Stat. 29), and maybe other laws also. 2. Section 201(f) and section 301(c): Section 201(f) provides that the Executive Secretary of the Council shall receive a rate of com- pensation not to exceed that of level II of the Federal executive salary schedule, while section 301(c) provides that the Executive Director of the Commission shall receive compensation at the rate of level [V of the Federal executive salary schedule. The Department calls this difference to the attention of the Congress, which may wish to con- sider whether an appropriate change should be made in either section 201(f) or section 301(c) or both. 3. Section 202(a): The Department believes that section 202(a) is unnecessarily restrictive since it appears to confine international co- operation in oceanography to that formalized by treaties ratified by the President after advice and consent of the Senate. U.S. agencies and institutions are now cooperating with other countries in many valuable oceanographic studies and are contemplating additional pro- grams in the future. All these programs fall within the normal activ- ities of the responsible agencies and are carefully reviewed for foreign policy implications before approval. Ample authority already exists for a large measure of cooperation in international ventures in oceanog- raphy. Should this prove inadequate, further authority would be 84 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION sought through treaty or legislation. Since the present procedure has worked very satisfactorily, no change is believed necessary at present. More formal agreements can be made, of course, for any aspect of the international programs requiring such action. Therefore, if the pro- posed legislation is enacted, it is suggested that a period be placed after the word ‘“‘title’” in line 25, page 7, of section 202(a) or that the section be deleted. . 4. Section 202(c): We suggest, also, the deletion of the words “‘the Chairman or’ from section 202(c). This section implies that the President is required to include in his report to the Congress proposals for additional legislation considered necessary by the Chairman of the Council (whether the Vice President or an independent Chairman) whether or not the President agreed with the proposal. 5. Section 201(c), section 201(d), and section 301(a): The Depart- ment notes that the authority in section 201(d) for members of the Council to designate alternates is with the advice and consent of the Senate, unless at the time of the designation the officer was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Section 301(a), however, permits Government members of the Commission to designate any officer of his department as alternate, without any restriction. The Department suggests that a member of the Council or of the Com- mission may wish to designate more than one alternate. First, there may be times when both the member and a single alternate would be unable to attend a meeting of the Council or of the Commission. Second, in departments where more than one oceanographic specialty is encountered, it may be desired to have more than one alternate in order that the most appropriate officer may serve as alternate at a particular meeting. Therefore, the Department suggests that the Congress may wish to consider substituting the words ‘not more than two officers” for the words “another officer” in sections 201(c) and 301(a). Further, the Department does not believe it essential that such alternates be designated with the advice and consent of the Senate. Such a provision is designed to insure that an alternate would be a policy level officer; the Department believes that it is unlikely that members would designate other than policy level officers as alternates. 6. Section 203(a): The Department believes that the word ‘‘con- sulted” in line 3, page 9, should be “‘consultants.”’ 7. Section 302(3): This section provides, as one of the functions of the proposed Commission, the development of an engineering capabil- ity that will permit exploitation and development of the Continental Shelf ‘and superjacent waters.” The waters superjacent to the Continental Shelf, as defined by the convention, are high seas, and while the provision in question is not necessarily inconsistent with that situation, nevertheless, it should be clear that the rights of the coastal state in such waters are not exclusive. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration’s program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, Dovetas MacArtuur II, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 85 GENERAL CouNSEL Of THE TREASURY, Washington, D.C., July 30, 1965. Hon. Herserrt C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Drar Mr. Cuatrman: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 7849, to provide for the develop- ment of ocean resources, to provide for economic development of the Continental Shelf, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. This bill combines the provisions of other bills introduced in the 89th Congress of which H.R. 5654 and H.R. 6009 are representative. One title of the bill provides for the establishment of a National Oceano- eraphic Council in the Executive Office of the President. The Council would be chaired by the Vice President and would be composed of the heads of certain executive departments and agencies. It would em- ploy a staff headed by an Executive Director. The chief responsibility of the Council would be to coordinate work in oceanography being carried out by the various departments and agencies of the Federal Government. A second title of the bill would establish a Marine Ex- ploration and Development Commission composed of five members— two from private life appointed by the President and the Secretaries of Defense, Interior, and Commerce. This Commission would be charged with the formulation and carrying out of programs for the purpose of exploration and development of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf. The Department is in favor of the purposes of the bill which are to advance the national program on oceanography and to advance the national interest in exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf. It questions, however, whether the pro- posed bill offers the most effective method of achieving these purposes. With respect to oceanography, coordination at the present time is achieved through the use of the Interagency Committee on Oceanog- raphy formed by the Federal Council for Science and Technology. The Department believes that this basic approach should be continued and is opposed to the creation of another office or agency with inde- pendent authority and responsibility in the field. With respect to the proposed Commission, it is believed that the function and programs of that Commission would overlap the duties and responsibilities currently vested in other offices and agencies with respect to oceanography. The latter covers basic disciplines of science and engineering and contains within its spectrum such categories as marine biology, geology, physics, chemistry, fisheries, and ocean fore- casting. From this partial listing, it is apparent that some functions of the proposed Commission would include many of the phases of oceanography currently within the scope of the existing national pro- gram on oceanography. The Department has stated its support of H.R. 2218 as a construc- tive measure for assuring coordination of the efforts of the various Government agencies in the area of oceanography. For the reasons given above, the Department believes that the establishment of a 86 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION new agency, as outlined in the proposed bill, will not achieve that re- sult in as desirable a manner. any, the Treasury Department opposes the enactment of -R. 7849. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration’s pro- gram to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, Frep B. Smiru, Acting General Counsel. [H.R. 9064, H.R. 9483, H.R. 9617, H.R. 9667, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] BILLS To establish a National Commission on Oceanography Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby established a National Commission on Oceanography, hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”. Sec. 2. The Commission shall be composed of fifteen members appointed by the President from among persons with a competency in the areas to be dealt with by the Commission. It shall include five representatives from Government ; five representatives from industry; and five representatives from universities or laboratories engaged in oceanographic pursuits. Sec. 3. The Commission shall elect a chairman and a vice chairman from among its members. Hight members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its power but shall be filled in the same manner in which the appointment was made. Sec. 4. The Commission shall make a comprehensive investigation and study of all aspects of oceanography in order to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national oceanographic program that will meet the present and future national needs. The investigation ang study shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Review the known and contemplated needs for natural resources from the oceans to maintain our expanding national economy. (hb) Review the surveys, applied research programs, and ocean engineering projects required to obtain the needed resources from the ocean. (ec) Review the existing national research programs to insure realistic and adequate support for basic oceanographic research that will enhance human wel- fare and scientific knowledge. (1d) Review the existing Government and industrial oceanographic and ocean engineering programs, including education and technical training to deter- mine which programs are required to advance our national oceanographic competence and stature and which are not now adequately supported by existing agencies. (e) Analyze the findings of the ahove reviews and recommend an overall plan for an adequate national eceanographice and ocean engineering program that will meet the present and future national needs without unnecessary duplication of effort among the participating agencies. : (f) Recommend an organizational plan and budget to accomplish the recom- mendations above. Sec. 5. Members of the Commission appointed from outside the Government shall each receive $100 per diem when engaged in the actual performance of duties of the Commission. Members of the Commission appointed from within the Government shall serve without compensation in addition to that received for their services to the Government. Sec. 6. The Commission shall have power to appoint and fix the compensa- tion of such personnel as it deems advisable, without regard to the civil service laws and the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. In addition, the Commis- sion may secure temporary and immediate services to the same extent as is authorized the departments and agencies of the Government by section 15 of the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946, but at rates not to exceed $100 per diem for individuals. Sec. 7. All members and other personnel of the Commission shall be reim- bursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in carry- ing out this Act. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 87 Src. 8. (a) The Commission or, on the authorization of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act, hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and places, administer such oaths, and require, by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, cor- respondence, memorandums, papers, and documents as the Commission or such subcommittee or member may deem advisable. Subpenas may be issued under the signature of the chairman of the Commission, of such committee, or any duly designated member, and may be served by any person designated by such chair- man or member. The provisions of sections 102 to 104, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C., secs. 192-194), shall apply in the case of any failure of any witness to comply with any subpena or to testify when sum- moned under authority of this section. (b) The Commission is authorized to secure directly from any executive de- partment, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the pur- pose of this Act; and each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, establishment, or instrumentality is authorized and directed to furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Com- mission, upon request made by the chairman or vice chairman. Sec. 9. The Commission shall submit an interim report within one year from the date of enactment of this Act and submit a final report of its findings and recommendations to the President and Congress no later than the end of two years after the date of enactment of this Act. The Commission shall cease to exist thirty days after it has submitted its final report. U.S. Aromic Enercy Commission, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. BonNER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Bonner: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to comment on H.R. 9064, a bill to establish a National Commission on Oceanography. The bill would establish a National Commission on Oceanography composed of members, appointed by the President, who would be representatives from Government, from industry, and from uni- versities or laboratories engaged in oceanographic pursuits. The Commission would be directed to make a comprehensive investigation and study of all aspects of oceanography in order to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national oceanographic program that will meet the present and future national needs. The Commission would be directed to submit a final report of its findings and recommenda- tions to the President and Congress within 2 years. As you know, the Atomic Energy Commission was one of the four Federal agencies that first suggested and participated in efforts to coordinate the national program in oceanography. The Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST) established the perma- nent Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO) in 1960; a primary function of ICO has been to coordinate the activities of var- ious agencies having an interest in oceanography and related marine sciences. ‘The AEC is a member of the ICO and participates in the annual preparation of the Government’s national oceanographic pro- gram, which is reviewed and approved by the FCST. The ICO has also formulated a long range national oceanographic plan (1963-72). The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) par- ticipated in the review of this plan, and the NAS Committee on 8S NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Oceanography engages in a continuing examination of long range oceanographic planning. The recently established NAS National Academy of Engineering plans to set up a Committee on Ocean Engineering to work closely with the NAS Committee on Oceanography in the future development of long range oceanographic matters of interest to industry. The National Security Industrial Association is also active in making recommendations regarding a national oceanographic program. In view of the comprehensive short and long range planning being carried on by the Federal Government and by organizations, com- posed of representatives of industry, universities and laboratories, whose recommendations are given careful consideration in the formu- lation of the Government’s program in oceanography, it is not clear that the establishment of a National Commission on Oceanography as proposed by the bill would be of substantial benefit to the national oceanographic program. It is the Commission’s view that the Na- tion’s interests in oceanography can best be served by adequate support of the present efforts. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the ad- ministration’s program. Sincerely yours, JOHN V. VINCIGUERRA (For the General Manager). EXEcUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BurEAvU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1968. Hon. Hersert C. BonnzER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. CHatrMan: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1965, requesting the views of the Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 9064, a bill to establish a National Commission on Oceanography. The bill would create a temporary commission to “make a compre- hensive investigation and study of all aspects of oceanography in order to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national oceano- graphic program that will meet the present and future national needs.” It would submit a final report of its findings and recom- mendations within 2 years. In its report to you of July 6, 1965, the Office of Science and Tech- nology has pointed out that a study like that proposed to be made by the Commission is already being carried out by the special Panel on Oceanography of the President’s Science Advisory Committee. A principal advantage of conducting a study of programs in one field of science through the machinery of the President’s Science Advisory Committee is that the objectives and opportunities in that field can be weighed against the competing claims of other fields of science. A statutory Commission concerned with a single scientific field would necessarily lack the breadth of perspective which would be desirable. Its mission would not permit it to assess the relative priorities of oceanography in relation to those of other scientific NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 89 fields and, thus, its recommendations might lead to serious imbalance among scientific programs. In our previous letters we have reported our views to your committee concerning H.R. 921 (March 11, 1965), H.R. 2218 (March 11, 1965) and H.R. 5884 and 6009 (July 27, 1965). In those letters we stated that significant steps have been taken in recent years to strengthen overall coordination of oceanographic activities at the Presidential level; that substantial progress is being made in developing and con- ducting a sound oceanographic program under existing arrangements; and that the executive branch has been seeking to improve the process of reporting to the Congress on the status and future plans for this field. We believe that the study currently in process by the Panel on Oceanography will help to illuminate further opportunities and needs in this field. In light of the factors cited above, the Bureau of the Budget recom- mends against enactment of H.R. 9064. We favor, instead, enactment of H.R. 2218 which would provide for the establishment of a com- prehensive Federal oceanographic program. Under this program the President and the Congress would be informed not once—but annu- ally—of recommended plans and programs to meet the present and future national needs in oceanography. Sincerely yours, Puiuure S. HueueEs, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1968. Hon. Hrrsert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This letter is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to H.R. 9064, a bill to establish a National Commission on Oceanography. H.R. 9064 would establish a temporary investigatory commission on ocean- ography of 15 members appointed by the President, five from Govern- ment, five from industry, and five from universities and laboratories. The Commission would investigate and study all aspects of ocean- ography and recommend a plan for a national oceanographic program. It would submit an interim report within 1 year, a final report within 2 years, and would cease to exist 30 days after submission of its final report. The existing Federal program in oceanography is continuously evaluated and coordinated by the Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography. The National Academy of Sciences Committee on Ocean- ography is preparing a review and reevaluation of its 1960-70 pro- gram for Federal oceanographic activity. The President’s Science Advisory Committee has been directed to review and recommend improvements of the Federal program in oceanography, and its Panel on Oceanography recently held a meeting at Woods Hole, Mass., for that purpose. Thus, Federal oceanographic activities are presently under significant review by qualified persons both within and outside 538-367—65—_—7 90 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION the Government, and we do not see any need for legislation establish- ing an investigatory commission at this time. However, we recognize that it may become desirable in the future to have an intensive general review of national oceanographic activity conducted by a commission of highly qualified persons. If your com- mittee now desires to recommend legislation directed toward possible future review of oceanography, we suggest that it include the following amendments in its recommendation. In order to allow such a commission to take advantage of the studies and reviews presently underway, we believe that the bills should be amended to give the President discretionary authority to establish the Commission. Thus, if it does become desirable to have such a com- mission, the President could select the best time for its establishment. We also feel that the constitution of the Commission is not sufficiently flexible and recommend amendment of the bill to remove its formula for apportionment of Commission membership. The amendment should authorize the President to appoint to the Commission no more than 15 qualified persons from Government and from the public at large and to name its chairman. Finally, section 8(b) of H.R. 9064 would direct Federal agencies to supply information directly to the Commission. We think that provision should be amended to restate the President’s existing authority to direct Federal agencies to furnish information to the Commission. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely, Burt W. Roper, Acting General Counsel. DepaRTMENT oF Heatru, Epucation, AND WELFARE, Washington, D.C., August 2, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This letter is in response to your request of June 21, 1965, for a report on H.R. 9064, a bill to establish a National Commission on Oceanography. This bill would establish a 15-member National Commission on Oceanography, appointed by the President from among competent persons: 5 from Government, 5 from industry, and 5 from universities or laboratories engaged in oceanographic pursuits. By election of the Commission, one member would be Chairman and one Vice Chair- man. The Commission would be directed to make a comprehensive investi- gation of and study all aspects of oceanography in order to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national program to meet present and future national needs, such investigation and study to include, but not be limited to, a review of known and contemplated needs for national resources from the oceans; a review of the activities required to obtain needed ocean resources; a review of present research pro- grams to insure realistic and adequate support for basic oceanography research; a review of present Government and industrial programs, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 9] including education and technical training, to determine requirements; an analysis of the findings of these reviews and recommendations for an adequate program to meet present and future national needs without unnecessary duplication among participating agencies; and recom- mendation of an organizational plan and budget to accomplish the recommendations. The bill would confer the usual authorities to hold hearings, admin- ister oaths, and subpena witnesses and records, and would require other Federal agencies to furnish information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission on request of its Chairman or Vice Chairman. The Commission would be directed to submit to the President and Congress an interim report within a year, and a final report of its findings and recommendations within 2 years of enactment, and would cease to exist 30 days thereafter. A study of this field is now in progress by a Panel on Oceanography of the President’s Science Advisory Committee. In the circumstances, we believe that creation of the statutory commission proposed by H.R. 9064 would be premature. We would, however, favor the enactment of H.R. 2218, the proposed “Oceanographic Act of 1965,” which would require the President to issue a statement of national goals in this field, survey all significant oceanographic activities (including the relevant policies, plans, programs, and accomplishments of Federal agencies), develop a comprehensive oceanographic program to be con- ducted or supported by Federal agencies, fix responsibility for the direction of activities in this field, and resolve differences among Federal agencies. H.R. 2218 provides that in the conduct of a co- ordinated Federal program the President shall utilize such advisory arrangements (including the Office of Science and Technology) as he may find necessary and appropriate, and shall, in addition to con- sulting Federal agencies, solicit the views of non-Federal agencies and individuals with capabilities in oceanography ; the President would be specifically authorized to appoint an Advisory Committee for Oceanography of not less than seven members, including adequate representation of scientists selected on the basis of competence from universities and other non-Federal institutions and agencies and from industry. We are advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objec- tion to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely, Wieur J. Conen, Under Secretary- U.S. DeparTMENT oF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, | Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonner: Your committee has requested our views and recommendations on seven specific bills concerned with the problem of planning, coordinating, and financing the national oceanographic program. This Department, through the Bureau of Commercial 92 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Fisheries, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the Bureau of Mines, and the Geological Survey, is greatly interested in, and directly concerned with, the science of oceanography. We are primarily concerned with the development of the natural resources of the oceans. Consequently, we desire that this form of research and development proceed efficiently and effectively in the national interest. Described briefly, the bills before the committee are: * xk * * * * * H.R. 9064 provides for a national commission composed of 15 members appointed by the President. This would include five representatives from Government, five from industry, and five from universities or laboratories engaged in oceanographic pursuits. The Commission would make a comprehensive investigation and study of all aspects of oceanography with the objective of devising a plan for an adequate national program to meet present and future national needs. It would review known and contemplated require- ments for natural resources from the oceans, determine what pro- grams are needed to obtain these resources, review existing national research programs to insure adequate support, review existing Government and industrial oceanographic and ocean engineering programs, including education and technical training, to determine what is required and what now is not adequately supported, analyze these findings and recommend an overall plan to meet present and future national needs, including an organizational plan and budget. The Commission would have the power to appoint and fix the com- pensation of such personnel as it deems advisable, and obtain tempo- rary and immediate services to the same extent as is authorized for the departments and agencies of the Government. The Commission would submit a report within 2 years after its creation and would cease to exist 30 days after it submitted the report. Identical bills are H.R. 9483, H.R. 9617, and H.R. 9667. All of these bills deal in various ways with the problem of planning, coordinating and financing the national oceanographic program. This is a large program of research and development which involves sev- eral Federal Government departments and specialized agencies. It is largely based on the recommendation of a committee of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, which in 1959 proposed that the Federal Government embark on a 10-year program of expanded research on the oceans. The program involves studies of the physics, chemistry, geology, and biology of the ocean and its contiguous waters; the rela- tionships and interactions between ocean and atmosphere; and the living, mineral, and fossil resources of the ocean waters and seabed, and methods of conserving and harvesting these natural resources. Since 1960 the program has been coordinated and its budgets planned by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Coun- cil for Science and Technology. Funds are appropriated through the budgets of the individual cooperating agencies. The large number of bills which have been introduced in the Congress in recent sessions proposing to alter this coordinating machinery or to begin new studies of the ocean and its resources reflects the concern of the legislative branch of the Government that the present mechanism for planning and review may not be adequate. The varying nature of the indi- vidual solutions to the problem represented by these bills is a fair indication of the complexity of the problem. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 93 We believe that there is a growing need for a perspective in which the oceanographic programs of the Federal Government can be more clearly seen in relation to each other and in relation to the national goals which they support. All of these bills contain some features which could be helpful in carrying out a national oceanographic pro- gram. The position of the executive branch, however, is that H.R. 2218 should be enacted, but that the enactment of any of the other bills would be premature at this time. This position is based on the premise that the President’s Science Advisory Committee’s Panel on Oceanography is at the present time making the kind of investigation and study that is contemplated by H.R. 9064. When the Panel com- pletes its study and submits its report Congress can more appropriately decide whether additional legislation dealing either with a further study or with a revised governmental organization to administer the national oceanographic program should be enacted. The recommendation that legislative action should be deferred is not intended to cast any doubt on the importance of the subject. President Johnson has recently stated his intention that the United States shall maintain leadership in ocean science and technology and their economic, military, and social applications. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the adminis- tration’s program. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE F. PAuTZzKE, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Intervor. Nationat ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Washington, D.C., April 23, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear ConGRESSMAN Bonner: Over the last 3 months you have been kind enough to refer to us for our information, and such comment as we might wish to make, several bills having to do with the Federal Government’s arrangements for developing, coordination, and funding the national oceanographic program. Our Committee on Oceanography has welcomed the opportunity to review these bills. The Committee has long recognized the need for a more unified approach to the oceanography program among the Federal agencies. The Committee considers such an approach to be especially desirable with reference to those elements of the program that involve the missions of several different agencies, for example, the study of air-sea interactions, the development and use of deep- diving vehicles and other means of deep-sea investigation, and the study of ocean resources. While the Committee does not have an adequate basis for recom- mending a particular mechanism for achieving the desired unity of approach, its members feel that efforts at the appropriate level of the executive branch, for example, the Office of Science and Technology, in consultation with the congressional committees concerned, can undoubtedly result in an effective solution of the problem. Yours sincerely, FREDERICK Setrz, President. 94 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION NatIonaL ScrENCcE FouNDATION, Orrice oF THE DrIREcToR, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. BonnErR, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. » Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This is in further reply to your request for the comments of the National Science Foundation on H.R. 9064, which would establish a National Commission on Oceanography. The Commission proposed in H.R. 9064 would be composed of 15 members appointed by the President. Its membership would include five representatives from Government, five from industry, and five from universities or laboratories engaged in oceanographic activities. The Commission’s function would be to make a compre- hensive study of oceanography in order to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national oceanographic program. -In this connection, the President’s Science Advisory Committee Has established a Panel on Oceanography, which will be considering recommendations regarding national policies in this area. It may be that the Panel, after its deliberations have concluded, will recom- mend creation of a group similar to that proposed in H.R. 9064. Whether such a recommendation will be made, however, is contingent upon the conclusions of the Panel. In view of the above considerations, we recommend against enact- ment of H.R. 9064. The Bureau of the Budget has advised us it has no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely yours, Bowen C. Deszs, Acting Director. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, July 6, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. BonNER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. ' Dear Mr. CuarrMan: I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on H.R. 9064, a bill to establish a National Commission on Oceanography. Although fully concurring with the purposes of the bill, to conduct a comprehensive investigation and study of all aspects of oceanography in order to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national oceanographic program that will meet the present and future national needs, I do not believe the Commission established. by H.R. 9064 would be desirable. The functions of the proposed Commission, to review—the known and contemplated needs for natural resources from the oceans; the surveys, applied research programs, and ocean engineering projects; the existing national research programs; and the existing Government and industrial oceanographic and ocean engineering programs, includ- ing education and technical training, are essentially the same as those of the President’s Science Advisory Committee’s Panel on Oceanog- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 95 raphy, that has been charged with recommending an improved oceanographic program in terms of scientific merit, effectiveness in technological application, and scientific and engineering leadership. In¥commenting upon the current status of oceanography to the President of the National Security Industrial Association, President Johnson recently stated his intent that the United States shall main- tain leadership in ocean science and technology and their economic, military, and social applications, and noted that the oceanographic program is currently being reviewed in terms of national goals, op- portunities, priorities, and means whereby industrial, academic, and Federal resources can be jointly and effectively employed in this program. I recognize the possibility that there might be a need for a commis- sion on oceanography at a later time, to supplement and extend the current review. I have asked the Panel to report to the President’s Science Advisory Committee on the results of their study, at which time a more informed and reliable judgment can be made on this point and on the composition and mission of any commission which might be established. Sincerely yours, Donatp F. Hornic, Director. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1965. Hon. Herpert ©. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatiwes, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonner: Thank you for your request of June 21, 1965, for the views of the Smithsonian Institution on H.R. 9064, a bill to establish a National Commission on Oceanography. This legislation would establish a National Oceanography Com- mission composed of 15 persons appointed by the President. Five representatives on this Commission shall be from the Government, five from industry, and five from universities and laboratories en- gaged in oceanographic pursuits. In order to recommend an adequate national oceanographic pro- eram, the Commission would be directed to make a comprehensive study of all aspects of oceanography, including certain specified aspects found in section 4 of H.R. 9064. Provisions is made for the submission by the Commission of an interim report within one year of approval of H.R. 9064 and a final report of its activities within 2 years of approval of this legislation. It is also provided that the Commission shall cease to exist 30 days after submission of its final report. The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution will be asked to consider this legislation at its next meeting. I shall be pleased to advise you of its views at that time. Sincerely yours, Frank A. TAytor, Acting Secretary. 06 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION GENERAL CoUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Washington, D.C., August 10, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: Reference is made to your request for the comments of this Department on H.R. 9064, to establish a National Commission on Oceanography. The bill would establish a Nationa] Commission on Oceanography composed of 15 members from Government, from industry, and from universities or laboratories engaged in oceanographic pursuits. The function of the Commission would be to study all aspects of oceanog- raphy in order to recommend an overall plan for a national oceano- graphic program that will meet present and future national needs. In addition, the Commission would be authorized to recommend an organizational plan and a budget for the purpose of accomplishing its recommendations. Finally, the Commission would be required to sub- mit an interim report within a year from the date of enactment of the bill and a final report within 2 years. The Commission would cease to exist 30 days after submission of its final report. The review of existing national efforts in the oceanographic field and the development of a plan for their continuation would provide an excellent planning basis for the Federal agencies engaged in oceano- graphic research. However, the Department does not consider it necessary or desirable that a new body be created to form a national oceanographic plan and make recommendations to implement it. At the present time, coordination is achieved through the use of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography formed by the Federal Council for Science and Technology. This Committee continues to mature and exert a strong influence over individual agency plans and is capable of influencing the Federal effort to meet any reasonable national plan. It is the Department’s opinion that the determination of the resource levels required to meet established national goals needs to be weighed by each agency head in planning his agency’s program. In this manner, expected technological advances which would affect: resource planning in the oceanographic field can be considered in deter- mining the best method of meeting national goals. The Treasury Department has previously stated its support of H.R. 9918 as a constructive measure for assuring coordination of the efforts. of the various Government agencies in this field. The Department adheres to that view and opposes the enactment of H.R. 9064. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration’s pro- gram to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, Frep B. Suiru, Acting General Counsel. [H.R. 5175, 89th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL Providing for a study of the legal problems of management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the United States Coast Guard is au- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 97 thorized and directed to conduct, by contract or otherwise, a study of the legal problems arising out of the management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. Sec. 2. There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000 for the purposes of this Act. U.S. Atomic Enrrey Commission, Washington, D.C., May 4, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Bonner: This is in reply to your request for the views of the Atomic Energy Commission on H.R. 5175, a bill providing for a study of the legal problems of management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. The Atomic Energy Commission has been long interested in the management, use, and control of the marine resources of the United States. If it is decided that a study of the legal problems connected with our marine resources would be useful, the Commission would be pleased to cooperate with whatever agency makes the study to the maximum extent consistent with the Commission’s responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administra- tion’s program. Sincerely yours, JoHN V. VINCIGUERRA (For General Manager). GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Washington, D.C., May 4, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. CHarrMan: This letter is in further reply to your re- quest for the views of this Department with respect to H.R. 5175, a bill providing for a study of the legal problems of management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. The bill would authorize and direct the U.S. Coast Guard to con- duct a study, by contract or otherwise, of the legal problems arising out of the management, use and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds, and would authorize the appropriation of $50,000 for the study. We oppose the bill in its present form. We do not believe that the Coast Guard is the appropriate agency for conducting the study contemplated by H.R. 5175. The legal problems that arise from management, use and control of ocean and ocean bed resources will generally fall within the missions of the Departments of State and Interior. The Department of the Interior is the agency charged with managing the resources of our outer Con- tinental Shelf (Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953). Inter- national law problems arising from our use of the ocean and ocean beds should be treated by the Department of State. 98 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Legal problems in the use of ocean and ocean bed resources may become more complex as activities in the field of oceanography in- crease. However, we defer to the views of the Departments of State and Interior on the extent to which these problems require special attention. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report from the stand- point of the administration’s program. Sincerely, Dean B. Lewis (For Robert E. Giles). DEPARTMENT OF THE Navy, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., June 8, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. Bonner, . Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. My Dear Mr. Cuarrman: Your request for comment on H.R. 5175, a bill ‘Providing for a study of the legal problems of manage- ment, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds,” has been assigned to this Department by) the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense. This bill would authorize the United States Coast Guard to conduct a study of the legal problems arising out of the management, use, and control of the natural resources of the ocean beds, by contract or otherwise, and would appropriate $50,000 for this purpose. H.R. 5175 is identical to H.R. 11419, 88th Congress. It is similar to H.R. 11232, 88th Congress, which would have authorized the same study and appropriation, but would have empowered the National Science Foundation to conduct the study. The Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, supports the purposes. of H.R. 5175, but defers as to which agency is best qualified to conduct the study. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely yours, C. R. Kzar, Jr., Captain, U.S. Navy, Deputy Chef (For the Secretary of the Navy). DxEPARTMENT OF Hratru, EpucATION, AND WELFARE, April 6, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. BonnEr, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatiwes, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This letter is in response to your request of February 23, 1965, for a report on H.R. 5175, a bill providing for NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 99 a study of the legal problems of management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. This legislation does not appear to affect the programs of this Department, and we defer to the views of those agencies concerned with this matter. Sincerely, WILBUR J. COHEN, Assistant Secretary. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., April 80, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonner: Your committee has requested our views and recommendations on H.R. 5175, a bill providing for a study of the legal problems of management, use, and control of the natural re- sources of the oceans and ocean. beds. The bill directs the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct a study of the legal problems relating to the management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. A study of this kind would directly involve the interests of this Department because of its responsibilities with respect to petroleum, fisheries, and the resources of the outer Continental Shelf (43 U.S.C. sec. 1331 et seq.) (the act of May 20, 1964, 78 Stat. 194). Under: these and other authorities the Department has substantial resource management functions. The matters to which this legislation is addressed were the subject of intensive study, extending over a period of several years, by the International Law Commission, a group formed under the sponsor- ship of the General Assembly of the United Nations. As a result of the findings and recommendations of the Commission, a United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea was held at Geneva from February 24 to April 27, 1958. The 1958 Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea led a the formulation of five international agreements which are set forth and described in summary in Senate Executives J to N, inclusive, 86th Congress, Ist session. These international agreements are identified as follows: (1) Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. (2) Convention on the High Seas. (Kntered into force on Septem- ber 30, 1962.) (3) Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. (4) Convention on the Continental Shelf. (Entered into force on June 10, 1964.) (5) Optional Protocol of Signature Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. (Entered into force on September 30, 1962; not in force for the United States.) These agreements and the work of the International Law Commis- sion which preceded their formulation indicate the depth to which the 100 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION legal problems related to the oceans and ocean beds have already been probed. We feel that a new study by the United States is not needed at this time. If such a study is undertaken however, we would not object, provided that it is conducted by the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State and other interested Federal agencies. Since any study would involve questions of rights and jurisdictions of other nations and the responsibilities of this Department, we believe it would be more appropriate for these two Departments, rather than the U.S. Coast Guard, to conduct the study. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the adminis- tration’s program. Sincerely yours, JoHn A. Carver, Jr., Under Secretary of the Interior. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., May 7, 1965. Hon. Hrersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. CuHairMan: This is in response to your reyuest for the views of the Department of Justice on H.R. 5175, a bill providing for a study of the legal problems of management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. The bill would authorize the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct, by contract or otherwise, a study of the legal problems arising out of the management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds, and to that end would authorize the appropriation of $50,000. The subject of the bill concerns natural resources and in some aspects also may affect foreign relations, matters which are of primary concern to the Department of the Interior and the Department of State, respectively. Accordingly, it is suggested that the committee may wish to consult those Departments on the measure. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administra- tion’s program. Sincerely, RamsEy CLark, Deputy Attorney General. NatrionaL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, Washington, D.C., April 6, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Coneressman Bonner: The Committee on Oceanography heartily endorses H.R. 5175, a bill providing for a study of the legal problems arising out of the management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. Such a study should NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM. LEGISLATION 101 be done by contract with a competent, disinterested, non-Govern- ment organization experienced in matters pertaining to the law of the sea. Supporting a detailed research investigation on this complex problem is very important. Sincerely yours, FREDERICK SeE1Tz, President. NATIONAL SCIENCE FouNDATION, Washington, D.C., July 28, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This is in further reply to your request for the views of the National Science Foundation on H.R. 5175, providing for a study of the legal problems of management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. H.R. 5175 would require that the legal study referred to be under- taken by the U.S. Coast Guard. In our view the matters with which the study would be concerned are not sufficiently within the responsi- bilities of the Coast Guard so as to make it appropriate for that organization to conduct the proposed study. We suggest that if a study is to be made, it be accomplished by an agency more closely identified with such areas of activity. The Bureau of the Budget has advised us it has no objection to sub- mission of this report from the standpoint of the administration’s program. Sincerely yours, Letanp J. Hawortu, Director. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, May 20, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. BonNER, Chairman, Commitiee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. CuHatrman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 5175, a bill to provide for study of legal problems relating to the management, use, and contro! of natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. As knowledge and technology is acquired through the national oceanographic program which enables us to manage, use, and control the valuable resources of the sea, it is essential that such activities proceed within an appropriate framework of Federal and international law. Legal problems inevitably follow new human activities and our emerging capabilities to exploit the oceans create the need for full understanding of the relevant legal considerations and international implications. In this regard, the International Convention on the Continental Shelf is a major accomplishment. Although I am not acquainted with the specific legal problems in connection with the management, use, and control of oceanic resources, it is evident that many unresolved questions relating to such matters 102 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION ‘as rights to these resources exist. Further legal studies could well serve to consolidate the applicable existing Federal and international statutes and may highlight unsuspected legal problems arising from new activities of the national oceanographic program. In view of the mission of the Department of the Interior in the field of resource management, I believe any such studies can and should be sponsored by that Department. Sincerely yours, Donatp F. Hornie, Director. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, May 8, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, ‘Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: Your letter of February 23, 1965, previously ‘acknowledged, requested the views of the Department of State on H.R. 5175, a bill providing for a study of the legal problems of manage- ‘ment, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean ‘beds. While the Department is unaware of the need for any such legal study from the standpoint of international law or of our relations with foreign countries it sees no objection thereto if such a study is con- sidered necessary from a domestic law standpoint. In such eventu- ality some agency of the Government having responsibilities in the field of our natural resources, such as the Department of the Interior, might be more appropriate for this function than the U.S. Coast Guard. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration’s program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, Dovetas MacArtuur II, Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations (For the Secretary of State). , THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE TREASURY, Washington, D.C., May 3, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: Reference is made to your request for the views of this Department on H.R. 5175, providing for a study of the legal problems of management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. The bill would authorize and direct the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct by contract or otherwise, a study of the legal problems arising out of the management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. The bill further authorizes the appropriation of $50,000 for the accomplishment of its aims. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 103 The Department has no independent knowledge as to the necessity for, or desirability of, the proposed legislation. However, since the study would relate to legal problems involving the natural resources of the ocean and ocean beds, it is our opinion that the study would be of more direct concern to the Department of the Interior rather than the Coast Guard. Consequently, while the Department would be ready to cooperate in any way in which its facilities or personnel could be used, the Department does not believe that the primary responsi- bility for the study should be lodged in the Coast Guard. Subject to the foregoing comments, this Department has no objec- tion to the enactment of H.R. 5175. The Department has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection from the standpoint of the administration’s program to the submission of this report to your committee. Sincerely yours, FRANK B. Smita, Acting General Counsel. [Commirrrr Norr.—s. 944 and H.R. 10432, which are identical, were referred to the committee after the hearmgs had commenced. The two bills and related agency reports follow:] [S. 944, H.R. 10432, 89th Cong., Ist sess.] AN ACT and A BILL To provide for expanded research and development in the marine environment of the United States, to establish a National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, and a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE SEecrion 1. This Act may be cited as the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1965. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE Src. 2. The marine science activities of the United States should be conducted So as to conribute to the following objectives : (1) The accelerated development of the physical, chemical, geological, and biological resources of the marine environment. (2) The expansion of human knowledge of the marine environment. (3) The encouragement of private investment enterprise in exploration, tech- nological development, marine commerce, and economic utilization of the re- sources of the marine environment. (4) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in marine science and resource development. (5) The advancement of education and training in marine science. (6) The development and improvement of the capabilities, performance, use, and efficiency of vehicles, equipment, and instruments for use in exploration, re- search, surveys, the recovery of resources, and the transmission of energy in the marine environment. (7) The effective utilization of the ‘scientific and engineering resources of the Nation, with close cooperation among all interested agencies, public and private, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment, or waste. (8) The cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations and international organizations in marine science activities when such cooperation is in the national interest. 104 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON MARINE RESOURCES AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT Sec. 3. (a) There is hereby established, in the Executive Office of the Presi- dent, the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development (hereinafter called the “Council’’) which shall be composed of — (1) The Vice President, who shall be Chairman of the Council. (2) The Secretary of State. (3) The Secretary of the Navy. (4) The Secretary of the Interior. (5) The Secretary of Commerce. (6) The Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. (7) The Director of the National Science Foundation. (8) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. (b) The President may name to the Council such other officers and officials as he deems advisable. (c) The President shall from time to time designate one of the members of the Council to preside over meetings of the Council during the absence, disability, or unavailability of the Chairman. (ad) Each member of the Council, except those designated pursuant to sub- section (b), may designate another officer of his department or agency to serve on the Council as his alternate in his unavoidable absence. (e) Each alternate member designated under subsection (d) of this section shall be designated to serve as such by and with the advice and consent of the Senate unless at the time of his designation he holds an office in the Federal Government to which he was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. (f) The Council shall advise and assist the President, as he may request, with respect to the performance of Federal functions in the field of marine science and engineering, including but not limited to the following functions: (1) survey all significant marine science activities, including the policies, plans, programs, and accomplishments of all departments and agencies of the United States engaged in such activities ; (2) develop a comprehensive program of marine science activities, in- cluding, but not limited to, exploration, exploitation, and conservation of the resources of the marine environment, marine engineering, studies of air-sea interaction, transmission of energy, and communications, to be conducted by departments and agencies of the United States; (3) designate and fix responsibility for the conduct of marine science activities, by departments and agencies of the United States, including, but not limited to, exploration, exploitation, and conservation of the resources of the marine environment, marine engineering, studies of air-sea interaction, transmission of energy, and communications ; (4) provide for effective cooperation among all departments and agencies of the United States engaged in marine science activities, and specify, in any case in which primary responsibility for any category of the marine science activities has been assigned to any department or agency, which of those activities may be carried on concurrently by other departments or agencies ; (5) resolve differences arising among departments and agencies of the United States with respect to marine science activities under this Act, including differences as to whether a particular project is a marine science activity ; (6) review annually all marine science activities conduced by depart- ments and agencies of the United States in light of the policies, plans, pro- grams, and priorities developed pursuant to this Act; (7) undertake a comprehensive study of the legal problems arising out of the management, use, development, recovery, and control of the resources of the marine environment ; and (8) establish long-range studies of the potential benefits to the United States economy, security, health. and welfare to be gained from marine resources, engineering, and science. (g) The Council may employ a staff to be headed by a civilian executive sec- retary who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and eonsent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at a rate established by the President at not to exceed that of level II of the Federal Executive Salary Schedule. The executive secretary, subject to the direction of the Council, is NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 105 authorized to appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel, including not more than seven persons who may be appointed without regard to civil service laws or the Classification Act of 1949 and compensated at not to exceed the highest rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, aS may be necessary to perform such duties as may be prescribed by the President. COMMISSION ON MARINE SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND RESOURCES Sec. 4. (a) To assist the President and the Council in carrying out the func- tions stated in sections 3(f) (1), (2), (7), and (8) of this Act, there is author- ized to be established, at the discretion of the President, a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources composed of fifteen members appointed by the President from among persons with a competency in the areas designated in this Act. The Commission may include five representatives from Government, five representatives from industry, and five representatives from universities, institutions, or laboratories engaged in marine science pursuits, and, upon estab- lishment of such Commission, the President shall designate from among its mem- bers a Chairman and a Vice Chairman. ((b) Members of the Commission appointed from outside the Government shall each receive $100 per diem when engaged in the actual performance of duties of the commission appointed from within the Government shall serve without com- pensation in addition to that received for their services to the Government. (c) The Commission, its Chairman and Vice Chairman, shall at all times co- operate effectively with the Council in carrying out the responsibilities and functions delegated to it under this Act by the President through the Council, and shall report at such intervals as may be determined by the Council, its findings and recommendations for the consideration of the Council. (d) In addition to the duties set forth in subsection (a) of this section and such other duties as may be assigned to it, the Commission shall survey the marine science activities of the United States, make recommendations for the most effective organizational structure for conduct of Federal activities in this. area, and make recommendations for the encouragement of private investment in marine science and resource development. (e) Subject to determinations of the Council, the Commission shall appoint and fix the compensation of such personnel as it deems advisable, without regard to the civil service laws and the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. In addi- tion, subject to determination of the Council, the Commission may secure tem- porary and immediate services to the same extent as is authorized the depart- ments and agencies of the Government by section 15 of the Administrative Ex- penses Act of 1946, but at rates not to exceed $100 per diem for individuals. (f) All members and other personnel of the Commission shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in carrying out this act. (g) The Commission, whatever may be the requirements of the Council under paragraph (c) of this section, shall submit to the Council not later than eighteen months after the establishment of the Commission as provided in subsection (a) of this section, a final report of its findings and recommendations. The Com- mission shall cease to exist thirty days after it has submitted its final report. Sec. 5. (a) The Council, under the foreign policy guidance of the President and as he may request, may coordinate a program of internation cooperation in work done pursuant to this Act, pursuant to agreements made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. (b) The President shall transmit to the Congress in January of each year a report, which shall include (1) a comprehensive description of the activities and the accomplishments of all agencies and departments of the United States in the field of marine science activities during the preceding year, and (2) an evalua- tion of such activities and accomplishments in terms of the attainment of, or the failure to attain, the objectives set forth in pursuant to this Act. (ec) Reports made under this section shall contain such recommendations for legislation as the Chairman of the Council or the President may consider neces- sary or desirable for the attainment of the objectives of this Act, and shall con- tain an estimate of funding requirements of each agency and department of the United States for marine science activities during the succeeding fiscal year. (d) No information which has been classified for reasons of national security shall be included in any report made under this section, except pursuant to authorization given by the President. 53- 367— 65——_8 106 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Src. 6. (a) The Council shall arrange with the Federal Bureau of Investiga- tion for the conduct of such security or other personnel investigation of the Council’s officers, employees, and consultants, as it deems appropriate, and if any such investigation develops any data reflecting that the individual who is the subject thereof is of questionable loyalty there shall be a full field investiga- tion of the matter, the results of which shall be furnished to the Council. (b) The Atomic Hnergy Commission may authorize any of its employees, or employees of any contractor, prospective contractor, licensee, or prospective licen- see of the Atomic Energy Commission under subsection 145(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165(b)), to permit any member, officer, or em- ployee of the Council to have access to restricted data relating to oceanography and the marine sciences which is required in the performance of his duties and so certified by the Council but only if (1) the Council or designee thereof has determined, in accordance with the established personnel security procedures and standards of the Council, that permitting such individual to have access to such destricted data will not endanger the common defense and security, and (2) the Council or designee thereof finds that the established personnel and other security procedures and standards of the Council are adequate and in reasonable conformity to the standards established by the Atomic Energy Commission under section 145 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165). Any individual granted access to such restricted data pursuant to this subsection may exchange such data with any individual who (A) is an officer or employee of the Depart- ment of Defense, or any department or agency thereof, or a member of the Armed Forces, or a contractor or subcontractor of any such department, agency, or armed force, or an officer or employee of any such contractor or subcon- tractor, and (B) has been authorized to have access to restricted data under the provisions of section 143 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42. U.5.C. 2163). Sec. 7. Information obtained or developed under this Act shall be made available for public inspection except (a) information authorized or required by Federal statute to be withheld, and (b) information classified to protect the national security: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall authorize the with- holding of information from the duly authorized committees of Congress. Sec. 8. (a) For the purposes of this Act the term “marine science” shall be deemed to apply to oceanographic and scientific endeavors and disciplines, engi- neering and technology in and with relation to the marine environment; and the term “marine environment” shall be deemed to include (1) the oceans, (2) the Continental Shelf of the United States, (8) the Great Lakes, (4) seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of the United States to the depth of two hundred meters, or beyond that limit, to where the depths of the superjacent waters admit of the exploitation of the natural resources of such areas, (5) the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of islands which comprise United States territory, and (6) the resources thereof. (b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be neces- sary to carry out this Act, but sums appropriated for any one fiscal year shall not exceed $1,000,000. Sec. 9. The provisions of this Act shall expire at the termination of June 30, 1970. Passed the Senate August 5, 1965. Attest : Fretton M. Jounston, Secretary. U.S. Aromic Enrrcy Commission, Washington, D.C., August 18, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives. Dear Mr. Bonner: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to comment on S. 944, a bill “[t]o provide for expanded research and development in the marine environment of the United States, to es- tablish a National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering De- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 107 velopment, and a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, and for other purposes,” As you know, the Atomic Energy Commission was one of the four Federal agencies that first suggested and participated in efforts to coordinate the national program in oceanography. The Federal Coun- eil for Science and Technology (FCST) established the permanent Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO) in 1960; a primary function of the ICO has been to coordinate the activities of various agencies having an interest in oceanography and related marine sci- ences. The AEC is a member of the ICO and participates in the annual preparation of the Government’s national oceanography pro- gram, which is reviewed and approved by the FCST. There is also an FCST Committee on Water Resources Research which is concerned with coordinating research activities of the various agencies on fresh water resources, including research pertaining to the Great Lakes. Tt is the AEC’s understanding that the proposed bill would in effect substitute a National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development for the ICO as the primary coordinator of agency activi- ties in the field of oceanography, including the Continental Shelf, and for the FCST Committee on Water Resources Research as the primary coordinator of agency research activities in the field of fresh water resources to the extent that those activities concern the Great Lakes. The bill would also establish, at the discretion of the President, a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources to assist. the President and the Council in carrying out certain of the functions stated in the bill, and such other duties as may be assigned to it. While the Commission is in accord with the substantive purpose and intent of the proposed legislation, it is our belief that the substitution of the National Council for the ICO and the FCST Committee on Water Resources Research is not necessary or appropriate at this time in view of the effective coordination of agency efforts in this field by these two committees. Should the bill be considered for passage, however, the Commission suggests that changes as set forth below be made. Subsection 5(d) should be amended to read as follows: “(d) No information which has been classified for reasons of na- tional security shall be included in any report made under this section, unless such information has been declassified by, or pursuant to au- thorization given by, the President.” This change would make it clear that information which has been previously declassified may be included in a report without further action. The Commission urges the deletion from the bill of subsection 6(b). This subsection would authorize “any member, officer, or employee of the Council to have access to restricted data relating to ocean- ography and the marine sciences which is required in the performance of his duties * * *” as certified by the National Council, provided the National Council determines that its established “security procedures ** * are * * * in reasonable conformity to the standards estab- lished by the Atomic Energy Commission under section 145 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2165)”, and provided the Na- tional Council has determined in accordance with such procedures 108 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION “that permitting such individual to have access to such restricted data will not endanger the common defense and security.” In our view subsection 6(b) would have the effect of diluting the Commission’s control over restricted data without adequate demon-. strated need. Such a certification procedure for access to restricted data, as proposed by subsection 6(b), has been accorded to only two agencies, the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics. and Space Administration because the nature of the duties and func- tions of these agencies have so required. In addition, as Dr. George M. Kavanagh mentioned during his testimony before your subcommittee on August 13, 1965, section 6(b) is technically defective in that (a) the words “or any other person authorized access to restricted data. by the Commission” should follow the word “Commission” in line 14, and (6) the subsection does not provide a means under which per- sons certified under S. 944 for access to restricted data may exchange. restricted data with persons certified for similar access under the Na- tional Aeronautics and Space Act. However, we believe that a statutory provision such as subsection 6(b) for the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering” Development is not necessary. There does not appear to be extensive restricted data pertaining to oceanography and related marine sci- ences, and we believe that need for access to such restricted data, which the National Council’s members and officers as well as its relatively small staff may have, can be effectively handled through the Commis- sion’s usual security procedures. In this connection, it should be noted. that Public Law 87-206 (75 Stat. 475) amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, on September 6, 1961, by adding a new sub- section 145(c) in order to expedite clearances in such cases as this. In order to allow the National Council to make full use of the clearance procedure contained in section 145(c) of the Atomic Energy Act, it is also recommended that section 6(a) of the proposed bill be revised to read as follows: “Src. 6(a). The Council shall arrange with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the conduct of investigations, including full field investigations, of the character, associations, and loyalty of the Coun- cil’s officers, employees, and consultants, as it deems appropriate. The results of such investigations shall be furnished to the Council.” The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from. the standpoint of the admin- istration’s program. Sincerely yours, E. J. Biuocn, Deputy General Manager. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BuREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., August 18, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This will acknowledge your letter of August 10, 1965, inviting the Bureau of the Budget to comment on S. 944, a bill to establish a National Council on Marine Resources and Engi- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 109 neering Development, a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, and for other purposes. The proposed Council would be composed of the Vice President, who would be chairman, the heads of a number of specified agencies, and such additional officials as the President might designate. The bill provides that the Council assist the President in carrying out a number of specified functions in planning and conducting a national oceanographic program. The Office of Science and Technology was established in 1962, with the concurrence of the Congress, to advise the President on all scientific and technical matters and to coordinate Federal activities in this area. The Office provides a means whereby the problems and opportunities of competitive scientific areas can be weighed against each other in making program decisions. Establishment of a statutory council would derogate from the functions of the Office in the field of oceanog- raphy and would constitute a precedent for further incursions in other fields. Further, the existing Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography has proven to be an effective mechanism for planning a co- ordinated national program and is sufficiently flexible to accommodate to developments in this rapidly moving scientific area. The need for flexibility in establishing coordinating arrangements was stressed by the President in his message transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1965 to the Congress, which action led to the abolition of nine statutory boards, councils, and interagency committees. The Presi- dent emphasized that we must have “the capacity for fast flexible response to changing needs imposed by changing circumstances.” The views of the Bureau of the Budget on the establishment of a study commission for oceanography were provided your committee in our letter of July 29, 1965, on H.R. 9064. We noted that a special Panel on Oceanography of the President’s Science Advisory Commit- tee is now conducting a broad gage study of the field and that this study will help illuminate further opportunities and needs in oceanog- raphy. Dr. Hornig’s letter of July 6, 1965, on H.R. 9064 pointed out that until this panel has completed its review the establishment of any study commission would be premature. In the light of the factors cited above, the Bureau of the Budget recommends against enactment of S. 944 and favors, instead, enact- ment of H.R. 2218, which would provide for the establishment of a comprehensive Federal oceanographic program under the leadership of the President. Sincerely yours, Priture S. Hucuess, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. GENERAL CouUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CoMMERCE, Washington, D.C., August 20, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman. This letter is in reply to your request for the views of this Department with respect to S. 944, an act to provide for expanded research and development in the marine environment of 110 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION the United States, to establish a National Council on Marine Re- sources and Engineering Development, and a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, and for other purposes. S. 944 would set forth national objectives for marine science activi- ties and would establish a National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development composed principally of Cabinet level officers. The Council would advice and assist the President by sur- veying present marine science activities, developing a marine science program, coordinating the agencies’ marine science activities, study- ing the legal problems arising out of use of marine resources and annually comparing Federal marine science accomplishments against the Council’s marine science program. The Council would be au- thorized to employ an executive secretary and staff. .S. 944 would also. authorize the President to establish an investigatory commis- sion to assist the Council and the President, and require the President to report annually to Congress on his marine science program and on present accomplishments. The Department strongly supports improvements in and greater emphasis for the national oceanographic or marine sciences program, However, we doubt that S. 944 would have enough beneficial effect upon oceanographic activities to offset the detrimental effect it would have upon the administration of oceanography as a whole. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography has had consider- able success in coordinating and stimulating Federal oceanographic activities, and we are therefore not aware of overriding reasons for replacing it. The proposed National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development would not change the realities in- volved in setting priorities and apportioning limited funds among less limited demands within the agencies. There is no reason to be- lieve that Council review of the national oceanographic or marine sciences program before its submission to the agencies would keep any agency from balancing its oceanographic program needs against the needs of its other programs. On the other hand, creation of the proposed Council would place additional demands directly upon Cabinet officers and agency heads who already have heavy burdens of responsibility. If the Council supplants the Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography, the limited amount of personal time which the Council members could devote to Council activities might result in less con+ sideration of oceanography within the executive branch than pres? ently exists. If the Council and the Interagency Committee on Oceanography both exist there will be substantial duplication of efforts and possible conflict of proposed programs. We think it is better to leave oceanographic planning and coordination in the hands of the policy and operating officials who work with the oceanographic program, serve on the Interagency Committee on Oceanography and who are thus most qualified to advise the President on its needs. For these reasons, the Department strongly favors the objectives of the act but is opposed to the establishment of a Council to accomplish these objectives. Subject to our additional comments referred to below, we would favor the act if it were amended to permit the Presi- -dent to establish such mechanisms as he believes necessary to ac- complish these objectives. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 111 Section 4 of S. 944 would establish an investigatory commission comparable to the commission which would be established by H.R. 9064. We do not see any need for an investigatory commission at this time. We refer you to our letter to you of July 29, 1965, commenting on H.R. 9064, for the remainder of our views on investigatory com- missions. Section 3(f£) (7) would require a study of legal problems arising from use of marine resources. Our views on that subject are con- tained in our letter to you of May 4, 1965, commenting on H.R. 5175. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there would be no objection to the submission of our report from the stand- point of the administration’s program. Sincerely, Ropert E. Gres. DrpraRTMENT OF THE Navy, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Orrice oF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C., September 14, 1965. Hon. Herzerr C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. My Dear Mr. Cuatrman: Your request for comment on S. 944, an act to provide for expanded research and development in the marine environment of the United States, to establish a National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, and a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, and for other pur- poses, as passed by the Senate on August 5, 1965, has been assigned to this Department by the Secretary of Defense for the preparation of a report thereon expressing the views of the Department of Defense. S. 944 would establish a National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development consisting of members at the Cabinet level and the Vice President as Chairman. The Council’s prerogatives would extend into the areas of both marine sciences and engineering. ‘Further, the President is authorized to establish a 15-member Com- mission that would report to the President through the Council. The Commission would consist of five members from the Govern- ment, five from industry, and five from universities, institutions, or laboratories. The Commission would be dissolved upon submission of its final report due no later than 18 months after the establishment of the Commission. The objectives of this bill are unquestionably worthwhile; how- ever, the mechanism proposed would put the marine sciences and engi- neering in an awkward position vis-a-vis the rest of science supported by the Federal Government. The Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development as proposed in S. 944 would be on the same level, or perhaps even above, that of the Federal Council for Science and Technology to whose work it is closely related. It is difficult to envisage how the administrative complications in such an arrange- ment could be resolved. Further, establishment of the proposed 112 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Council and Commission could lead to the proliferation of similar Councils in other scientific areas. The Department of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of De- fense, opposes enactment of S. 944. This report has been coordinated within the Department of Defense in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, there is no objection to the presentation of this report on S. 944 for the consideration of the Committee. For the Secretary of the Navy. Sincerely yours, M. K. Disney, Captain, US. Navy, Director, Legislative Division. U.S. DeparTMeENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., August 16, 1965. Hon. Herpert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Bonner: Your committee has requested our views on 8. 944, a bill to provide for expanded research and development in the marine environment of the United States, to establish a National Coun- cil on Marine Resources and Engineering Development, and a Com- mission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, and for other purposes, which passed the Senate on August 5, 1965. S. 944 has two main features. First, it provides for the establish- ment of a National Oceanographic Council composed of the Vice President, certain Cabinet members, including the Secretary of the Interior, and certain other heads of agencies. The function of the Council is to advise the President on the performance of Federal func- tions in the field of marine science and engineering. This provision of S. 944 is similar to the provision in H.R. 5654 upon which the De- partment commented adversely in its letter of July 29, 1965, to your committee. Second, it authorizes the President, at his discretion, to establish a 15-member Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. The members may include five people from Govern- ment, five from industry, and five from universities. One of the func- tions of the Commission will be to survey the marine science activities of this Nation, and make recommendations regarding the organiza- tional structure of Federal activities in this area. This provision of the bill is similar to H.R. 9064. Tn our July 29 letter to your committee, this Department supported the enactment of H.R. 2218. We said that the enactment of the other bills, such as H.R. 5654 and H.R. 9064, is premature. “This position is based on the premise that the President’s Science Advisory Committee’s Panel on Oceanography is at the present time making the kind of investigation and study that is contemplated by H.R. 9064. When the Panel completes its study and submits its report Congress can more appropriately decide whether additional legisla- tion dealing either with a further study or with a revised govern- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 113. mental organization to administer the national oceanographic program should be enacted.” Our views have not changed with the passage by the Senate of S. 944. We understand, however, that during the present hearings before your committee a pr oposal has been made to provide standby authority for the establishment, in the discretion of the President, of a self-liq- uidating commission, such as proposed in 8. 944. We think that this proposal merits serious consideration. Lf your committee adopts this approach, we would like the opportunity to offer suggestions on the provisions of the legislation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administra- tion’s program. Sincerely yours, Sranuey A. Carn, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C., August 26, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. Bonner, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Cuarrman: This is further reply to your letter of August 10, 1965, requesting comments on S. 944, to establish a National Coun- cil on Marine Resources and Engineering Development and a Com- mission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources, and for other purposes. Although T am in accord with the purpose of the bill, I do not recog- nize the need for a National Council and believe it would be unwise to create one. Most of the functions of the Council are being per- formed by the Federal Council for Science and Technology. ‘The creation of another Council to foster a particular major field of science raises in principle the desirability of a series of national councils in successive major areas of science. It seems unlikely that the Cabinet officers designated to serve on such a Council would, in fact, be able to devote much attention to its work since they already have major Tp y, For these reasons I cannot recommend the enactment of S. 944. It seems to me that what is needed at this time is a bill that would blend the best features of S. 944 with those of H.R. 2218, which has won administration support. We are now preparing such a bill which I would be pleased to discuss with you in the near future. Sincerely yours, Donatp F. Hornie, Director. Mr. Lennon. The authors of these bills have all sincerely sought effective answers to the numerous problems involved in our well established need for an oceanographic program to overcome our past neglect in the understanding and conquering of the oceanographic environment, which are so essential to the development of our civiliza- 114 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION tion. It is gratifying to all of us to have the benefit of such a broad spectrum of ideas to work with as we consider the legislation before us. In addition to the bills pending before our committee, the Senate Committee on Commerce has recently ordered reported S. 944, which contains features similar to those embodied in some of our bills. Also in the Senate, there was recently introduced by Senator Muskie for himself and 17 cosponsors a bill which would create a new executive Department of Marine and Atmospheric Affairs. Just the other day, Mr. Hathaway, of Maine, introduced an daa cal bill in the House, H.R. 10106. In both Houses these bills were referred to the Government Operations Committees. Though not before us, the Chair mentions these latter two bills because of their close and important relationship to the objectives we have under study. I might say that in the interest of compiling a complete and com- prehensive record the Chair would have no objection whatever to comments by any of the witnesses concerning the subject matter of these bills. Finally, we have again scheduled consideration of H.R. 5175, which would provide for a study of the legal problems of management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds, Although this bill is only collaterally related to the others we have scheduled, the Chair thought it desirable to take this opportunity to receive testimony on this subject during this session. In order to be as helpful as possible to the membership of the com- mittee in the consideration of the rather involved concepts we have before us, the staff has heretofore prepared and distributed a list of the bills on which these hearings are being held, as well as copies of the bills themselves as they were introduced. Each member of the committee has also received a memorandum, dated July 26, setting forth the background of these hearings and an abstract of the provisions of each of the several types of bills. As an aid to understanding of the background of legislative activity in the field of oceanog raphy, | there has also been distributed a commit- tee print entitled “A bridged Chronology of Events Related to Fed- eral Legislation for Oceanography 1956-65,” which was prepared with great care by the excellent staff of the Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service under the direction of Dr. Edward Wenk, Chief of the Science Policy Research Division. Finally, as a convenience to members, the staff has prepared a com- mittee print which is a compilation of the pending bills on ocean- ography and departmental reports related thereto. “Tn preparation for these hearings, we have set aside the mornings of Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of this week and the same days next week. Ii more time is needed, we will continue into the third week of this month. In lne with the usual custom, those congressional witnesses who wish to do so will be heard first at this opening session. It is our gen- eral plan that they will be followed by witnesses from the executive departments and agencies, and they in turn followed by institutional, industry, and other public witnesses. I am sure all are aware that it is impossible to schedule times of appearance in major legislative hearings with precision. Adjustments NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 115 will inevitably have to be made for one reason or another, but we will do the best we can to accommodate to the convenience of the busy per- sons who may wish to appear and present their views. I might say that it is almost impossible to have a committee meeting convened of the Congress and expect to have even all the members of this subcommittee present. The Coast Guard Subcommittee, of which several members of this subcommittee are members, is in session. The Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee is in executive session, with several of the members who are to appear before this subcommit- tee, and on this committee, there, some on the Armed Services Com- mittee, and here, there, and yonder. However, before we hear our first witness today, I want to make an announcement. For the past 6 years we have been privileged to have attached to our staff a man of very unusual talents, ability, and creative energy, Capt. Paul Sherman Bauer, of the U.S. Naval Reserve, retired. I regret this morning to announce that Paul will be leaving us on September 1. I hope these hearings will be concluded and positive legislation passed through the Congress before we have to lose him—and in honor of his splendid achievements and service to this committee. Captain Bauer first came with our committee in 1959, at the very beginning of the concept of a national oceanographic program. We have been fortunate indeed in having his services as a consultant on oceanographic, fisheries, and other technical matters since that time. A. successful businessman in his native Massachusetts, he has in recent years devoted almost full time to the cause of science. Oceanog- raphy and the other earth sciences have been his specialties. In addition to his valuable contributions to this subcommittee and to the full Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, he has also served as professor of earth sciences at the American University here in Washington; participated in numerous technical meetings of value to the work of this committee, and published, as some of you know, several very important papers. He brought to the committee a long background of technical and scientific achievement. He is wise in the ways of Government—which has been invaluable to us as we have tried to unravel the mysteries of what has been going on in oceanography and to determine the course we should take for the future. While I can fully appreciate Paul’s desire to devote more time to his personal business, I want to express my personal regret and the regret of the full committee at losing him. Tt has been a very fruitful period in the development of a true oceanographic program since he came with us. Again I say, Paul, in behalf of the committee, I wish you well in your new activities, and hope that we may call upon you from time to time for your most wise and able counsel. We are delighted to have today as the first witness the distinguished Senator from the State of Alaska, a former Member of the House, Senator Bob Bartlett. Do members of the committee have copies of the Senator’s statement ? Senator, we welcome you back to from whence you came. We are delighted to have you back. 116 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION STATEMENT OF HON. BOB BARTLETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA Senator Bartierr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you all have copies of the statement ? Mr. Lennon. Yes, wedo. You may proceed. Senator Barrierr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say that, after having served on this committee for 14 years about half the time, yet when I set out for the Senate Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, instinct almost diverts me to this building. I enjoyed my service on this committee verv much indeed. Mr. Chairman, your committee is to be congratulated for undertak- ing a comprehensive review of the U.S. oceanographic and marine re- sources program. ‘This is a significant and enormous task. The committee is considering numerous legislative measures relat- ing to oceanography and ocean resource development. The diversity of purposes and approaches reflected in these bills demonstrates clearly that there are many in Congress who feel that the present ocean pro- gram is seriously inadequate. Indeed, one might well ask whether we have anything that might properly be termed an oceanographic program. A serious and con- certed program in this area will certainly require something better than our present uncoordinated efforts—represented by a scattering of some 22 separate agency requests for funds. Several bills before this committee are concerned with improving the coordination of present oceanographic activity. Others are di- rected toward a broad reorganization of all of the Federal Govern- ment’s ocean-related activities. One bill, Mr. Chairman, focuses on the legal problems of ocean re- source development. Several proposals similar to S. 1091, which I in- troduced in the Senate, would create a new agency with a broad mis- sion of marine exploration development. Now, Mr. Chairman, we may properly-ask what is the reason for the flood of oceanographic legislation introduced this session? What is the basis of this obvious congressional discontent with our present effort? I will suggest an answer. It is, in my opinion, a failure of this administration and preceding administrations to respond effectively either to the recent advances in the field of marine technology and ocean resource development or to recent changes in the international law of the sea. Other nations have not been as hesitant. The Soviet Government, for example, supports extensive oceanographic expeditions for the ex- ploration of mineral resources; recent reports tell of their discovering manganese nodules on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. The Brit- ish have recently organized a Commercial Oceanology Study Group which will investigate the prospect of developing the minerals re- sources of the sea. The U.S. oceanographic activity has thus far been directed pri- marily toward learning more about the oceanic environment. In many respects we have been successful in this scientific effort. It is because of this success, among other reasons, that the focus of our effort in the future will shift to the utilization of the ocean and ocean resources, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 1:7 ‘The oceans are being recognized more and more as a source of wealth and as a profitable field for industrial enterprise. Yesterday we were interested in oceanography primarily as a science and our activity was centered in the several universities and private institutions interested in studying the oceans. But today we are think- ing more about man’s working and living on the ocean floor, about the engineering and technological problems related to harvesting the re- sources of the seas. I will make no elaborate attempt here to outline for the committee the many and varied ocean resources that are today within our reach. In its natural state, acre per acre, the sea is producing about as much as the land, yet man is only taking about 1 percent of his present food requirements from the salt water environment. When we begin to farm the oceans we can expect them to produce much greater quanti- ties of desirable food substances—just as farming on land has greatly increased its productivity. However, at the present, the United States does not have a program dedicated to the farming of the sea. With regard to efficient hunting and capturing of the living re- sources of the sea, new types of vessels are being developed far more rapidly than they are being used. World fishery production is doubling every 12 years, but world production could be further in- creased if intelligent management of these resources were practiced. But this committee knows well that the United States is not engaged in this exciting development. Looking beyond the resources to be found in the sea water itself, we find in the Continental Shelf and ocean floor the ultimate repository of minerals eroded from the continent. The ocean does a remarkable job of segregating and concentrating many of the minerals which are of substantial commercial value, including phosphorus, manganese, nickel, iron, copper, and cobalt. : In recent years vast discoveries of these minerals have been made on the Continental Shelf and ocean floor. Although several American industries have expressed interest in the development of these re- sources, the United States today has no program to assist in this effort. One of the earliest and today certainly the most significant industry operating on the Continental Shelf is the petroleum industry. This industry, with but limited encouragement from our Government, has made vast expenditures of money for the exploitation of oil and gas reserves on the Continental Shelf. Approximately 5,000 wells have been drilled on the Outer Continen- tal Shelf, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico. Some wells have been drilled at a depth of almost 600 feet, and are located over 75 miles offshore. This development has been particularly significant because the Federal Government has directly benefited substantially from oil leases, bonuses, and royalties. During the past 10 years the United States has received over $1.2 billion from Outer Continental Shelf mineral bonuses, $14 million in rentals, and royalties estimated at $16 million a year. There appears to be complete agreement that further development of the petroleum resources of the Continental Shelf could be substan- tially expedited if the U.S. Government would undertake an acceler- ated program to study the Continental Shelf and ocean environment. 118 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION In addition to recent technological advances affecting ocean resource development, there have occurred in the past few years significant changes in the law of the sea. These changes resulted from the United. Nations Conference on the Law of Sea, held in Geneva in 1958. The committee is familiar with the four conventions adopted in Geneva, all of which have been ratified by the United States and all of which except the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Liv-- ing Resources of the High Seas are in effect. It is anticipated that this remaining Convention on Fishing will become effective the latter part of this year or early in 1966. The two conventions of primary interest in regard to ocean resource: development are the Convention on the Continental Shelf and the Con- vention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. The Continental Shelf Convention gives to each coastal nation exclusive rights over the exploitation of the resources of its: Continental] Shelf. This means that as of last year, when the convention went into effect, the United States increased by one-third the territory over which it held sovereign rights under international law. The area of this shelf acquisition—approximately 1 million square miles—sur- passes that of any of our previous territorial acquisitions, including Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase. The 1958 Fishery Convention acknowledges that each coastal nation has a dominant interest in the fishery resources of its waters and pro-. vides that such nations shall have the right to provide for the conser-. vation of these resources. Approximately 90 percent of the world fishery catch is taken from inland waters or waters immediately over or adjacent to the Conti- nental Shelf of nations within the Temperate or Tropic Zones. The measurement of the U.S. coastline within these zones exceeds 10,000 miles. Only Indonesia, Australia, and Russia have comparable or more extensive coastlines. The other 111 nations of the world either have substantially shorter coastlines or none at all. It is estimated that the U.S. coastal fishery resources are such as to permit an annual sustainable yield of approximately 20 billiom pounds. The estimated value of our potential yearly catch is between $1 and $1.5 billion. Last year, however, the U.S. coastal catch was below 5 billion pounds and the foreign catch off the U.S. coast was approximately 3 billion pounds. : The evidence is quite clear that the U.S. coastal fishery resource is one of the most extensive and richest in the world. It is also clear that this resource is being underutilized by the United States and is becoming increasingly attractive to foreign fishing fleets. Five years ago there were fewer than 100 foreign vessels fishing off the U.S. coasts. This past summer we witnessed more than 1,500 large, modern, efficient foreign-flag fishing vessels ranging between 3 and 50 miles from our coast. About one-half of this foreign fleet has been operat- ing off the coast of Alaska. Although the U.S. coastal fishery resource is perhaps the greatest in the world, although certain stocks are being seriously damaged by foreign fishing, and although the United States will soon, for the first NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 119 time under international law, have the right and obligation to conserve these coastal fishery resources, the fact is that we have no active pro- gram designed to protect these stocks. Under the Fishery Convention, the United States will have the right to promulgate fishing conservation regulations on the high seas to conserve these coastal fishery resources. This will be possible only if the United States has the necessary information about the resource to support the conservation measures undertaken. However, we know little about our own coastal fishery resources. I fear foreign fishermen know more about certain coastal fishery re- sources in Alaska than we do. Further, the administration has ad- vanced no program to implement the 1958 Fishery Convention. In summary, for over 350 years the nations of the world have gen- erally agreed that the resources of the sea and the ocean floor were held in common and that no single nation had an exclusive or even preferential right to exploit or conserve these resources. The 1958 Fishery and Continental Shelf Conventions were dramatic departures from these traditionally held tenets. The final ratification of the Continental Shelf Convention last fall and the anticipated final ratification of the Fishery Convention this year signal international acceptance of a new order and a new ap- proach to the use of ocean resources. I am absolutely convinced that the administration has missed entirely the significance of these recent and important changes in international law. The seas are mankind’s last frontier on this planet. For ages we have treated the ocean waters as little more than hunting grounds for. fishermen and highways for ships. Now we are awakening to see that. beneath the surface of the waters lies a vast territory every bit as challenging as outer space and infinitely more promising with regard. to economic reward. Man at last has the scientific capability and technical mastery to. meet the challenge, and his growing need for food, water, minerals, power, and weather control gives him solid reasons for doing so. I suggest we begin to occupy and use our recently acquired 1 million. square miles of Continental Shelf and that the U.S. Government assess our extensive coastal fishery resources. We today know so little. about this territory and this environment that our initial efforts will be somewhat akin to the rewards and failures of the Lewis and Clark. a ee But the adventure beneath the surface of the sea must egin. What is needed in my opinion is a new agency with a broad mission. and with a chief executive who can speak effectively in Congress and elsewhere for the administration regarding our civilian program on the oceans. This is not a Navy responsibility nor is it any longer strictly a mat-. ter of science. The legislation I introduced would establish an inde-. pendent civilian agency. In my opinion, this is still the most desir- able approach. I recognize, however, that the job could be accomplished by an ex-_ pansion of the responsibilities of some division or agency within either the Department of the Interior or the Department of Com-. merce. ‘There could be an Ocean Resources Service in the Department of the Interior, or ESSA in the Department of Commerce could be. expanded to accomplish the job. 120 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION I do not feel strongly about the structure and I want. to emphasize that, but I do feel strongly that the mission of the new agency must be sufficiently broad to unify the program and centralize responsibil- ity. It is my conviction that until this is done we will continue to fail in our program on the oceans. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to save some time of the committee I did not read the entire text of my statement and I should like permis- sion to have it placed in the record in full. Mr. Lennon. Without objection the full text of the Senator’s state- ment will be placed in the record at this point. (The statement referred to follows :) STATEMENT BY How. H. L. BARTLETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA Mr. Chairman, your committee is to be congratulated for undertaking a com- prehensive review of the U.S. oceanographic and marine resources, BROS Tepe. This isa significant and enormous task. The committee is considering numerous legislative measures relating to Ocean ography and ocean resources development. The diversity of purposes and ap- proaches reflected in these bills demonstrates clearly that there are many in Congress who feel that the present ocean program is seriously inadequate. Indeed, one might well ask whether we have anything that might properly be termed an oceanographic program. A serious and concerted program in this area will certainly require something better than our present uncoordinated efforts— represented by a scattering of some 22 separate agency requests for funds. Several bills before this committee are concerned with improving the coordina- tion of present oceanographic activity. Others are directed toward a broad reorganization of all of the Federal Government’s ocean-related activities. One bill focuses on the legal problems of ocean resource development. Several pro- posals similar to 8. 1091, which I introduced in the Senate, would create a new agency witha broad mission of marine exploration and development. What is the reason for the flood of oceanographic legislation introduced this session? What is the basis of this obvious congressional discontent with our present effort? I will suggest an answer. It is, in my opinion, a failure of this administration to respond effectively either to the recent advances in the field of marine technology and ocean resource development or to recent changes in the international law of the sea. Other nations have not been as _ hesitant. The Soviet Government supports extensive oceanographic expeditions for the explorations of mineral resources; recent reports tell of their discovering manganese nodules on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. The British have recently organized a commercial oceanology study group which will investi- gate the prospect of developing the mineral resources of the sea. MARINE TECHNOLOGY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT The U.S. oceanographic activity has thus far been directed primarily toward learning more about the oceanic environment. In many respects we have been successful in this scientific effort. It is because of this success, among other reasons, that the focus of our effort in the future will shift to the utilization of the ocean and ocean resources. The oceans are being recognized more and more as a source of wealth and as a profitable field for industrial enterprise. Yesterday we were interested in oceanography primarily as a science and our activity was centered in the several universities and private institutions in- terested in studying the oceans. But today we are thinking more about man’s working and living on the ocean floor, about the engineering and technological problems related to harvesting the resources of the seas. I will make no elaborate attempt here to outline for the committee the many and varied ocean resources that are today within our reach. I would point out that fresh water from the sea itself is of enormous potential value: The United States has recently undertaken an accelerated saline water conversion program, important to the thirsty residents of New York, as well as to drought-stricken farmers and ranchers in southern California. This program should be strength- ened and accelerated. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION AWA Sea water is also a rich source of minerals. The United States has a lead in this field because of the pioneering work that has been accomplished by Dow Chemical Co., in extracting valuable minerals, particularly bromine and mag- nesium, from sea water. But the U.S. Government has no program to evaluate the mineral extraction potential of the oceans. In its natural state, acre per acre, the sea is producing about as much as the land, yet man is only taking about 1 percent of his present food requirements from the salt-water environment. When we begin to farm the oceans we can expect them to produce much greater quantities of desirable food substances— just as farming on land has greatly increased in productivity. However, at the present, the United States does not have a program dedicated to the farming of the sea. With regard to efficient hunting and capturing of the living resources of the sea, new types of vessels and gear are being developed far more rapidly than they are being used. World fishery production is doubling every 12 years, but world production could be further increased if intelligent management of these resources were practiced. But this committee knows well that the United States is not engaged in this exciting development. U.S. production in 1964 was ap- proximately the same as 30 years ago. The Fishing Vessel Improvement Act, passed by Congress last year, was far too modest. 'The fact is that the United States would have to build fishing vessels to the maximum extent allowed under the Fishing Vessel Improvement Act through the close of this century before we would be able to place in our own coastal waters a fleet of U.S. fishing vessels comparable in tonnage to the foreign-flag fishing vessels operating in our coastal waters at the present time. Looking beyond the resources to be found in the sea water itself, we find in the Continental Shelf and ocean floor the ultimate repository of minerals eroded from the continent. The ocean does a remarkable job of segregating and con- centrating many of the minerals which are of substantial commercial value, including phosphorus, manganese, nickel, iron, copper, and cobalt. In recent years vast discoveries of these minerals have been made on the Continental Shelf and ocean floor. Although several American industries have expressed interest in the development of these resources, the United States today has no program to assist in this effort. One of the earliest and today certainly the most significant industry operating on the Continental Shelf is the petroleum industry. This industry, with limited encouragement from our Government, has made vast expenditures of money for the exploitation of oil and gas reserves on the Continental Shelf. Approxi- mately 5,000 wells have been drilled on the Outer Continental Shelf, primarily in the Gulf of Mexico. Some wells have been drilled at a depth of almost 600 feet, and are located over 75 miles offshore. This development has been par- ticularly significant because the Federal Government has directly benefited sub- stantially from oil leases, bonuses, and royalties. During the past 10 years the United States has received over $1.2 billion from Outer Continental Shelf mineral bonuses, $14 million in rentals, and royalties estimated at $16 million a year. These figures do not include the receipts by State governments for oil leases, bonuses, and royalties on that portion of the Continental Shelf within their jurisdiction. However, strong evidence suggests that substantial returns have also been received by States from this source. There appears to be complete agreement that further development of the petroleum resources of the Continental Shelf could be substantially expedited if the U.S. Government would undertake an accelerated program to study the Continental Shelf and ocean enviornment. The U.S. Government makes ayail- able to all industries information about the land environment to encourage economic development. It is high time that we do the same regarding the Continental Shelf environment. One of the most encouraging recent actions by the Government was President Johnson’s decision to construct an atomic-powered vehicle for commercial ocean resource work. ‘This will for the first time give us the power needed to work on the ocean floor without the usual restrictions of time. The significance of this is not to be minimized. I would like again to stress that these recent technological developments en- couraging the economic use of ocean resources represent a shift in our interests from the collecting of scientific information to the solving of problems relating to the harvesting and utilization of ocean resources. There are obvious and ex- tensive economic benefits to be gained by a U.S. program of resource development 53-367—65——_9 122 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION of the Continental Shelf. Compare this to the situation in space exploration. No one has suggested that there is any economic benefit to be gained from explor- ing the surface of the Moon or Mars. In addition, there are many defense pur- poses to be served by additional activity in the oceans, but there is limited defense interest in any space effort beyond the Moon. The space program has no eco- nomic or substantial military justification. The only justification today is scientific. We must as a matter of national policy reevaluate our allocation of scientific effort to assure a proper balance between space and the oceans, and we must recognize the fact that an increased knowledge of the oceans, more than knowledge of space, can have defense and economic significance. INTERNATIONAL LAW In addition to recent technological advances affecting ocean resource develop- ment, there have occurred in the past few years significant changes in the law of the sea. These changes resulted from the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, held in Geneva in 1958. The committee is familiar with the four conventions adopted in Geneva, all of which have been ratified by the United States and all of which except the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas are in effect. It is anticipated that this remaining Convention on Fishing will become effective the latter part of this year or early next year. The two conventions of primary interest in regard to ocean resource develop- ment are the Convention on the Continental Shelf and the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. The Continental Shelf Convention gives to each coastal nation exclusive rights over the exploita- tion of the resources of its continental shelf. This means that as of last year, when the convention went into effect, the United States increased by one-third the territory over which it held sovereign rights under international law. The area of this shelf acquisition—approximately 1 million square miles—surpasses that of. any of our previous territorial acquisitions, including Jefferson’s Louisi- ana Purchase. The convention defines the shelf as the seabed and subsoil of the submarine area adjacent to the coast to a depth of 200 meters or beyond to a depth which admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the area. The sovereign right of the United States over territory is therefore related directly to our technological capability to exploit the resources of the Continental Shelf. These exclusive rights relate to mineral and other resources of the seabed (magnesium nodules) and subsoil (oil and gas) and certain living resources dependent on the shelf (clams, oysters, certain crabs). The 1958 Fishery Convention acknowledges that each coastal nation has a dominant interest in the fishery resources of its waters and provides that such nations shall have the right to provide for the conservation of these resources. Approximately 90 percent of the world fishery catch is taken from inland waters or waters immediately over or adjacent to the continental shelf of nations within the temperate or tropic zones. The measurement of the U.S. coastline within these zones exceeds 10,000 miles. Only Indonesia, Australia, and Russia have comparable or more extensive coastlines. The other 111 nations of the world either have substantially shorter coastlines or none at all. It is estimated that U.S. coastal fishery resources are such as to permit an annual sustainable yield of approximately 20 billion pounds. The estimated value of our potential yearly catch is between $1 and $1.5 billion. Last year, however, the U.S. coastal catch was below 5 billion pounds and the foreign catch off the U.S. coast was approxi- mately 3 billion pounds. The evidence is quite clear that the U.S. coastal fishery resource is one of the most extensive and richest in the world. It is also clear that this resource is being underutilized by the United States and is becoming increasingly attrac- tive to foreign fishing fleets. Five years ago there were fewer than 100 foreign vessels fishing off the U.S. coast. This past summer we witnessed more than 1,500 large, modern, efficient foreign-flag fishing vessels ranging between 3 and 50 miles from our coast. About one-half of this foreign fleet has been operating off the coast of Alaska. Since I am more familiary with that area, I would like to focus attention on the North Pacific. In recent years, the Russians and Japanese have taken substantial quantities of shrimp, flounder, ocean perch, sablefish, cod, and pollack in the water above the Alaska Continental Shelf . It is reliably and conservatively estimated that these six fishery resources alone have a potential annual catch value in excess NATIONAL, OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 123 of $200 million or over half the value of the present total U.S. catch. In 1963 the U.S. catch from the same six North Pacific fishery resources was about 100 mil- lion pounds valued at about $8 million. It is estimated that the potential annual shrimp catch off Alaska exceeds 1 billion pounds (approximately five times the present gulf coast shrimp catch) ; the potential annual flounder catch is 1.5 billion pounds; ocean perch, 300 million pounds; cod and pollack, 140 million pounds; and sablefish, 100 million pounds. In addition to these six stocks of fish which the Japanese and Russians are now taking, there are estimated an- nual potential catches of 1.2 billion pounds of herring, 700 million pounds for hake, and 500 million pounds each for anchovy and sardines. Although these fishery stocks appear abundant when one looks at the total re- source from California to the Bering Sea, there is evidence that certain species, particularly in the Bering Sea, may be already threatened by excessive foreign fishing. The eastern Bering Sea catch of flounder by Japan 10 years ago was 18 million pounds. The combined Japanese and Russian catch in the same areas was about 1.2 billion pounds in 1961. The comparable catch figure for 1963 indicated a dramatic reduction. This sharp drop in catch was undoubtedly due to a heavy depletion of the resource. It is clear that there has recently oc- curred off the Alaska coast in the eastern Bering Sea one of the most rapid expansions of ground fisheries in the world. Although the U.S. coastal fishery resource is perhaps the greatest in the world, although certain stocks are being seriously damaged by foreign fishing, and although the United States will soon, for the first time under international law, have the right and obligation to conserve these coastal fishery resources, the fact is that we have no active program to accomplish this. Under the Fishery Convention, the United States will have the right to promulgate fishing con- servation regulations on the high seas to conserve these coastal fishery resources, but this will be possible only if the United States has the necessary information about the resource to support the conservation measures undertaken. However, we know little about our own coastal fishery resources. I fear foreign fishermen known more about certain coastal fishery resources in Alaska than we do. Fur- ther, the administration has advanced no program to implement the 1958 Fishery Convention. In summary, for over 350 years the nations of the world have generally agreed that the resources of the sea and the ocean floor were held in common and that no single nation had an exclusive or even preferential right to exploit or con- serve these resources. The 1958 Fishery and Continental Shelf Conventions were dramatic departures from these traditionally held tenets. The final rati- fication of the Continental Shelf Convention last fall and the anticipated final ratification of the Fishery Convention this year signal international acceptance of a new order and a new approach to the use of ocean resources. I am abso- lutely convinced that the administration has missed entirely the significance of these recent and important changes in international law. The seas are mankind’s last frontier on this planet. For ages we have treated the ocean waters as little more than hunting grounds for fishermen, and high- ways for ships. Now we are awakening to see that beneath the surface of the waters lies a vast territory every bit as challenging as outer space and infinitely more promising with regard to economic reward. Man at last has the scientific capability and technical mastery to meet the challenge, and his growing need for food, water, minerals, power, and weather control gives him solid reasons for doing so. I suggest we begin to occupy and use our recently acquired 1 million Square miles of Continental Shelf and that the U.S. Government assess our extensive coastal fishery resources. We today know so little about this territory and this environment that our initial efforts will be somewhat akin to the rewards and failures of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. But the adventure beneath the surface of the sea must begin. I mentioned earlier that the reason for the present discontent in Congress and rash of legislative proposals is a failure on the part of the administration to meet these problems and respond to these possibilities. The administration insists on floundering in a “sea” of indecision with no national program for ocean development. No less than 22 different agencies are involved in what is referred to as the “oceanographic program.” Hach agency is required to appear before a subcommittee of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to explain its needs. In effect this means that everyone in the executive branch is to some extent involved but no one really cares. The same is true with Congress, as far as appropriations are concerned. The senior Government officials responsible 124 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION for the Government program on the oceans consider their effort a part-time job. Every Friday afternoon, time is given to oceanography and the various ocean resources. I am saying that theirs is a full-time job. It requires full-time atten- tion and needs full-time staff personnel. What is needed in my opinion is a new agency with a broad mission and with a chief executive who can speak effectively in Congress and elsewhere for the administration regarding our civilian program on the oceans. This is not a Navy responsibility nor is it any longer strictly a matter of science. The legislation I introduced would establish an independent civilian agency. In my opinion, this is still the most desirable approach. I recognize, however, that the job could be accomplished by an expansion of the responsibilities of some division or agency within either the Department of the Interior or the Department of Commerce. There could be an Ocean Resources Service in the Department of the Interior, or ESSA in the Department of Commerce could be expanded to accomplish the job. I do not feel strongly about the structure, but I do feel strongly that the mission of the new agency must be sufficiently broad to unify the program and centralize responsibility. It is my conviction that until this is done we will continue to fail in our program on the oecans. Mr. Lennon. Senator, let me commend and compliment you for a most interesting and informative statement. Mr. Mosher, any ques- tions ? Mr. Mosuer. I don’t think I have any questions, Mr. Chairman, but I also want to echo your compliment to the Senator. I think it is a very challenging statement. We are fortunate to have this as the kickoff of these hearings. I am a little curious, Senator. You several times have suggested that the administration has failed to live up to some of its opportunities in this field recently. Do you want to be more specific? Do you want to suggest what you think the administration might have done in the last few years? Senator Barrierr. Surely. I added some words of my own to the prepared text. Isaid past administrations too. I think there has been a failure on the part of recent administrations to recognize the im- portance of this broad subject. I think there is an understandable reluctance on the part of these 22 agencies that are now concerned in the effort, in whatever manner it may be, to endorse a unification program, because of a natural bureaucratic fear that to do so would rob them of some of their authority. But I can’t see for the life of me how we can do what we need to do, so urgently need to do, unless there is a unification of this effort. It has proliferated now to an unnecessary and inefficient extent and I would hope, out of the hearings you are holding now, and out of similar, comparable hearings, that I hope will be held on the Senate side, that we may focus attention on this very important problem to the point where someone in the administration will say, “What goes on here? We haven’t paid enough attention to this. We are glad that the congressional committees called this to our attention and brought it into focus.” And then get busy and try to do the job which is re- quired to be done. Mr. Mosuer. You are really suggesting that the initiative is goin to have to come from the Congress, that we can stimulate the ad- ministration by some action here, is that right ? Senator Bartruert. Precisely. As you and I know, often the stimu- lation has to come from Congress in other areas as well. Mr. Mosuer. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Casey. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 125 Mr. Casry. Senator, it is a real pleasure to have you here today and I certainly enjoyed your statement. I know that you follow this very closely and attended the Conferences in Geneva, where I had the occasion to be at one, myself, during my freshman term here. This was the Conference in 1959 and I was completely enlightened by the fact that the other nations were focusing more attention on this, knew more about it than we did, and the lack of our interest. I think our problem is, and I think you probably agree with me— as you pointed out the space program is being well financed—and I will repeat what I have said many times, we have to glamorize and publicize the importance of the oceanography program. More interesting, on just the Mohole project there were lots of screams because it was going to cost around $80 million. I happen to serve on the Science and Astronautics Committee of the House, and we spend three times that for one launching pad and no one com- plains, not that it isn’t important, because I think it is, and I think it 1s important not only from a scientific point, but also from a defense point, but I think oceanography is important from not only a scientific but from a defense point of view. I know that the Senator is familiar with the fact that we have tried to impress on past administrations the importance of bringing about a cohesion of the oceanographic effort and I think the Senator was in the forefront of one of the bills that we passed before, which hap- pened to be vetoed. I don’t know what it is going to take to awaken not only the ad-— ministration, but the public support for all-out oceanographic pro- gram. One thing that disturbs me, and what you touched on, is the amount of food that is taken out of our oceans, and right off of your coast particularly, and off the coast of Florida, and off the coast of Texas, where we have no program as to the regulations that we will have to promulgate to conserve the food. In addition to that I would like the Senator’s comment, which I think is related in that regard, as to how we could stimulate the fish- ing industry, say in your own State. Has this program of vessel loans and so forth that came out of this committee been any help in that regard ? Senator Bartierr. Yes, decidedly it has been of help. But the fact remains, as you stated it, that our fishery in the Pacific Northwest, and elsewhere along all our coasts, is an in-shore fishery. We haven't gone out for ground fish, for example, along the west coast. The Russians have mother ships lying directly off our coast as large in tonnage as our heavy cruisers during World War II. We have nothing comparable to this. On the other hand, and corrections are being made on account of this loan program to which you referred, we have an outmoded, out- dated fleet. I think the oldest fishing vessel in the entire fleet is one that operates from a port in Mr. Rogers’ State. It was built during the Civil War and is still fishing. West Germany is replacing fishing ships built as recently as 1954. I don’t know, Congressman Casey, how we are going to do this, but I do say that you are exactly right when you say that we have to attach to this something of the glamor that accompanies the space program. This doesn’t denigrate the space program at all. We desire to take 126 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION nothing away from that of course, but I think we who have studied this to a certain extent at least see the importance of early action on the part of the Government. I suspect that it won’t take too much help from Government to bring private industry right in behind. I have talked with many people who are with companies that aren’t doing a thing now on the oceans, but who have a great desire to do so, who see a chance to make a profit by those operations. Of course to the best of our ability we want to foster that desire. Mr. Casry. One thing the Senator touched on which I am somewhat familiar with is the amount of scientific data and information avail- able from private industry, say in the oil business. My own home- town of Houston has some very excellent exploration companies that are in that field all the time, as well as Dow Chemical, which is just outside of Houston and has done a fine job in extracting minerals from sea water. Senator Barrrerr. Dow has donea tremendous job. Mr. Casey. They have done a terrific job and without any sub- stantial, that I can think of, Government help. Their imterest has been purely a profit motive, and if that one company can flourish as well as it has on its own, no telling what we could accomplish with a little stimulus from gov ernmental inter ests. Senator, do you have a companion bill introduced by a House Mem- ber that is before us? Senator Barrierr. Yes. Congressman Rivers of Alaska has one and Congressman Keith. Mr. Casey. I thought that might be the bill and I have been glanc- ing through it. I notice that you have approached it like we have approached it in the past, that you would establish a commission. When we tried to write one according to the desires or according to what we were told by the executive departments and scientific advisers, they didn’t want anything compulsory. They wanted us to turn all the “shalls” to “may” and wanted to leave it all at their broad discretion. I am inclined to agree with you that the bills that have been intro- duced this session indicate that some of the Members of the Congress, myself included, are getting a little impatient and we better “stick these “shalls” back in and definitely create an organization and insist that some type of organization bring this together, and Tam with you. I appreciate the attitude you are taking. You are not interested in any particular pride of authorship, just so you get somebody Senator Barrterr. Get going. Mr. Casry. Or some organization to bring it together and get soing, and I commend the Senator for his attitude and you can rest assured that you have my wholehearted support in your endeavor. Senator Barttert. I thank you. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Pelly? Mr. Petry. Senator, I Think I greet you maybe more warmly than anyone else of this committee because you and I have such a com- munity of interest out in the Pacific Northwest. I have admired your contribution to oceanography and fisheries and certainly, while oc- casionally you and I might have a difference, we are just like mem- bers of the same family; we quarrel Senator Barrierr. I can’t remember when one last occurred. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION We Mr. Prnziy. Once in a while people in Alaska think that some of us down in Seattle are a little selfish, but I can assure you that basically our policy is what is good for Alaska is good for Seattle, and you know how the business interests of Seattle have felt toward their No. 1 customer in Alaska. I notice that your particular bill, S. 1091, calls for a new agency. Did you have hearings in the other body? Senator Bartierr. No; we haven’t had hearings yet. We haven’t been as timely as this committee has in approaching this whole broad subject. Mr. Pretty. I would say this: That you have been very busy over there turning out legislation in your subcommittee and I commend you for it because I know that you have had hearings and passed out important legislation during this session of Congress in very sub- stantial numbers. Senator Barrierr. There has been no lack of bills. Mr. Peuy. I wish we had acted on some of them. I was wonder- ing about H.R. 912, which may be the Rivers bill; I think that also called for a new agency. Senator Barrierr. I am not sure if that is the number of the House bill. Mr. Prity. In looking through what is called a compilation of oceanography bills to be considered by this subcommittee, I notice it includes the report from the executive office of the President, and there the Director, Donald Hornig, has indicated a very strong pref- erence for the other approach; namely, the approach of our chair- man’s bill, and some of us have introduced similar bills, which is a quite different approach. I think that you were in conference on an oceanographic bill once with some of us on this committee and we thought we could work our will against the views of the White House and we got a veto on a bill, and that is why maybe we are here today. Senator Barrierr. I would think that would be one reason. I think at that time too there was not even as much comprehension of the importance of this whole broad subject as there is today. It is my con- viction that as this understanding grows throughout the country we of the Congress will have better opportunity to send down to the Ate House legislation which will do the job and which will be ap- proved. Mr. Perry. I think our chairman of the House side has done a tre- mendous job—— Senator Bartierr. [agree wholeheartedly. Mr. Prniy (continuing). In trying to work out some of the differ- ent viewpoints. Iam confident that will happen. I might just ask you a question or two with regard to your statement. You referred to the 1958 Fishery and Continental Shelf Convention which has expanded our resources so vastly, as you have pointed out. Have the Russians signed that convention ? Senator Barrierr. The fishery convention ? They signed the Continental Shelf, but not the Fishery Convention. Mr. Prrry. They recently signed I think a convention or a treaty with us covering king crab. Senator Barrierr. Nota formal treaty. 128 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Pretty. Nota formal treaty. Senator Barrierr. But an understanding, which, by the way, they have lived up to very well. But the evidence is very strong that the Fishery Convention will have enough signatures to become effective next year. Mr. Petty. This would then compel the Soviet Union for one to recognize our rights in the Continental Shelf, would it ? Senator Bartrrerr. Well, I don’t know whether it would or not. You and I recall so well the determination of the United States that the king crab was a creature of the Continental Shelf within the meaning of the convention and the Japanese, who had not signed that, said, no, it didn’t bind them at all. This is speculative. Mr. Petiy. I was coming to that and going to ask you whether you knew if the Japanese had signed the 1958 Fishery and Continental Shelf Convention. Senator Bartierr. They have signed neither, Mr. Foster informs me, and they reject altogether our contention that the king crab, so important on the Continental Shelf off Alaska, is a creature of that shelf within the meaning of the treaty. However, despite their failure to adhere to the treaty they have refrained from taking king crab in the areas that are in question. Mr. Pretty. We have real international problems as far as oceanog- raphy and the resources of the sea go. I think you have gone to many of the various international meetings and are on your way maybe to helping solve some of these problems. Certainly I think it might be helpful if we passed some legislation and had all agencies of our Government working toward this solution. Senator Bartterr. I think it becomes more understandable why we have so many difficulties in these negotiations with foreign nations where our viewpoints differ so radically when we appreciate how much trouble we in this country have in agreeing upon the proper approach to oceanography. Mr. Petty. I commend you for your very complete statement and T am going to take it back to my office and read it over again because I think it has a lot of information that many of us should have here. It covers a wide field and I think it is a great addition to the record that is bemg made at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Barrierr. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rocrrs. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. pes Senator, I too share the feelings of my colleagues of appreciation for your being here and the testimony you have given us. I also share your feeling that the Congress is going to have to do something in this field and that we just can’t wait for proposals to come from the administration. If past action is any guide I would think that we are going to have to be more forceful than we have ever been before and I think your testimony certainly has been helpful in pointing up the problem. It is my hope from the hearings that we are having and the Senate has concluded that we can go into this entire problem and come out with a proposed solution of at least getting started to doing something NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 129 in this field and if, as I anticipate, although I hope not, the govern- mental agencies that we have called upon to comment on legislation and activity in this field come up and say, “Well, we don’t think we ought to do. We are going to do an in-house study or we are going to do something ourselves,” then I think we had better get together, some of the members of this committee and the Senate, and go over and see the President ourselves and let him know how strongly we feel about this matter. I want to know how you feel about this matter. Senator Barrierr. Congressman Rogers, I will sum up my feeling by saying I applaud your sentiment and your intention. Mr. Rocers. I am glad to know that and I did feel with your strong interest in this field that we could count on your cooperation, and if we can get the House together here and if necessary call on the Presi- dent ourselves after we come together on an understanding of what we think should be done, I think this must be necessary if we get the response from the governmental agencies that we have had in the ast. Senator Barriert. It is important enough to do just that. Mr. Rocrrs. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Tupper? Mr. Tupper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Bartlett, I would like to join my colleagues in commending you for a most constructive statement. My State of Maine shares many common problems with the State of Alaska in fishery matters despite the distance between those two States. It is my recollection that the Continental Shelf Convention specifically includes the rights to sedentary species and those species that depend upon constant con- tact with the ocean floor. Wouldn’t you say, Senator, that this most certainly should include all species of crabs and probably all species of lobster ? Senator Bartierr. I hope it can be done. Mr. Tuprer. Thank you. I have no other questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator Bartierr. I certainly hope so because I think that this is our resource and we should use it. Mr. Lennon. Senator, would you comment on that. Are you in a position to spell out categorically the implementations of the Conti- nental Shelf Convention with respect to the respective countries rights to the assets or the resources on the ocean floor or floor level. Senator Barrierr. No, I most assuredly am not, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. That has been signed you say. Senator Bartietr. Yes, but all the determinations will be arrived at from evidence produced by scientists. I am not such and so I couldn’t answer Congressman Tupper very authoritatively. To date our biologists, and the Russians agree with this, have determined to their own satisfaction that the king crab does come within this cate- gory. It may be that later a similar decision will be made with respect to the lobster. I don’t know, and so I am not the best witness on this subject. Mr. Turrer. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will yield on this mat- = Mr. Lennon. Yes, sir. Mr. Tupper (continuing). It is again my recollection that this Con- tinental Shelf Convention, and also a bill passed by the Congress last (130 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION year, and I believe it was Congressman Rogers’ bill, provides for a list. to be established.. No list has been established yet—but it would seem clear to me that the king crab by any definition should be in- cluded and we hope in the State of Maine that lobsters will be included also. Mr. Lennon. You do a little lobbying for your lobsters then. Mr. Turver. I have done so. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Downing? Mr. Downrne. Senator, I want to add my commendation to, your excellent statement. It is mteresting. It is scholarly. It is a good approach to a very challenging problem and I would hope that it gets wide publicity. I think that we have the general public behind us in this moye. 1 _believe that they are aware of the necessity of doing something to corral our resources in the ocean. Getting to your statement, on page 5 I notice that you say that we have increased our territory over which we will hold sovereign rights under the international law. Actually we do not hold sovereign rights,do we? ‘They are more or less fishing rights Senator Bartierr. No; my understanding is that it goes beyond that, according to the terms of the convention, and sovereign rights are conveyed over these delineated areas. Mr. Downine. Would this be an extension of the 3-mile boundary which we now recognize as the sovereign right ? Senator BARTLEr?. No, not at all. “We would havea sovereign right to the living and nonliving resources on the Continental Shelf, but the extension of the territorial limits would remain within the province of each maritime nation. Mr. Downine. Sovereign rights then would be limited to that field? Senator Barrierr. Those specific elements that are named—min- erals, for example, fish. Mr. Downine. Thank you very much, Senator. Mr. Casry. Will the gentleman yield so we can clear that up? - Mr. Downine. Yes indeed. Mr. Cassy. Some of the others have not had the opportunity that the Senator has and some of the other members haye had. With respect to the territorial waters as far as access, the control of foreign ships is still up in the air, isn’t it, Senator? "Each country. kind of designates its own ? Senator Bartterr. You mean the limit of the territorial wauers' Mr. Casry. Yes. ) Senator Bartierr. This is true. Mr. Casey. And the 3-mile limit is just something that we have kind of picked out in our tradition. There is no law on 1 that and no agree- ment on that, is there, Senator, the 3-mile limit for the United States. Senator Barrrerr. The 3-mile limit I believe was established by Executive proclamation. Mr. Casey. What I mean is there is no international agreement ? Senator Bartierr. No; no international agreement. Mr. Casry. That is one of the big problems in the world now, to try to establish these territorial waters. Senator Barrierr. Yes, that is a very great problem. Of course it is one that is of great interest to our Defense Department, particu- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 131 larly the Navy, because in certain areas if there is any great extension of the limit of territorial waters it means that in certain cases our naval ships might have to sail an extra thousand miles in arriving at their destination. What we have seen here in the last few years is an extension not so much of territorial limits, as of the limits in respect to fishing. Many European nations have done this within the last 2 years. Can- ada last year went out to 12 miles. There are various bills in the Congress now extending our fishing limits to 12 miles. As we know, unhappily, some of the South American and Central American countries claim exclusive fishing jurisdiction out to 200 miles. Mr. Casey. Peru, for instance. Senator Barruerr. Peru. This has created agony for our tuna fleet. Mr. Casry. I know the Senator will recall in 1959 we missed by one vote, I believe, over there establishing territorial waters. Russia wanted 12 miles, which would have closed the English Channel and IT don’t know how many inlets and so forth. Senator Bartuerr. I think at that time the United States was ready to agree to an extension of territorial limits from 3 to 6 miles and fishing limits an additional 6 miles. Mr. Casry. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. Senator, just give me your comment as a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce. You will recall the history of the legislation. It went to conference with the conferees of the Senate and the House and we hammered out what we thought was a bill that would be accepted at the White House and, as you know, im the latter part of the 87th Congress, I believe, it received a pocket veto. We were attempting to establish a commission which would aid, and assist, and counsel, and advise the President in establishing a national goal of oceanography and then subsequent to that pocket veto we sat down with the various executive agencies of the Federal Gov- ernment, including the Bureau of the Budget, the Treasury Depart- ment, and more particularly, the Office of Science and Technology, and they conceded and we conceded and we finally reached a con- sensus, and that is a good work up here in this session. Senator Barriterr. Appropriate word. Mr. Lennon. Then we introduced that bill and it was a clean bill. It passed the subcommittee, the full committee, and passed the House in August of 1963. We sent it over to the Senate and we didn’t get any action on it since August of 1968, and I want to be frank with you, since you are certainly one of the most outstanding men in that body, and particularly on that committee, that it was our thinking that to avoid another presidential veto perhaps it would be judicious to go along with the approach that we finally hammered out and agreed to, and if it did not attain the objective that we sought within a 2-year period, and we have now reached that 2-year period—it is exactly 2 years ago that we passed the bill in the House—that then we would take a new look and determine whether or not it was wise to establish a separate and distinct agency in the Federal Government to administer the various facets and fields of oceanography. 132 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION I was disappointed that the Senate didn’t go ahead and act on that bill, knowing that the President would sign it—I had that assurance— but with the understanding in our informal conferences with all of the agencies of the Federal Government, including the office of the President, if we did not attain the agreed objective that we were seeking, that within a period of not more than 2 years we would come back then and insist upon the establishment of a definite agency that would have the total and complete responsibility for administering and implementing the some 10 or 12 agencies of the Federal Govern- ment which participate in various facets of oceanography. In retrospect, I might say that if we had passed that bill in the Congress and it had been signed into law in August of 1963 before that session adjourned we might be back here today not seeking some- thing such as we are, but seeking to determine whether or not that legislation had provided or set the stage and implemented what we had in mind, and we could be reviewing it and then looking toward and considering the necessity of legislation such as is being presented here today, so I must confess my disappointment. Do you want to add to that ? Senator Bartierr. I should only say in response to your comment, Mr. Chairman, that I am confident that Mr. Drewry would make a much better witness than I on this general subject., I can only say that I shall carry your words from here to there. Mr. Lennon. I have tried to carry them, not to my counterpart, because he is the head of the full committee, and we have had some discussion about that. Senator Bartrerr. I think it all points up as nothing else could the complexity of the situation. Mr. Lennon. The difficulties we have and how complex it is. I agree with that. Thank you so much. We do appreciate it. We think we have started this hearing on the right foot with your state- ment. Mr. Reinecke. Mr. Retnecse. Thank you. I too would like to thank the Senator and express my appreciation for his fine statement. To make it brief, in your statement you indicate your preference, though not a strong one, toward an independent and civilian agency. How do you see this agency working in conjunction with the various departments of the Federal Government that are now involved in the various oceanographic endeavors? Senator Bartiett. I would think that my plan would be entirely useless unless it were constituted in such a fashion that the Commis- sion would have some real basic authority over the departments in this area. We know Senator Muskie has offered another approach and I dare- say many others will come. My idea perhaps was that in gradual way we should seek to bring together these efforts, which are very consider- able, among the many departments and the multitude of agencies, but which I fear aren’t too well coordinated. It follows I think rather naturally that if we want to, and, as I sense it it is a strong feeling of this committee that we do want to have a broad, comprehensive, fast-moving program on the oceans, it never can take place if it is directed by agency A, B, and down through 22 of them. We have to get together some way or other and have top direction. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 133 Mr. Rernecke. Do you feel that it is possible for these agencies to cooperate, bureaucrats being what they are? Senator Bartrietr. I can only express a hope. Mr. Retnecse. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Drewry, you have a question or two for the Sen- ator ? Mr. Drewry. Senator, one of the big criticisms about some of the earlier concepts for bringing oceanography into a single agency was that you would be stripping out the scientific or research functions from, let’s say, the promotional and thus creating more problems than you solved. For example, the Coast and Geodetic Survey has to do seismological work in the oceans and on land and to separate those similar types of functions would be more a matter of duplication than really of con- solidation. Do I understand that what you have in mind in your present ap- proach is somewhat similar, let’s say, to this new ESSA, which was created by the marriage of the Coast and Geodetic Survey to the Weather Bureau. Or is it similar to the Muskie approach to bring the functions of existing agencies, so far as they have functions either scientific or promotional, into your new agency? Or is it again going to be a separation of functions? Senator Barrretr. My idea at the time of the introduction of this bill, although I couldn’t have foreseen it then specifically, was more the ESSA concept. These two Bureaus, Weather Bureau and Coast and Geodetic Survey, have been, as you put it so aptly, married, and although the honeymoon is some weeks old now, I don’t think there has been a spat between the couple and it seems to be working out perfectly well. I would see no difficulty at all in respect to an agency such as Coast and Geodetic Survey. Mr. Drewry. Would you bring, for instance, the fisheries in toto, their research, experimental fishing, as well as their marketing func- tions, and promotional functions into the same agency, or would you leave part of them out? Senator Barttetrr. The number and the complexity of the functions involved would probably make it undesirable, at least at the outset, to shift them in toto toanew agency. I don’t propose that. Mr. Drewry. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Sena- tor. Mr. Lennon. Senator, are you familiar with S. 944 that was intro- duced by Senator Magnuson on February 1, 1965, which did provide for expanded research of the oceans and Great Lakes and establish- ment of a National Oceanographic Council and for other purposes? Senator Bartrerr. Yes. I think that was the bill that was reported out by the committee and passed. Mr. Lennon. That was similar to S. 2990 in the 88th Congress but it aid expand the scope. That bill has not passed the Senate yet, has 1t? Senator Barrier. Yes, I think that it did pass the Senate. Mr. Lennon. How recently? Senator Bartizrt. Oh, a couple of weeks ago. I am in error once more. Ithasjust been reported. It hasn’t passed. 134 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Lennon. It is pending now ? Senator Bartietr. Pending. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, sir. We wanted to consider that if it had passed the Senate, and hopefully it will be passed at an early date so we can consider it during these hearings. Senator Barrierr. With Senator Magnuson as its author and as chairman of the committee I suspect it will be passed very soon. Mr. Lennon. Send it over so we can consider it here. Senator Barrierr. All right. I think it will be on its way soon. Mr. Lennon. Thank you very much, Senator. Off the record, Mr. Reporter. (Discussion off the record.) ) Mr. Lennon. We will move to the next distinguished Member of the Congress, according to the list furnished me, the Honorable Bob Wilson of California. Senator Barrierr. Before I leave the witness chair, Mr. Chairman, let me express my thanks to you and every member of the committee for allowing me to appear. Mr. Lennon. We are delighted to have you now and always. Congressman, we have known for a long time of your great interest in the law and the various ramifications and facets of oceanography and particularly as it affects the great State of California. We are delighted to have you. Are you going to stay with your statement? STATEMENT OF HON. BOB WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Witson. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to. It is a brief statement. Mr. Lennon. You may proceed, sir. Mr. Witson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee, for giving me this opportunity. If it is not inappropriate be- fore I read my testimony I would like to express my best wishes to the chairman of the full committee. He was a neighbor of mine in this building for about 8 years. He is one of the most genteel, dis- tinguished, and I must say beloved Members of Congress and I know every one of his colleagues wishes him full and speedy recovery from his recent serious illness. Mr. Lennon. Thank you. We know too that if he were in Wash- ington and physically able he would be attending the sessions of this subcommittee. He always demonstrated a great interest in it and I would like to report for the committee that according to reports he is getting along just fine. Things are very hopeful. Mr. Witson. That is the best news of the year. Mr. Chairman, we are here to work out a means to start our Gov- ernment on a much needed full-scale program of oceanography. I, among others, have proposed that a Federal Oceanographic Agency be established. It would be the focal point, the information and direc- tional center for an organized productive schedule of projects that would be valuable in many ways to the United States. In introduced the bill H.R. 921 on the first day of this session of Con- gress. It is similar to legislation that was introduced in the last ses- sion of Congress. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 135 I do not consider oceanography any longer to be merely important. I consider it crucial. An Oceanographic Agency is no longer an in- teresting experiment, it is rapidly becoming an actual national neces- sity. First, from a defense standpoint, underseas knowledge is needed for survival. Other nations, some of them unfriendly to freedom, are working feverishly to gain knowledge of ocean currents, methods of undersea navigation and development of swift, potentially deadly ves- sels, devices and machines. We can ill afford not to match and surpass potential enemies in underwater defense technology. We are now engaged in a massive war on poverty. It extends world- wide as well as within our own borders. The uses of the almost un- limited, renewable food supplies in the seas offer a natural solution to the world’s problem of hunger. It offers better living standards for all our own people, as seafood is rich in protein, minerals and vitamins. The proliferation of our own and the world’s population will make harvesting of the foods of the sea an important, needed operation. It will provide us with crops that are valuable not only as foodstuffs, but for the chemicals and fibers industries. The sea contains many minerals. We are importing an increasingly greater share of the metals we use in the United States today—es- pecially some of the rarer metals. Nearly all are floating in the sea in vast amounts. We must discover practical means to extract them from ocean water to preserve our independence, to lessen the chance that unfavorable international incidents can cut off our supply of vitally needed metal. Water isa big problem in many areas. In this day when many cities are becoming thirsty, desalinization of water should become a crash program. A recently announced process suggests the chance of bring- ing the cost down to 25 cents a thousand gallons. We have water on three sides of our country. We must find ways to convert it for con- structive use by our people. Oceanography will give far more than it takes. There will be thou- sands of new jobs in the future created through developments in ocean- ography. Man will understand more about the mysteries of undersea rivers and the air masses that move above the surface to create much of our coastal weather. The Associated Press the other day quoted Dr. Robert S. Dietz, an oceancerapher with the Coast and Geodetic Survey, who said that the Russians are gaining rapidly on the United States in oceanographic studies. _ Dietz said the Soviets now appear to have two-thirds the total effort In ocean sciences, and their program is growing 10 percent per year. There are about 1,200 Soviet oceanographers compared to about 1,500 to 2,000 in the United States. Four Soviet universities are offering oceanographic training and 50 research centers contribute to the pro- grams. Oceanographers are among the highest salaried in the U.S.S.R. Technical support of Soviet oceanographers is superior to ours, Dietz declares. He said each senior scientist has 5 to 10 assistants to help work up results of research in contrast to the American scientist who quite often works alone amid a morass of data. The Russians have the world’s only nonmilitary research submarine operating out of Murmansk. 136 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION It is obvious the Soviets mean business. They are probing the seas for military and economic use. Their trawlers roam our coastal waters in both the Atlantic and Pacific. If we can afford to spend billions to send rockets on one-way flights into space, 'we can certainly afford to invest in a program that will more than repay our funds and efforts in future benefits. What has been lacking, Mr. Chairman, is a real sense of need. We have not received from the administration the push that has been behind the multibillion dollar space program. It is up to us in Con- gress to give oceanography the push that is needed. I believe the first significant step should be the establishment of a Federal agency to coordinate and direct the many projects and programs now being worked on by the Federal agencies, private institutions and commer- cial enterprises. Jam generally not in favor of creating new Federal agencies. The oceans, however, are clearly a Federal enclave. They are a national responsibility and need a united, national approach to produce the results the Nation should have. My bill would establish a National Oceanographic Agency roughly patterned after the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I believe that when NASA was created in 1958 by the Eisenhower administration, it was the breakthrough which projected us into the lead in many space endeavors. NOA, as the agency I propose would undoubtedly be called, would absorb related functions from many different agencies of the Federal Government and give them a definition of purpose and concentration of programs that would give us more work for a buck. Oceanography today is parceled out among 22 different bureaus in nine departments or agencies. Space exploration was in the same state prior to NASA. It is obvious that many of these agencies are jealously guarding their tidal pools of oceanographic work. Many agencies objected to NASA. The military was loath to see pet projects transferred to a civilian agency. The Navy has voiced objection to another agency taking over its oceanographic functions. All of these problems can be worked out by the simple process of having an agency coordinate and parcel out work. Data can be shared. Duplication can be avoided. Programs needing concentrated work can be turned over to agencies that have the manpower, equipment, and experience to make real gains. NOA would originate many projects. It would foresee the need for new machinery, for new vessels, for undersea living quarters, for means of discovering and extracting minerals—a host of programs. Where space is an airless void, signifying to a great degree nothing, the ocean is a bounteous treasury, willing to return tenfold the efforts we make to tap the wealth stored in it through the centuries by nature. Since the new agency would be a creature of the executive branch, the President must be the enthusiastic sponsor of a departmental reorganization plan involving oceanography. Overlapping authority must be brought into order. This is the purpose of the legislation T have introduced. 0.0090 Along with the active functions of this agency should go a signifi- cant educational program. The American people have not had the NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 137 opportunity to know the value of oceanography to our future survival and good living. Our schools do not provide the proper training for rewarding futures in oceanographic administration and research. We are not jumping off into the unknown. We should all be grate- ful that many foward-looking institutions, such as the Scripps Insti- tute of Oceanographics in my hometown of San Diego, and many private firms, such as the Lockheed Aircraft Corp., which recently set up a new research center in San Diego, have pushed forward in oceanographic research. But they suffer from the lack of a central data source, access to worldwide research information, and financial help that a Federal program could create. ceanography is an opportunity, More than that it is a neces- sity of national endeavor in today’s science explosion. We would be ill served to have mastery of space and find ourselves vulnerable to undersea destruction. We would be foolhardy to know the composi- tion of the craters on the moon, and not the food, mineral, and water resurces of the seas which comprise 75 percent of our earth. It’s time to break oceanography out of the doldrums. It’s a time to set full sail, to set a course and put a sound hand on the tiller. This committee could do no greater service to our pecple today and to pos- terity than to act favorably on legislation to give oceangraphy its proper place in our country’s present and future. Mr. Chairman, just one further comment. As you know, when a bill is introduced the committee very graciously asks for reports from the departments. I have in my hand reports, each one negative, from the various agencies involved in oceanography. Mr. Lennon. I have reports here in this voluminous file on all the bills pending before the committee. Mr. Wizson. Yes, I know, but this just pomts up the problem that we are faced with. Here the Department of the Navy says they don’t want it because it is going to interfere with some of the things they are doing. I don’t suggest that an oceanography agency should take away a lot of research, from the Navy, as far as the defense implica- tions of underseas warfare, are concerned, but some aspects of their work undoubtedly would be put into anew agency. The Atomic Energy Commission is objecting. The Department of Commerce objects. The Department of the Interior objects. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare objects. ‘The Smith- sonian Institute objects because they lose some of their competence in biological ocenography in their Museum of Natural History. This points up the problem and it also points up the problem that we in Congress have. All of us know the importance of oceanography. There is no question about it. Itisas important as agriculture and yet agriculture has not only its own Department, but it has its own com- mittee up here in Congress that is concerned solely with the problems of agriculture. The Defense Department has its own committee that is concerned solely with the problems of defense. Foreign affairs has the same, and so forth. This is one of the problems that oceanography faces. There is no real champion on the Hill. You men on this committee have those aspects of oceanography that fall under your jurisdiction, but very few of them are referred to you. 53—-367— 65——10 138 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The Ways and Means Committee worries about the Treasury De- partment. The Interior Committee worries about the Interior De- partment and their fisheries, research, and so forth. This is the major problem. Until we get an agency of Government and a committee that is the champion of that agency up here on the Hill, we are just: going to be spinning our wheels. Of course when you start taking away responsibilities from various agencies they always buck it. It is going to take really a united effort, not only by Congress, but by the President before we come through with this. I remember what happened with NASA. I was on the Armed Services Committee, as I am today and serve with your distinguished chairman. Incidentally, I think the Under Secretary is missing us today over there on the testimony on the Reserve merger, but I believe that the Defense Department resisted the creation of NASA in every possible way. The Navy didn’t want their Vanguard program taken: away from it, and the Air Force had visions of trips to the moon too, but wisely the Congress and the administration said, “You have to give up some of your responsibility as it relates to peacetime activity and put it into the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,” and concurrently with that a special committee was set up, the Space Com- mittee, so-called, that would be the champion of that new agency. Until we just realize that we have to take these forward steps we are going to be doing a lot of debating Mr. Chairman, on this whole subject. I think oceanography is so vital to our future, surely from a defense standpoint, but also from a living standpoint, that I think one of the first steps should be this committee should change its name to the Merchant Marine and Oceanographic Committee so it would clearly be the committee that has the responsibility for oceanography on the Hill without any question. Then an attempt ought to be made through an agency of the type I visualize to bring as many of the current responsibilities under its jurisdiction and have it look to this com- mittee. If this would happen I know our future expansion of oceano- graphic research would be tenfold over what it is now. Mr. Lennon. Let me say that I have great respect for you, Mr. Wilson, having had the privilege of serving with you since the first of the year on the Armed Services Committee. I know you are knowledgeable and dedicated and you are certainly articulate and you make sense to me. We are delighted to have you. Off the record, Mr. Reporter. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. Mr. Rogers? We are delighted to have our own member who over the years has shown great interest in this whole field. He has sort of carried the torch for this committee since he has been a member and we are grateful to you, Mr. Rogers, and look forward with a great deal of pleasure in anticipation of your statement. STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL G. ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Rocrrs. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do appre- ciate your courtesy in allowing me, and I appreciate the gentleman from California for allowing me to testify at this time, because we NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 139 do have an executive session of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee where we are trying to write some health bills and I may be called upon to go over there. Mr. Lennon. You have another member waiting for the same rea- son. Go ahead. Mr. Rocers. Mr. Chairman and fellow members of the subcommit- tee, thank you very much for this opportunity to testify on legislation concerning the U.S. efforts in the field of oceanography. As the author of H.R. 9064, which proposes a 15-member National Commission on Oceanography, I am pleased that the subject will be fully considered during these hearings, and hopeful that this Con- eress will enact new legislation to intensify U.S. programs, research, and operations alike, in oceanography. Oceanography is entering a new phase, and has become another yardstick in the competition between the United States and Russia. Even though we are in a race for first place in outer space, our na- tional survival may ultimately hinge on how we utilize the oceans. Water covers three-fourths of the earth’s surface, yet right now we know no more about outer space than we do of the earth’s “wet space.” The United States was recently successful in putting Astronauts Mc- Divitt and White 170 miles into outer space, and in accomplishing a space walk 170 miles above the earth’s surface. However, the deepest “oceanauts” from any country have pene- trated below the water’s surface is approximately 7 miles, and none have yet ventured beyond their environment to swim at that depth. Yet oceanography has immediate and applied results to be gained from the vast, untapped resources of the seas. The earth’s rising pop- ulation may one day be fed from the oceans more than land, where food sources diminish in ratio to population. Minerals are in large supply in the oceans, and advanced knowledge of the feasibility of harvesting them may one day signal a milestone in man’s mastery of the earth. We are increasing the size of trained oceanography manpower in the United States by approximately 10 percent per year. In this figure alone are we equal to the Soviets, and some experts say they may be increasing their ranks by as much as 15 percent per year. However, while we presently have approximately 700 oceanographers, the Soviets have some 1,500. In terms of research vessels, the Soviet Union has surpassed the United States with ships of total 65,000 gross tons in weight. The total weight of U.S. survey vessels comes to 60,000 gross tons. Here again a narrow margin makes the action to be taken by the United States in the next few years of critical importance. It must be emphasized that the Soviet effort is entirely under the direction of the Government of the U.S.S.R. It is a highly organized program directed with the force of totalitarian state. While our system allows more initiative and freedom, should the Soviet Union suddenly decide to expand their program an even more serious gap could exist between the United States and Russia. To concentrate on marine research as applied to animal life, the bulk of U.S. efforts in this area are borne by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. 140 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The Bureau has 22 vessels for research purposes, 10 of which are capable of the high seas. Russia has approximately 60 oceanographic research vessels engaged in purely fisheries research. And it is in the field of fisheries research that the Soviet Union is reaping immense benefits. In 1964, the U.S.S.R. brought in a catch of over 5 million metric tons of fish and other sea animal life. Over 80 percent of Russia’s annual fish catch is obtained from waters outside its own territorial limits. We in Florida are concerned with the growing presence of Russian fishing in the waters surrounding the Florida coast. Russian vessels are moving more and more into fishing areas once the traditional grounds of U.S. fishermen from the Carolinas, the Middle Atlantic States, New England, and the gulf coast area, as well as Alaska and west coast areas. The use of Cuba as a refueling, supply, and processing center for the Soviet fleet has facilitated their move into the southeast region. In Havana, the Soviet Union has constructed an oceanographic institute equipped with 26 laboratories. More than 100 Russian marine scientists are working out of Cuba, surveying the resources around the U.S. coastline. The pride of the Soviet oceanographic fleet, the Zomonsov, a 6,000- ton vessel, is not only the largest of its kind in the world, but has been assigned to the Cuba-based marine research activities. This vessel is outfitted with 16 laboratories, and carries 70 marine scientists. It is known that Russian ocean researchers are vitally interested in the Gulf Stream. This rich and abundant “river in the sea” has been termed the “major oceanographic phenomenon closest to the United States” by Dr. Harris B. Steart, Jr., the Chief Oceanographer of the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey. This agency has just embarked on a year-long study of the Gulf Stream in behalf of the United States, and is using two vessels from the Commerce Department, along with support aircraft from the Coast Guard and the U.S. Weather Bureau. Additional cooperative studies will be carried out by the Marine Institute of the University of Miami, MIT, Columbia University’s Lamont Geological Observatory, and the Lerner Marine Laboratory at Bimini, Bahamas, as well as the Woods Hole, in Massachusetts, Oceanographic Institution and the University of Rhode Island. The concentration now beginning on the Gulf Stream, which has been likened to a river because it discharges each hour 22 times as much water into the sea as do all the world’s rivers in a similar period, demonstrates the importance of these hearings. The battleground for knowledge of the oceans may well become the fertile seas around America. What becomes the decision of this Con- gress will have a great bearing on who will be the first to unlock the secrets of Davy Jones’ locker—the United States or Russia. I, therefore, urge that the approach to fullest utilization of our resources be an orderly one as well as becoming a matter of national urgency. The widespread interest in oceanography which has been generated in recent months can be a helpful impetus toward accomplishing the goals of U.S. superiority. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 141 However, we must not allow the impetus now underway to decline into discord among the Nation’s oceanography community. We must iard against those now agreed that more must be done in the field from reaching an impasse on how to do it. The establishment of a National Commission on Oceanography would do three things: (1) it would provide a thorough review of the Nation’s capabilities in the field; (2) it would set long-range goals of specific magnitude; and (38) it would set forth in specific language how those goals can be achieved, including an organizational plan and some measure of the finances necessary for these accomplishments. The Commission would allow fair voice for the expression of in- terests representing Government, industry, and the academic com- munity involved. The 15-member Commission would be composed of 5 members each pe nine the above-listed segments of our national oceanography effort. At present the Federal Government’s research operations alone are scattered through 18 agencies. The Commission would provide an orderly approach to questions concerning expansion of the Nation’s efforts in the field. The Commission proposed in H.R. 9064 would have a temporary life of 2 years from the date of enactment of the legislation. The Commission must file an interim report within 1 year from the date of enactment, and within 2 years from enactment it must file final recommendations to the President and the Congress. These recommendations would be the fruition of the Commission’s survey and appraisal. The Commission would then cease to exist 30 days from the date its final report would be submitted. I urge favorable action on legislation to establish such a com- mission, and particularly to give the impetus from the Congress to take it out of just a departmental study and to raise it to a level of a Presidential commission responsible not only to the President, but to the Congress itself. I am very grateful to the chairman and committee for allowing me to say these few words. Mr. Lennon. We are very grateful to you for a very informative, interesting, and I would think a very meaningful statement. Mr. Reporter, off the record, please. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. Congressman Fascell, we are happy to have you. STATEMENT OF HON. DANTE B. FASCELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Fascery. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- mittee. JI appreciate the change in agenda which the chairman has outlined which give us the opportunity to discuss this very important matter before the committee. I want to commend you for taking the time and giving us the oppor- tunity. I hope that I will not be put in the position of saying, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, “Let’s do something.” Therefore, even though I may at times have to disagree with some of my colleagues, I would hope that I would lay down a line of reason- ing for whatever it 1s worth. 142 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION As I see it now, you have three basic approaches pending before the committee. One is a national commission; one is the establishment of an independent agency ; and the other is the format of the bill which I have cosponsored on the House side, H.R. 5654, the National Oceano- graphic Act of 1965, which would establish a national oceanographic council, among other things. The bill has two major legislative purposes. One is to establish a clear set of policy objectives for this Nation’s marine sciences and engineering, and the second is to provide sustained, high-level leader- ship, guidance, and coordination of the program which is necessarily supported in relation to missions of a number of separate agencies rather than one. H.R. 5654, on the House side, corresponds to 8S. 944 sponsored by Senator Warren G. Magnuson and others, and I am happy to note that S. 944 was unanimously voted out favorably, with amendments, by the Senate Commitee on Commerce on July 15. I am hopeful that the testimony you will receive in these current hearings, including considerations that I shall outlne subsequently, will be helpful and lead to favorable conclusions by this committee in support of the proposals I have outlined. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I will support any approach that comes out of this committee, but I believe an analysis of all;of the approaches that are made will lead to a reasonable conclusion that the approach which is suggested in this legislation is the best approach at this time. I intend to cover three major points very quickly: First, the im- portance of oceanography to the Nation; second, my concern about the lack of progress and the dangers of this country losing its leader- ship in this area; and third, a summary of provisions of H.R. 5654 that I believe will provide the necessary legislative base to a ‘sound program in marine science and engineering. . Tam not going to dwell too long on the importance of oceanography. T know that you will take judicial notice of that fact, but, Mr. Chair- man, I can pose this one thought : Supposing it were possible for ocean- ographers to divert the flow of the Gulf Stream away from the United States? It is scientifically problematical whether life as we know it on this continent could exist. | It was your own committee 6 years ago that first responded to these opportunities for U.S. leadership advocated in the report by the Na- tional Academy of Sciences through the establishment on February 17 of a.special subcommittee and you have continued your very fine work in this area ever since. T would want to make comment about further study. In recognizing the need for careful review of the various functions and responsibilities of agencies engaged in ocean research it is my opinion we cannot afford to delay for any lengthy period the necessary reorganization of that activity. Study may be all right, but we have had a lot of study and it has been reported on by many independent committees, scientifically, tech- nically, politically, agencywise, congressionally, and every other way. There is a wealth of information on this subject already available. I do see, however, considerable value in bringing together a group of experts, a small group, to do what my colleague from Florida, Mr. Rogers, has suggested. I think this would be responsible, reasonable, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 143 and necessary. I would hope that we could get leaders in government, in the industry, and in science to do this job and do it quickly because J don’t think we have much time. Jt should not take longer than 6 months. In the meantime, it would seem to me that all of the doubts and the differences of opimion about national policy, about budget, about organization, ought to be resolved here in the Congress as rapidly as possible. J don’t think that we ought to slack our interest or our determination while we are trying to decide what our problems are and what the mechanics of organization are going to be. Jt has been gratifying, Mr. Chairman, that the executive branch and the Congress have almost always been in agreement about the impor- tance of the goals of oceanography, even though we have had a great difference of opinion as to how best to achieve them. We have had increased appropriations. We have had healthy growth. We have had increases in our equipment, modernization, new techniques, strengthened our educational and manpower base, and we have made quite an auspicious start. What we are all talkmg about now is the new spirit, new direction of a program that we all concede is immensely important and valuable to the country for many reasons. Right now we are-$50 million behind schedule in our 10-year pro- gram of oceanography as laid down by the Federal Council, and we can’t maintain world leadership in an area in which the Soviet compe- tition is so significant with that kind of performance. But it is not the uncertainties of the funding that alarms me the most. The extensive interest by the 89th Congress reflects this concern, for, nothwithstanding the good intentions of the executive branch to support this program, it has been obviously difficult to maintain priority attention and assignment of manpower and funds in the face of competition for other scientific programs in the national interest. In the absence of any formal mandate from the Congress that the President could construe as a consensus by the American people that this field deserves the attention that has been focused on outer space, and in the absence of any single agency having identifiable responsi- bilty for this program as is true in space exploration, some additional steps are essential. We need a program compatible both with this Nation’s role as a world leader and with the opportunities which the oceans offer in maintaining our welfare and our security. We have taken such steps in connection with the Nation’s space program, its atomic energy program, its water resources; but we have not succeeded in developing a similar charter for our activities in the oceans. ) _ The very diversity of purposes makes impracticable the reorganiza- tion of all these functions in a single operating agency, in addition to which you have all of the agencies fighting this, and without a clear- cut decision, it seems to me, by the President which would direct the agencies otherwise and because of the differences of opinion that exist with respect to the military, the commercial, the scientific, and the industrial people, I don’t see from a practical standpoint how you are going to ram through the establishment of an independent agency, as desirable as that might be from an organizational standpoint, a budget standpoint, and in the establishment of national goals. 144 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Establishment of an independent agency in my opinion has certain organizational advantages, but from a practical standpoint where we are today it is extremely doubtful that we can get the necessary admin- istrative support, support outside of the Congress, or even congres- sional support to create an independent agency. Such a proposal gives rise to the immediate difference of opinion as to whether it is practicable or desirable to excise the oceanographic components out of the various agencies such as the Bureau of Fisheries, the important scientific research carried on by the Navy, and others, and put them into a new civilian agency. Tt might very well be, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that you gentlemen as experts might want to make the decision that the whole flavor of oceanography ought to be away from the military and have a civilian characteristic. It is all too obvious to us that our budgets are always based on priorities. It is all too obvious that because of the military need and necessity and the response of the Congress to that military need and necessity the first money that comes out is military money. You might decide in the national security and in the national interest that this whole program out to have nonmilitary direction. I am inclined to support that kind of approach. But I don’t know whether or not it is scientifically right or not. This is a matter which I think would have to be based on the testimony of the military people and the scientists, oceanographers, and others who could tell you whether that is the correct approach. It would seem to me, based on the evidence that is before us today and what we can deduce, that the independent agency approach is not practical from either a scientific point or a political point. I realize of course that from the executive point of view it is con- tended that no legislation is necessary and that the present program is working. But I would point out to you that we have all kinds of legislative proposals pending. This indicates that some are dissatis- fied, so I think that the administrative agencies need to take that into consideration if they think that the present setup is satisfactory. I don’t believe that under present arrangements, oceanography, and I think the evidence supports that view, has special status as a national program or that it has an overall budget definition. I believe that if we have a council which has the responsibility as laid out in this bill, while it has its own faults because it is in the Office of the President and from an organizational standpoint this may not be desirable, it seems to be the most practical approach at this time. I concur with the chairman that had we done something that was practical 3 years ago we would be in a lot better shape than we are today. Again as a practical matter I point out that in the other body, in the Senate, they have approved the approach of H.R. 5654. It would be very difficult for the agencies to make the same objections to this bill that they made to the bill advocating an independent agency. The important action is to start. We could lay down an oceano- graphic charter for a broad objective national program. By acting on H.R. 5654 we would for the time bypass the very delicate and dif- ficult problems of excising out of the agencies the component parts of the oceanographic program if that is ever desirable. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 145 But that doesn’t mean that we close the door on that. At least we move forward until we can get to a day closer when if this becomes desirable we can do that. Therefore, I believe for all of these reasons H.R. 5654 is a practical approach at this time. Mr. Chairman, one final word. I advocate the principle—Govern- ment agencies should be given increased capacity to perform their oceanographic missions. I likewise stress with equal vigor that uni- versity laboratories and research institutes should be given the re- sponsibility of performing and supporting basic research in oceanog- raphy. We talk about programs. We talk about budgets. We talk about new equipment. We talk about new facilities. But we have to keep our eye on the ball because what progress takes is highly trained, skilled men to make all of these facilities and equipment work. It seems to me that we must have the trained and skilled people as a condition precedent to any kind of expanded oceaographic program at the national level. Obviously no clear cleavage is possible between the roles of support- ing basic research and the other things that are necessary in oceanog- raphy. They merge and meet imperceptibly so that each kind of agency must have the capacity to do both, but none the less it seems useful to define the basic roles that way. Also the question of duplication arises. There is too much research to be accomplished to allow duplication to exist, but it is not a simple principle to apply either. What might be regarded on casual inspec- tion to be wasteful duplication might in fact be necessary cross-check- ing of experimental finds, an integral part of the scientific method. To distinguish between duplication and necessary crosschecking re- quires the most active kind of cooperation. You would either have to put the entire responsibility in one agency or have the kind of high level coordination and cooperation we are talking about and which is inherent in this bill. This duplication determimation requires the highest level of cooperation and coordination not only inside of gov- ernment, but between government, unversities and research institutes. Without that we wouldn’t accomplish very much. In the enthusiasm for increasing the tempo of oceanographic and fishery research in the United States, involving massive new programs, I want to emphasize again that we need men, and trained scientists are not now available in the numbers necessary to staff existing programs, much less expanded programs. Universities are faced with the necessity of training oceanographers and fishery scientists at rates far above the past, and these universities must be given the capability to do this heavy task, I would hope that in the charter which is laid out that this point is clearly recognized and emphasized. Training in such complex professions as these must be at the graduated level. This is expensive. It has been estimated that the cost is about $5,000 per year to train oceangraphers, about the same as to train a medical student, and of course this is because of the elab- orate equipment necessary and boat charters run anywhere from $1,000 to $2,000 a day. 146 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION To train men to become professional research scientists, they must be given continuous and varied practice in research, and this cannot be an artificial problem invented for class exercises. They must be real problems to be solved by active participation of the student alongside an experienced and skilled research scientist. Thus, the only realistic kind of support for universities given the responsibility of training oceanographers is for support for research programs. Itis fortunate that this kind of support serves two valuable purposes: to solve the problems faced by the United States in its pursuit of understanding of the ocean, and to train scientists who will staff the laboratories and programs for future assault on these problems. Tn the bills to strengthen oceanography and fishery research which you are considering, Mr. Chairman, specific provisions should be made for the kind of support for universities which I have been talking about, including the granting of specific authorization and direction to the Fish and Wildlife Service or its successors to support and fi- nance grants and contracts to the universities for fishery problems. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would state that in my humble judg- ment, based on what we now have available for us and analyzing the prospects that are possible, it would seem to me that the best approach to this problem lies in H.R. 5654 which has already passed the Senate committee as §. 944. A council which will lay out a national program and provide high level coordination would be the way to move now, keeping in mind always your committee’s continued interest in the program and the availability and desirability of making changes as circumstances may warrant in the future. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, let me thank you for allowing us the opportunity to be here with you today to discuss this important subject. Let me congratulate all of you for your con- tinued interest in a subject which has too long been neglected and I am delighted that you have spent the years and the time that you have and that you keep prodding on this problem so something will get done. Mr. Lennon. Unless there is objection, gentlemen, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Congressman Fascell’s statement be made a part of this record. re (The statement referred to follows :) STATEMENT OF Hon. DANTE B. FASCELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FRoM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity to testify before your subcommittee in support of H.R. 5654, the National Oceanographic Act of 1965. I introduced this bill on March 2 to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. This bill has two major legislative purposes. One is to establish a clear set of policy objectives for this Nation’s marine sciences and engineering, and the second is to provide sustained, high-level leadership, guidance, and cooridna- tion of the program which is necessarily Supported in relation to missions of a number of separate agencies rather than one. H.R. 5654 correspond to S. 944 sponsored by Senator Warren G. Magnuson and others, and I am happy to note that S. 944 was unanimously voted out favorably, with amendments, by the Senate Committee on Commerce on July 15. I am hopeful that the testimony you will receive in these current hearings, including considerations that I shall outline subsequently, will lead to your committee’s favorable action on this legislation. In this regard, I want to strongly NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 147 endorse your own statement at the time these current hearings were announced— that the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee “has been working hard at this subject for about 6 years now, and I think we are in a position to reach a mature conclusion in this session of this Congress.” I intend to cover three major points: First, the importance of oceanography to the Nation; second, my concern about lack of progress and the dangers of this country losing its leadership in this area; and third, a summary of provi- sions of H.R. 5654 that I believe will provide the necessary legislative base to a sound program in marine science and engineering. The importance of oceanography to the security and welfare of this country was first described in the study by the National Academy of Sciences, released February 15, 1959. It was your committee 6 years ago that first responded to the opportunities for U.S. leadership advocated in that report through establish- ment, on February 17, of a Special Subcommittee on Oceanography under Con- gressman George P. Miller. That subcommittee began extensive hearings almost immediately, and over the past 6 years, Mr. Chairman, your committee has developed abundant testimony on the goals of a national program in oceanog- raphy, and on resources and Federal organization needed for their achievement. But in recognizing the necessity for careful review of the various functions and responsibilities of agencies engaged in ocean research we cannot afford to delay for any lengthy period the necessary reorganization of this activity. Two years of study is too long. The state of oceanographic research has been care- fully studied and reported upon by a competent NAS-NRC committee. Other groups, including committees of Congress, have also done valuable work in this field. It would seem appropriate at this time, therefore, to have a small expert eroup bring up to date and pull together the knowledge already collated to give Congress a factual summary and to advance specific recommendations. This committee should inelude Government, university, and industry members. Its task should not take more than 6 months, both because longer time is not necessary and because the Nation cannot spare more time. Congress and the public have a right to demand resolution of expressed doubts and differences of opinion as to national policy, budget, and organization ; but, we must guard against any slackening in determination to enhance the ability of the United States to master the ocean for the food of mankind while we are sorting out our problems and mechanics of organization. In reviewing the vast quantity of study material, I found some 16 objectives relevant to our national interests: 1. Increase the Nation’s security from enemy sea or undersea attack, and to maintain the potency of a Polaris-type deterrent force. 2. Improve international trade and commerce and safeguard them from dis- ruption in the event of a national emergency. 3. Improve understanding of weather phenomenon and the accuracy of long- range forecasts. 4, Comprehend changes in climate of world significance. 5. Afford greater protection to lives and property from ocean-bred wind and waves. 6. Restore and expand domestic fisheries and reduce costs to both fishermen and consumers. 7. Through aquaculture, to alleviate protein deficiency elsewhere in the world. 8. Identify ocean mineral deposits and develop methods for recovery and processing. 9. Expand knowledge of fossil fuels that lie beneath the oceans. 10. Diminish dangers of pollution from atomic, industrial, or domestic waste. 11. Facilitate discovery of new medical and pharmacological weapons in the war against disease. 12. Safeguard waterfront property from beach erosion. 13. Diminish damage to docks, piers, and ships from marine borers and fouling organisms. 14. Protect and enrich all kinds of seashore recreation, so important in a nation of increasing urban population. 15. Provide a rational basis for international agreements and domestic regu- lation in ownership, transit, fishing, and mineral rights. 16. Strengthen basic research, using the sea as a laboratory for extending knowledge of the world around us. Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity of firsthand discussion of many of these points with the director and staff at the Institute of Marine Science at 148 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION the University of Miami. I am impressed with the progress we have made in the past few years, the significant discoveries, and extension of the potential for science to be applied to the public interest through a parallel development of ocean engineering. It has been gratifying to see that the executive branch and the Congress were almost always in agreement about the importance of these goals. During the early 1960’s, the program received an increase in appropriations that permitted healthy growth in all areas of marine science—oceanography developed from its earlier primitive state in comparison with other sciences, our fleet of ships and shore based laboratories were strengthened and the educational and manpower base necessary for a sound attack on our ignorance of the sea has been increased. But, Mr. Chairman, after an auspicious beginning, this program needs spirit and direction. The budget is inevitably a measure of our priorities. In the case of oceanography, the President’s fiscal year 1966 budget of $141.6 million was only about 4 percent over that for fiscal year 1965—not enough to accom- modate increased costs to operate new ships that the Congress authorized and funded in 1961-63; nor is it enough to provide funds for increased basie research associated with growing university enrollment, and especially to provide funds for applied research and engineering for the purposes outlined earlier. In the 2 short years since transmittal to the Congress of the Federal Council’s 10-year program in oceanography, the level of funding is almost $50 million behind schedule. We cannot maintain world leadership in an area in which Soviet competition is so significant with this kind of performance. But it is not the uncertainties in funding that alarm me most. The extensive interest by the 89th Congress reflects this concern, for, not- withstanding the good intentions of the executive branch to support this pro- gram, it has been obviously difficult to maintain priority attention and assign- ment of manpower and funds in the face of competition for other scientific programs in the national interest. In the absence of any formal mandate from the Congress that the President could construe as a consensus by the American people that this field deserves the attention that has been focused on outer space, and in the absence of any single agency having identifiable responsibility for this program as is true in space exploration, some additional steps are essential. We need a program compatible both with this Nation’s role as a world leader and with the opportunities which the oceans offer in maintaining our welfare and our security. We have taken such steps in connection with the Nation’s space program, its atomic energy program, its water resources; but we have not succeeded in developing a similar charter for our activities in the oceans. The very diversity of purposes makes impracticable the reorganization ef all these functions in a single operating agency. But H.R. 5654 would be a major step in providing a statutory foundation of goals and leadership. The Congress applauded leadership of the executive branch associated with the program during formative years, and the Congress looked to the Federal Council for Science and Technology as the coordinating agent of a program that is necessarily conducted in almost 20 departments, agencies, or bureaus. It was especially eager to see this mechanism utilized after the statutory Office of Science and Technology was established that permitted its Director, currently Chairman of the Federal Council, to provide information and advice to the Congress. Legislative proposals in the 87th and 88th Congresses were based on concern over the possibilities of a transient determination to give oceanography the leadership it deserved. I realize that the executive branch has contended that this program has advanced and will continue to progress without the need for new legislation. In testimony this spring before the Senate Commerce Committee, Dr. Donald I’. Hornig (Director of the Office of Science and Technology, and Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology) restated that over the past 5 years the program has been scientifically productive, that the Federal mechanism for coordinating oceanography activities has performed well. On the other hand, in response to written questions of Senator Magnuson related to the Federal Council’s procedures of endorsement of the national oceanographic program Dr. Hornig notes that the “‘Federal Council made no specific recommendations with respect to the fiscal year 1966 program recommended by the Interagency Committee.’ This is the first time since the Interagency Committee on Oceanog- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 149 raphy was given program planning responsibilities by its Council Chairman in 1961 that no endorsement was made. Dr. Hornig also noted that ‘‘National programs are not established by the executive branch in the sense of creating an entity which is given special treatment because of that designation.” This is in direct contrast to contentions in previous years that legislation was unneeded because oceanography was being given special status as a “national program” and that it was effectively coordinated by overt action on the part of the Federal Council. The Office of Science and Technology has statutory responsibility to advise and assist the President. But there is no lauguage in the Reorganization Plan No. 2 under which it was established, or in Executive Order 10807 that earlier set up the Federal Council, that designates responsibilities for a unified or coordi- nated program in oceanography, or even requires regular reporting to the Con- gress in this important field. If, in fact, the term ‘national program” which has been applied over the years to oceanography by the executive branch is now meaningless, and if the program does not even earn budget defense through the Federal Council, then I feel it is all the more urgent that the Congress very clearly establish its own legislative intent in this regard, together with a mecha- nism with sufficient authority and responsibility to be sure that the intent is indeed carried out. This is the purpose of my bill. Wirst, section 201 contains a declaration of policy and purpose as follows: “The oceanographic and marine activities of the United States should be con- ducted so as to contribute to the following objectives : *“(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in and related to the oceans, the marine environment, and the Great Lakes, their boundaries and contents. “(2) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in oceano- graphie and marine science and technology. “(3) The enhancement of the general welfare and security of the United States. “(4) The advancement of education and training in marine science and technology. “(5) The development and improvement of the capabilities, performance, and efficiency of vehicles, equipment, and instruments for use in exploration, research, surveys, the recovery of resources, and the transmission of energy in the marine environment. “(6) The coordination of activities of the various agencies concerned with the marine sciences, and the collection, storing, and distribution of significant data acquired as a result of these activities. “(7) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to the U.S. economy, security, health, and welfare to be gained from the opportunities for, and the problems involved in, utilization of scientific marine and Great Lakes researeh and surveys. “(8) The effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities and equipment, or waste. “(9) The making available to agencies directly concerned or affected by oceano- graphic or Great Lakes phenomena of knowledge obtained through U.S. scientific marine research and surveys which is of value or significance to the agency. (10) The cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in oceanographic and marine research and surveys when such coopera- tion is in the national interest.” The designation of authority and responsibility to implement this policy is set forth in section 301. Wirst, there would be established in the Executive Office of the President a National Oceanographic Council chaired by the Vice President and composed of other Federal officials of high policy rank. It is the function of this Council to advise and assist the President in the field of oceanography and marine sciences, including such matters as: (1) Survey all significant oceanographic and marine sciences activities, including the policies, plans, programs, and accomplishments of all depart- ments and agencies of the United States engaged in such activities; (2) Develop a comprehensive program of oceanographic and marine science activities, including but not limited to, exploration, exploitation, and conservation of marine resources, oceanographic engineering, studies of air-sea interaction, transmission of energy, and communications, to be con- ducted by departments and agencies of the United States; 150 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION (3) Designate and fix responsibility for the direction. of major oceano- graphic and marine science activities, including, but not limited to, explora- tion, exploitation, and conservation of marine resources, oceanographic engineering, studies of air-sea interaction, transmission of energy, and communications ; (4) Provide for effective cooperation among all departments and agencies of the United States engaged in oceanographic and marine science activities, and specify, in any case in which primary responsibility for any category of the oceanographic and marine science activities has been assigned to any department or agency, which of those activities may be carried on concur- rently by other departments or agencies ; (5) Resolve differences arising among departments and agencies of the United States with respect to oceanographic and marine science activities under this act, including differences as to whether a particular project is an oceanographic and marine science activity ; and (6) Review annually all existing oceanographic and marine sciences actiy- ities conducted by departments and agencies of the United States in light of the policies, plans, programs, and priorities developed pursuant to this act. In my view, this Council would thus bring together wisdom and experience as well as reflection of agency views that would foster the needed policy in program planning and coordination not only from the point of view of science but from the point of view of technology and such considerations as economic development and foreign affairs. Establishment of this Council thus takes note of the fact that numerous Federal departments and independent agencies have statutory missions which directly or indirectly deal with the oceans, These responsibilities relate to our national security, to development of our national resources, to public health and safety and to recreation. Hach of these activities in the ocean is thus related to the broader mission of the parent agency. Because of the different public pur- poses for which these agencies were established it does not seem possible to me to excise the oceanographic component and consolidate these functions in one new superagency. Nevertheless, to make sure that all of the agencies contribute to a common base of scientific data and survey, and make use of a common base, to be sure that goals are consistent, that there not be unnecessary duplication of ships or shore facilities, that there be a common concern for manpower training and utilization, that there be uniform policies in the development of Federal relations with State and private interests—for these reasons it is essential that there be a policy coordinating body that could deal with common problems and common goals. Section 301 would also provide for a full-time staff through a civilian Executive Secretary appointed by the President with advice and consent of the Senate. Such full-time staff is essential to this program and it is important both for the President and for the Congress that there be someone of policy rank working with the Vice President to provide the necessary staff back-up operations of the Council and continuity for day-to-day communications with the constituent agencies. We have precedent for this type of mechanism. Title II of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 established a National Aeronautics and Space Council with very similar functions. As amended in 1961, it provides for the Vice President as Chairman. That Council performs all of the functions out- lined above and, in addition, participates in budget analyses prior to their formal presentations to the President; supplies the Congress with competent and objective information about the program under its surveillance. I visualize the National Oceanographic Council having a similar function. I need not remind this committee that H.R. 4276, introduced by Congressman George P. Miller early in the 87th Congress, would have created a somewhat similar National Oceanographic Council to the one I propose. Your hearings that year provided testimony in support of this concept that is still relevant today. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I speak as one concerned about our neglect of the potential of the oceans for our national welfare. When he transmitted budget proposals for this year’s oceanographic program, President Johnson in a letter to the Speaker of the House said: “* * * now our view of the seas has had to undergo a drastic change. We have always considered them as barriers to navigation ; we now must see them as links not only between peoples but to a vast new untapped resource * * *”, It is essential that the Congress review this program as a unified thrust seaward. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Lat J, therefore, urgently recommend when the various committees of the Congress review this portion of their program they keep its entirety in mind.” Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5654 provides the mechanism by which this unified view of oceanography can be developed as a matter of purpose and implemented as a matter of executive management that now displays lack of continuity and sus- tained momentum. This bill would also provide an unprecedented opportunity for the Congress also to view this program as a single entity. While I advocate the principle that mission-oriented Government agencies should be given increased capacity to perform their missions, I likewise stress with equal vigor that university laboratories and research institutes should be given the responsibility of performing the supporting basic research. Obviously, no clear cleavage is possible between these roles which meet and merge impercep- tibily so that each kind of agency must have the capacity to do both, but nonethe- less it seems useful to define the basic roles in this way. Of course, there is too much research to be accomplished to allow duplication to exist. But this is not a simple principle to apply either, since what might be regarded on casual inspection to be wasteful duplication might in fact be neces- sary cross-checking of experimental finds, an integral part of the scientific method. To distinguish between duplication and necessary cross-checking re- quires the most active kind of cooperation. This implies consultation at the high- est level between various agencies in Government and between Government and university and research scientists. In the enthusiasm for increasing the tempo of oceanographic and fishery research in the Unted States, involving masSive new programs, new vessels and new laboratories, one all-important aspect is frequently brushed aside lightly or even completely ignored. This is the problem of who is going to staff the pro- grams and laboratories and to man the vessels. What makes research go is not equipment or buildings or boats, no matter how elaborate or expensive, but trained men. ‘These are not available now in the numbers necessary to staff existing programs. Yet the United States is making plans for twice to four times the amount of work in the next few years. So the universities are faced with the necessity of training oceanographers and fishery scientists at rates far above those in the past. These universities must be given the capability to do this heavy task—a point nearly ignored up to now. Training in such complex professions as these must be at the graduate level, and this is expensive. It has been estimated that it costs about $5,000! per year to train oceanographers—about the same as to train a medical student. The high cost in both cases is because of the elaborate equipment necessary; in fishery Seience and oceanography there is the additional cost of expensive boat time (which often runs to $1,000 to $2,000 per day). To train men to become professional research scientists, they must be given continuous and varied practice in research. And this cannot be in artificial problems invented for class exercises; they must be real problems to be solved by active participation of the student alongside an experienced and skilled research scientist. Thus, the only realistic kind of support for universities given the responsibility of training oceanographers is for support for research programs. It is fortu- nate that this kind of support serves two valuable purposes: to solve problems facing the United States in its pursuit of understanding of the ocean, and to train scientists who will staff the laboratories and programs for future assault on these problems. In the bills to strengthen oceanography and fishery research being considered here, specific provision should be made for the kind of support for universities described above, including the granting of specific authorization and direction to the Fish and Wildlife Service or its successors to support and finance grants and contracts to universities for fishery problems. Mr. Fascert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As usual, you are very alert and very courteous. Mr. Lennon. One question. Your bill, H.R. 5654, corresponds to Senate bill 944 but is wider in scope, is it not? Mr. Fascetu. I believe it is. I haven’t checked the amendments that came over from the Senate side. Mr. Lennon. I was very much interested in the last paragraph of your statement on page 5 and all of page 6. We will not have time 152 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION out of deference to the other gentleman to question you about it. Could you be here tomorrow for just a few minutes at 10 o’clock ? Mr. Fasceuu. I will certainly try. I have a committee hearing of my own tomorrow so I don’t know what kind of conflict I might have but I will be happy to work with Mr. Drewry or the committee and try to answer any questions. Mr. Lennon. Thank you very much. Mr. Fasceti. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Our next witness is Congressman Huot, who. is the sponsor of H.R. 7798, which is identical to Senate bill 944. Congressman, we are sorry you were delayed. You know how these things work out. You just go right ahead, sir. We won’t interrupt you. STATEMENT OF HON. J. OLIVA HUOT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Mr. Huor. I appreciate your problem and I guess we all have a problem when it comes to meetings. Mr. Lennon. Did you want to bring, since we won’t be able to get into the question period, your expert, who I see sitting alongside you, on this subject matter ? You go ahead. Mr. Huor. We will probably have that tomorrow then. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I welcome the opportunity to express my feelings relative to H.R. 7798—legislation that I introduced in the Congress on May 3 to establish a directing and coordinating body con- cerned with strengthening the Nation’s efforts in the vast area of oceanographic research and development. Mr. Chairman, the fact that we are meeting here today, the many bills presently before Congress, and the present keen interest by the scientific, commercial, and industrial segments of our society attest to the great need for a formal and intensive national commitment to the exploration and utilization of hydrospace. I would first like to congratulate the agencies and departments of our Government now engaged in hydrospace activity for the degree of progress they have made to date. I would specifically like to single out the Interagency Committee on Oceanography for their efforts in pursuit of a logical program of oceanographic development. I am sure we all agree that it is in the national interest to fully explore the greatest potential source of resources on this planet. Iam also sure we all agree that this potential has remained untapped far too long. I am equally sure we do not agree on the most effective means to ac- complish a hydrospace program, as my bill is a similar bill to Mr. Fascell’s. As Mr. Fascell has already indicated, though we do not agree in this area we would probably come to some agreement if something could be done. However, as he has pointed out, we agree that something ought to be done and we have to start somewhere. Let us then look at how the NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 153 United States is presently pursuing ocean exploration, for it is this situation which H.R. 7798 would change. Ninety percent of our Nation’s oceanographic programs is contained within. four agencies. They are the Navy, National Science Founda- tion, the Department of the Interior, and the Department. of Com- merce. The National Science Foundation is supposed to provide the core of basic science activity to the oceanographic activities of all agencies and to the general field of oceanography itself. The mission-oriented agencies, those 21 agencies now engaged in various forms of oceanographic studies, are supposed. to draw on basic knowledge provided by the National Science Foundation for further- ance of the agencies’ missions. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography is supposed to co- ordinate the basic research provided by the National ‘Science Founda- tion and the Navy against the needs of the mission oriented agencies. What actually happens is that since the ICO is only an advisory and coordinating body and not, by their own admission, an action body—it cannot provide either the direction of the basic research nor prevent the possible duplication of effort among the mission oriented agencies. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, it was brought out that the Office of Science and Technology, which is the organization through which the ICO reports, has no professional staff member devoted to oceanography at this time. The testimony further stated that the OST utilizes only 10 percent of a temporary man’s work as its interest in oceanography. The national commitment to oceanographic research and engineering certainly warrants more than one-tenth of one man at this level. Any organization which is solely able to “coordinate” and not pro- vide direction through budget support will face precisely the same problem as the ICO in trying to tie together the existing diversity of missions and the dispersion of oceanography among a number of op- erating agencies. What then will these bills accomplish to insure the United States of meeting its commitment to full exploration of the oceans and water- ways? ‘There are basically four main purposes to this legislation. The first is to expand human knowledge of phenomena in and related to the oceans. The second is to further develop and improve the capabilities, performance, and efficiency of vehicles equipment, and instruments for use in exploration, research, surveys, the recovery of resources and the transmission of energy in the marine environment. The third is to more effectively coordinate the activities of the various agencies concerned with the marine sciences; and the fourth is to insure full cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in oceanographic and marine research, and surveys when such cooperation is in the national interest. The bill calls for the establishment of a National Oceanographic Council consisting of Cabinet members of departments presently in- volved in various studies of oceanography. Also on the Council will be the Directors and Chairmen of the Smithsonian Institution, Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Science and Technology and the Na- 53-367—65—_—11 154 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION tional Science Foundation. The Vice President will act as Chairman of this Council. A National Oceanographic Council of this type will employ a regular staff headed by a full-time civilian executive secretary ap- pointed by the President whose main function will be to develop a comprehensive program of oceanographic and marine science activities and provide for effective cooperation among all departments and agencies of the Federal Government. i This Council will submit to Congress within 1 year from its estab- lishment a comprehensive program of proposed legislation in further- ance of oceanography and the marine sciences. é A. $500,000 appropriation is attached to establish operation of the ouncil. ; In addition, the President will be authorized to submit to the Con- gress in January of each year a report including a comprehensive description of the programed activities and accomplishments of our Nation’s commitment to oceanography and ‘a full evaluation of such activities and accomplishments. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is the proper approach to rectify- ing the lag this Nation is presently experiencing in the field of ocean research and engineering. It is no secret that we know much more about areas hundreds of miles above the earth, than about areas hundreds of feet below the surface of the ocean. The possibilities of new discoveries are simply fantastic and its exploration and utilization is consistent with the scientific and defense goals of the United States. The United ‘States has made tremendous gains in the race for space. But we must not be singular in our purpose and now must lay the groundwork for other avenues and 'the only unexplored avenue which has been literally ignored since the beginning of time is located here on earth and encompasses nearly two-thirds of the earth’s surface. I would like to stress again that I do not intend to be critical of those agencies now performing the tasks of coordination. But I do intend to stress the importance of establishing an action body whose main responsibility is directing the necessary research and engineering to fully explore all the potential in ‘the marine field. . As programs and aims are established by this Council and annual reports submitted by the President are known, we will be clear as to the next approach to make, whether it be further coordination and direction or movement to the next step of funding large operations and encouraging commercial industries to increase their activity in this field. Many questions have been asked as 'to the relation of H.R. 7798 and the national defense. My intentions are solely scientific at this time. With the establishment of a National Oceanographic Council and an increase in oceanographic activity, all information gathered and computed would surely complement our national defense commitment. Mr. Chairman, admittedly I am not an authority on oceanography and I am sure that you people are better qualified in this area, and I am sure that once you have heard the testimony of Members of Con- gress and experts in this field you will make a decision that will be in the interest of oceanography. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 155 But my limited knowledge, I feel, is shared by the great propor- tion of our population. Our late President, John F. Kennedy, once answered a question on why this country is taking the lead in exploring outer space. The President said, “Because it is there and we know very little about it.” President Johnson stated in a letter to the Honorable Speaker of the House recently, ‘““We are looking forward to a period where our invest- ment in ocean research may bear fruit in terms of strengthening our national defense.” I believe the establishment of a Nationa] Oceanographic Council with the authority of full-time direction and subsequent funding is necessary as 1t will be a forerunner to even larger operations in oceanography, which I again believe, is inevitable. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress one very impor- tant factor. In the past and at the present, a great deal of criticism has been leveled at the Federal Government for interfering in the private sector of our economy. Some of this criticism has been warranted and some of it has not been warranted. I know of no greater opportunity for the Federal Government to assist the private sector of the economy and to open the horizon for a commercial and industrial exploration of our oceans than with the passage of this legislation. The Government with its vast resources and experience must avail itself again to bolster the concept of the free enterprise system by tak- ing the initiative to create a directing body for marine research and development. It is the duty of the Congress and the Executive to lay the ground- work for the exploration of an unknown field of endeavor. As we have learned in the past and as it will probably always be in the future, private industry will be encouraged to begin programs of their own or to increase existing activity in this very important field. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of your committee, for listening to my testimony and hope that it might con- tribute in some small way to a decision that you might make later on and I am sure all of those who are being heard appreciate your very fine courtesy. Mr. Lennon. Congressman Huot, I want to highly commend you for a very splendid statement in support of your bill, H.R. 7798. Would you be available tomorrow morning at 10 in order that some of us may ask you a few questions along with the other members ? Mr. Hvor. I would be delighted to, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you very much. The committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock, at which time the hearings will be resumed in this particu- lar room, unless you are otherwise notified. If we get another room we will let you hear from us. Thank you very much. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, August 4, 1965.) yy ant [ ‘eran in Su Lsaan iad ort Sith att yd BSsede BY “fai OALTO» ri A 4 adol, tetobizarT a i sinitolazs tidanel odd wntlny ei vi (isso miiit ar ab Os Ou Dee HOUkh PF, al Pico bie inrobie ast Lo anion atoll a oe sae Ub Babee b K “See Tai ahio arstlyy ee gel pol ba Mas bok ata? Ha PISA. at ily 6 pasha aaa ee. 4 soni ah wai aipe ¥ rouparsli J th BOT nerni). pict lh ok to: fi. eagles sqo tea gTel is 19 Oh YORI) ad" te D . , ldgaivonté fae fs an I ‘ii th Hoge! C697 allo Peg} ie or oalif blair Tu certian’) sk oieish fieioiiiw 16 fol Vy pe ebeeecny ! git a Ba | fenton at Mm witier code 201 ABRs: 104) fevshet ats He .. “CHtofTEs4 Tt" hove afd ‘ii +0 Snt08 bint? PM cn WT (aod ABIL Sie MILI aide 4 Gt thority Qion (icone tT sil) ‘or i iidtFiogde hres dt ah {198 { Lous “gild HHO eu bit ‘! uh tes if 4 ald 1TH SOAS e970. 1350 To ernst Gee ) vols . ‘noite aie 3} a lieve Je Hert, eit? Artouzs Hitn Bd" TORS “Yer alt rive tr ror FF Barer ; AK) 4) ete ete “PEC jag aod ary to wa: Date forsee! yt Aria GOL, wor cut Sgeetl h. OeId OF “Hapa, oit ep of avistooen aly, bite be 6 OOF SHEP a om ah vo rsahie to. ble mrorslete fi: To erik vO Tg Rey a0 a ait att nl ef aon iB victicterney Thee oro ece enc OEE 4o HO BST TO SH reor ataen Los howe: coco 6d Thee me uh Senet MET Eee alts ng tmae 3G brothas, Date putataS ae. “109 nls tf hei gor beh “yeroethiaey vist ‘a4 bili £19) mo, whl ovaca dg! atink wow IAT tOies VA si. 08 bye i WIT tla’y Ji Hoag cya fete att gid i OP ands | ay hrseiiros. y{shoisl of sible t ‘soit 0 eine r Bory SETI flidauoy to Procpepss regina heh Binge ‘nel dobsto ai OL 25 wereipornt WOTIO OF afily Tova Pexadnmes talio od her ge Oli BROT 2Tp we i its Vz nore) wit 6 3. ei :! Post ab x ; “i A a Sete wo: KOLIEOS ae hoitimarp . nate OUPVENS Nas gates SOI, - Ss ae Pal Te ge ee ves 2.OP undo period we _ dnt Rima nH As a za 2E500 i. tw Aa a ts re a sa GNCO GEvIns thea Derl0g, cose une a c Bs Rar ee See ” EC eq da + ney te o e 422 A 4S SupsOTeiNg oso Gata -Nesouleavion y . de ~ y sn te Ss 4" > OY Vane Contracvor and tne i\Conuracua > rt ae aS a - * od aS DroNpeLycas pracsicavle acherrrocckne os Moon's proposal. 2 5 eceptvablilty of cost ailocas ic S Sex an aecordante WECA DUDDaP Cie Ss 2 Federal pechueciant Resulasion as in effect on ths caves oe TALS COncract. : 3 at . a * bs bitin f et — - a = PENG OPeSUL cS Of each nesociavion shall bse set rorcnan.a 1.5 = te Pes eae b>) 5 ae re Nereis MOcd ca CaulOMecO Gnis Contrace, nich Shall Specity (1) cas = Sam a. fiw 0% te Seo a Rte Pee) Dae Slee sot ge acread eee paves Li} she sases vO WRLER Che races 220. tak : . > ¢ a ~ Beas az ~ Pol ” Ae a ene sii) (che periods Sor which une raves: apply. = ~ den ro Poe on | x *, - de at Pas ~ sii: ol Pendi ns -cSctaolisnonens.o: tinal sovernead Sates Loranyy ner oc, une Comureccor shall oe: neambursed eltner av AemowLe vVisional rates as provided in the Schedule or av piliins races accepvadle to cne local cotnizant Gover amen auditi acency and the Chier, finance Srancn, subject to approprs adjustmene when cne final raves for that period are estaolisned. To prevent substantial over om under payment, the provisional or 22 14ng Paces May, ac The Peaucsse Of eClctner parry, ve revised oy mucual agreement , CLuner recroactively or prospect— VCE. Any such revision of necovlaved provisional rates pro= Video In cne Schedule shall be sey roron im a modicicavion GO this contrac. Any Sadiure oy whe Darcics to afrec on any final rate <7 rates unger this clauss shall be considered a dissuce con- Cevnine ae question or face Lor aecision Dy the Contraccin= Orficer within the meanings of the “Disoutes" clause of this contract. 230 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 231 Contract No. C-300-65 (Neg .) ee (da) (e }. _ Contractor's attached letter dated June 23, 1065 4s _&and made a part of this contract with the followine exception: The Contractor agrees to grant and does hereby grant to the Government and to its officers, agents and employees acting “within the scope of their official duties, a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license throughout the worid (1) to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, use, and dispose of, in any manner, any and all Data not first produced or composed in the performance of this contract but which is incorporated in the work furnished under this con- tract; and (11) to authorize others so to do. The Contractor shall advise the Contracting Officer, at the time of delivering any copyrishtable or copyrichted work furnished under this contract, or any adversely held copyrichted or copyrichtable material incorporated in any such work and of any invasion of the right of privacy therein contained. Nothing contained in this clause shall imp mply a license to a bocce e begets any patent or be construed as affecting x) my license or other right other to the Government under any patent. R te chee _ Paragraphs (c) and (d) above are not applicable to material furnished to the Contractor by the Government and in corpora in the work furnished under the contract; PROVIDED, oe es incorporated material is identified by the Contractor at the time of delivery of such work. : incorporated On Pate 2, Paragraph 3 is deleted Subparacr é ZPar 18 x eraph {ad or Article 9 has been chanced as reflected ee accordance with telephone conversation of June 25, 1965 between Mr. Holcomb and } : _ Department, us Roberts, Commerce 232 =“ NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 233 ‘Contract No. C-300-65(Neg.) Pe See Contrac ne. thas. any PREUROCONGLACG sucalies and’ service inzormetsiou z Hone GRe CONS? granted. an onNriave =* tecliivy se Svill ia % prior co 5 Pp UOGi Ie Bodo’ ROG AATOVMATLON, ARTICLE 11, INSPECTION: The Government, through any authorized representatives, has the right, at all reasonable times, to inspect, or otherwise evaluate the work performed or being performed hereunder and the premises in which it is being performed. If any inspection, or evaluation is made by the Government on the premises of the Contractor or a subcontractor, the Con- tractor shall provide and shail require his subcontractors to provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of the Government represen= tatives in the performance of their duties. Ail inspections and evaluations shail be performed in such a manner as will not unduly delay the work. ARTICLE 12, ADVANCE NOTICE OF SUBCONTRACTORS OR PURCHASE ORDERS: The Contractor will notify the Government in advance of any subcontract or purchase order which exceeds in dollar amount either $25,000.00 or 5% percent of the total estimatea cost of this contract. The Contractor agrees that no subcontract or purchase order placed under this contract shall provide for payment on a cost plus-a-percentage- of-cost basis. _ ARTICIE 13, BUY AMERICAN CERTIFICATE: The bidder or offeror hereby certifies that each end product, except the end products listed below, is a domestic source end product (as defined in the clause entitled “Buy American Act"); and that components of unknown origin have been considered to have been mined, produced, or manufactured outside the United States: Excluded end products (show country of origin for each excluded end product): 53+867 O—65~-—-16 234 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Contract No. C-300-65(Neg.) S cgp guetta vernsiaeh coume > os é. The Contractor Pies ‘cane he Soca ioe Gone or his duly -Tepresentatives shall, until the expiration of three years afte: fir al | under this contract, have access to and the right to examine Papers, and records or a Soccer ee fransactiog “contract. : ee : B. The cCoubuderae’ further acces to ended all subcontractors und if any, to agree to the "access of records and right to audil in paragraph A of this article, for subcontracts in excess o Hundred Dollars ($2,500. oF. ARTICLE 15. — TERMINATION XO CONVENTEXCE oF HE GOVERN dackentaien that such action. ts in the best daterest: hat the: 2: : contract is so terminated, the Contractor shall be compensate pin the provisions of "Federal Procurement stance 9-3 _Subpa reference as part of this contract. SEB ARTIC! GENPRAL PROVIST ie Standard Form 32, June 1964 ae fe Sisecenama ed in thi except that the a ey are, not Bas oii delete, shen Seem fi 5, be Vp». 2: Pie) ARTICLE ARTICIE 17, _ AMES ie 3 The attached Form CB-7b (12-30-64), Federal, State ‘and Yocal texes in and made a part of this contract. a JA RELATED DOCUMENTS: (a) ‘ e tel of (b) Contractor* 3 telegram wy May 20, es () Supplement to contract proposal containing an Equa Reprasentacion and a Certificate of independent Pr ARTICLE 19. ammoetnys 08h tee a a The Contract to which ‘hese’ ‘sseptelona’ ey has_ Seen” negotiated unde of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as- 252(c) (4). DET EE EE ee NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 235 14=303 at we ie he - “a wv NAMEOF AGENCY i cae ie PRECEDENCE : AID fed Sottero E ACTION: ‘ {. S. DEPARIMENT OF CQQIERCE i 18 ROGUREMESE SIVISION mse pial reerersh pee Ls hy , te Ce 26220-—-———--- TYPE OF MESSAGE by CLassiication 2 , tiie), ». , x i = 4 ie ies, samcmt ss | foul [7 #00x STANDARD FORMA it REY sake 15, 1957 H oy : a MAULTL-ADDRESS H GSA REGULATION 24%-203,04 ' OFFICIAL BUSINESS u. S: GOVERNMENT: SEM THIS. COL. FOR AGENCY ee | eens 2s orrasuan zccoreeics op vine wrsnosan narsD ART 23, 1965 Fox | | BS THE URCESSALY PROVESSIONAL GAVICES To CRIDUCT a STUDT cu eed | Se Ree als aN 2m caxterrie SULIT CREUEUIAL SEL NIGTONS FoR TES ESTEE mommoy aUun OY 655,020.00 OM & COST IWS FIED PSL nASES. PER | ORMANCE Set OF wes STUDY SUS ws PON TOUKTERS (14) UAERS avten Tas | pare om tar SEIAGEAL.. COUTRACT £0. G300-SIORE.) Ts ASSIS amy [eesunrs reas mora anes PRLPOSAL SUMCITER tu REGPSE TS EECtesT FON | EE Lae sos HERE ee | Benvosats PO, eot—7 DUG APRIL 12, 2965, Teicl WAS SlGFES PY “te | gomez EAPD, preseron, COAST ABD GOODETEC ‘suever. LEASILITY OF DO NOT TYPE MESSAGE BEYOND THiS LINE SOVEEMENT EIRIUNR 29 LETTE T 9 $27,925.09 suaIm RMBCUTION o7 }DEPRMYIS CMITRACT. THIS TELNCRAN 35 EEGESS ro asp CoMMAcE HO. G S0oeesqmNG), NITE WILL £E MATISD SRORTLT, INCLUDE GEMERAL PacvIsLeNs, Stameta pom 32, JUG 1965 ABITIO, THUATAIOS FOR CORVRUIEN | < = SRAPD HN 1.0.791 OF PMERAL FROMM RECUMATIONS, cEMUrT mA Pr f PRICING STATED AT 161.317 OF FEDERAL Pnocurment ee a 0 NIGHT OF ACEESS TO COANRAGE SOCONDS AND ATOTE RICO? i PAGE NO. {NO.OF PAGES GY PRPARIE ES 3 connec _ ee 2D MBURSE pies OF y Casts WELL BE MADE IV 2 i 2 236 “NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION - NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 237 238 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Se ret AM he bk thereto certifies as % with this procurenen' (1). The prices in : independently, wit ment, for the Ba le matter rolatity offeror or ae a cnowiagty. Pieters oe: lmowingly ‘be disclose : b: opening, in the caso of a bid, or pri casa = a propesal, directly or indixec (3). No Bo ove has been mad bidder or offeror to auate' a. ay ‘participate, ie (a)(3) abov (2) (4) ‘He. is offeror's or organization noe the Q eins ee s offered NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 239 authorized in writing to act as agent for the persons responsible for such decision in certifying tnat such . persons have not narticipated, and will not participate, in any action contrary to (a)(1) through (a)(3) above, and as their agent does hereby so cértify, and (11) he has not participated, and will not participate, in any action contrary to (a)(3) above., (c) This certification is not applicable to a foreign bidder or offeror submitting a bid or proposal for a contract which requires performance or delivery outside the United States, its possessions, and Puerto Rico. — (a) A bid or proposal will not be considered for award where eieee a)(3), or (b) above has been deleted or modified. Where (a)(2 above has been deleted or modified, the bid or proposal will not be considered for award unless the bidder or offeror furnishes with the bid or proposal a signed statement which sets fortn in detail the circumstances of the disclosure and the nead of the agency, or nis designee, determines that such disclosure was not made for the purpose of restricting competition, FFEROR REPRESENTS: (Check appropriate boxes) That he 7 7 is, /7.is not, a small business concern. Generally, a small businéss concern for the purpose of Government procurement is a concern that (1) is not dominant in its field of operation and, with its affiliates, employs fewer than 500 employees, or (2) 18 certified as a small business concern by Small Business Auministration. (See Code of Federal Regulations, Titie 13, Part 103, as amended, which con- tains the detailed definition and related procedures. )} (2) (a) That he has, /7 nas not, employed or retained any company or person (other than a full-time bona fide employee working solely for the bidder) to solicit or secure this contract, and {b) that he nas, 7 has not, paid or agreed to pay any company or person (other than a ull-time bona fide employee working solely for the bidder) any fee, commission, percentage or brokeraze fee, contingent upon or resulting from the award of this contract; and agrees to furnish information re- lating to (a) and {b) above as requested by the Contracting O1ficer. (For interpretation of the representation, including the term "bona fide employee," see Code of Federal Rezulations, Title 44, Part 350). (3) He operates as an individual, // partnership, //7 corporation, incorporated in the State of Ohio ; Battelle Memorial Institute BY - LM > Signature RD . TITLE: DATE. - CONTRACTING OFFICER ae ee 240 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Battelle Memorial Institute U. S. Department, of Commerce =o=— June 23, 1965 (a) Vinal report within ten (10) days after receipt by Battelle of the approved eect of the final report. Fifty (50) copi: will be submitted." The Contractor further agrees to: (1) Present an oral briefine on June 21,1965, and woon submission of the final revort is final form (Paragranh d). Ise offset printing for reproduction of the inal renort end surrender the reproducible masters . to tie Coast and Geodetic Survey as. Government Property. Tho master copies shall, be delivered with the 50 copies of the final report. (2) ae + 3... Paragraph. (d) should be deleted from Article and Data, appearing on Pase 8 and 9. Becaus is engaged solely in mesearcn and development assume ‘theslegal liability imposed: by cor yrs patent indermification. Your prompt — on and submission of the subject contract Zo our review is peers ted. and if there are questi ons, please do not. hesi- tate to comact P. H. paaes at iiatonsion & 575... The sbove changes were discussed by lir. Wats Son and your Mr. Roberts in a telephone conversation on fune 22. Very truly yours, i i R. D, WILLIAMS CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR Bo Be Slowter Associate Director BES teye In*duplicate Enclosures (3) Air mil 241 cee a ene 242 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Dr. Hottomon. I would like to take the initiative to introduce another study that we have had underway, just completed, which is a study, with full participation of the other agencies in the letting of the contract and analysis of what is to be done, that has taken about 18 months, on how to carry out in the most efficient way ocean surveys. And here you have a problem, of course. You have that vast ocean, and that vast Continental Shelf. What is the most efficient way to do this?) How many stations? How much observation? What size ships, how you deploy them? Do you use ocean buoys or do you use ships? What is the most effective way to carry out such studies, and at what time? We have just gotten the results of it. It is a major analysis carried on by the Operations Research, Inc., of the operational problems, if you will, having to do with ocean surveys, and that is another analysis which is partly pertinent to the question of the Continental Shelf. Mr. Kerru. When you say “physical oceanography,” I think you mean chemical, biological, and geological oceanography, as well, be- cause all are a part of descriptive oceanography, as you speak of it. Every Government department with a major interest in oceanog- raphy has as an internal part of the overall program a large program for descriptive oceanography. By the general import of your state- ment are you not suggesting, then, that these Government departments now look to ESSA for information in descriptive oceanography, and discontinue their own descriptive oceanographic programs? Dr. Hottomon. No, sir. What I am saying is that we have the concept in this field, as what I would refer to as a core program, that program which provides the overall leadership and coordination of that aspect of the problem, ‘and that each agency then would have to do those special studies which they believe are absolutely essential to their mission, and then we provide a mechanism of coordination through an activity such as ICO, to be sure that the studies are, in fact, coordinated. Mr. Kerrn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Dow? Mr. Dow. I think I am out of turn here. I believe that Mr. Downing would be next. Mr. Downtne. Go ahead. Mr. Dow. All right. I would like to compliment you, Dr. Hollomon, on a very good expression of your convictions and a very thoughtful presentation. T am sure you are familiar with H.R. 2218. Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Dow. Which is the bill that you mentioned yourself in your presentation. Now, section 5 of that bill says that the President shall report an- nually during the month of February to the Congress. Such reports shall contain the following, and that is a general review of the prob- lems of oceanography, in the year, a general analysis, a financial analy- sis, and also current and future plans and policies of the United States with respect to oceanography. Do you believe, sir, that it would be advisable to have such an annual stocktaking as this represents, coupled with recommendations for the coming year ? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 243 Dr. Hotzomon. I so stated in my testimony, and I will reiterate, I believe this is highly desirable. Mr. Dow. Thank you, sir. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you. Mr. Dow. Mr. Reinecke? Mr. Reece. Yes, sir. Dr. Hollomon, on page 3, you say: I think there must be increased attention to oceanography within the executive branch and that there must be strengthened leadership in those areas—— Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Retnecke. You apparently don’t want to rock the boat. You like things pretty much as they are, in general. : Where do you think this increased motivation is going to come rom ? Dr. Hottomon. It strikes me—the reason I was laughing is because some of the feelings of others in the executive branch and elsewhere is I do like to rock the boat, and sometimes I feel the boat is rocking so badly I can hardly keep on it. Mr. Retnecke. We haven’t noticed that here this morning. Dr. Hottomon. I have suggested that initiative might come from either or both. I strongly recommend that the Congress look at the programs that are now underway, and decide whether or not they be- lieve they are adequate and whether, for example, in the exploration of the Continental Shelf, we are doing enough work in the country, in the country’s interest. My suggestion is, however, that the agencies that ought to be respon- sible are identified within the general complex of things. I have taken initiative to start the study with Coast Survey as to what we ought to do on the Continental Shelf. We have sought increases from the Congress each year for our ocean- ographic program, every year since I have been in Washington, and we have increased our capability within those activities which we have. We intend to strengthen it by hiring additional pople. I think that the level of the effort is determined by the level of the appropriations, in large measure. Mr. Retnecke. Well, I think the reason we have so many bills and bills of such diversity is simply that the members of Congress are, frankly, frustrated at the slow motion on the part of the executive branch, and, yet, if we don’t make some fairly drastic administrative changes, I don’t see any reason why the executive is going to do any more now than it has in the past. We have no reason to think that you pee change the dead-center type of programs that we feel that you ave. Dr. Hottomon. I make two suggestions in this regard: One is that I strongly believe that Congress should look at the oceanographic pro- gram as a whole. Somebody, somewhere in Congress, should look at this program as a whole. According to the suggestions in the bill we are discussing, it is that we would have to present an annual plan, and that it be reviewed in terms of the oncoming appropriation and possible legislative changes. I think that the fact that we look at oceanography in so 244 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION many places in the Congress, for example, could be helped by such an overall look once a year. | Mr. Rernecxe. Don’t you feel it is rather difficult to really look at something that is being carried on in 22 different departments? Dr. Hottomon. I don’t know that that is so difficult. It depends on whether Congress would have the necessary data and reviews and hearings that are required. We have in the case of meterology 13 major departments. We present, starting 2 years ago, a single Federal plan which analyzes that work from various points of view. I think that could be done. I think that both President Kennedy and President Johnson have indicated their support for oceanography, but you can’t do it without money. And I think that this is a decision that the Congress, itself, has to make, as to that problem. I really don’t see it as an organiza- tional problem. This is what I am trying to say. Of course, we can always improve what we are doing. I think that we should make every attempt to do so, but the ICO and two Assistant Secretaries of the Navy who have responsibility have devoted sub- stantial attention to the problem. They have a staff which may not be sufficient. But both administrations have supported oceanography. Our own program, though it isn’t a tremendous one, has increased each year in a very substantial way, and will increase next year. Mr. Retnecxe. Do you have the feeling that Congress has been shorting you funds, that you have not had sufficient funds? Dr. Hottomon. I have not done an analysis, but it might be useful to look at the requests to the Congress overall for oceanography. Mr. Retnecke, I am not aware that such was the case. Dr. Hottomon. I think it might be a useful thing to do. I haven’t done the analysis, either, but I think this committee might look at the requests for all the agencies for oceanography and see what the action of Congress has been with respect to them. I think this might be a useful thing to take a look at. Mr. Retnecke. Another area of interest: You indicated that a single agency Dr. Hottomon. Before going back, may I make one other comment ? Mr. Retnecxe. Surely. Dr. Hottomon. There is another aspect of this problem which I think that the Congress should take account of, and that is that the facilities for studying the ocean, both the institutions and the ships and so forth, take a time to build. Now, for example, we have two ships on the ways, ready, we hope, by fall. They were authorized 3 years ago. Now, it takes time. We have another ship which we are just about to let the contract for—another ship for oceanographic studies. This will mean we have, then, what? Five? Admiral Karo. We will have a total of four ships on ocean studies. Dr. Hottomon. A total of four ships on ocean studies. In the next few years, we will quadruple our effort to do that. I would like to make the point that though we are very diffuse if you have many agencies doing it, I think that in our kind of society, to have that kind of multiplicity of agencies is good. I don’t think there is a single nation in the world that has a more effective broad-scale oceanographic, ocean study program than does the United States. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 245 Mr. Retnecke. You indicated that—you had a certain fear that a single agency would, as you put it, fragment Federal responsibilities in these matters. Dr. Hottomon. Yes. I do. Mr. Retnecke. Do you feel that NASA has fragmented the Fed- eral responsibilities in the space area ? Dr. Hottomon. NASA is a somewhat different problem. At the very beginning, as was commented yesterday in testimony, there were no people, substantially, other than the military and some parts of the old NACA that had to do with space at all. It is a new technology. It is not a requirement—an established, long-time requirement—of many agencies and missions. But, now, let’s take what is happening with respect to even the NASA activities. The Congress, and I think wisely, has assigned to the Department of Commerce the responsibility of the operation and funding for the meterological satellites which have been so successful, after the fundamental work had been done by NASA. We also have to fund the development of the instrumentation for those satellites. Now, whether we need them or not, and how good they are for weather observation, in my view, should be decided by the Weather Bureau. If those costs get out of line, relative to some other way to get the same observations, the Weather Bureau should make that decision. Now we are in the process. That is one step that the Congress took. The second step the Congress took was the establishment of COM- SAT Corp., which is to utilize the technology of space for the purpose of communication. And this kind of activity is now diffuse and dis- persed, because we are now able to say, “All right; here’s something we can do with it,” and then the funding for that is, as you know, in private hands. I think increasingly we will use satellites for geodetic measurement, We have a joint project with NASA and the Department of Defense which we hope will be funded in the new ESSA organization, be- cause now we can use it for measuring the land, which is a responsi- bility formerly of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Here again, we will have some other activities in satellites, so as we begin to develop the use of these tools, they get diffuse, and properly so, in my view. Now, in the case of oceanography, the knowledge of the oceans is essential to the missions of many agencies of the Government, and they, in my view, have to make the trade-offs, the relative judgments as to what they ought to be. Mr. Retnecke. Well, I agree that in any particular scientific endeavor, diversity is the keynote of success, but we seem to be lacking coordination. One final question: You seem to indicate that you felt that the Inter- agency Committee on Oceanography was doing a good job, and I am interested in knowing why, then, the President felt the necessity of setting up his Oceanography Panel. Dr. Hottoman. First off, the Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography is primarily, but not exclusively, a Government interagency committee. It represents the Federal establishment and coordinates it. Now, one of the things we learned during the war, and I think 246 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION learned very well, is from time to time, we ought to take a look at the scientific community outside the Government, and be sure we haven’t missed a bet, that there isn’t something new in the wind like nuclear fission which can come up over the top and really modify what the establishment thinks is a good idea. And we learned the lesson, I hope we have learned it forever, that we shouldn’t always depend on any existing bureaucracy or organiza- tion to have all the wisdom in the world. We ought to bring in some outsiders every now and then, to ask the question, “Are you doing a good job, or should you change it?” And I think that technique is fundamental to the operation of the Government, and we ought to do it from time to time, and that is what—and I, as I say, understand it to be the reason for having the special committee on oceanography. Mr. Retnecke. Thank you. I appreciate your comments, and I think you defend your position very well. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Downing? Mr. Downtne. Mr. Secretary, although I disagree with your well- expressed point of view, I think you have made a splendid statement on its behalf. Dr. Hottomon. Thank you, sir. . Mr. Downtne. I think Mr. Reinecke has pretty well expressed the concern of this committee. Most of us feel that there is an apathy on the part of the Federal Government to implement this program, and I think we can recall back to the time when the NASA proposal was being debated in the Congress. We had this same sort of testimony. There was reluctance on the part of the various agencies of Govern- ment to join in this proposal for a unified NASA, and you must remember that space was more complex and intangible then than oceanography is now. But it was the wisdom of the Congress to go ahead with NASA and, because of that, I think we have at least maintained a preeminence in space. And I think the same thing holds true of oceanography. I think it is time now to have our Government implement this new front, and I think it is going to take a single agency to doit. I notice—well, take the letter from your General Counsel to Chairman Bonner. It is a letter which says more or less what you said, that we think we have got enough now, but it concludes with: However, we recognize that it may become desirable in the future to have an intensive general review of the national oceanographic activity, conducted by a commission of highly qualified persons. If your committee now desire to recom- mend legislation directed toward possible future review of oceanography, we suggest it include the following amendments, * * *—and so forth. Dr. Hotitomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Downtne. No firm position. Dr. Hotiomon. I thought that I had taken a firm. position. with respect to the overall problem. Let me try to—— Mr. Downine. You did, but your General Counsel didn’t. Dr. Hottomon. I think that such a commission should be discretion- ary to the President to establish that commission, if he thinks it is a proper thing to do at this stage of development. This is what our General Counsel said. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 247 Now, let’s go back to the question. I think to take all oceanography and put it in a single agency would create problems of the kind we have had with respect to the relationship Saateieed oceanography and meteorology in a little bitty microcosm in our own department. You can’t separate the problem of oceanography from the problem of meterology for aircraft. You have a problem here of insuring that the whole program of oceanography, for whatever purposes, 1s adequately carried out. I believe that if you set up a separate agency, you will do more harm than good to the interaction of oceanography with all of the diverse activities of the public, both private and Government. Mr. Downine. Mr. Secretary, how can you say that, in view of our experience with NASA? Dr. Hottomon. Because NASA isa different animal. Mr. Downine. No; it isn’t. Now, you take the meteorology, weather. NASA is contributing toward this; our weather, the TIROS satellites. Dr. Hottomon. Right. But we fund Mr. Downine. It is working hand in glove with your Weather Department. Dr. Hotiomon. Right, but there is a program of operational and development of the use of satellites for weather in the Department of Commerce, and we fund it. Mr. Downrne. But it is under NASA. Dr. Hottomon. It isn’t. I beg your pardon, sir. Mr. Downing. You transfer funds to NASA to carry on your Dr. Hottomon. Only for the construction and launching of the satellites. We operate all the read-out stations; we operate; we integrate, interpret the results; we develop the instruments. It is not centrally located. ! Mr. Downing. But you still have one agency, NASA, which co- ordinates the whole thing. Dr. Hottomon. The weather use of satellites is the responsibility of the Weather Bureau, not of NASA. By action of Sane ae Mr. Downrne.. You are not getting through to me, Mr. Secretary. That is my fault. Dr. Hottomon. No. Mr. Downtne. How do you do it? For instance, is it manganese that we have to import ? Dr. Hottomon. Manganese Mr.. Downinc. Now, there is manganese on the bottom of the ocean. Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Downtne. Is the Government doing anything to experiment to extract manganese ? Dr. Hottomon. I can’t answer the question explicitly, but I am sure that there have been studies of the economic benefits of recover- ing manganese. I know of one study by a private corporation. Mr. Down1ne. Have you extracted one ounce of manganese from the bottom of the ocean ? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir—I don’t know. I think there have been pilot plans on this. 248 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Downine. Well, I will tell you. A shipyard in my hometown has gone out on its own and equipped an oceanographic vessel which is now operating off the coast of Florida, and they believe they can recover -manganese in commercial quantities, but I think the Gov- ernment should have done that long ago. Off the record. Dr. Hotitomon. Well, I will put this off or on the record. The real question here is whether it is cheaper to get manganese out of the ocean or out of the earth. That is the real question, and this is a decision which you have to make with respect to the private sector of the economy, largely. Now, if it isn’t cheaper and more effective to do that, then you don’t want to do it just because it is in the ocean, do you ? Mr. Rocrrs. Would the gentleman yield just a minute for a ques- tion there? Now, you are surely not taking this position, that because it may be expensive now that we should not do it. Dr. Hotiomon. Oh, no. Mr. Rocers. We would never have fiown the airplane, simply be- cause it would have been cheaper to go by horse at the time. Dr. Hottomon. Oh, no. Mr. Rocers. And this is about the attitude that we are getting from the governmental departments. Dr. Hottomon. I don’t think that is so. Mr. Rocers. And this is what is upsetting to me. No; no. It is too expensive to get manganese—or whatever it is. Dr. Hottomon. Whatever it is? [Laughter.] Mr. Rogers. Out of the ocean and, therefore, we won’t even try, or experiment. Dr. Hottomon. Mr. Rogers, I suggested that there is a need to have an agency responsible for the determining that necessary work on exploring the ocean for resources. I said that as clearly as I know how. Mr. Rocers. The point we are making is that has not been done. We have had an oceanography program. We had a 10-year report in 1955. You did your in-house study on it. There has been study after study, as you have told us. The Presidential Commission even had a study; we have had an interagency committee, but we still haven’t found out about the manganese. We still haven’t, evidently, given the necessary research to our industry to go out and do some- thing about it, and to pare away where it is cheap enough to bring in, and so we have to import it, evidently, from other countries. But this is the point that I am concerned with, that everything is just a lackadaisical sort of approach and that, well, we will just do it the same old way, and we will have an interagency committee study or a Presidential scientific study. Excuse me. I thank you. Mr. Downtne. Well, Mr. Secretary, we have a divergence of judg- ments, and I respect yours, but I would like to conclude by saying you have two frontiers. You have got space, and you have got inner space, and we only have one national program, and it is my judg- ment we need another national program. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION YAO Dr. Hotnoman. I understand your point of view, sir. Mr. Downrnea. Thank you, sir. Dr. Hottomon. It is well stated, also. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Secretary, the glamour and success of our space flights have created an image, particularly among the laymen of the country, that because of the concentration into the single Govern- ment agency, NASA, that a comparable central organization should be established in the whole facet and field and environment of oceanography. Dr. Hontomon. Yes. Mr. Lennon. I realize myself that there is a vast difference, be- cause we were dealing then primarily with three agencies within the Defense Department, and the Defense Department had the final say-so. We didn’t have 16 other Federal agencies involved in space. But the thing that concerns me, sir, is that the scientists and the engineers and those who for years have been engaged in oceanography are now reflecting, through a series of editorials and public statements, somewhat of the concern that has been shown by the interest of the members of this committee. I have here in front of me an editorial from one of the large papers of one of our great States, in which they quote a recent editorial by the Ocean Science News, and T shall read it for the record. This was August 2 of this year. I quote: Apropos of nothing in particular except one man’s frustration, we quote the following outburst as pertinent to the proliferation of committees, panels, societies, study groups, et cetera, that tout themselves as the answer, all to the woes and aspirations of oceanography. Oceanography in the United States is becoming one vast bureaucratic bowl of noodles. The only way to get anything done is to push one of the noodles and hope that this same one comes out at the other end. Now, when editorials written by a so-called knowledgeable person, the editor of the Ocean Science News, appears as editorial quotes in editorials across the country, then our peonle write to Congressmen, write the Members of the House and the Senate, and say, well, why isn’t something done? Why don’t you bring these various agencies together, and get on the road? Get the show on the road ? So, you can see why the Members of Congress are, at. this point con- cerned about what some of us seem to think is perhaps not being quite as a@eressive as we should. Now if we could go to your statement, on page 3 you say: Speaking very generally, oceanography is embraced in two broad areas, one, the description and prediction of oceanic conditions. Now, what agencies of the Federal Government should be charged with that responsibility, the description and prediction conditions, in your judgement ? Dr. Hottoman. In my judgement, Mr. Chairman, that should be clearly defined as the responsibility of the new organization ESSA. Mr. Lennon. You say that that should be defined by statute? Dr. Hottoman. I leave that to the judgment. Mr. Lennon. Now I want your opinion, and your judgment. If Congress is to share, and it has demonstrated a concern, because I remember the hearings of this committee in 1959 and 1960, when the proposal for the interagency on oceanography was proposed, it came into being, and as your hearings continued, the witnesses who were 538-367—65——_17 250 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION allegedly knowledgeable on the subject of the functions and the responsibilities of the interagency on oceanography, and we were asked the question, “Well, doesn’t the National Science Foundation have a member on this interagency committee on oceanography ?” “No.” Then about 6 weeks later, we would hear another witness before the committee, and we would ask him. “Now, does ITEW have a member on the committee?” And they would search frantically through the list. “No.” We would say, “Why don’t you put one on there?” because, under the budget, they get so much money for some facet of it; and they did, and if it hadn’t been for this committee, in its hearings. back in 1961 and 1962, and thereafter, and we were sort of an oversight committee. Now we have got this problem with respect to financing our funding. It is spread across every committee in this Congress. Dr. Hottomon. There are four major, aren’t there, really ? Mr. Lennon. Now, the Department of Commerce doesn’t have to go to a legislative committee for authorization for funding. Dr. Hottomon. That is correct. Mr. Lennon. That isa continuing thing. Dr. Hottomon. That is correct. Mr. Lennon. On the other hand, when the Department of Defense wants two oceanographic vessels, they have to come to the Committee on Armed Services for authorization. And the same thing is here, there, and yonder. Now, you spoke of the ships that you were building. In fiscal 1966, there wasn’t a nickel in the President’s budget for shipbuilding in the Denartment of Commerce for oceanography, was there? Dr. Hottomon. That is correct, sir. Mr. Lennon. You say, that is a fact? Dr. Hottomon. That is a fact. Mr. Lennon. Well, we didn’t get much help there, then, did we? You couldn’t go to the Appropriations Committee when you didn’t have an authorization for ship construction, when it was not in the President’s budget, but if you had an authorization committee, and it had authorized on the basis of whatever need you may have proposed before that authorization committee, you might have got a ship on the way in 1967 that would have been launched in 1969. Dr. Hottomon. Mr. Chairman, to go to your original question, which was, do you think that the Congress should take action to define this matter, which is, I think, the original question, my view of this matter is this: It is clearly within the authority, the broad legal authority of the Secretary of Commerce, and I suppose other agencies of the country; it is my view—and this is a personal view—if the Congress 1s, as you appear to be, concerned that this hasnt been accepted, and that this is not clearly defined, then it would be my suggestion that you consider whether clarifying legislation is required. Mr. Lennon. Well, of course, the Congress has that responsibility. But the fact remains, sir, that in all of the bills that have been intro- duced on this subject this year, this was the only one that got the con- sensus—I say that advisedly—of favorable reports from all of the agencies of the Federal Government and the Executive Office of the President, on up or down, or however way you want to term it, so you NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 25T say, in your judgement, the description and prediction of ocean- ographic conditions should be the responsibility of what we now refer toas ESSA? Dr. Hortomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. That is your judgment ¢ Dr. Hottomon. That is my judgment. Mr. Lennon. Is that view shared by the other agencies of the Fed- eral Government ? Dr. Hotromon. I think I should speak for myself, sir. Mr. Lennon. So, there on that No. 1 question, we have got to go back Dr. Hottomon. The President stated, and I quoted in my testimony, in the reorganization plan, what the statutory responsibilities of ESSA are, and I stated that on page 5 of my testimony. Mr. Lennon. On page 5, where you quoted him on page 5, did that mean exactly what you said here, the description and prediction of oceanographic conditions ? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. That isin your judgment. Now we move to the No. 2 Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. The exploitation and utilization of ocean resources. What are your views, sir with respect to where, so far as the Federal Government was concerned, the exploitation and utilization of ocean resources—what agencies of the Federal Government should those be lodged in, statutorily ? Dr. Hotnomon. In my view? And I can’t, of course, speak for any- body but myself. Mr. Lennon. That is exactly what we hope to get some day, when some man can come before some committee of the Congress and speak for Dr. Hottomon. Tam trying. Mr. Lennon. Iam not quarreling, sir. Iam saying how frustrated we are. Dr. Hotnomon. I believe it should be in the Department of the In- terior, sir, to answer your question. Mr. Lennon. Inthe eRe of the Interior ? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, s! Mr. Lennon. But in thie report, commenting on one of these bills, you say that ESSA cooperates with the Department of the Interior and other agencies. Dr. Hottomon. Certainly. Mr. Lennon. Noy, is that in the field of exploitation and utilization or in the prediction of oceanic conditions? Dr. Hotromon. In the prediction and measurement of oceanic con- ditions. Mr. Lennon. But you say that the Department of the Interior ought to have the authority to make the exploitation and to determine the utilization of how that ought to be done. Dr. Hottomon. Of resources; yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. The Deparment of the Interior ? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. We have, for example, now, some of their people on our ships, and we think that is the way it ought to work. 252 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Lennon. Now, you don’t know the reactions of the other agencies to what you just recommended in your professional opinion, and I have great respect for you, sir. I have learned to have it. I think you are sincere in what you are thinking, and I think I almost ‘believe you know what you are talking about. Dr. Hottoman. That is a great compliment from you, sir. I think that the way to do that, in my suggestion, is ask them. Mr. Lennon. All right. Then you move on in, after you say that speaking generally, it embraces two broad areas, and you define them and discuss them; then you say that you believe each of these areas would be enhanced if a single agency were to provide a focus for the activity in that area. Dr. Hottomon. In each area. Mr. Lennon. In each area? Dr. Hortromon. In each of those two areas. Mr. Lennon. Now let me ask you this, please, sir: In what agency should there be lodged statutory authority to provide a focus for the activity in the area of prediction and description of oceanic conditions ! Dr. Hottomon. In ESSA, in the Department of Commerce. Mr. Lennon. The focus should come there? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. All right. Now, in what agency should the focus come in the exploitation and utilization of ocean resources? Dr. Hotxtomon. In the Interior, sir. Mr. Lennon. In the Department of the Interior. Dr. Hortromon. Now, I also believe, which I did not mention in my testimony, but I think I made it clear in answer to questions, that, of course, the Defense Department should retain its full responsibility of doing what: is necessary in the national defense, and the National Sci- ence Foundation should retain its responsibility to support broadening the science, particularly in the universities of America. Those are the four agencies today that fund he primary oceanographic program today. You really are only talking about four agencies. The rest of them are very small. Mr. Lennon. Relatively, that is certainly true, in dollars. But, well, now, you go on to say that on page 4, where you continue your thought on this same subject matter, this might be done through Presidential action pursuant to H.R. 2218 if enacted. Dr. Hottomon. Right. Mr. Lennon. Now, is there some question in your mind that this focal attention on both of the facets that you have described could best be done by statutory authority in the Department of Commerce and in the Department of the Interior, rather than through Presiden- tial action pursuant to H.R. 2218? Now I am not asking you to be critical, but vou did say, you indicated it might be done. Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. I think the two sentences follow each other. I say, this might be done through Presidential action pursuant to H.R. 2218, if enacted, or, alternatively, additional authorizing legis- lation might be desirable. That is to say that your committee may want to take some action in this regard. Mr. Lennon. Well, now, do you think it could be best done through this Presidential action pursuant to the enactment of 2218, or whether NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 253 or not it could best be done by the authority which by legislative authority which would place in the Department of Commerce and in the Department of the Interior the two focal points of the development of both the description and the definition and the exploration and seeking the other objective? Dr. Hoxtnomon. I think I should answer this question in this way, Mr. Chairman: If your committee feels that these responsibilities and appropriate authority for appropriations are not clearly defined, I think you should follow the second course. If you feel that the time is not right to so define it, and you need some additional study and advice, I think you should follow the first course. Mr. Lennon. Now, Mr. Secretary, your agency was the only one of the numerous who commented on the bill, H.R. 2218, and I might say that that bill was drafted after consensus with all the agencies, depart- ments, about 15 months ago, but your counsel suggested an amendment to that bill, and you recommended, that is, Mr. Giles, the general counsel, on April 15, 1965, you suggested an amendment as follows: We recommend that page 5, lines 2 and 3, be amended to read “hydrographic and coastal survey, and geophysical data, and those aspects of marine meteorology directly related to oceanography.” Then you go on to say, “It is felt that climatology and most meteorology do not pertain to oceanography.” Dr. Hotitomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Now, you did not comment at all today on your suggested changes. Dr. Hottomon. No, sir; I did not. Mr. Lennon. But I noted that earlier in reading this. I wondered if you want to give us briefly your reasons for the suggestion that this bill ought to be amended. Dr. Hottoman. Yes, sir. The reason for that is that meteorology, while it relates to the ocean as such, likewise has a vast number of coordinating activities. More specifically, it has the direction that there be a Federal meteorological coordinator for meteorology. That coordination does exist. We present a Federal plan for meteorology, and meteorology is really a big thing that is quite separate from oceanography. The total expenditures in meteorology in the Federal Government exceed $300 million. Itisabig program. It includes all the weather services, all the upper atmosphere soundings, and I believe it would just create an extraordinary amount of overcoordination if one included that in the definition of oceanography. I feel the same thing about climatology. Climatology is nothing but long-term meteor- ology, what happens over 100 years or 10 years. So what I am really saying is, let’s for heaven’s sakes, don’t have another coordination mechanism which coordinates meteorology and climatology, which is really one thing, and oceanography. It will just overwhelm every oceanographic activity. It will again produce this inability to focus on the single problem which is oceanography. Mr. Lennon. Now, does the Department of Commerce, under this— has it delegated to ESSA the authority to make oceanwide surveys at ene time—! think that the Coast ‘Survey has the authority ? tr. Hottomon. Yes. The Coast Survey is a part of ESSA, and ESSA now has that responsibility ; yes, sir. 254 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Lennon. In other words, under existing law today Dr. Hotiomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon (continuing). This division or agency or administra- tion within the Department of Commerce could not only contract as you have already done for the study of the Continental Shelf Dr. Hottomon. Right. Mr. Lennon (continuing). But could contract to make oceanwide surveys ? Dr. Hotitomon. Yes, sir. And, in fact, we carry them out ourselves. Mr. Lennon. You are engaged in oceanwide surveys? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. We have the only oceanographic ship, as I understand it, outside of the Navy, outside of the Military Establish- ment, that ean make such surveys. Mr. Lennon. Has there been such an ocean survey made by the Department of Commerce or any agency in the Department of Commerce ? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. We have been operating, as Admiral Karo just commented, since 1961. The two areas with which I am familiar—there may be others—is an area off the coast in the Pacific Ocean, a vertical Mr. Lennon. In what depth are those surveys, Mr. Secretary ? Dr. Hottomon. Admiral] Karo says anywhere from 2,000 to 3,000 to 4,000 fathoms. Mr. Lennon. Mineral resources? Dr. Hortomon. No. Here we take, in some cases, bottom sampling, which are provided for the Interior Department to evaluate them as mineral resources. We measure salinity, temperature, pressure, ocean currents, what else? Depths gravity, magnetic characteristics, in an attempt to describe the oceans. Mr. Lennon. Now, in those particular fields that you have enu- merated, that you—is a comparable ocean survey being made by other agencies of the Federal Government ? Dr. Hottomon. Admiral Karo responds, and I simply repeat, not | utside of the Navy; not deep ocean surveys. No, sir. Mr. Lennon. This data, unless it relates to national security, is interchangeable with the Department of Commerce and the Navy? Dr. Hotiomon. Yes, sir; absolutely. Mr. Lennon. And with, of course, the other agencies of the Federal Government. Dr. Hottomon. Not only that, but, as I pointed out before, we have representatives of other agencies and scientific community aboard those ships when they make the surveys, and help define what the studies will be. We had an Indian Ocean survey, for example, in which the ship went out to the Indian Ocean, in part of the national program of cooperation with other nations, and here we had members of the scientific community aboard, and the type and character of the surveys were fully integrated with the scientific community. Mr. Lennon. Now, Mr. Secretary, did you testify before the Senate Committee on Commerce ? Dr. Hotxomon. No,sir. JT did not so testify. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 255 Mr. Lennon. Well, you know that, sir, there were four bills pending before this committee, one by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fascell ; the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fulton; the gentleman from California, Mr. Hanna; and the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Huot. Dr. Hotitomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Those four bills that are now being considered by this committee were identical with the bill, Senate bill 944, sponsored by Senator Magnuson and others; they were identical at the time they were introduced and referred to this committee. Now, since that time, S. 944 has been reported unanimously by that committee, with amend- ments, and my recollection is the amendment was related to the estab- lishment of a Commission in addition to your high-level Council. Dr. Hotztomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Do you know what agencies of the Federal Govern- ment engaged in this overall activity of oceanography appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee or the subcommittee in the consideration of Senate bill 944? Dr. Hotromon. I know from my own memory that the Navy ap- peared, and I am now just looking at it here. Dr. Hornig appeared; Mr. Morse, the Chairman of the Interagency Committee, appeared. These are the major agencies that appeared. That is, the Navy, the ICO, and Dr. Hornig appeared. Mr. Lennon. That is the Interagency on Oceanography ? Dr. Hoxtuomon. Yes, sir; that is right. You had Dr. Hornig, the Navy Mr. Lennon. And the Federal! Science Director. Now, do you suppose that at that hearing, Mr. Secretary, it was made as crystal clear there, as it has been here today, that there is now in the Department of Commerce, through ESSA, the authority and the responsibility not only to survey the Continental Shelf but to make eceanwide surveys? Dr. Hotromon. I don’t think we testified to that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. I understand you didn’t testify. Did the Department of Commerce, through any of its officers, at any level, make an appear- ance before the Senate Commerce Committee on this bill? Dr. Hottomon. No, sir; not this year, sir. Mr. Lennon. Do you know whether or not the Department of Com- merce has submitted its report on the bill, 994? Dr. Hottomon. Yes; we have, sir. Mr. Lennon. And I would assume, since you made an unfavorable report on the four House bills which were identical up until the time the Commission was added, that, similarly, an adverse report was made on that? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Captain, we are delighted to call on your technical knowledge now. Captain Bauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to, Mr. Secretary, the Bureau of the Budget Circular A-62, November 13, 1963 ,which gave you in the Department of Com- merce the coordinating authority for all weather operations, does that include Fleet Weather Service? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. 256 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Captain Baurr. And it includes the Air Force weather service? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. Captain Bauer. Now Dr. Hottomon. It does not include classified. Captain Bauer. Well, I grant that. That is true. Mr. Lennon. Well, you gentlemen will have to explain when you are getting technical, now, because we are not technical. You all are. Captain Bauer. Classified has to do with defense. Mr. Lennon. Yes; classified. Keep it out. Go ahead. Captain BavEr. Now, with respect to this coordinating authority, you suggested today that physical oceanography should have a core coordination in ESSA. Itthat correct? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. It should have a core program, and should, in my view, coordinate that aspect of the program as well as should ICO. Captain Bauer. And this would include our Navy operations similar to your meteorological coordinations ? Dr. Hottomon. Those which are divided explicitly and in the public domain having to do with physical oceanography, sir. Captain Baver. Then where would the Office of Naval Research come in supporting institutions and so on ? Dr. Hottoman. That activity could be coordinated through that agency. Basic science related to meteorology is not coordinated by the Federal Coordinator. He coordinates those things that have to do with the observational, prediction, and description system, and drectly related to that. He does not coordinate the basic science. The basic science in this case is coordinated by ICAS, which is an organization very similar to ICO, which is an interdepartmental committee on atmospheric sciences. Captain Bauer. Now, if this activity is followed through, and I presume we can expect "the Bureau of the Budget giving you that authority, in view of your success with meteorology, what happens then to the Oceanographic Office of the Navy with its preferred ship routing, and so on and so forth?) What happens to the ASWEP sys- tem, that part of it which is not classified? Will you then be in the coordinating position for that ? Dr. Hottomon. You made an assumption, sir, which I cannot make. Captain Bauer. You said that you wanted to have a core of coordina- tion. Dr. Hottomon. You said the Bureau of the Budget was going to do this. You said the Bureau of the Budget was going to do something. Captain Baur. If they do. Dr. Hottomon. I was speaking here as I have tried to as frankly as I can, and I certainly cannot speak for the Bureau of the Budget. I think that this is a mechanism which, if it proceeded as in the case of meteorology, would have the operational aspects of the descrip- tion, prediction of the weather coordinated by an activity not unlike the Federal Meteorological Coordinator. But, mainly, what I have tried to say here is that the lead responsibility should be given to someone. Captain Bauer. Now, who is going to coordinate, Mr. Secretary, ESSA? Dr. Hortomon. The Administrator. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 257 Captain Baurr. No; the ICO, or ICAS? Dr. Hottomon. It depends on which field. Captain Baurr. In other words, you have split coordination in one organization. Is that correct ? Dr. Hottomon. No. Of certain aspects of one organization. This is the problem. You see, in any company, for ex: cake it so we get outside our present—each part and diverse part of a com- pany made up of many operating components, each has research. And most companies find it most efficient to have somebody coordinate each of its operating components of research. What you have is some- body who coordinates research. Another thing that has to be coordinated is engineering; another thing, its manufacturing; ; and it is not unreasonable to have oceanog- raphy coordinated and the oceanographic program of ESSA coordi- nated by one agency, and its atmospheric sciences coordinated by another. Captain Bauer. In other words, you would be in the situation of coordinating the nonclassified work of the oceanographic offices of the Navy? Dr. Hotromon. That is a possibility, sir. Captain Baurr. We will find out how the Navy feels about that later. Now, with respect to survey, this Continental Shelf survey, have you made any inquiry of the oil industry that have surveyed the Conti- nental Shelf of the United Staates shown here in great detail to get their information, to get the data? In other words, are you going to duplicate what the oi] imdustries have already done? Dr. Horromon. As J understand, our people have been in contact with the oil industry in their plans or surveys. Captain Baurr. And they will supply you the information so you won't have to send your ships there to do it ? Dr. Hottomon. Not necessarily. It could be proprietary in some instances. I don’t think that they will necessarily agree to supply everything. Captain Bauer. In other words, you have come to no basic agree- ment with the oil industry ? Dr. Hotiomon. Not to my knowledge. Captain Bavrr. You realize the funding level of industry in the surveys of the Continental Shelves of the United States is around $300 million a year? Dr. Horiomon. T don’t know the details of the funding. I can’t agree that that is the number, because I don’t know. I do ‘know that they spend a substantial amount of money on coastal surveys. Captain Bavrr. Now, when you get to the surveys of the oceans of the world, which you aparently are doing Admiral Karo. Mr. Chairman, may I discuss this earlier one? Mr. Lennon. Go ahead. Admiral Karo. We had representation down to discuss this matter with various geophysical prospecting companies to see whether or not the data they provide could be used to supplement our surveys. The universal opinion we got from those people was that it was not the type or accuracy that we required for navigational charts, that their 258 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION data were used for a specific purpose. However, they said, if we will put somebody aboard to work with them, it possibly could be made available; but the information they had was not useful at the present time. We will continue to work with them, and if they have any information that would be useful in the Continental Shelf surveys for our charts, we will try and use it. Captain Bauer. How far behind your boat charts are your produced charts of the Continental Shelf? How many years? Admiral Karo. The normal cycle, when we complete the surveys through the processing is from 1 to 2 years. However, we are auto- mating our processes so that we hope that will be shortened down to a few months. Captain Bauer. Now, with respect to the ocean surveys, where does this differ from what Hydrographic Office of the Navy’s Oceano- graphic Office has been doing ? Dr. Hottomon. The deep ocean surveys that we are doing are sys- tematic surveys with close spacing and we are using this opportunity to determine as much of the geophysical parameters of the ocean and the earth as we pass over it as can be made with one pass. Captain Bavrr. Well, is not the Navy Oceanographic Office doing the same thing ? Dr. Hottomon. Through the ICO, we coordinate our areas of opera- tion with the Navy, so that the area we have picked out where we are now operating does not conflict with what the Navy is doing; in fact, it complements the work that they are doing. Capatin Bauer. Have you any plan for the surveys of the oceans of the world ? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. Captain Bauer. Do you havea copy available for us? Dr. Hottomon. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. You would have a copy for the use of the committee, sir? Dr. Hotitomon. Yes; I have just prepared a copy for the record. (The statement referred to follows:) OcEAN STUDIES PROGRAM LONG-RANGE PLAN (a) Ocean survey subprogram 1. Requirements——The Coast and Geodetic Survey’s present program in ocean surveys is the outgrowth of many years of dreaming and urging that such a pro- gram be undertaken, it is an outgrowth of the recommendations contained in the reports of three generations of National Academy of Sciences Committees on Oceanography (1927, 1952, and 1959), of the generalized plan prepared by the Ocean Surveys Advisory Panel of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, of the Operations Research Study of the Ocean Survey Program prepared by Operations Research JInc., and finally it is the outgrowth also of 4 years of actual ocean survey experience aboard the USCGS ship Pioneer. In its present form the ocean survey program of the Coast and Geodetic Survey reflects the blend- ing of these many recommendations and requirements into one workable pro- gram put together by the organization that will actually carry out the work. The need for systematic surveys of the sea has been extremely well documented over the years: Some of these documents are: 1899: Resolution of the Conference of the International Council for the Explora- tion of the Sea. Copenhagen, translated in hearings of Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, 87th Con- gress, 2d session, February 28, March 1 and 2, 1962, pages 13-18. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 259 1924-5: Extensive documentation to justify the proposed Naval Oceanographic Expedition to be called the Maury-United States Naval Oceanographic Re- search (See the Literary Digest, Sept. 19, 1925, Journal of Geology vol. 32, No. 8, 1924 editorial, pp. 690-695). 1931: “Oceanography,” Henry B. Bigelow, Houghton Mifflin Co. 1937: ‘International Aspects of Oceanography,” T. Wayland Vaughn et al., National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1952: “Oceanography 1951,” National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography Report, NAS-NRC Pub. 208, Washington, D.C. 1959: “Oceanography 1960-70,” chapter 9, Ocean-Wide Surveys, National Acad- emy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography Report, NAS-NRC, Washing- ton, D.C. 1963: “National Plan for Ocean Surveys,” Interagency Committee on Oceanog- raphy, ICO Pamphlet No. 7, Washington, D.C. 1963: “The Global Sea,” Harris B. Stewart, Jr., D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J. 1963 : “Oceanography, The Ten Years Ahead,” Interagency Committee on Oceanog- raphy, [CO Pamphlet No. 10, Washington, D.C. 1964: “General Scientific Framework for World Ocean Studies” (draft) Inter- governmental Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO, Paris. 1965: “User Requirements and National Ocean Survey Program Planning,” H. Nisselson, Operations Research, Inc., Technical Report No. 311, one of a series of reports on the national ocean survey program made to the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Some of the requirements for ocean surveys will be summarized but the detailed justifications and spelling out of the requirements are contained in the documentation listed above. The most important material resources of the sea today and probably for many years to come are the animals and plants. In Hurope and North America only 5 to 20 percent of the animal protein in human diet comes from the sea, and in many other nations this is considerably larger and forms an indispensable part of the human diet. The world’s ocean fish- eries increased from 25 to 40 million metric tons between 1955 and 1962, and this rate of increase (about 7 percent each year) will be maintained or even in- ereased in the near future. Fishmeal for feeding poultry and livestock was produced at the rate of about 4 million tons in 1955 and was up to nearly 10 million tons in 1961. The human population of earth took about 10,000 years to reach a total of 1 billion persons by the year 1830. Yet this figure was dou- bled between 1830 and 1930, a mere 100 years. In the 35 years since 1930 we have added still another billion. At this rate there will be 6 billion persons on earth by the year 2000, and in a mere 600 years there will be only 1 square yard of living space per person. The growth rate of the human population demands that new food sources be developed. The present growth rates of oceanic fisheries cannot be maintained for many more years unless oceanic investiga- tions on a worldwide scale ‘are carried out to ascertain (1) the ocean condi- tions that bring about economically catchable fish concentrations, (2) the locations and sizes of fish populations and how these vary with variations in the oceanographic conditions, and (3) those aspects of fish behavior that can be exploited to reduce the costs of catching fish. Of the utmost importance is the determination of the large-scale changes in the physical characteristics of the waters of the sea and the causes for them. The correlation of such changes with changes in the fish catch is known to be high where such environmental changes have actually been measured, but these instances are presently few. The tremendous anchovy fishery off the west coast of South America, for example, suffers almost total destruction with the occur- renee of the warm surface water called el nifio covering the normally cooler upwelled water which contains a rich abundance of fish. Mass mortalities of both fish and the guano birds that feed on them are common, yet the causes for el nino are still unknown. The ocean survey program includes the systematie measurement of the water characteristics which the fisheries oceanographers need to obtain the more complete picture of the interrelationship of the fish and his environment that is required for an increased catch. The fisherman must be able to anticipate major changes in the oceanic environment to improve his efficiency and lower his costs per ton. Needed here is the regular pericdic production of maps of the world ocean that show existing conditions and point out anomalies and comparisons with earlier synoptic maps. Similarly, the environmental conditions in especially important fishing grounds should be 260 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION monitored on a continuous basis. Provisions for such observations are also made in the ocean survey program. Before any resource can be exploited, it must first be mapped, and this is as true at sea as it is on the land. Man has been at the task of mapping his land areas for hundreds of years, and accurate maps for many varied purposes are now available. Of the ocean, however, maps of even moderate accuracy are available for only its shallow edges. We know only the grossest features of the better than 90 percent of the sea that lies seaward of our Continental Shelves. These areas, aS well as the Continental Shelf, must be mapped not only for bottom topography but for gravity ‘and magnetics, for the distribution of sedi- ments, and for the subbottom structures. These measurements and others such as meteorological measurements and measurements of the characteristics of the surface waters can be made from a ship underway without necessitating steps. The costs of the ship time could be justified for most of these measurements even if only one of these characteristics were being measured. Gravity measure- ments at sea, for example, have indeed done just that on the historic work of the Dutch submarine K—XJ/I in the East Indies, Vening Meinesz’ later work in the same area, and the U.S. submarines S—2/ and S—48 in the Caribbean Sea. Similarly the magnetic work of the nonmagnetic ship Carnegie is well known. Today’s technology enables the modern oceanographer to do both gravity and magnetic observations on a continuous basis while steaming at 14 to 16 knots and providing a detailed topographic section of the sea bottom at the same time. It is these advances in instrumentation that makes it possible to do so much at one time on each ship and make the running of a full-scale ocean survey program considerably more feasible than would have been possible as little as 15 years ago. The maps that such a survey program will produce will be the base maps for all future exploration and exploitation of our global sea. They will also pinpoint those areas where research vessels can return to get the detailed data that will be needed to answer specific research questions which the basic surveys will raise. Marine mineral resources will need surveys for their discovery and maps for their exploitation. Manganese nodules are known to exist in parts of the sea and probably exist in those many areas which have never been traversed by a research or survey ship. These nodules run 25 to 30 percent manganese and as much as 1 percent cobalt, copper, or nickel. Actually, these deposits are forming now at a rate faster than the present rate of world consumption of these metals, and within a few years as our supplies on land diminish, these may be economi- eally recoverable. Present knowledge of the distribution of these nodules is not sufficient as yet to justify large industrial investment, since the known samples have been isolated grab samples or were seen in deep-sea photographs. Their distribution must be determined by a systematic survey. Phosphorite nodules are found in shollower waters, and these low-grade ores have been esti- mated to bring $12 per ton delivered on the dock. Oil, gas, and sulfur are al- ready produced from the Continental Shelves, and recent surveys in the Sigsbee Deep in the Gulf of Mexico suggest that salt domes favorable as traps for oil exist there. Diamond-bearing gravels off Africa are being exploited at the rate of about $15,000 per day. Gold-bearing sands have recently been discovered off Nome and Juneau, tin is being dredged from the sea floor off the Malay Penin- sula, magnetite sands are being mined from the sea floor off Japan for their iron content, and even plain sand is now required for U.S. beaches to such a degree that surveys of the offshore areas have been carried out just to try to locate sands for beach replenishment. It has been estimated.in a report prepared for UNESCO that several million dollars a year in geological and minerological research and surveys directed specifically toward the location of mineral de- posits on the Continental Shelves could generate new industry of gross product ef at least $50 million a year within a decade. Studies of the shape of the earth and the tieing of remote islands into the major geodetic nets require gravity data at sea. The world magnetic charts for navi- gation require magnetic data at sea. Charts of the sea for the marine navigator require hydrographic surveys at sea. Resource exploitation—as well as dis- covery—requires maps of the seas. Long-range weather prediction needs synop- tic meterological data at sea as well as oceanographic data for a better under- standing of the air-sea interaction mechanism. Commerce requires maps. National defense requires all of these data. Pollution control needs to know of the currents and rates of dispersion of pollutants. Basic research which pro- vides the pool of basic knowledge on which we must draw for our future ap- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 261 plications requires the basic data from the ocean survey program not only to help answer some present questions but also to help formulate new and chal- lenging questions to ask of the ocean, The requirements of the various agencies of the Federal Government for the data to be developed by the ocean survey subprogram are presented in general terms in ICO publication 7, and in more specific terms in the ORI reports (see especially ORI Technical Report No. 311, “User Requirements and National Ocean Survey Planning”). In actuality, however, it is difficult to justify this ocean survey program solely in terms of present needs. It is primarily an exploration program and should be understood as such. As an exploration program, it should not and does not require specific justifications in terms of present-day data needs. It is, for example, almost im- possible to establish cost-benefit ratios for such a program, for many, if not most, of the benefits will be realized only after the program is well underway. It would be unfortunate if the United States were to undertake only those pro- erams for which there were immediate needs; we must also think of the long term needs and be perfectly willing to provide some answers for which the questions have yet to be formulated. 2. Objectives——To meet these requirements, the objective of the ocean survey program is to provide within a reasonabie amount of time accurate base maps of the topography of the sea floor, of its geophysical and geological character- istics, and to provide for the systematic collection, compilation, and presentation of statistically significant data on the time-dependent variables in the water of the sea and in the atmosphere above it. One characteristic of land mapping is that it is never completed. So too the mapping of the sea will probably never be completely done to the satisfaction of all possible requirements in the most minute of detail. However, the magnitude of the task to provide base maps of the ocean can be fairly well calculated as a function of the distance between lines of underway operations and the number of oceanographic stations to be oceupied. Assuming 10 nautical miles between lines and a total of 10,000 sta- tions, the requirement is for 295 ship-years. The time to accomplish this task thus becomes merely a function of how many ships can be devoted to the task at one time. A mathematical model has been prepared whereby the various input parameters can be varied to determine just how long such a survey might take at any given line spacing, or number of stations, or length of time on sta- tion, speed of the ships, numbers of ships, even anticipated survey limitations due to weather. This model will prove an invaluable tool as the work is planned in detail. The immediate end product of the program will be charts and data listings. A secondary end product will be interpretive papers to be published following detailed analysis of the processed and published data. 3. Cowrses of action.—When the ocean survey program was originally developed by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, it was anticipated that the Navy would carry out one-half of the effort. This was also the specific recom- mendation of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography. However, as the actuai program planning began to take place, the Navy quite specifically stated that their ships and manpower were totally committed to urgent military requirements that precluded them taking any part in a national ocean survey program,. The Weather Bureau and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries have played active roles in the meteorological and biological phases of the program to date and will continue to do so. Similarly, the Geological Survey has also had people aboard the Pioneer in the limited work to date, and the Smithsonian Institution will assist in the sorting and storage of both biological and geological samples when the analyses and research work on them are com- pleted. However, the major portion of the program, including all of the ship operations at sea, must by default become the responsibility solely of the Coast and Geodetic Survey. As T. Wayland Vaughn stated in the preface of the 1937 report of the NAS Committee on Oceanography, “It is obvious that any comprehensive systematic investigation of the oceans must be in large measure an international enter- prise.” The same sentiment was echoed in the NASCO report of 1959, and plans for such international cooperation have been outlined in ICO Pamphlet No. 7, National Plan for Ocean Surveys (pp. 29-31). However, the Coast and Geodetic Survey will not delay its own survey efforts pending the completion of the international cooperative plan. The task is so large—295 ship-years—that the international plan will hopefully have been worked out long before the United States completes even the 30 percent that 262 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION corresponds to our portion of the support of UNESCO and of other specialized intergovernmental organizations. The ocean survey program of the Coast and Geodetic Survey is in fact the U.S. program of ocean surveys, and we will modify the program as necessary to take into account any commitments made by the Government in support of the international effort to achieve these same goals. In the meantime, the Coast and Geodetic Survey will pursue the program as though it alone were to be the sole agency to accomplish the task. The goals can be achieved only by providing 295 ship-years of survey work at sea plus the manpower and shore facilities to process, analyze, publish, and dis- tribute the information. There are, however, alternative means for accomplish- ing this. One ship could work for 295 years, but this is tacitly ridiculous in the light of the urgency for the surveys. The present plan calls for a total of nine ships for the ocean survey program programed as shown in table I. As- suming that each ship will put in the full season on this program and that ‘the first full year of operations for each ship is the year following its planned de- livery date, then the United States 30 percent of the world ocean survey can be accomplished by 1979, the total program by the year 2002. This is detailed in table II. Provision can be made, however, for contracting out part of the work, should the urgency of completing the task require more facilities than the Coast and Geodetic Survey could provide in time. TABLE I.—Coast and Geodetic Survey oceanographic shipbuilding program {Dollars in millions] Ship class Amount Appropria- Delivery date tion year 9.4 1962 October 1965. 9.7 1963 March 1966. 9.0 1965 January 1968. 110.5 1967 September 1969. 10.5 1967 June 1962. 4.0 1968 January 1970. 10.9 1968 June 1970. ab BS} 1969 June 1971. 11.3 1969 September 1971. t Replacement for Pioneer. TABLE II.—Ship-years available for ocean survey program Ship-years Cumulative Ship-years | Cumulative Year available total Year available total each year each year 1 a 20 2, 9 29 2 (1) 38 3 9 292 5 39 4299 19 (et seq.). 2 30 percent of the total job. 3 This assumes a 1-for-1 replacement as ships become obsolescent. 4 Total job. The caiculation of 295 ship-years is based on underway surveys at 10-nautical- mile spacing plus 10,000 oceanographic stations. One alternative is that at least part of the information to be gained from the station observations can be ob- tained at less cost per unit of data and the information would be more meaning- ful if oceanographic buoys were used. This phase is still in the very early stages, and the worth of buoy observations ‘still needs 'to be evaluated. ‘The plan, there- fore, calls for an early evaluation of buoys as oceanographic data collectors. The major problem with buoys is that the oceanographers themselves are not yet sure of just what the range and spectrum of variations are ‘that exist in the ocean. The plan is to set out a small network of buoys to measure the whole range of variables on a very small scale as a starter. Once this network has determined what is there to be measured and how the various parameters vary NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 263 with time, then a larger scale program will ‘be developed to measure those char- acteristics that are most meaningful, and this will be carried out on the scale of at least a half ocean. In 'the meantime, the oceanographic survey ships will eontinue to carry out limited oceanographic station measurements—particularly along the north-south section already established between the Hawaiian and Aleutian Islands, and along other comparable sections in other areas of ocean survey operations. One additional operational alternative is that some of the ships be built specifically for carrying out the underway portions of the survey, and others be configured specifically for the ocean station operations. Hach ship, however, must ibe able to carry out the other phase to at least a limited degree. Thus the underway ships should be able to carry out limited station observations, and the ships configured primarily as ocean station ships should be able to do the underway observations between stations. Similarly, all ships shall have the capability of launching and recovering one or two oceanographic buoys to carry out observations of the time-dependent variables on a limited scale while the ship is carrying out other observations in the area. 4, Schedule.—The schedule of accomplishments is tied directly to the delivery dates of the various new ships designed and built for this survey program (table I). The models for planning purposes developed by Operations Research, Inc., allow us to determine the level of accomplishment as a function of the delivery of ships to work on the program. Hach year the program will be planned ac- cording to this model. If the ship-construction slips, then the entire program ean be rescheduled with the use of this mathematical model. 5. Identification of resources—The resources available to carry out this pro- gram are tied primarily to the ship-construction schedule (table I). On this schedule depend the level of manpower for the ships—officers, technicians, trew, and scientists both ashore and at sea. To this schedule is also tied the construc- tion of new ships’ bases with their attendant oceanographic laboratory facilities. Thus there is in the fiscal year 1967 budget funds for the design of a new base for which funds will be requested in fiscal year 1968. Similar design funds will be requested in fiscal year 1970 for an additional base in fiscal year 1971. In the past, the budgetary cycle has somehow eliminated the requests for funds to pro- vide for support personnel to process, analyze, interpret, and publish the data. Automation at the data collection and data processing ievels will in part alleviate this situation, but only in part. The ocean survey program will include a steady buildup of personnel commen- Surate with the rate of delivery of the new ships. Personnel must be trained in advance of delivery of the ships, and processing personnel must be attracted to the Bureau and be trained to accommodate the regularly increasing inflow of data. The work of Operations Research, Ine. (see especially ORI Technical Report No. 296, “Planning Implications of Coast and Geodetic Survey Personnel Require- ments for a National Ocean Survey Program’’) has shown that the personnel will be available when the time for their services is at hand. In brief, these require- ments call for a doubling of the C. & G.S. personnel base for the ocean survey pro- gram by 1970. Two specific areas where increased resources are absolutely required should be pointed out. ‘The first is in the area currently assigned jointly to the Office of Research and Development and to the Office of Oceanography. ‘The interpreta- tion of the data obtained at sea—the conversion of processed oceanographic data into new knowledge—is essential to a viable ocean survey program. Presently a part of the Office of Research and Development is a very small staff (four persons) working on the conversion of hydrographic (bathymetric) data to mean- ingful maps with their attendant geomorphological interpretation. This work is especially important. The necessity of this work was realized by the Geological Survey to the extent that they hired a marine geologist and supporting staff to take the basic hydrographic surveys of the Coast and Geodetic Survey and con- vert these into a complete bathymetric chart of the entire east coast continental shelf and slope. 'This was done only because the Coast and Geodetic Survey was unable to take the excellent work started by G. F. Jordan and build an effective research group on the foundation which he so effectively started. Therefore. it is planned to add a minimum of two persons to the present group with each new Ship that is delivered. This will mean a total of 16 new people in this group by the year 1971. Similarly within the Research Group of the Office of Oceanog- raphy, there is now (1965) only one man with the experience necessary to 264 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION program into meaningful new knowledge. This group will be expanded at the rate of one man per new ship. A second phase where new resources are needed is in the area of bathymetry. This function will serve not only the ocean survey program of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, but the entire Federal and nongovernmental oceanographic community. Currently the collection of hydrographic (bathmetric) data at sea is the only large-volume data accumulation program that is not completely auto- mated, and the data must still pass through the stage where men hunch over chart tables to put down by hand the information that is continuously recorded from depth sensors and in a short time will be continuously recorded from aceurate navigation systems. The new ships planned by the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the steadily increasing numbers of ships becoming available to the private oceanographic institutions, and the imminent availability of an all- weather, all-ocean navigation system of high accuracy demands that a system of automatie recording, storage, and contoured printout of deep-sea soundings be developed and made operational in the very early stages of the program. Dis- cussions with industry have already shown that such a system is feasible. It remains only for some agency with foresight to establish such a system. It is planned that such a system be developed and operated under the aegis of the Coast and Geodetic Survey and as a part of the ocean survey program. Pre- liminary feasibility-study funds are programmed in fiscal year 1967, and based on the results of this study the funds for the whole system will be requested as appropriate in subsequent years. An additional resource that must be developed is a small planning staff within the Office of Oceanography whose efforts are devoted solely to the planning for the ocean survey program. The work performed by Operations Research Inc. has developed a whole series of planning tools that must be utilized for an effec- tive prosecution of the survey program. (See especially ORI Technical Report No. 316, Summary Report of the Operations Research Study of the National Ocean Survey Program.) This will require a minimum of three persons as a planning staff by fiscal year 1968. Other requirements for shipboard and shore- based personnel are detailed in ORI Technical Report No. 296, but in brief these requirements are geared to the delivery of the new ships. 6. Mechanism for changes.—No plan should be so locked in conerete that it cannot be changed as the conditions warrant. The present plan is merely intended as a spelling out of the goals and the presently planned mechanism for achieving these goals. There has been in the past, and there will undoubtedly be in the future, slippage in the proposed ship-construction schedule. As the present schedule changes, ‘all of those factors which are geared to this schedule will change accordingly. The various mathematical models prepared by Operations Research will enable the planning staff in the Office of Oceanography to make the necessary modifications in the plan. As the survey itself progresses, there will be new criteria developed and, for example, the spacing of survey lines will change as a function of what has been found to date. These changes can also be accom- modated by the mathematical planning models. By the same token, as the small grid of oceanographic buoys developed its data on the ranges and spectrum of oceanic variables, the relative proportions of the task to be ac- complished by ships and buoys can also be modified with the models. It is anticipated that there will be continuing advisory committees (see ICO pamph- let 7, National Plan for Ocean Surveys) which will continually monitor the results of the work at sea and offer advice on the general conduct of the sur- veys. This group will work in conjunction with the Ocean Surveys Advisory Panel of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography in the planning of each vear’s operations. In ‘this manner the surveys will continue to be responsive to the overall requirements of the oceanographic community—both Federal and nongovernmental. Summary In summary, the ocean survey program of the Coast and Geodetic Survey is devised to provide within a reasonable amount of time accurate base mans of the topography of the sea floor, of its geophysical and geological characteris- tics, and to provide for the systematic collection, compilation, and presentation of statistically significant data for a wide range of users. The resources required are geared to the rate of delivery of the requisite new shins, and’ these include personnel and shore facilities. The total task as now envisioned will require 37 years to complete if the United States is to do it alone. It will require 14 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 265 years—if the schedule as planned is met—to complete the 80 percent of the world ocean survey that might be considered as that portion to be accomplished by the United States if a truly international effort in this endeavor can be developed through the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. The need for surveys of this type has been well documented in a series of publications. The planning tools to carry out the surveys in an effective manner have been developed in detail. There remains only the administrative decision to get on with the job for the satisfying of the various immediate user requirements, and for providing future generations of Americans with the basic tool for the exploitation of the world ocean for their economie growth, general well-being, and their national defense. Mr. Reinecke. Do any of your research or other programs involve the use of private industry as a means of assisting not only to collect the data but as a means of contracting to them to do the work ? Admiral Karo. Not as to the actual field operations at the present time; no, sir. But we do have contracts with institutions im certain phases, as in the tidal work. We have given a grant to Scripps to work out some of the basic theories, and we utilize the competence of the various technical institutions when we have the funds. Mr. Rerneckr. As far as making any of your surveys or any of the ocean data is concerned, you are not trying to contract this out to encourage free enterprise to get into this field ? Dr. Hottomon. No, but we do contract out all the shipbuilding, of course, and we do contract out the development of special instru- ments that are necessary for carrying out the survey. Mr. Rernecke. But not the use of any of these. Dr. Hottomon. But not the use of the ships. Mr. Rernecne. Do you contemplate that? Dr. Hottomon. No, sir; not at the moment. Mr. Retnecke. Even though there are many ships that could be used for this? Dr. Hottomon. I am not so sure about that. Admiral Karo can speak to the question. In knowing the difficulties we have had con- structing the special oceanographic ships with the characteristics that are needed in sea keeping and the instrumentation aboard, I would doubt whether there were many ships so available, but Admiral Karo may speak to the question. Admiral Karo. The industry, of course, is developing competency, and in the future, if the funds are sufficient and we can work out a modus operandi with them and be sure of the results we get, we will consider that. From our operations research study, which has just been completed, and the recommendations, we will redefine our opera- tional program to get the maximum benefit from this study. Mr. Rertneckr. To date, though, you have not asked any private contractors to bid on such exploration ? Admiral Karo. No, sir; for the simple reason is that we find diffi- culty having enough funds to operate our own ships. Mr. Reinecke. Sometimes private enterprise can operate less ex- pensively than the Government. Dr. Hotztomon. Could I go off the record a minute? Mr. Rernecke. Certainly. Mr. Lennon. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Rernecke. No further questions. 53-367— 65 18 °266 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Rocers. Mr. Chairman, I realize the bells have rung, and we have to leave, but I just wonder before the second bell if I could ask a question. Mr. Lennon. Go ahead. Mr. Rocrrs. What is your total program as far as a funding of money ? Dr. Hottomon. $12 million, approximately. Mr. Rogers. About $12 million ? Dr. Hotxomon. Yes, sir; I think that is correct. That is not includ- ing ship construction. Mr. Rocrrs. This is just for research alone? Dr. Hotiomon. Research, surveys, analyses, data collecting, and so forth; about $12 million. In Commerce, it was, in fiscal—it is $18 million. In fiscal 1964, it was $23 million; 1965, about $19 million. And both include ship construction. The 1966 budget, about $13 million, which did not include ship construction. Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say that I, too, appreciate the testimony today, but IT am very disappointed that our departments are not more aggressive in presenting the problems and holding to the status quo as much as they are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. The committee has not adjourned, but you may go off the record, now, if you will. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. Now, the committee will resume its hearings this coming Tuesday morning, at 10 o’clock, in the Longworth Building, in the regular committee room, at 10 o’clock. The acoustics are a little better. Thank you for your attendance. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10a.m., Tuesday, August 10, 1965.) NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION TUESDAY, AUGUST 10, 1965 Hous 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 subcommittee will come to order and resume its hearings. Our first witness is my good friend and colleague and a member of the Subcommittee on Oceanography, the Honorable Tom Ashley. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS L. ASHLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. Asuiry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the past week you and members of this subcommittee have heard numerous requests and statements in support of the establishment of a National Ocean- ographic Council. All of these statements, aside from outlining the substantial benefits to science that would be derived from such a coun- cil, have pointed out the necessity for some form of coordination of this Nation’s undersea research and development efforts. The dire need for this authority, and the strong tide of support for its establishment can hardly be denied. There are many considera- tions that provide ample justification for a national council to guide our collective exploration of the seas—and I would lke to review these briefly, along with the salient features of my own bill, H.R. 6457. The past few years, Mr. Chairman, have witnessed an awakening of the world, and the United States in particular, to the realization that the vast oceans of this planet conceal the greatest physical wealth known to mankind. Dramatic technological advances have now breached the oceans’ depths and opened an entire new world, filled to the brim with seemingly inexhaustible deposits of man’s mosh dire necessities. Mineral wealth, bottomless wells of petroleum, and pro- tein sufficient to defeat the greatest enemy of man—the hunger and poverty that has always driven him over the brink of self-destruc- tion—exist in such fantastic quantities that all of mankind will never be »ble to consume it all. This natural treasure alone would be reason enough for an imme- diate, all-out oceanographic research and development effort. But there is even more need. 267 268 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Millions of dollars have been appropriated in the past decade to enable man to pierce the outermost reaches of space. In addition to the considerations of acquiring scientific knowledge of our uni- verse—leading to later development of its potential resources—we have launched this Nation’s military and defense efforts toward the heavens with resounding success. Our national security, for almost 200 years a matter of landlocked concern tenuously guarded by the expanse of oceans, has recently be- come a matter of great concern for those who guide our space pro- grams. We have effectively met this challenge, only to be faced with another of equal seriousness. Only last week, members of this subcommittee heard Mr. David Strang, a specialist in the field of Soviet oceanography, relate the Soviet Union’s formidable program for the study of the world’s oceans and continental coastlines. Mr. Strang’s report, as well as other avail- able sources of information, indicate such a great Soviet expansion of effort in this area that the position of our leadership as explorers of the oceans is in serious doubt. His primary conclusion, that the So- viet Union has oriented a major portion of its oceanographic pro- erams toward the areas of military science, undersea warfare, and defense development, strikes a note of urgency into our present delib- erations. Tt is a foregone conclusion that we can hardly afford to place second best in any area of endeavor, let alone one of such recognizable magni- tude. The objective of the bill I have introduced is to establish a program which will insure the United States mastery of the seas. Without im- posing upon the rights and prerogatives of the legislative and execu- tive branches of our Government, as well as the important interests of private industry, this bill seeks the establishment of a comprehensive, coordinated national program of oceanographic research, exploration and engineering, guided and reviewed by Congress, prosecuted by the executive, and joined in by all the people. Direction of the program is appropriately assigned to the President, who would be aided by a National Oceanographic Council for Science and Technology. This bill allows the widest possible latitude to accomplish the aims of the program. These goals, already stated admirably by my col- leagues in both Houses, have included : First, the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in and re- lated to the oceans, the marine environment, and the Great Lakes, their boundaries and contents. Second, the preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in oceanographic and marine science and technology. Third, the enhancement of the culture, general welfare, and security of the United States. To these I have added: The exploitation of the oceans, in terms of recovery of mineral and living resources, safer waste disposal, improved recreation, expanded commerce, and extended weather prediction. Under the provisions of this bill, members of the Council shall be selected and delegated by the President’s department heads, thus permitting membership at the highest science policy level of Govern- ment, equivalent to that of the Federal Council for Science and Tech- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 269 nology, yet at an echelon which realistically presumes understanding of, and availability to, this important scientific field. I believe that this compatibility of authority, know-how, and accessibility is the crucial key to success of the Federal organization for oceanography. In addition to the provisions of other bills introduced, this bill directs the Council to coordinate the efforts of the Government to combat natural and manmade phenomena adversely affecting the pub- lic welfare, including sea storms, floods, seismic activity, offshore pol- lution, and radioactive waste disposal. Another important addition to the bill I have presented is the pro- vision for including the largest group of inland waters in the world, and one of this Nation’s greatest natural resources, the Great Lakes, into this proposed program. Mr. Chairman, the Great Lakes area encompasses the heartland of the United States, and the center of its industrial wealth—20 percent of U.S. population and 2714 percent of our Nation’s main wealth. In any comparison of world commerce, these lakes support more commercial! traffic, acre for acre, than any body of water in the world. And these vast waterways are subject to the same laws of nature, the same consideration for scientific de- velopment and the same concern for our national security that we give for the deeper and wider oceans that surround our Nation. Viewing the enormous problems we confront in exploiting the vast potential that these resources—our oceans and inland seas—it is im- possible to ignore the inevitability that the Federal Government must take the reins of leadership in developing a strong national program of oceanography and all its related sciences. The oceans represent a resource just unfolding, and a potential cure for many of the world’s most severe dilemmas. We would be negligent in’ our responsibilities if we continued to allow a sincere, dedicated, and willing—but haphazard confederation of interests— to manage the program without the authority, resources, and harmony that only this great Congress can provide. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Congressman, for an excellent statement. If there are no questions, I would next like to call on our good friend from the State of Texas, Congressman Olin Teague. STATEMENT OF HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Mr. Tracur. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of ap- pearing before your subcommittee today in behalf of my bill, H.R. 7849: a bill to provide for economic development of the Continental Shelf and for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council. This bill addresses itself to the need for a comprehensive national oceanographic program. It includes needs for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, for economic development of the Con- tinental Shelf as a newly recognized area of sovereignty, for the de- velopment of ocean resources beyond the Continental Shelf where national interests are involved and for establishing mechanisms through which national policy can be planned and executed. Because the oceanographic problem has many facets, and is great in magnitude, the proposed legislation involves four parallel actions. 270 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION First, it clarifies the intent of national oceanographic policy so that our policy is directed toward the peaceful and economic uses of the ocean (over and above its defense uses) instead of being centered upon science development. Second, it establishes a National Oceanographic Council whose responsibilities are to carry out national planning, pol- icy formulation, and broad discussion of national goals with respect to ocean problems and ocean resources at the highest executive branch level. Third, the bill creates the Marine Exploration Development Commission as a new operating agency to provide a center for im- plementing national goals relative to nondefense uses of the ocean and to fill in the gaps not now provided for by missions of other agencies doing oceanographic work. Fourth, the legislation recognizes the need for accelerated action and the need for developing partnerships with universities and industries by authorizing a separate marine explora- tion and development fund. If we do any less than provide for all four of these parallel actions, we will not have treated the total oceanographic question nor will we have placed the consideration of ocean resources at the level of import- ance which it ought to command. A principal difficulty of our present national posture on oceanog- raphy is that we tend to think of it in the context of science and tech- nology. The existing coordination is carried on under the Federal Council for Science and Technology through the Interagency Com- mittee on Oceanography. This results from the fact that our consid- erations of the oceanographic question have steemed mainly from our desires to explore and understand the oceans. It is also a recognition that our sights are too limited. It is time we gave national visibility to our interests in the ocean as a broad resource pool and as an area of geography. That part of the ocean designated as the Continental Shelf has been recently acknowledged to be a matter of national sovereignty. The extent of the geographical area of the Continental Shelf is said, in fact, to be greater than that involved in the Louisiana Purchase. Our approach to developing the Continental Shelf should be in keeping with the development of other national resources. In this sense, we have estab- lished precedents in dealing with development of our West. The Con- tinental Shelf can be viewed as additional geography which should be handled with the same foresight that was used in the development of other new lands. National policy should recognize furthermore that the oceans are a common source of supply of resources beyond the Continental Shelf. It should be our national goal to establish a resource development position that will make our international posture competitive. Those working under our free enterprise system in developing economic resources of the ocean should enjoy a favorable position with respect to competitors from other nations who come to this same source of supply. In a very real sense, superiority in developing the ocean’s resources will go to the nation which is able to develop the best tech- nology. Consequently, the first intent of this proposed legislation is to in- dicate that. the science element of oceanography is only a part of the broader national policy on oceanography as a subject of resource de- velopment and resource economics. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 271 The continual examination of policy in this area and the discussion of national goals, with an examination of the many interrelated in- terests concerned with the ocean, is a matter to be placed only on the highest policy level in our executive branch. Deliberation of goals with respect to ocean problems and ocean resources will include goals for defense purposes, food supplies, transportation, mineral resources, energy transmission and communication, recreation, pollution control, the prediction of storms, tides, and other possible disaster events, and the scientific exploration of natural phenomena. There are broad interrelationships between these goals. Many of them have international implications. The ocean environment is a major part of our total globe. Therefore, in magnitude and impor- tance these questions demand that policy be deliberated and formulated at the Cabinet level. To provide ongoing attention to this matter, with necessary staffing for continuity, the National Oceanographic Council is proposed. The intent of this recommendation is to recognize that the policies of ocean development, including both its defense and nondefense inter- relationships, are of sufficient importance to place their treatment on a par with policies related to space development. It is not enough to provide for policy formulation. It is necessary also to provide a focused responsibility for implementing the policy. In particular, it is desirable to centralize the authority for carrying out the program or seeing that it is carried out. The needed action includes those things which will develop the Continental Shelf, will bring into being the ocean-operating and ocean-technlogical skills to place our Nation at the forefront of ocean technology, will stimulate private individuals, industry, and institutions in the exploration and economic development of the ocean, and will expand and accelerate our ocean exploratory efforts. The tasks that need to be done cannot be viewed simply as “add-on” tasks to existing authorities. A new approach is required. The re- sponsibilities that are envisioned go beyond existing agency responsibilities. No one of the individual missions of existing agencies is broad enough to cover the entire activity of ocean resource development. Outside of the Navy, no agency has a responsibility and mission di- rected toward the total ocean and toward the full examination of tech- nological skills and operating capabilities that will reduce the ocean and its resources to our peaceful utilization. In structuring a new focus to take on this task, it is not possible, however, to ignore the existing operating activities in agencies that are concerned with oceanography. Such agencies as the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Coast and Geodetic Survey will need to continue operative type missions in the oceans. Therefore, the new responsibility for action in this field is proposed to be neither a new department of the executive nor an agency with the complete responsi- bilities in its field, such as NASA. The proposed action focus is a Commission, on which will serve the Secretaries of the three agencies which are now the principals engaged in ocean operations—Defense, Commerce, and Interior. It is the intent of the proposal that, insofar as possible, actions that are needed will be done through existing agen- cles.. Coordination of all these activities will be a part of the Com- 27T2 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION mission’s task. But, the important thing is that the Commission is charged with going beyond coordination to the doing of new tasks. To provide for the accelerated level of effort that is anticipated to bring into being mechanisms for stimulating private investment and to carry on developmental-type activities of ocean resources where the risk is too high to be absorbed entirely by private enterprise, there is need for increased funding. The bill asks for up to $50 million a year for activities over and beyond those that are authorized through exist- ing operating agencies. Even this will not go far when one considers the high cost of operating oceangoing vessels, of constructing under- sea platforms, or of testing other technological devices that will be necessary for man to learn how to effectively perform and live within an. ocean environment. In addition, however, the bill proposes a special fund that will permit loans, grants, and other partnership arrangements with uni- versities, private institutions, or individuals. From the underwater production of o11, it is possible to see the enormous benefits that might accrue to the Nation if other similar industrial resources activities can be stimulated. The provision of such a fund is in line with our national tradition of providing seed development support for nuclear technological capabilities, desalting of sea water, or land patents and claims for mineral development. The job of ocean resource development cannot be done by the Gov- ernment. It is necessary to use all the scientific, technical, and eco- nomic tools that are in our universities and industries. The Federal Government should, however, embark upon an action program that will encourage these talents to be directed toward this underdeveloped part of our resource picture. That is the purpose of the special fund. In summary, it seems to be clear that existing arrangements for concentrating our national talents upon development of the oceans are lagging. Our view of the problem has been one of science policy and this has been one of its shortcomings. It is time to state the broader picture. It is time to provide a national focus and a stronger action group. ‘This proposed legislation will accomplish these ends. Mr. Lennon. The subcommittee appreciates your fine statement, Mr. Teague. Our next witness this mor ning is known to all Washingtonians and most of the scientific and technological world—Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Director of the Office of Science and Technology. Doctor, if you have associates you would like to bring to the wit: ness table with you, bring them right along, sir. Dr. Hornia. “I will avail myself of that, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD F. HORNIG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN C. FRY AND HENRY W. MENARD Dr. Horntc. Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr. John Fry of my Office and Dr. Menard, recently of the Scripps Institution of Ocean- ography, who has just joined the staff of OST. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Dr. Hornig. We are delighted to have you gentlemen with us. Dr. Hornice. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee; thank you for the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 973 this morning to discuss the central problems and issues relating to the org vanization of the Federal Government for oceanography, an area I believe, to be of high importance to this Nation’s scientific and tec sh- nolog ical effort. I was privileged to appear before this subcommittee roughly 1 year ago, at which time I discussed the nature of the oceanographic pro- gram, its contribution to national and agency goals, and budget proposals for Government-wide programs in oceanography. As a result of those hearings, the subcommittee is generally familiar with the broad aspects of the program itself, and, “therefore, today I will focus my discussion on the administrative and organizational ques- tions relating to oceanography raised in the several congressional bills you have before you. Nevertheless, any discussion of new administrative approaches to oceanography should recognize what this country has already achieved in this field. In the first place, the United States has main- tained world leadership. No other country can match either the scope or quality of our oceanographic program and our capabilities have been improving. For example, since 1960: The oceanographic budget has increased by nearly a factor of three; Thirty-four new or converted ships have been added and 22 additional ships are currently under construction or conversion ; Seven new marine laboratories have been constructed ; The number of graduate students in oceanography has increased by a factor of 3, from 110 in 1960 to 315 in 1964; Three thousand people are now engaged professionally in oceanography, more than double the number in 1960. In addition to these increased resources, new dimensions have been added to the program : A national center provides services related to the quality con- trol, stowage, and retrieval of oceanographic data; New towers and platforms such as FLIP, special-purpose ships for sediment coring; oceanographic buoys, and communication relay satellites are now employed in the program; New deep submergence vehicles such as 7resta IZ and Alvin are being used for research and exploration of the seas; Laboratories have been built for underwater living, for divers to perform useful work on the sea floor for prolonged periods of time at great depths. Ocean engineering programs, in general, are accelerating. In terms of “accomplishments, also, I believe the program has progressed rapidly : Entirely new ocean current systems have been identified ; Improved ocean wave theories have been advanced ; A vast sedimentary basin that may be oil bearing has been dis- covered under the Continental Shelf of the Northeastern United States ; New sources of fish and shellfish have been discovered for the fishing industry ; Reliable forecasts can be made of the distribution and abun- dance of certain species of fish for the fishing industry: 274 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION A tsunami warning service for Hawaii and States bordering the Pacific Ocean has been established ; With the advice and assistance of oceanographers, an extensive network of submarine cables has been laid across the Atlantic and Pacific by industry in a way which avoids natural hazards; Extensive mineral deposits have been discovered on the sea floor ; The nature of the sea in terms of the shape and structure of the sea floor, the effect of radioactive materials on marine life, the interaction between the sea and the atmosphere, and the dispersion of pollutants is certainly better understood than it was 5 years ago. In short, in considering what new steps to take, it is important to recognize that we have built up a very good program in oceanog- raphy. The question now is how to make it better, how to reconcile the need to satisfy a variety of purposes and still to have a coordinated, coherent program. The existence of scientific and technological programs having com- mon characteristics divided among a number of agencies is not unique to oceanography. There are a number of such programs and each re- quires coordination to achieve the greatest economy and efficiency in (Government operations as a whole. This situation is often encountered because science and technology is simply not organized to fit the structure of the Federal Govern- ment, with agencies established for various purposes and assigned to accomplish diverse missions. When we identify programs in science and technology that several agencies depend upon to fulfill their mis- sions, then some means of coordination must be developed. At this point I would lke to review for the committee how the Ex- ecutive Office of the President is organized to handle the problem of Government-wide program coordination. In the Executive Office there is the Office of Science and Technology, a small executive agency established with the approval of the Congress by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1962, to insure the President has adequate staff support in de- veloping policies and evaluating programs, to insure that science and technology are used most effectively in the interests of national secu- rity and general welfare. Although the OST, as it is called, reports directly to the President, it is ultimately responsible to the Congress, as are other executive agen- cies. I am the Director of OST, and I also serve in a different but re- lated capacity as Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. The essential task of OST, insofar as oceanography is concerned, is to advise and assist the President with problems of science policy and with the coordination of Federal activities in science and tech- nology in concert with the Bureau of the Budget. An additional function of OST, which I consider to be of great im- portance, is to serve as a point of contact and communication with Congress on scientific and technical issues, especially those of a Gov- ernment-wide character, such as oceanography. Recognizing the im- portance of oceanography in the activities of OST, I have recently recruited an outstanding oceanographer from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Dr. Menard, toserve on my staff. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 275 Tn addition to OST, two important committees exist to provide ad- vice to the President on diverse activities in science and technology : the Federal Council for Science and Technology and the President’s Science Advisory Committee. I serve as Chairman of both groups and the OST provides their staff. The Federal Council for Science and Technology is composed of sen- ior policy officials in the executive agencies who are responsible for research and development, activities. The Executive order establish- ing the Council in 1959 directs it to provide more effective planning and administration of Federal science and technology, to identify research needs, to achieve better use of facilities, and to further in- ternational cooperation. Though it is an advisory body, the Council provides the central forum for discussion of common problems, tech- nical problems in general, by Federal officials. It is the channel through which views and information are exchanged and through which a coordinating structure for Federal programs is established. One of the most significant areas of activity of the Council has been to identify emerging areas of science and technology relevant to a large number of Federal agencies and to establish interagency com- mittees to deal effectively with issues and opportunities presented by common experience and concern for a single area of science and tech- nology. Thus far, the Council has established 11 committees for this purpose, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography being one of them. To a greater degree than was originally expected, these com- mittees have increased the efficiency of Federal science and technology programs by improving communications among the agencies, by iden- tifying issues for resolution, avoiding undesirable duplication, pro- moting complementary efforts, and facilitating more efficient and ef- fective use of resources. Some of the other interagency committees of the Federal Council which function similarly to the ICO are committees on atmospheric sciences, water resources, high energy physics, behavioral sciences, nat- ural resources, scientific and technical information, and materials. To give you some idea of the magnitude of several of these programs, the President’s fiscal 1966 budget for water resources research was $100 million; for high energy physics, $137 million; for atmospheric sciences, $200 million; and, as you know, for oceanography, was $142 million. When Dr. Morse testifies, he will explain the operation of the Inter- agency Committee on Oceanography in some detail, but I should lke to remark briefly on the accomplishments of this organization. It has in my judgment performed well. The committee has provided the means whereby we have accumulated data relating to the total Federal activities in oceanography. The Committee provides a mechanism through which each agency can know and does know what other agencies are doing and plan- ning to do in oceanography. It has organized and presented data in a way which provides the Executive Office of the President, and in my judgment the Congress also, with a comprehensive view of the Federal activities in this field. And importantly, the Committee has set forth national goals for oceanography which have been endorsed 276 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION by the executive branch and transmitted to the Congress in the long- range plan for oceanography. The general goa] stated in the plan is: To comprehend the world ocean, its boundaries, its properties, and its processes, and to exploit this comprehension in the national interest, in enhancement of our security, our culture, our international posture, and our economic growth. We proceed toward this goal by strengthening basic science, im- proving national defense, managing ocean resources, protecting life and property, and insuring the safety of operations at sea—through a concerted national effort in oceanography. The long-range plan can be viewed as an outline of requirements over a decade, in which con- text annual plans can be prepared according to needs, opportunities, and a desirable balance between capital investments and operating programs. Programs and issues developed by the ICO are reviewed by the Fed- eral Council and appropriate recommendations are made. ‘Thus, the advice of the ICO is available directly to me as Chairman of the Fed- eral Council and as Director of the Office of Science and Technology. This means that oceanography can be and is presented and discussed as a single Federal program in the Executive Office of the President. To the extent that a consensus can be reached among the participat- ing agencies involving new budgetary or policy matters, the Federal Council’s recommendations are implemented directly by agency action. Otherwise, its recommendations are implemented within the agencies by persuasion from the Office of Science and Technology, in concert with the Bureau of the Budget. The other important Committee, besides the Federal Council, that exists to give advice to the President on activities in science and tech- nology, is the President’s Science Advisory Committee. The PSAC, as it is called, is composed of distinguished scientists and engineers selected from outside of Government on the basis of persona] scientific and technical achievements of the highest order. The Committee’s purpose is to make available to the President the very best scientific and technical advice in this country on such policies and programs as he might select. In addition, it is the Committee’s function to rec- ommend broad programs and policies and to anticipate problems which may face the President and the country in the future. In this regard there are now important scientific and technical ques- tions relating to the oceanographic program, and a panel of the Presi- dent’s Science Advisory Committee, the Panel on Oceanography, has been formed to study such questions. Over the course of the next 9 months the Panel will study the needs and opportunities and current activities in oceanography in order to recommend an improved pro- eram in terms of scientific merit, technological application, scientific and engineering leadership, and means whereby industrial, academic, and Federal resources can be jointly and effectively employed in this program. The Panel’s Chairman is Dr. Gordon MacDonald, a member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, a distinguished scientist who is currently the Deputy Director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics of the University of California. The Panel is com- posed of 10 other prominent scientists and engineers from universities, private institutions, and industry, who have taken an active part in NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Ds Fark public affairs and have a working knowledge and understanding of the Federal Government and its operations. I have dwelled at some length on the organization of the Executive Office for Scientific and Technical Affairs because, in my judgment, the organization is sound and has resulted in substantial progress in the last 5 years. I should interpolate that I also think it could be improved. Now I should like to turn to the various bills before this subcom- mittee. First, H.R. 2218, by the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lennon, and identical bills by Mr. Pelly, a member of the subcommittee, and Mr. Bonner, chairman of the committee, to provide for a comprehen- sive, long-range, and coordinated national program in oceanography. This bill is identical to H.R. 6994, introduced by Mr. Lennon in the 1st session of the 88th Congress, which was strongly supported in a letter from my predecessor, Dr, Wiesner, to Chairman Bonner in June 1963, and which subsequently passed the House in 1963. In my judgment this bill continues to represent the best approach to Federal management of oceanographic affairs. It clearly estab- lishes a national policy for oceanography, effectively fixes responsi- bility for achieving national goals, and provides for substantial con- trols in the program through annual reports to the Congress. I spoke favorably of the bill before this subcommittee a little over a year ago. IT commented favorably on H.R. 2218 in a letter to Chairman Bonner in February of this year. And I continue to support this bill which establishes prudent policies and procedures for achieving a compre- hensive, yet coordinated, long-range program in oceanography. I can suggest no essential improvements to this excellent bill. Second, H.R. 921, by Mr. Wilson, to establish a National Oceano- eraphie Agency. This bill would create an independent agency, to which functions relating to oceanography would be transferred from a large number of existing agencies. I donot believe this bill provides a satisfactory solution, because it would centralize in a single agency many aspects of oceanography which must and should be carried on by many agencies of the Federal Government if they are to discharge their statutory responsibilities. An arbitrary divorce of oceanography from the agencies would break an essential intellectual link the program now has with other Federal programs, which, in the long run, would tend to cause ocean- ography to be less responsive and less efficient in supporting the pro- grams and purposes of the Federal Government. I believe that re- tention of the major base for oceanography in the programs of the various agencies is sound and should continue. It would be a mistake in principle to attempt to centralize in a single agency the great bulk of the work which is carried on most effectively and most properly in alliance with the missions of the several agencies involved. Third, H.R. 5654, by Mr. Fascell, and identical bills by Mr. Fulton, Mr. Hanna, and Mr. Huot, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes and to establish a National Oceanographic Council. As I noted earlier, the President has had available since 1959, through the Federal Council for Science and Technology, a means of coordinating and planning Government-wide activities relat- ing to oceanography. The functions of the proposed National Ocean- 278 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION ographie Council would largely duplicate those of the Federal Council and the ICO with respect to oceanography, and whether they could be performed more effectively by the proposed council is not clear. The proposed Council would supersede the effective linkage of ocean- ography with the Federal Council structure. Moreover, this bill raises a general question relating to the structure of the executive branch for dealing with questions of science policy. Whereas, the Office of Science and Technology was created with the concurrence of the Congress to advise the President on matters relat- ing to science and technology and to coordinate the activities of the Federal agencies, this bill raises in principle the desirability of estab- lishing a series of national councils which report directly to the President. This means of organizing to deal with problems of science and tech- nology would pose complicated problems for both the President and the agencies themselves. For these reasons, I cannot recommend enactment of the bill. Fourth, H.R. 6457, by Mr. Ashley, to provide for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated program in oceanography. In many re- spects this bill is similar to the one discussed above, except that the National Oceanographic Council would be placed administratively in the Office of Science and Technology. From an organizational viewpoint, this would create an impractical arrangement—a council within an office the heads of which both report directly to the Pres- ident, and a staff within a staff in the Office of Science and Technology. In addition to these deficiencies rooted in basic concepts, it would be clearly undesirable to have a representative of the Office of Science and Technology, with general policy responsibilities, serve as a mem- ber of a national council which 1s to advise the President as an advocate of a single specialized area of science and technology. Fifth, H.R. 5884, by Mr. Rivers, and an identical bill by Mr. Keith, to provide a program of marine exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf and to establish a Marine Explora- tion and Development Commission. As I pointed out at the Maryland Governor’s Conference about 1 year ago, the Continental Shelves, which are most accessible to exploration, have not yet been mapped geolog- ically, which would be important from the viewpoint of the economic development of marine resources envisioned in this bill. We have begun, however, to explore the Continental Shelf sys- tematically in terms of its oceanographic characteristics and natural re- sources. During fiscal year 1965, about 20 percent of the total Fed- eral effort in oceanography was devoted to Continental Shelf studies. A systematic survey of the geological and geophysical characteristics of the east coast Continental Shelf and slope, supported by the U.S. Geological Survey, is now roughly 70 percent complete. I would not like to give the impression that we feel we are doing everything just right; however, with two agencies—Commerce and Interior—with responsibility for marine surveys and resource manage- ment, respectively, [ expect a more concerted effort will be made to prepare for the economic development of these offshore areas. With respect to the bill itself, I have several reservations: First, that it would be premature to enact such a bill at this time when the extent of legal problems related to resource recovery from this area NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 279 has not been clarified. Secondly, there is a question also whether the provision of funds to industry, as provided for by the bill, is a neces- sary or proper function of the Federal Government at this time. Finally, owing to the large number of existing cominittees, commis- sions, and councils, if any “of the functions proposed in the bill are established in law, serious consideration should be given to placing them under the general jurisdiction of a major agency or department, which is already performing similar or identical functions. Sixth, H.R. 7849, by Mr. Teague, to provide for the economic de- velopment of the aa mental Shelf and to establish a National Ocean- ographie Council. This bill is essentially a combination of the defi- nition, objectives, policy, and functional features of H.R. 5654 and the features of H.R. 5884. For the reasons outlined in my previous re- marks on these bills, I cannot recommend enactment of H.R. 7849. Seventh, H.R. 9064, by Mr. Rogers, a member of this subcommittee, and identical bills by Me Reinecke, Mr. Hanna, and Mr. Downing, to establish a National Commission on Oceanography. The obj ective of the Commission, to make a comprehensive investigation and study of all aspects of oceanography in order to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national oceanographic program that wil! meet the pres- ent and future national needs is clearly an important one. It is es- sentially the same, however, as that of the President’s Science Advis- ory Committee’s Panel on Oceanography that I mentioned earlier. Owing to the similar purposes of the two study groups, I cannot recommend enactment of H.R. 9064 at this time. Nevertheless, I recog- nize the possibility that there might be a need for a commission on oceanography at a later date. T have asked the Panel on Oceanography to report to the President's Science Advisory Committee in the spring of 1966—and, I might say, to present interim reports in the meantime—at which time a more in- formed and reliable judgment can be made on this point and on the composition and mission of any commission which might be established. Eighth, H.R. 5175, by Chairman Lennon, to provide for the study of legal problems relating to the management, use, and control of natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. Although I am not personally familiar with specific legal problems in connection with the management of marine resources, I believe there are unresolved legal questions relating to ownership rights of these resources. If a lecal study such as proposed by the bill were to be initiated, in view of the mission of the Department of the Interior for resource manage- ment, it would seem more appropriate that the study be sponsored ‘by that department. In summary, let me say that my reservations concerning these bills relate not to purposes, in general, that seek to establish a vigorous and efficient oceanographic program in the national interest. I am in accord with these purposes. The central issue is how these purposes can best be accomplished. Tt seems to me there is no practical alternative to the administration of oceanography by interagency cooperation. Except for the National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution, the Federal agencies are not interested i in oceanography as a science, except as it supports their mission. They need the varied kinds of information 280 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION provided by the activities encompassed in the word “oceanography” to accomplish their practical purposes. In fact, this link to the missions of the agencies makes the oceanographic program productive and viable and responsive to the national needs. On the other hand, several agencies frequently need the same infor- mation, in which case only one of the agencies needs to obtain it. The information collected by a single agency must thus be made available to all agencies and to the scientific community and to industry, as well. In the final analysis, it is the variety of goals and activities that generates the need for coordination. All changes in organiza- tional structure that I have ever encountered only change the inter- faces across which coordination must occur. For reasons mentioned earlier, your bill, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2218, in my opinion, represents the best general approach to the complex problem of coordination of oceanography—an area of science and technology of significance to the economic, military, and social prog- ress of this country. I would like to recommend its enactment. Thank you very much, and I will be pleased to answer whatever questions Tcan. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Casey ? Mr. Casry. Doctor, I would like to try to get oriented in my own raind on the various offices and agencies that we have here and how they coordinate. If one is tops, which one, and so forth. Now, we start out with what now, the Federal Council for Science and Technology ? Dr. Hornic. I do not think it is as complicated as it often sounds. There is the Office of Science and Technology, which is responsible to the President. On the one hand, it has the Federal Council of Science and Tech- nology, which is the arm that reaches into the Government departments and agencies as an advisory mechanism for the President. On the other hand, there is the President’s Science Advisory Com- mittee, which reaches out into the scientific and technical community to get advice from outside the Government, So, from the two sides these funnel through OST, which provides the statf responsible to the President. Mr. Casry. Now OST is appointed by the President, is that correct ? Dr. Hornta. No, the Office of Science and Technology is an Execu- tive Office, which was established by the Reorganization Act No. 2 of 1962. Mr. Cassy. You are the Director of that? Dr. Hornie. Lam the Director of that. Mr. Casny. And you are appointed by the President ? Dr. Hornig. Iam appointed by the President. Mr. Cassy. Do you have a staff to assist you, and your prime pur- pose is to advise the President on the programs and so forth based on the information you get from these other two, is that correct ? Dr, Hornie. I have an independent responsibility to advise and assist the President on matters affected by or pertaining to science and technology, and I utilize these other two mechanisms to discharge that responsibility. Mr. Casrny. Now, is ICO an arm of OST? Dr. Hornig. There are 11 members on the Council. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 281 The Federal Council was established by Executive order in 1959 and it is composed of the top ranking person who is concerned with scien- tific and technical matters in each of the agencies. Mr. Casry. How many are on that Council now ? Dr. Hornig. There are 11 members on the Council. Mr. Casey. There are how many, sir? Dr. Hornic. Eleven. Mr. Casry. Is that number set by statute or who determines who belongs to the Council ? Doyouknow? I donot. Dr. Hornic. The Federal Council was established by Executive order and not by statute, and the number was prescribed at that time. Mr. Cassy. Does the President appoint the members of this Council ? Dr. Hornic. No, the members of the Council are appointed by each of the agencies represented. Mr. Casry. Who determines which agency shall be represented ? Is that determined by that Executive order? Do you recall ? Dr. Hornic. Let me recount the agencies for you. Mr. Cassy. Put that in the record later on, will you, as to the agen- cies and how the membership on the Council is determined. (The following material was subsequently supplied for the record :) The Federal Council for Science and Technology was established by Execu- tive Order 10807 of March 13, 1959, which provides that: The Council shall be composed of the following designated members: (1) the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, (2) one repre- sentative of each of the following named departments, who shall be designated by the Secretary of the department concerned and shall be an official of the department of policy rank; the Departments of Defense, the Interior, Agri- culture, Commerce, and Health, Education, and Welfare, (3) the Director of the National Science Foundation, (4) the Administrator of the National Aero- nauties and Space Administration, and (5) a representative of the Atomic Energy Commission, who shall be the Chairman of the Commission or another member of the Commission designated by the Chairman. A representative of the Secretary of State designated by the Secretary and a representative of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget designated by the Director may attend meetings of the Council as observers. Mr. Casey. You are Chairman of the Council; are you not ? Dr. Hornie. That is right. Mr. Cassy. Now then, the President’s Science Advisory Committee. Do you recall how it was created ? Dr. Hornic. Yes; it was created by action of the President. Mr. Casey. Now, it, I believe you said, was composed of 10 members ? Dr. Hornic. No; the President’s Science Advisory Committee is composed of 17 members, all appointed by the President. Mr. Casry. Excuse me. Dr. Hornice. The 10 referred to the number of members of the Panel on Oceanography, which was established by the President’s Science Advisory Committee. Mr. Casny. Now, the Chairman of that Panel is, you stated, Dr. Gordon MacDonald ? Dr. Hornic. That is correct. Mr. Casry. The Advisory Committee, does it operate its own shop ? In other words, it has set up this separate Committee on Ocean- PAOINE Are you a member also of this Science Advisory Commit- tee ¢ Dr. Hornic. I am Chairman of the Science Advisory Committee. 53-367—65—19 282 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Casry. Isee. You are Chairman of it also. Dr. Hornic. Yes. Mr. Cassy. Yes. Now, are there—of these 17 that are on the Advisory Committee, besides yourself, are they all outside of Government, or are there some others like you who are both inside the Government and outside? Dr. Hornic. They are all outside of the Government except myself. Mr. Casry. Do you have the list of the 10 men that are on this Com- mittee chaired by Dr. MacDonald ? Dr. Hornic. Yes, 1 do. Would you like me to read that ? Mr. Casey. Yes; I think it would be interesting. Dr. Hornic. Besides Dr. MacDonald, there is Dr. Douglas Brooks from the Travelers Research Center; Dr. Robert Charpie from the Unicen Carbide Corp.; Dr. Robert Fleagle from the Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington; Dr. Finn J. Larsen, director of engineering, Minneapolis Honeywell, Inc.; Dr. William D. McElroy, chairman, Department of Biology of Johns Hopkins Uni- versity ; Dr. John Meyer, Department of Economics, Harvard Univer- sity; Dr. Walter Munk, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Univer- sity of California; Dr. Jack P. Ruina, Institute for Defense Analyses; Dr. Henry Stommel, Woods Hole’s Oceanographic Institution; and Dr. Gerald B. Whitham, chairman of the Department of Applied Mathematics, California Institute of Technology. And they are as- sisted by these two gentlemen from my staff. Mr. Casry. How often does this panel meet? Do you have any idea? First, how often do they have regular meetings of the Science Advisory Committee? Dr. Hornig. The Science Advisory Committee is one of the hardest working groups in the Government. It has regular meetings 2 days a month. Most of its members normally spend 2 or 3 more days per month working with one or more of the panels on selected topics. I think on the average that members of the Science Advisory Com- mittee spend 45 to 50 days a year in the service of the President. Mr. Casry. Now, the 10 members on this Oceanography Committee, they are also members of the Committee—the Science Advisory Com- mittee? Is that correct ? Dr. Hornie. Only the Chairman, Dr. MacDonald and Dr. McElroy are members of the President’s Science Advisory Committee. Mr. Casry. In other words, they creat a. chairman, and does he select people to work with him ? Dr. Hornic. The Committee membership is normally determined through consultation between myself and the Chairman, yes. Mr. Casry. Well, I am just curious. What interest does Travelers have in oceanography ? Dr. Hornie. We normally select people not for what they represent, either by field or by institution. We try to avoid a conflict of interest, but we select people for their personal capabilities, and Dr. Brooks is a very able man who has been involved over a period of years with oceanographic programs. Mr. Casry. In other words, it just happens he is with Travelers ? Dr. Hornic. That is correct. Mr. Casry. And he is capable in this field ? Dr. Hornic. Yes. I should point out that this is a normal method of operation of the Science Advisory Committee. Its function is to NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 283 advise and assist the President on major national programs and issues. Among 17 members there can be reasonable dispersion, and there is, of expertise. But it cannot pretend to be expert on all topics, so that as it becomes deeply interested in programs which it thinks are impor- tant, the normal procedure has been to appoint a working panel of people selected to bring appropriate expertise into the area of concern: Mr. Casrny. Now, then the Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography, how was that established? Dr. Hornic. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography was established at about the same time as the Federal Council, because oceanography was considered to be one of the very important areas for coordination. That was in 1959. Mr. Casry. That was established by the Federal Council and it is responsible to the Federal Council, is that right ? Dr. Hornte. It is responsible to the Federal Council, that is correct, and its members are appointed by the agencies which are involved in the oceanographic program. Mr. Casry. How many members of that Committee ? Dr. Hornic. There are nine members of the ICO. Mr. Casry. Nine members. Do they also serve on the Council, or are these separate? They serve on the Federal Council? Dr. Hornic. No; none of them are members of the Federal Council. Mr. Casry. They are from nine different agencies, is that correct ? Dr. Hornte. Yes, sir—they are from Defense, Commerce, Interior, Atomic Energy Commission, the National Science Foundation, the Treasury, Smithsonian Institution, and State. Mr. Casry. Are these same agencies represented on the Council? Dr. Hornic. Substantially. There are some on the Council that are not represented here. Mr. Casey. I understand that, because you only have nine members. But I want to know if those nine agencies on the interagency com- mittee are also represented on the Council. Dr. Horntc. Treasury has no member on the Council, nor does the Smithsonian Institution. Mr. Casry. This ICO being a creature of the Federal Council, do they work independently or do they work on problems at the direction of the Council, or just what is their system? Do they have a system ? Dr. Hornic. I would suggest that since I am being followed by Secretary Morse, who is Chairman of the Council, he can describe its operation somewhat better than I can. Mr. Casry. I will wait for him then. Are you satisfied with the information you get from ICO? Let me ask you that. Dr. Hornie. I think the ICO has done an excellent job, particularly in assembling information, in transferring information between agencies, and in coordinating the programs of agencies. I might say, though, it has the problem which is inherent in all interagency com- mittees, that it is very difficult for an interagency committee to develop. any strong critical faculty as regards the activities of any of its. members. Mr. Casry. Well, frankly, is ICO nothing more or less than a review committee and reporting committee to the Federal Council? They cannot make any plans or formulate any programs, can they ? 284 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Dr. Hornic. Oh, yes. They have done very substantive things. For instance, they have coordinated the ship operating schedules of all of the agencies that operate oceanographic vessels, so that every- one knows whose ship is going where and when. In that way both from within and without the Government, people can secure berths on those ships when they have measurements to make, when another agency’s ships might be appropriate, or when outside people wish to utilize our Government’s ships. Mr. Casry. What I mean is, ICO could not come up and say, “Well now, we think the next thing we should do * * *” and pin a partic- ular project that has not been initiated. Let us say there is one— and say, “All right, we want so much money for this.” Can they do that or do they do that? Dr. Hornic. The ICO assembles each year—I will be glad to give you a copy—a booklet, in which they assemble the plans and budgetary programs of all of the agencies. In the process of doing that, they also describe the substance of the oceanographic programs. Mr. Casey. It is a reporting proposition, but what I mean, is it a planning agency? Is it one that does say what the National Aeronau- tics and Space Administration says? Now, we are going to plan and suggest or request or demand that certain agencies include something in their program, or do they just operate as a reporting and coordinating agency for ships’ operations? Dr. Hornic. Again, I think Secretary Morse can spell this out in more detail, but they have prepared a series of reports which make recommendations. They are just in the process of completing one on underseas vehicles for oceanography which will make recom- mendations with regard to the program for deep submersibles. Mr. Casey. They will make recommendations to whom? The Federal Council? Dr. Hornic. Their reports will be publicly available, and it will be available to me and to the Congress. Mr. Casey. I know, but making a report. I am talking about how will it get started? Does the ICO start it, or do they make this report public? That is true, but is the Congress supposed to take that report and grab it, or is someone supposed to put that particular item in their budget ? Dr. Hornic. The report must be implemented in the budget. In some cases, once the agencies have been involved in developing the recommendations, they are easily included in the agency programs. In other cases, this requires some persuasion on my part. Mr. Casrey. Then if the agency gets to the authorization committee or the Appropriations Committee and they have to cut down on their funds, why then they are in trouble, are they not? Dr. Hornie. Yes, sir. Mr. Casey. If, say, the Defense Department—and you have some- thing the Armed Services Committee or the armed services section of the Armed Services Committee deems more important, they are out? Dr. Hornte. That is right. I might also point out that this happens in Space. There are not nearly as many agencies involved, but the NASA has one authorization committee and the Department of De- fense another, for example. Mr. Casey. Yes; I am on the Space Committee. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 285 Dr. Hornic. Yes. So, the difference is not so much in principles. Here there are four or five major agencies involved in the program. Mr. Casry. Now, you listed some of the accomplishments in the past 5 years and I agree with you there. We want to see some more, if we can, and weare trying to be helpful. Incidentally, what is the budget of the ICO? Dr. Hornig. The ICO has no independent budget of its own. It operates with staff members provided by the agencies. Mr. Casey. One item you listed, laboratories built for underwater living, for divers to perform useful work on the sea floor for pro- longed periods of time at great depth. How many such laboratories do we have? Dr. Hornic. Sea Lab 1 has been built, and the second is just now nearly operational. The answer is two. Mr. Casry. I beg your pardon. Dr. Hornic. One has been in operation and the second is entering cperation now, so there are two. Mr. Casry. Where is one operating? Dr. Hornic. The first one operated off Bermuda, and the second will operate off Scripps in California. Mr. Casey. How long has one been in operation ? Dr. Hornic. The first one operated for about a week. Mr. Casey. You mean I week’s operation is all we have had on this No. 1 Sea Lab; is that correct ? Dr. Hornic. Dr. Morse, can I turn to you on Sea Lab, this being a Navy program. Dr. Morse. I think the week really refers to the length of time the people were—the swimmers were actually in the lab. Of course, the program continued over a long period. In fact, the program is con- tinuing. The Sea Lab 2, the length of time that the aquanauts will be down will hopefully be as long as a month. That is, this is limited by es- sentially projected endurance of people and the objectives of the program. But the program as a whole is a continuing program. Mr. Casey. The 1 week that is referred to is the longest period that they have stayed down during: Dr. Morse. That the swimmers did stay down. Mr. Casey. To what depth ? _ Dr. Morse. That was about 193 feet for No. 1, and Scripps, I think, 1s 215. The temperature of the water is considerably colder at Scripps, so I think the demands on the swimmers are much greater than it was off Bermuda. Mr. Casey. Are these both 1 and 2 now, being operated by the Navy ? Dr. Morss. They both are Navy operations, yes. Mr. Casey. Well now, are the data that are being acquired for de- fense purposes, or is it supposed to be for all types of experiments? Dr. Morsr. No, sir. In fact, many of the participants in the pro- gram are from a great many of the other agencies and from organiza- tions such as the Scripps Institution, it is all unclassified. In fact, the report will be a public report. There is already a preliminary report on Sea Lab 1, and it is unclassified. QS86 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Casry. Have there been any Madison Avenue “new approach” in letting the public know about this? Is there a movie on this? ' Dr. Morss. Yes, sir. There has been a movie. We try our best to ‘publicize it. There was a dedication of the Sea Lab 2 early in July. In fact, I participated in it at Long Beach. We have tried to—and I think there was a good deal of press attention. I think I saw some- thing last night in the Washington paper about the program. Mr. Casry. Does any other country have a similar operation ? Dr. Morssr. Not that I know of, sir. Mr. Casey. Is that not kind of a first for us? Dr. Morse. I agree. Tam sorry. I think that Cousteau had similar kinds of operations wire people have worked and lived for some time in underwater plants. Mr. Casry. Was this all Government financed ? Dr. Morsr. Yes, sir. Mr. Casry. Was it Navy built? Dr. Morsr. Yes, sir; it was built at the Long Beach Naval Ship- yard, but the actual container, which is of course a nonpropelled large cylindrical chamber where as many as, I believe, 15 people can live and maintain themselves in gaseous atmosphere at that depth and then emerge to do work and swim. There will be doctors down there, there is a whole series of biolog- ical—that is, first experiments dealing with swimmers and then ex- periments outside, the nature of the activities that they will be under- going while they are there. The Scripps Institution is also testing out equipment. I think there ‘are a great many organizations testing out equipment, both for swim- mers and for work under the water using the Sea Lab 2 as a mechanism for evaluating this equipment. Mr. Casry. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take any more time and let somebody else have an opportunity now. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Casey. Mr. Mosher ? Mr. Mosuer. Mr. Chairman, at this time I do not think I have any significant questions. It seems to me that Dr. Hornig has made his position crystal clear concerning the legislation before us and I as- sume he speaks for the President in this matter. Is that right. Are these the Presidential recommendations, Dr. Hornig? mat bef Dr. Hornic. They are the recommendation of the administration. Mr. Mosuer. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Rogers? Mr. Rocrr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, your testimony has been helpful and I do think we have made some progress. I think the ICO has done a good job. I think your office has. But I have a feeling that we still have not approached oceanography with the urgency which so many of us in Congress are feeling and have felt for the last number of years, particularly since this committee passed the bill, as you reported your predecessor had supported. : i T am concerned about the whole approach and this feeling that we must adhere to the present setup rather than being, I think, more NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 287 open minded and starting out on a new approach that we have used in other fields. I do not know that it is the one, but I think probably we do not know and we need a good study made now. Now, I notice some of your testimony before the Senate. One of your statements in your testimony there was about these Federal agen- cies and these are your words: “Each of these Federal agencies is not interested in oceanography as such, or for the sake of oceanography itself, but rather for little specific missions they may have.” This causes me concern. That we have so splintered, in your own words, this effort, that we really have not centered the emphasis on oceanography itself in advancing this provram. And you point out in your testimony there, as I think you have here, that one of the problems is that we have all these Federal agencies, that each has a specific mission that they want to accomplish, and they are the ones that put in the budgetary requests, just as you brought out in the discussion with Mr. Casey. That the Secretary of Commerce puts in his budget, and if it has to be cut, why he has to decide whether he is going to cut oceanography, because he does not have a primary in- terest in oceanography, just as you have said. And this is under- standable. So we shift it over to the ICO. Well, what is the ICO but the representative of the man that appointed him and so, to a certain extent, is 1t not true tht he has to reflect the views of his department ? Dr. Hornte. I think this is one of the major problems in the [CO— that individuals plainly must represent the views of their department. This is why we turn to the outside for some dispassionate criticism of our programs. Mr. Rogers. Yes. From the ICO it then goes to your two commit- tees, I presume, and there you have an in-house group look at it and an outside group look at it, as I understand it. Now then, who actually makes the decision? Is it going to be you or the department head or who will it be, or the Budget? Dr. Hornitc. I would like to, if I may, say a few words of general philosophy, because these problems are not peculiar to oceanography. There is no unitary area of effort we can call oceanography, so what we talk about as splintering occurs in every one of the major scientific areas because the Government is organized to serve major public purposes. For example, the Department of the Interior has a general respon- sibility for the development of our resources. Mr. Rogers. That is right, and they undoubtedly may say, “If would rather built roads.” Then what do you say? The ICO said, “We want some research done on fisheries. We are getting behind in our fish- eries problem.” Dr. Hornig. In that case, we discuss the problem with the agency involved and the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Rogers. Does the Secretary still have the right not to include it in his request ? Dr. Hornic. Yes. The initiative in the end comes from the Sec- retary. Mr. Rocrrs. Why, of course, so this makes a problem for you and I can understand your problem, and I think you have done a magnifii- cent job so far, but these are some of the problems we are trying to get I8s NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION at in these hearings, and I am hesitant to go too far, but I do think that we have not used enough imagination yet from the agency deal- ing with this problem, or even from the Office of Science and Technology. Not particularly you, but the whole approach. I realize you have many other problems that you have to devote your time to than just oceanography. What would you say is the percentage of time you can devote to this program ? Dr. Hornice. Only a small percentage. Mr. Rocers. Certainly. I can understand that. You have a staff of how many? Twenty? Dr. Hornie. I have a staff of 20 professionals. Mr. Rogers. How many of those devote their full time to oceanog- raphy? Two? Dr. Hornie. The two we have here. Only one of them is perma- nent, however. Mr. Rogers. So we have one man devoting his full time for the President, really, to coordinate all of this activity. It essentially has to come to this one man to advise you on whether you have to go to the Secretary or the Bureau of the Budget on what you want to do. He has to.screen this for you, does he not, this one man ? Dr. Hornic. This is correct. I should also point out, however, that this problem recurs in many areas. Mr. Rogers. I do not know we are doing so well in a lot of other areas. I will not get into that. I am not going to excuse what we are not doing in oceanography, because we may not be doing some- thing in another area. I do not think that is what you meant, but I do not think that should be used as an argument. Dr. Hornic. I did not mean that, but the problem I was getting at exists in each area. There is the question of the value of one par- ticular part of the program, such as oceanography in relation to the rest of what we do. I think there is a valid question as to what the balance should be between the pursuit of undersea resources and land resources. I asked the Geological Survey once how much gold there was in the crust under the continental United States within the depth of mining, and the answer was “several trillions of dollars.” But, of course, this does not do us any good. Most of it is not economically available. So, a balance must be achieved both within oceanography and with respect to the rest of our Federal programs and our national needs. I would be the first, though, to agree that we must do more, and we can do it better. This is why we are currently pushing hard in this area. Mr. Rogerrs. I realize that is your position. Dr. Hornie. I would like to say that I do not think the central problem at the moment is as much organizational, as trying to define clearly what our purposes and goals are, what the substance of the national effort should be. Mr. Rogers. How are we going to come to that determination? Dr. Hornic. This is the problem I have asked the PSAC Panel to concentrate on, and they are working hard at this moment. They are visiting many of the sites and trying to get a clear picture of what is worthwhile and what is possible in the country. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Press) Mr. Rogers. Do you not think it would actually be advisable to put this on a level where we have a national commission, appointed by the President, to give it great stature and great acceptance by the public, by the Congress and the executive branch rather than doing, in effect, an in-house study ? Do you now think it would be helpful to you in setting some national goals to give a greater impact on the Congress and people to move into this now, not that you should not go ahead with the study you are doing, but to actually set up a commission to have the wide range to set national goals and to go into all of the problems? Why would this not be a good thing to do now?) Why wait until spring of 19662 We know it has to be done. Do you have any real objections to it ? Dr. Hornic. No, I did not offer any real objections to the commis- sion. I think this is a matter of judgment. I think my own position is that at this time I can get more concentrated effort out of this Panel than from a commission, but this is a matter of judgment. Mr. Rogers. Now, let me ask you about this Panel just a little. What is its charter ? Dr. Hornie. Its terms of reference are not substantially different from those of the proposed commission. Mr., Rocrrs. Have you written it down? Is it written down? Could you quote it for us, give us its charter ? Dr. Hornie. I can give you the initial terms of reference. We nor- mally give any such Panel a free hand to develop its investigation as it sees the problems more clearly. Mr. Rocers. Yes. Dr. Hornic. But I would be glad to read it to you. Mr. Roesrs. If it is not too long, then you could put it in the record. Just summarize the major points that you put in that charter. Dr. Hornic. As I said, it is a rather informal charter, but the Panel will address itself to the following general issues: 1. What are reasonable goals of an oceanography program ? 2. Are the current and planned programs in oceanography scien- tifically and technically sound, adequate in scope, sound in concept, and adequitely funded and organized to achieve these goals? 3. Between these programs and the goals what are the outstanding opportunities for research, exploration, and practical accomplishment of oceanography during the next 5 years? 4. How can the scientific and engineering leadership in oceanogra- phy be improved ? Within the context of these general questions, particular attention should be devoted to the following: 1. The internal consistency of the fiscal 1967 oceanographic pro- gram im terms of objectives, programs, priorities, available resources, quality, and future plans. 2. The need for substantive, new scientific and technological pro- grams and priorities to progress toward established goals. 3. The optimum balance between capital investment and research and exploration programs during the next 5 years. 4. The need and priority for new facilities, including ships, sub- mersibles, platforms, buoys, systems, shore facilities and data-han- dling facilities during the next 5 years. 290 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 5. The optimum balance among Government, university, and indus- try participation in the oceanographic program. 6. The relative emphasis on Continental Shelf and oceanwide surveys. 7. The availability of scientists and engineers to plan and conduct a program of high quality. I remind the committee that one of the biggest. problems has been the development of scientific manpower in oceanography. 8. The compatibility of the Federal agencies’ requirements for deep sea research vehicles and an oceanographic forecasting system, 9. The degree to which oceanographic programs of the several Fed- eral agencies are, in fact, mutually supportive. This is, as I said, the basis from which they started. As they pro- ceed, they may identify items which are not included and broaden their scope. ‘They may, in fact, find special problems. They may establish special ad hoc subcommittees to investigate particular prob- lems for them. Mr. Rocrrs. As I understand it, they will meet for 9 months? Dr. Hornic. Well, they will meet during the course of 9 months; yes. Mr. Rocrrs. I understand, but this is the period they are to make this study. Dr. Hornic. I have asked for a report by the spring of 1966. Mr. Rogers. Spring of 1966. How often do they actually meet, once a month? Dr. Hornic. They were constituted in May. They have had one 2-day meeting. They will have another 2-day meeting in Woods Hole in August. Mr. Rocrrs. Is this about once a month? Dr. Hornte. I think about once a month is the normal schedule; yes. Mr. Rogers. So, over the period of time maybe they will have had how many meetings, would you say? Once a month? Well, they have only had two to date, or one to date? Dr. Hornic. I would expect their total time is likely to amount to about 2 to 4 days a month for 9 months, until the report. Whether they continue after that depends upon the nature of the report. I, myself, am not enthusiastic about continuing committees, Mr. Rogers. I understand. I agree with you. Now, what about their staff? What staff do they have? Dr. Hornic. Their staff is provided by my office, and we will recruit whatever additional staff they need. Mr. Rocers. What is that now? Dr. Hornte. At the moment that is two men. Mr. Rocers. They have two men ? Dr. Hornia. Yes. Mr. Rogers. And who are those men ? Dr. Hornic. They also have the assistance of the ICO. Mr. Rocrrs. How many men does that provide? Dr. Hornig. The ICO does not provide a permanent staff to them, but the data-handling and staff capabilities of the ICO are available to them. Mr. Rogers. I presume the whole Government is available to them, not just ICO? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 291. Dr. Hornig. That is correct. Mr. Roaers. I am talking about personnel. You have two men. Who are the two men ? Dr. Hornig. Dr. Menard and Mr. Fry. Mr. Rocrrs. But there is no permanent staffman that works with them all the time? I presume you have some of the work done by these gentlemen working with ICO, with the governmental depart- ments on their programs ? Dr. Hornie. No; Dr. Menard came to the office from Scripps to work on this particular problem. Mr. Rocrrs. Well, does he devote all of his time to it ? Dr. Hornic. Yes. Mr. Rocrrs. Nothing else ? Dr. Hornic. Nothing else. Mr. Rocrrs. Well now, who is going to advise you on the ICO pro- grams when he is devoting all of his time to this panel study ? Dr. Hornig. I have great confidence in Secretary Morse. Mr. Rocrrs. Well, lam sure of that. I do, too, but then—have other duties been assigned the ICO and the Navy—in the Navy, as I under- stand it, is that true? Dr. Hornig. I do not think there has been any great problem in getting recommendations from the ICO into my office. Mr. Rocers. I am talking about a conflict. Do you have time to go into the details of the program? I presume that is what you have: your assistant for, where there is a conflict between agencies as to what they want to do, about what the Budget feels, and I would think you. have to go into some detail and make a scientific evaluation. I pre- sume that.is so. Dr. Hornic. Dr. Menard has come to spend the year on the national oceanographic program and this, in fact, includes the ICO as well as the panel. Ishould have stated this more correctly. Mr. Rocrrs. He is going to do both then ? Dr. Hornic. He is going to do both. Mr. Roeers. Then, we do not have any staffman full time for the study ? Dr. Hornie. That is correct. Mr. Rocrrs. I am not trying to be embarrassing. JI am trying to point up why I think it is necessary for use to have a full commission with a full staff to do this study. Now, let me ask you this. In looking over the personnel of your commission, your study group or panel, I notice that it is dominated by university people pretty much. In fact, I do not even see a lawyer on here, and I feel that we have some legal problems involved in this whole program. Are we going to make a study on that at all? Is that to be included ? Dr. Hornie. You are absolutely correct that there are legal prob- lems and I do not think the panel is either competent to study or was it planned that they study the legal problems. Mr. Rogers. So we are leaving that out of your study ? Dr. Hornic. My study has for the moment exciuded the legal prob- ems. Mr. Roerrs. It seems to me this is something we need to do. Iam just trying to point up what is needed in a national commission to be helpful to you as the President’s scientific adviser. 292 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Now, let me ask this. I do not even see really any representative of Government on here, on your panel at all. Dr. Hornic. That is correct. The panel is drawn completely from outside of the Government so that it can comment objectively on the Government programs. Mr. Rocers. Does it include a study of industry, industry’s capa- bility and how it should be tied into the governmental view, or is this just to look at Government? Dr. Hornia. No, this is a study of industrial and academic capa- bilities as well as those of Government. The Government viewpoint is represented by ICO and the panel does not operate in isolation. Mr. Rogers. You mean, you do not think the Government, who is now spending what—$140-some-odd million, probably the major con- tributor to research in oceanographic matters, should not even be rep- resented on the panel that is going to formulate the national program ? Dr. Hornica. We have this in the ICO. Mr. Rogers. Now, I realize that. I am not talking about the ICO, I am talking about the study that you say is going to take the place of a national commission. And they do not even have a representa- tive of Government. We are the major one participant and yet we are not even having an advisor on there as how to direct the program or what we should do. Now, this seems to me to be a major omission. Would you not agree? For an overall study ? . Dr. Hornic. No, sir; I do not think I would agree, because in trying to evolve goals, this committee will work very closely with the ICO in reaching a conclusion. The Government will be very well repre- sented although it may not be formally represented on the committee. Mr. Rocers. Well, I learned in Congress long enough if you are not on the committee, your discussions often do not get very far. Have you found that in Government ? Dr. Hornic. I would not disagree with you. Mr. Rocers. Well, I will not pursue that point. Dr. Hornic. I think it might be helpful for you to address the same question to Dr. Morse, to see if he feels the Coveunmeene will not be adequately represented. Mr. Rogers. I do not think it is just a question of whether it is not adequate, it is just a fact that they are not on the panel that you having to study his problem, and we are probably the major activist in this whole field and for me, this is a very great oversight. So, I would hope that you could review with your assistants your position on the national commission and would encourage the President, as I certainly intend to do, and I hope the Congress will, and as I believe it will, the Senate has already passed the bill, as you know, including a commis- sion and I hope that we can do it to set some goals and to get moving on oceanography and not to divide it among the Government, where, as you say, none of the departments have a real, sincere interest in oceanography as a major portion of that program. I do think under the present setup you are doing a very fine job, Dr. Hornig, I am not trying to belittle your efforts in any way, or of the going group. I think ICO has been doing a fine job. I think it is time for us to get a commission to study the whole setup and to set some national goals with a wide range and not a specific little outside NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 293 group—I am sure all are fine men, but dominated by university peo- ple, Union Carbide, Minneapolis-Honeywell represented, but we need a broader representation and I think we definitely need it for Govern- ment to put forth what we should do and can be, and what the overall program should be. Thank you, Dr. Hornig. Thank you very much. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Keith? Mr. Kirn. I share a great many of the sentiments that appear to have motivated Mr. Rogers. Just to take as an example, the absence of the veto authority on the panel. You say on page 14 of your testimony with reference to my bill: With respect to the bill itself, I have several reservations; first, that it would be premature to enact such a bill at this time when the extent of legal problems related to resource recovery from this area has not been clarified. Secondly, there is a question also whether the provision of funds to industry, as provided for by the bill, is a necessary or proper function of the Federal Government at this time. Finally, owing to the large number of existing committees, commissions, and councils, if any of the functions proposed in the bill are established in law, serious consideration should be given to placing them under the general jurisdic- tion of a major agency or department, which is already performing similar or identical functions. There are, as you have recognized in your response to his questions, tremendous needs with reference to legal authority as to our exploita- tion of these resources. To have a continuing and informative or informed talent on the panel would be of help to you, I would think, in reaching conclusions as to how we are going to exploit these resources. Dr. Hornte. I should mention, Mr. Keith, that at the last panel meeting the panel itself worried seriously about this problem, and we will certainly take the comments made here most seriously. Mr. Kerru. With reference to the membership of the governmental representatives on the panel, inasmuch as the Government will be called upon to implement many of the conclusions that are reached, it would be helpful to have someone on the Government payroll that we coula from time to time call upon, someone who would have a con- tinuing interest in the panel. We do not want a continuing committee, but we do not want to have these reports just filed away, gathering dust. We want someone who knows from the Government point of view what our responsibili- ties are. I was a little surprised on this matter of public relations, as Mr. Casey pointed out, that you had really been aware of Cousteau’s efforts and success in publicizing the French talent in this respect. I think that we have to get a little bit—my wife does not like to have me use this word—of “sex appeal” into this program in order to sell it. You made a statement that there were several trillions of dollars, I think you said, worth of gold in the ocean. You did not know just where it was, or how easily it could be captured and used and exploited. But everybody, historically, is interested in gold—particularly at this time. You just sort of passed over that casually. If there is any chance of getting any gold out of “them there” depart- ments, we certainly should have a mission with that as a primary pur- pose, it seems to me. 294 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION I was also interested in the semantics when Mr. Rogers asked you about the mission or the charter of your panel. You did not want to exactly adopt his terms, you wanted to use the term “termographics,” which is not as imaginative, or as motivating as “roles and missions,” for example. We have to get things done. It has been my understanding that we have had this kind of panel for the past 3 years with almost similar responsibilities assigned to it; is that not so? Dr. Hornic. I should answer that the President’s Science Advisory Committee has been strongly interested in oceanography s nee the moment of its inception in 1957, and it has been one of the principal advocates of the early development of the oceanographic program. In the preceding 2 years we have had panels with a somewhat nar- rower objective of working with the ICO in reviewing the Federal programs. This panel now is meant to be much more imaginative, to accomplish a much broader examination than the previous panels. Mr. Kerru. Well, I hope it is more fruitful. In the charge that you gave to this panel I did not notice a great deal of attention to the question of economic return for industrial missions. You smile, I guess maybe you have a good answer on this one. Dr. Hornie. I appointed an economist to the panel with that very much in mind. Mr. Kerrn. Well, my bill calls for a very significant. role on the part of private enterprise and some determination of the responsibil- ity of Federal Government to help them in their initial efforts to ‘exploit these resources and I would hope that we would make every effort to think of this in terms of economics. Dr. Hornig. I would like to make clear that the possibility of economic return is to me one of the very central and major questions. In the one area in which there has been substantial economic return— oil and gas—from subsurface deposits, we have actually had a larger investment by private industry than is involved in the total oceano- graphic program, and I feel that if we can identify really valuable mineral deposits, we will find a considerable private involvement. . Mr. Kerrn. I have only been on this committee a short time, but I have attended hearings earlier insomuch as I was interested because of Woods Hole being located in my district, and it seems to be some- thing of the same old record year after year of our plans but really not much resolution of the discussions and how they can best be imple- mented. As Mr. Rogers pointed out, I do not want to repeat this to any great length, but it seems to be a collection of thoughts of your agencies with reference to oceanography rather than an exploitation of what we have possibly uncovered, and I would hope soon we could get into - something closer to the operational phase. With reference to your staff, it was my understanding that Mr. Fry is really a Navy officer, a line officer rather than primarily an oceanographer. Is that not so? Dr. Hornic. That is correct. Mr. Kerru. He is a commander in the Navy. Dr. Hornie. That is correct. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 295 Mr. Kerrn. That is where his salary comes from. Dr. Hornic. He came to work in my office in order that we could accelerate our activities prior to the time Dr. Menard could join us; we did not want to wait. Mr. Fry has been trained as an oceanographer and he has worked in the naval oceanographic program. Mr. Kerrn. He has had extensive training in oceanography ? Dr. Hornie. He has a master’s degree in oceanography. Mr. Kerrn. I appreciate that, but I do not necessarily buy that that makes him an oceanographer. Dr. Hornig. Could he describe for you his oceanographic expe- rience ? Mr. Kerra. What are your qualifications ? Mr. Fry. I was at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in 1951 and 1952, and obtained a master’s degree in oceanography at that time; subsequently, I served in a naval oceanographic ship involved in oceanographic surveys and research for a period of 2 years. I was at the Underwater Sound Laboratory where I was concerned as a project officer from 1957 to 1959 with the interrelationship of oceanography and underwater acoustics. I returned to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the Navy’s advanced science program for one year, 1959 through 1960, and did research under Dr. Raitt there on some problems involving the interrelationship of ocean- ography and underwater acoustics. Following that assignment I was with an operational destroyer flotilla of the Navy and then transferred to Washington on the staff of the Oceanographer of the Navy, where I served for 2 years. Mr. Kerru. I think that is.‘a good background and I trust the Navy is going to be smart enough to keep you in an area of activity where you can use this to the Navy’s advantage because I would hate to discover, as I often times do, people with a great deal of experience in southeast Asia being sent to Europe, when we need them over there, and I would hope we need oceanographers in the Navy that you would stay in that field. Mr. Fry. Thank you. Mr. Kerru. Have you read by chance the new book “The New Priesthood” ? Dr. Hornic. No, sir; Iam afraid I have not. Mr. Kerri. Have any of your staff, by chance? Dr. Hornic. No. Mr. Kaurru. It is reviewed in the current issue of the New York Times and it talks about—the review by the way is entitled “Is the New Mumbo-Jumbo Something To Feel ?” Dr. Hornic. Is this Dr. Lapp’s book? Mr. Kaurrn. Yes, it is and he says with reference to the Presidential Office of Science and Technology that it still suffers from excessive secrecy and thus lacks public responsibility and accountability. And I wondered if you would have any comment to make on that with reference to the questions that have been submitted to your Office or your Office sent to the ICO the so-called privileged but un- classified questions and answers which the ICO research had for your Office for the recent Woods Hole advisory meeting ? Are you familiar with those questions and answers ? Dr. Hornie. I do not think I would call our Office excessively secret. 296 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION I have not counted, but I think this is the 15th time this year that I have testified before various committees of the Congress about our activities. It is perfectly true that at times in trying to formulate points of view one conducts some discussions internally. Mr. Kerru. That is understandable. One final comment. You spoke with very glowing terms about the accomplishments of our Government in the field of oceanography and said that no other nation could compare with ours. Have you been briefed on what other nations have been doing in this area? Dr. Hornic. Yes, sir; I have gone into this very carefully. Mr. Kerru. And you feel we are way ahead of the Russians insofar as oceanography is concerned ? Dr. Hornic. I think we have better equipment and a better program. Mr. Kerru. And better personnel? Dr. Hornic. And better personnel. Mr. Kerrn. Considerably better ? Dr. Hornig, When you say, “considerably,” I think one has to define that, somewhat. Mr. Kerrn. Well, there is no oceanography gap? Dr. Hornic. No, sir; I think we have a big job to do, but I do not think that closing an oceanography gap is part of it. I think this is an area in which we have a good program, and I mentioned these points because I wanted to make it clear that. we have a good program. The problem we face is how to do much better, but we are leading the way right now. For example, no other nation to my knowledge has an oceanwide survey program. Mr. Kerru. I have to go to an executive session of another commit- tee and I regret that I cannot.stav and listen to further testimony from you or from Mr. Morse, but I do not think the Congress is quite as comfortable, as complacent or as satisfied with: our relative status, vis-a-vis, the Communists in this area,.as you are, and I think the testimony that has been offered, the questioning of the committee and the wide public interest as indicated by the large number of peo- ple who are attending these hearings that were held over in the caucus room indicates we have to go much farther much faster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Casey (presiding). Mr. Reinecke ? Mr. Retwecker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you, Dr. Hornig, for a very fine statement. It certainly has clarified a great: many misconceptions I had. You list accomplishments. Are these all. results of a Federal pro- gram or some of them based on industrial research ? Dr. Hornic. Some of them are industrial. Mr. Reinecke. It sounded to me that these were experiments on the part of oil companies and other concerns that were not related to the Federal program. Dr. Hornie. Yes, sir, but almost all of what J mentioned is derived from the Federal program. Mr. Reryecke. Over on the last page, you read the information col- lected by a single agency must thus be available to all agencies. Now, your text said—I wonder if this is sort of a freudian slip, you thought it was not being properly distributed but should be. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 2907 Dr. Hornte. It was not a freudian slip; I meant to emphasize the point in my text. Mr. Rernecket. You feel there is adequate intercommunication ? Dr. Hornice. Yes, I think there is excellent intercommunication. I think our problems exist not so much now in the areas of communica- tion and formal coordination as in the definition and setting of goals. Mr. Retnecke. You mentioned also in the text that you felt the advisory panel could be improved. Just what did you mean by that? Dr. Hornic. That was in reference to the ICO. The ICO has itself done a great deal of soul searching, but it experiences the difficulties of any interagency coordinating group. Mr. Retneckr. What I meant was, do you have any specific pro- posals or recommendations on how it could be improved. Obviously you Beene there is a need there, but how would you suggest that 1t e done? | Dr. Hornic. Ido not at the moment. The ICO itself has performed an evaluation and I have been waiting for their report before going over it with them. Mr. Retnecke. My overall impression of all of this, and as I say it has certainly clarified a great deal, it is that everybody is studying everybody else; we have a lot of advice but very little authority. Do you not feel this is what is really needed in the program—some sort of either single or combined authority which will put a single emphasis, so we do not find ourselves with a program headed by eight or nine different Secretaries? Dr. Hornic. This is an issue which has been discussed in connection with many different programs. When you consider the activities of the program there is considerable validity in it. The difficulty arises from the fact that the program has no single set of goals. It must serve many national purposes. For example, whether or not we had a single agency, the Navy would retain its responsibility to insure that it had the data it needed; for instance, for its submarine operations. In other words, there is a considerable area in which the scope and size of the program ought to be determined not by its relation to the oceanographic program, but in this case to the needs of national defense. In connection with fisheries, for example, the effort that ought to be devoted to research might not seem terribly important from the view- point of the oceanographic program as a whole. I would suggest that it should be determined in relation to the needs of our fisheries industry and our need for protein, rather than to ocean- ography conceived as a unified field. Mr. Rernecxe. Do you not feel, though, I am sure you do, that no Federal program moves that is not properly funded and in this case the oceanography seems to be on the tag end of all of the funds and budgets throughout some eight or nine ‘different agencies ? Would it make sense to you to have a single office that would repre- sent the $142 million that we speak of, and that then those moneys could in turn be transferred, if necessary, to the other agencies as it is needed. Tt seems to me we are not getting anywhere until we get somebody who is trying to get some money for this program. 53-367—65 —20 298 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Dr. Horntc. The funding of the program has, in fact, risen rapidly in the last 5 years. I think I would tend to ask now, “What impor- tant purposes are not currently being served ?” This is what we are trying to do. Mr. Retnecke. Do you feel that the funding is adequate down on a separate agency basis? Recognizing, as Mr. Rogers pointed out, that none of these Secretaries seem to have much of a real interest. Dr. Hornie. There are undoubtedly problems connected with the dispersion of the program, but these are also related to the fact that the Secretaries are responsible for achieving major national goals. I think that the central problem does not derive from the division of the funding, but from an inadequately clear definition of what it is we want to do. Mr. Rernecke. And who is working on that? Dr. Hornic. We are working on it. Mr. Retnecke. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon (presiding). Doctor, as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, and also Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, do you have a counterpart in one of the other major agencies of the Federal Government or departments of the Federal Government? Dr. Hornic. I do not suppose there is any precise counterpart; there is, of course, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering whose duties within DOD bear some resemblance to mine. In the Army, Navy, and Air Force there are assistant secretaries for research and development who have some of the same functions. There are science advisers in Interior and Agriculture. In the De- partment of Commerce there is the Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology. Mr. Reryvecke. That is the one I was coming to. Mr. Lennon. So you actually have at the Assistant Secretary level in the Department of Commerce, an Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology. What is the position in the Department of Com- merce if there is not a comparable justification in the Department of the Interior and in the Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare, not to mention a number of other agencies which participate in various facets of oceanography, whatever that relationship may be, and how diffused it may be? Dr. Hornie. Mr. Chairman, I think there is ample justification for a role similar to mine in each of the Government departments. There were no science advisers in any of the departments prior to the incep- tion of the President’s Science Advisory Committee, which was one of the earliest advocates of a diffusion of the responsibilities which were inherent in my office, and we have consistently urged the establish- ment of assistant secretarial positions for this purpose in other departments. Mr. Rernecxe. Now, it is just in the last 3 years that you had estab- ished in the Department of Commerce, the Office of Science and Technology; and that, too, was done under the reorganization plan, was it not ? I see heads being shaken in the negative. Dr. Horntc. I will have to check, I am not sure just how the as- sistant secretaryship was established. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 299 Mr. Lennon. By statute. I do not doubt your word at all, but I would like for counsel to check that. So, that being so, there was a recognition on the part of Congress for the necessity of the establishment, assuming it is a statutory creation that there was a recognition in the past 3 years, I do not recall that legislation, but I assume it is true, then there was a recognition of the Department of Commerce and the executive branch of the Government for the establishment in a central agency, like the Department of Commerce, for the Office of Science and Technology, to accomplish— at least for that Department to focus, if you please, of using the lan- guage of the Assistant Secretary, to focus the needs in the fields of science and technology that particularly related to oceanography. Were you here when he testified on the other day 4 Dr. Hornic. No, sir; [ am sorry I was not able to be present. Mr. Lennon. It was most interesting and helpful to some of us, and he described—if I recall—the areas in which oceanography could be defined. He said he meant by that the description and prediction of the physical properties of the agency. He said if other agencies could be designated for the years to come, in the field, I believe, as has been done in the field of meteorology; undoubtedly in the field of geodetic survey, that was probably the justification for the establishment in the Department of Commerce for that office. _ Since that office was established they have moved into the study of the Continental Shelf, and his testimony was last week to the effect that a contract had been signed for that express purpose. Let us assume that the Congress had not, by statute, moved that far; then I think we would all have to wonder and somewhat doubt if the Department of Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary for that particular characterization, would have moved in the direction of making a study of the Continental Shelf and its resources. I think you would find it very interesting to have him send you, Doctor, since he is in a sense a counterpart, though not in the Office of the President, and read his statement and we asked him some rather— not sharp questions, but probing questions and sought his advice as to whether or not by statute we ought to take these steps that he indi- cated, and he conceded that there might be a need for them. I cannot put my finger on the exact language that he used but I know that he referred to it specifically and categorically in his gen- eral statement and then under questioning by the Chair he was rather frank and it was refreshing to hear him say that there was a need in his judgment for statutory legislation that would fix the focus of attention on the two categories that he defined. Now let us talk about S. 944 just for a minute. It is my recollection from checking your testimony that you ap- peared there on February 19 of this year. I believe it was before the Committee on Commerce in the Senate, with the chairman of the full committee presiding, the Senator from Washington, Senator Magnuson. I notice that he made the statement before your testimony that he had the vote and the Senate in his judgment would have no trouble passing his bill, S. 944. 300 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION He laid the premises before you were even permitted to testify, they were going to pass that bill, they had the votes to do it. It turns out he did; they just passed it. You recall in addressing yourselves to that bill, not specifically but in reading your testimony which was rather short and sort of summarized. I do not think you said anything different in your statement today that you did not make before the Senate committee on February 19 of this year. But my recollection is that $.944 at that time when you were before the committee only provided for a national council which I believe was your top echelon in the various agencies in the Federal Government and then they were enumerated. Before the bill I think was finally reported out by the Senate Com- mittee on Commerce, it did include an advisory commission; is that. your recollection ? Dr. Hornig. I think so. Mr. Lennon. There are four bills pending before this committee— H.R. 5654, by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fascell; H.R. 6512, Mr. Fulton, of Pennsylvania; H.R. 7301 by Mr. Hanna, of California ; and H.R. 7998, by Mr. Huot and Mr. Hanna. My recollection is these bills are identical with the original draft of S. 944 that was being considered in the Senate committee at the time you testified. Have you changed, varied, or modified your position with respect to that bill since your testimony before the Senate in mid-February of this year? Dr. Hornic. No, sir; I do not think so. I think there are many excellent features in S. 944 in common with many of the bills here. The declared policies and purposes are valid national objectives, and I think the functions of the President’s Science Advisory Board are sound and essential. My main concern is whether a national council is the optimum orga- nization to perform these functions; in particular it raises in principle, the need for a whole series of national councils for each technological area. In some ways H.R. 2218 is a stronger bill because it enables the President to use such advisory arrangements as he might choose. I think my position is essentially unchanged. Mr. Lennon. Now, who represents the Department of Commerce ontheICO?% Doyou recall? \ Dr. Hornie. Admiral Karo. Mr. Lennon. How often does the ICO now meet, Doctor ? Dr. Hornie. I will have to turn to its Chairman. Mr. Morsr. Approximately once a month. Mr. Lennon. Could you be more specific. Everything seems to be on approximate basis. Dr. Hornic. It has met 11 times in the last year. Of course, it has numerous panels that Dr. Morse will describe, which meet to resolve particular problems. Mr. Lennon. On your staff you have approximately 20 persons ? Dr. Hornic. That is right. Mr. Lennon. When you appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee on February 19 you did not have a person on that staff of NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 301 20 who was in the oceanographic field or had a background in oceanog- raphy, did you? Dr. Hornig. That is correct. There was a gap between the time that Mr. Wenk, who is now in the Legislative Reference Service, left and Mr. Fry came aboard. Mr. Lennon. Now, who was his predecessor on your staff who was an experienced oceanographer? On your staff I am talking about. Dr. Hornie. Mr. Edward Wenk. Mr. Rernecxe. He left when? Dr. Horne. He let in the late fall of 1964. Mr. Lennon. Last year? Dr. Hornic. That is right. Mr. Lennon. And now the gentleman has just come aboard? Dr. Hornice. Mr. Fry joined my staff on May 10. Mr. Lennon. And he will devote, I believe I heard you say, sir, all of his time to the oceanographic program as it may be related to the different agencies represented on the ICO? Dr. Hornie. That is correct, sir. Mr. Lennon. That will be his full-time job? Dr. Hornie. That is correct, that has been his full-time job. Mr. Lennon. Doctor, as the editor of this magazine which gets out, I do not know whether you would call it a poop sheet or what- ve, it is, anyhow, I do not subscribe to it but I get it and I do read it. The editor of the Ocean Science News. Does he have any marine science background ? Dr. Hornic. The editor of which magazine? Mr. Lennon. The editor of the Ocean Science News, the world’s first business letter devoted exclusively to the ocean. Dr. Hornte. I do not know either his name or his background, I am sorry to say. Mr. Lennon. Maybe you do not get his letter. Maybe you ought to read it. Anyhow, I am going to read from it. [Laughter. | Because it is so frequently quoted both as a news item and so fre- quently incorporated in the editorials that people send to me and the other members of the committee. Tf am reading now from a quote from an editorial of August 2, let’s see if I can find it. Here it is. Apropos of nothing in particular except one man’s frustration, we quote the following outburst as pertinent to the proliferation of committees, panels, ‘soci- eties, study groups, et cetera, that tout themselves as the answer—all to the woes and aspirations of oceanography : “Oceanography in the United States is becoming one vast bureaucratic bowl of noodles. The only way to get anything done is to push one of the noodles and hope that the same one comes out at the other end.” Now, people who know, and I do not. know, I am a layman, but people in the field of oceanography, whether it is industry or Govern- ment, or the intellectual university level, they might understand that, but when the public reads it they say, well, I understand the Federal Government is spending $150-million-plus, annually. 302 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION I understand the Federal Government spent by fiscal 1966 three- quarters of a billion dollars in the last 5 years in oceanography ; those are your figures I recall from your testimony in the Senate. They say, yet, what is being done up there? Whose fault is it that we have the situation described by this so-called editorial—right or wrong, I do not know. I think this legislation that has been introduced both on the Senate side and on the House side is motivated by a public interest suddenly awakened by various and sundry things. You are colorful in describing the objectives you have obtained and the success we have had and the significant acceleration of the program in the last 5 years and I do agree with you, but apparently that is not enough. There is some gentleman down on Pennsylvania Avenue who said, “Come, let us reason together. Let’s see if we cannot reach a con- sensus on some of these bills because my guess is Congress is going to pass some bill.” I do not know whether it will be on a voice vote as it did in the Senate just a day or two ago. You may have a bill whether you like it or not, it may not be signed, but my guess is it will be under all the circumstances. I am asking you nov, sir, to confer with Dr. Hollomon, because he did make suggestions that to me made sense. I do not agree that we could centralize in a single agency the whole realm of science, meteorology, fisheries, and these other things, be- cause it simply cannot be done, in my judgment, but I do believe you are going to have to do as Dr. Hollomon suggested that we, by statute, centralize in at least two of these agencies the focus in those two areas that he defined and described in oceanography. That is the reason I want you to not only read his statement, and particularly the answers to the questions that were propounded to him by the members on the subcommittee, including myself and counsel, and our expert staff member, but I want you to talk to him, too. Tama great believer in that. You recall when our bill had a pocket veto, you were not here, but we sat. down together, the Bureau of the Budget and all the others, and they gave, and we gave, and we finally reached a judgment that we had a bill that I wish could have been passed 2 years ago, and then we could have now reviewed the activity and accomplishments under that bill, and if we determined that it had not been sufficient then we could move to perhaps further than we did, and I think we would. But that has not been done, and you cannot be held responsible for it, because the Senate decided it would rather not have anything than to have what they considered a meaningless piece of legislation. But I did not agree with that. I thought it was a good step in the right direction, and you have endorsed it because that was the same bill introduced this time. But I do not believe the Senate is going to buy that bill, and we may have to buy a piece of legislation comparable to what was sent over here in the form of S. 944, but I still feel there is merit in what Dr. Hollomon said the other day about perhaps putting into the Depart- ment of Commerce, through a statute a little wider and broader, and into the Department of the Interior legislative enactment that would widen their scope. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 303 Now, we cannot get into the Department of Defense. I happen to be on that committee, and I just recall about 4 weeks ago they brought up a little piece of legislation, to build an oceanographic vessel for the Navy. We did not have 3 minutes’ discussion of it. Now, if the Depart- ment of the Interior, through the Bureau of Fisheries, or HEW or some of these other agencies had gone before their particular legisla- tion authorization committee for construction of an oceanographic vessel, just as meaningful to them as it was to the Department o the Navy, we would have had a truly fully dressed hearing on it. 1 But, no sir, not when it goes before the Armed Services Committee. They say this is directly or may be in the long future related, well, to the antisubmarine warfare right on out. Don’t add an amendment to it, don’t debate it, let it go. And the doctor knows that is so, and that is the way it ought to be, but to my way of thinking, you take in the Department of Commerce for fiscal 1966, Dr. Hollomon was very happy about their ship construction, but we checked the record and found that the Bureau of the Budget did not approve a dime for ships for 1966—ship construction of ocean- ographic vessels in the Department of Commerce. Now, if you want to see that, I will show it to you. I do not think he knew it. Dr. Hornic. Mr. Chairman, my wife presided at the launching of the OSS-2, which will be commissioned in September. Mr. Lennon. I am talking about fiscal 1966. Dr. Hornic. We have to use those ships as well as build them. Mr. Lennon. But there is nothing in fiscal 1966 authorization for construction of any additional vessels for oceanography in the envi- ronmental sciences that he had jurisdiction of under the Office of Science and Technology in the Department of Commerce. Mr. Counsel ? Dr. Hornic. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make clear before I leave that I have read Dr. Hollomon’s testimony with very great care and I have talked with him many times. Mr. Lennon. You are not too far apart; I see a lot of similarity in your testimony, particularly in certain areas, but you did not read the answers he gave to our questions. Dr. Hornic. Unfortunately not. Mr. Lennon. I doubt if you have seen him to talk to him since then ; that is what I want you to read. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Counsel. Mr. Drewry. Dr. Hornig, after the listing of accomplishments of the program that you referred to during the past 5 years, you later said that they were almost inspired federally or promoted programs; that there were a few from industry. _ What have you done in your PSAC or otherwise to find out what industry is presently doing and to find out what their needs might be—where advice and assistance can be given to them ? Where are the areas that the Federal Government is better able to make a contribution at the beginning which industry may use ? On your Oceanography Panel I believe you mentioned 12 members who at least drew their salary from industry, the gentleman from Traveler’s Insurance Co. and the gentleman from Union Carbide. 304 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION ‘There is another one I did not recognize, the Institute for Defense Analysis. In those cases you stated they were chosen because of their scientific excellence rather than because of the place they presently happened to be employed. Now, to bring a long question down toa short one: Have you, either through that Panel or through any plans that you may have in mind, considered the matter of determining what industry is, in fact, pres- ently doing and what more might be done to assist ? Dr. Horntc. I have personally talked to members of industry; 1 have talked with members of the NSIA, and others; and on Septem- ber 18 my Panel will listen to a presentation by the NSIA and discuss the problem of industry’s role in the national oceanographic effort with them. So we are very conscious of this question. Mr. Drewry. When was this—it will be September 18 ? Dr. Hornic. September 18; yes. Mr. Drewry. It has not been done yet. Dr. Hornic. I have personally talked to the members, but the presentation to the Panel has not yet been given. ) Mr. Drewry. So there has been no procedural input into program “planning ? Dr. Hornic. I must make this clear again—this Panel is not a pro- gram planning group, but rather a group to lay the foundation for ‘the national program. It is an advisory committee; it has no jurisdiction. Mr. Drewry. They make recommendations. Dr. Hornic. They make recommendations. | Mr. Drewry. In discussing Mr. Rivers’ bill you called attention to ‘the statement you made over in Annapolis last summer about the inadequacy of the mapping of the Continental Shelf. Then you went on to point out further, though, that you felt that it would be premature to do anything about a bill such as that at this time because of legal problems related to resource recovery which have not yet been clarified. What are you doing to clarify the legal problems? Dr. Hornic. I want to make clear that I am most anxious that we proceed with the Continental Shelf program and we are. Mr. Drewry. The last paragraph on page 14. Dr. Hornic. One must distinguish, I believe, between mapping pro- grams on the Continental Shelf and more general programs of opera- tion on the shelf. I did question whether it was proper to set up a program in detail as proposed in the bill until some of the legal ques- tions had been clarified. Mr. Drewry. Is it really premature to begin that which is related to these things now? Recapture of the resources perhaps is involved with legal problems but should they not be studied right now in paral- lel with the efforts to map the bottom topography ? Dr. Hornic. Let me make two points. One is that, of course, we are going ahead with the survey of the Continental Shelf. I think the legal questions are important. I would simply say that Iam not really competent to comment on them. ' NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 305 Mr. Drewry. What is the status of the bottom topography mapping ? Dr. Hornic. All of our costs have been mapped in a general way, but the east coast is now being mapped for the Geological Survey. This is what I refer to in my testimony. Mr. Drewry. I think you said it was 70 percent of the east coast. Mr. Hornie. Yes. Mr. Drewry. What does that embrace? Does that embrace an analysis of the conformation of the subsoil or contours of it? Dr. Horntc. Perhaps Dr. Menard can tell you in detail. Dr. Mrenarp. The sediments have been sampled along fairly closely spaced lines, and in addition certain tools have been used to illustrate the structure of the subbottom. Lines have been run from the coast- line to the edge of the Continental Shelf, from Florida to Maine, so the subbottom structure is known. In addition, there has recently been a drilling program to confirm and relate some of the subbottom information with other data. Mr. Drewry. Who is performing this? The Coast and Geodetic Survey ? Dr. Geen The Geological Survey has an arrangement with Dr. K. O. Emery at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Mr. Drewry. Who is providing ships? Woods Hole? Dr. Menarp. Woods Hole is providing the ships. Mr. Drewry. What is the Coast and Geodetic Survey ? Dr. Menarp. For 30 years in my memory, they have been mapping” our continental shelves; that is why we have maps. Mr. Drewry. Are the maps up to date? Dr. Menarp. I believe Assistant Secretary Hollomon’s testimony indicated that the boat sheets may be 2 years ahead of the final printed. maps. Mr. Drewry. Well, coming back to the Coast and Geodetic Survey. I do not know whether they did not ask for them or whether they were not approved by the Bureau of the Budget, for ships this year. But is it not important that we have just about as complete knowledge: and actual charts of the Continental Shelf more than ever at this time? Dr. Hornic. I think that is correct. I am not aware, though, of a shortage of ships at the present time. At the time we reviewed the program last spring, it seemed to me the more serious problem was: to provide funds, to meet the operating expenses of the ships already commissioned. Now, perhaps Secretary Morse can amplify that, but I believe the statement is correct. The problem of keeping our ships returning from the Indian Ocean in operation was a more serious problem than that of constructing new ships. Mr. Drewry. That isa serious problem ? Dr. Hornic. Yes, but Iam not aware of an overt shortage of ships at the present time. Mr. Drewry. Would you be able to compare our knowledge of the Atlantic Continental Shelf with the knowledge which the Russians: or others have gained, or is this a field in which we are satisfied we: know more about it than they do. 306 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Dr. Hornic. We are not satisfied with anything we do; that is the first answer. Second, I am afraid I cannot provide any detailed information as to how well the Russians have explored our Continental Shelf. Mr. Drewry. When we took a trip up to Woods Hole a number of years ago we were shown a beautiful atlas which the Germans had prepared before World War ITI that gave us tremendous information on our own shelves which we did not have up to that time. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Gentlemen, may we go off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. Back on the record. I apologize to all of you who expected to testify today, but we have not been able to reach you. We want to spend as much time as necessary. We will look for you tomorrow. We will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. (Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10a.m., Wednesday, Aug. 11, 1965.) NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1965 Hovusr or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY or THE CommirreE ON Mrercuant Marne AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alton Lennon (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. Lennon. The subcommittee will come to order and resume its hearings. Doctor, will you come back to the witness stand, please? We assured you that we would convene at 10 o’clock. That is what we are going to do and let you get out of here no later than 10:30. STATEMENT OF DONALD F. HORNIG, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN C. FRY AND HENRY W. MENARD—Resumed Mr. Lennon. Dr. Hornig, last week Dr. Hollomon, Assistant Secre- tary of Commerce for Science and Technology, in his statement to the committee and prior to interrogation, made this statement, which is found on page 3 in the fourth line of the second paragraph of that page: Oceanography, of course, is not a unitarian concept. Speaking very generally, it emphasizes two broad areas: As the description and prediction of oceano- graphic conditions and the exploitation and utilization of ocean resources. Subsequently, on questioning I quoted that part of his statement to Dr. Hollomon and questioned him, and those questions are found on page 221 of the reporter’s transcript. Mr. Lennon. Let me ask you this, please, sir: In what agency should there be lodged statutory authority to provide a focus for the activity in the prediction and description of oceanic conditions? _ He said that description and prediction was included or emphasized in one of the two areas. And he indicated, too, that there ought to be, in a definite agency of the Federal Government something that would focus attention on that particular aspect, that is, description and prediction of oceanic conditions. He answered that immediately and did not qualify it: In ESSA in the Department of Commerce. Then I repeated the question : Mr. LENNON. The focus should be placed there? That is on the prediction and description of oceanic conditions through statutory authority? 307 308 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION He says: “Yes, sir.” Then I said: Now, in what agency should the focus come in the exploitation and utilization of the ocean resources? That is the other broad area. He answered that: “In the Interior.” I said: “In the Department of the Interior ?” He answers: Now, I also believe, which I did not mention in my testimony, but I think I made it clear in answer to those questions, that the Department of Defense should retain its full responsibility of doing what was necessary in the na- tional defense, the National Science Foundation to retain its responsibility to- support broadening the sciences, particularly in the universities. And then he goes on. Then I questioned him later on: Dr. Holloman, is there some question in your mind that this focused attention: on both of the facets you have described could best be done by statutory author- ity in the Department of Commerce and in the Department of the Interior rather than through Presidential action pursuant to H.R. 2218? I am not asking you to be critical, but you did say, you indicated it might be done . Mr. Howtxtomon. I think the two sentences follow each other. I say this might be done through presidential action pursuant to H.R. 2218— And that is the bill that has been in general consensus with respect to all of the departments— if enacted or alternatively additional authorization legislation might be desir- able. That is to say, your committee might want to take some action there. Mr. Lennon. Well now, you think it could best be done by Presidential action through enactment of H.R. 2218, or whether or not it could best be done by legis- lative authority which would place in the Department of Commerce and in the Department of the Interior the two focal points of development or both descrip- tion and definition and exploration and seeking the other objectives? Mr. Hotuomon. I think I could answer the question in this way, Mr. Chair- man: That if your committee feels that these responsibilities and appropriate: authority for appropriations are not clearly defined, I think you should follow the second course. If you feel that the time is not right to so define it and you should need some additional studies or advice, I think you should follow the first course. Then we got into the question of the fact that the Department of Commerce, certainly in the field of oceanography, or through the ESSA, does not have annual legislative authorization, and we got back on the question of the fact that the fiscal 1966 budget did not provide for any additional ships in the Department of Commerce. I called his attention—see, they operate on not an annual basis, but a continu- ing authorization. There is no legislative committee of the Congress that they can come to for authorization, and for that reason there is no legislative overseeing committee, no central legislative overseeing committee that could bring in the Department of Commerce, the De- partment of the Interior, the Department of Defense, and all the other spectrums where oceanography and various facets of it is used, so that we could determine, or at least make an exploration, to attempt to determine as to the coordination of the program and if the objec- tives sought to be obtained were, in fact, attained. I wanted your comments on Dr. Hollomon’s answer to my question based on his flat statement that oceanography was divided into these two broad fields, and then he defined which parts should be into which and finally comes up with the suggestion that it ought to be lodged, that is one facet of it, in the Department of Commerce through the EEE Ch NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 309 ESSA, and the other in the—exploration and development of the ocean resources in the Department of the Interior. Dr. Hornie. Mr. Chairman, that is a long series of questions, but I will try to give you an orderly exposition of my point of view. I do not know that I would divide the field in the same way as Secre- tary Hollomon has. Let me start by looking at it from several points of view. One can look at the ocean, first, from the point of view of understanding it as a big system, understanding why currents circulate, why fish are where they are. In other words, all of the why questions—the how and why questions about the oceans, and this is the area I would call ocean, science. This includes both physical and biological oceanog- raphy. Now: we, in fact, have only three major focuses for ocean science right now, and I think they are each proper focuses. Let me review this for you just briefly. The National Science Foundation has the basic authority to promote basic sciences in this country including oceanography. Its ocean science budget is approximately $30 million out of a total oceano- graphic research budget of, I believe, about $78 million, so that it is now one of the main focuses for ocean science. Tt conducts all of its work out of house by contract with the major oceanographic institutions and with the universities. Its record is exemplary in its ability to enlist the very best talents of this country in the work it undertakes, not only in oceanography, but in science in general. So, I would feel very loathe to disturb this excellent means by which the Government supports and enlists the services of the entire academic and scientific community of the country. The other major focus, of what I would call scientific oceanography, is the Navy. Emphasis has been placed in these hearings on the con- duct of military oceanography by the Navy, but this is only one aspect of a broad program. In the first place, the Navy has a big classified oceanography pro- gram which we are not discussing at this hearing but which is, in fact, about as big as the whole rest of the oceanography budget, and it is those efforts which are directly concerned with military operations. I should note, however, that in that part of the program, there is a great deal of hardware, vehicle and systems development, which flows out into the nonclassified sector. The instruments that are developed produced analogs which are helpful to the science and exploration program. Now, in order to carry on its operational program, the Navy has a deep interest in developing basic knowledge about the oceans in which it has to operate. Thus, through the Office of Naval Research, it should and it does support general oceanographic studies. Many present operational techniques and instruments are based on past ONR programs. One might ask: Why can this not be done as well for the Navy by another agency? To some extent, this would be possible, but I believe that it is imperative that the Navy maintain direct intellectual links to the scientific oceanographic community, that it remain in contact with the best new ideas, so that both will flow into its program. This 310 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION argument comes up in the support of basic research in other areas by the armed services also, I would note that the Navy program in basic oceanographic science is about the same size as the National Science Foundation program. We thus have these two principal focuses but there is a third focus for a different kind of basic scientific investigation in the Bureau of Com- mercial Fisheries of the Department of the Interior. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, of course, is primarily inter- ested, as its name implies, in fishing. On the other hand, looking ahead, there are big general questions such as: Why do you find fish where you do? Where will you expect to find fish in the future? What is the effect of the fish catch on the fishery ? Fish are not just a pool which one depletes. After all, every fish lays millions of eggs per year, so that the distribution of fish in the oceans depends on very many other factors. The longrun interest in fish farming of the oceans requires that we understand the oceans and their biological and physical environment. Thus, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries also supports a program in basic ocean science. All of this might conceivably be lumped into a single program. I do not think it would be wise. I have spent considerable time in the Soviet Union looking at their system for administering science, which is a model of block diagrams in which who controls who is abundantly clear. My general observation is that it is far less efficient than our own approach, and if you ask why, it is because they do not allow enough room for independent choices. When one has a very neat bureaucratic system, what inevitably hap- pens is that, far from eleminating committees, one proliferates com- mittees, because it is always necessary to come up to the top to get de- cisions made and this usually involves more committees.. At least that is what happens in their system. One of the strengths in American science has been to allow a reason- able number of alternatives, so that competing decisions can be made, so that when one man makes a mistake, someone else is in a position to earry the ball. I think this applies, incidentally, to our commerce and industry as well as to our science. In the case of ocean science, the point I want to make is that each of these three agencies does basic science, which properly has a somewhat different flavor and a somewhat different point of view, which must not be lost. I would not want to see these functions transferred to ESSA. Aside from basic ocean science, there is another problem, which is that embodied in the word “survey,” or more generally “exploration.” This is the historical role of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, which is the principal oceanographic component of ESSA, to produce pre- cise maps of the coast and of the ocean bottoms for whatever purposes we need to know them. This role is being enlarged. The Coast and Geodetic Survey quite properly has, in order to carry out that role, taken an interest in the basic scientific factors because it has extended its survey operations to geophysical surveys as well as simple mapping, and in order to do that well it must also have its roots in the scientific community. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 311 This second function, precise surveys of the Continental Shelf, the coastal areas and the deep waters, is currently divided primarily be- tween the ESSA, and the Navy. Here one might inquire again whether this should not be consoli- dated. Again I would make the point that some sequence of priorities for what is surveyed must be established. The naval activities are responsive to a different set of needs, in making those choices, than the Coast and Geodetic Survey. Therefore, in response to the first half of Dr. Hollomon’s suggestion, I believe the ocean science function is properly separated from the function of acquiring that data which is necessary to service our on- going practical activities, which is the central function of the environ- mental sciences services administration. This is the same division as in atmospheric sciences, where ESSA 1s responsible for weather services and backup research, but the basic science 1s primarily carried on by the National Science Foundation. Finally, with regard to his other point, it seems to me that the whole area of resources is a separate one, although it is related. Natural resources are the statutory responsibility of the Department of the Interior. I do not think new legislation 1s needed, but new legislation might focus the responsibility of the Department of the Interior in the marine resources area. This area of resources has, in fact, been the subject of most of the discussion and most of the concern about expanded oceanographic pro- grams. My own impression is that the first area, the one Hollomon called physical oceanography and which I have broken up into ocean sciences and survey activities, can be improved, but it is in reasonably good shape. Most of the concern has been on the development of ocean resources and the means to get at them. This is certainly the area on which my panel, which we discussed yesterday, is concentrating. One of the major foci of activities of that panel is to understand the ocean re- sources problem. That is the area in which new programs are possible, but. I quite concur with Secretary Hollomon that this is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. Mr. Lennon. So you can get out of here at 10:30 as promised, coun- sel has a few questions he would like to get answered in the record, and then very likely there will be other questions submitted to you within a few days that we would like to have your answers for the record, Doctor. Dr. Hornte. I will be delighted to provide them. Mr. Lennon. Counsel, will you proceed, sir? Mr. Drewry. Dr. Hornig, there are just a few questions right now, and maybe you can supply for us and then, as we go over the record, I am sure there will be more that will occur. _ On page 2 of your statement you said that the oceanographic budget increased by nearly a factor of three. Could you supply us with the amount of Federal spending for “basic” and “applied” research as contrasted with what might be called “development.” How fast has this grown since 1960 and how much faster has oceano- graphy grown than the total ? 312 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Dr. Hornie. Let me get this question straight. You would like the figures for basic research as a whole in all fields as compared with oceanography ? Mr. Drewry. Yes. And how, going back to 1960, for a point of comparison. Dr. Hornic. We will be happy to furnish that. (The following material was supplied for the record :) Federal funds expended for research * in science and engineering {In millions of dollars] , Fiscal year | Fiscal year Increase Field 1960 1965 (percent) (estimated) QOceanorraphy ech Ley peer Leelee Pree aero re 27 69 158 Physical sciences 3___-_ 563 1, 680 190 Mathematical sciences 3 24 113 371 Brigingering $4 + 215 eek 747 1, 743 133 Bivlovichl Sciences newest ee nt oe ee 107 247 131 1 Basic and applied research. 2 “National Oceanographic Program, fiscal year 1966. “ICO Publication No. 17; ‘‘A Long-Range National Oceanographic Plan, 1962-72,’ ICO Publication No. 10. 3 “Federal Funds for Research, Development, and Other Scientific Activities,’ vol. XIII, National Science Foundation, NSF No. 65-13. Mr. Drewry. Then you mentioned the number of graduate students has increased by a factor of 8, from 110 in 1960 to 310 in 1964. This is more or less along the same lines of the other questions, to get some comparison of where oceanography stands in relation to other fields of scientific endeavor, both basic and applied. The total enrollment of graduate students in science and tech- nology, and again a comparison with development. Dr. Horne. I will be happy to supply that. (The following information was suppled for the record :) The number of graduate students enrolled in oceanography curriculums during the 1959-60 academic year was 110. A comparison of graduate enroll- ments in oceanography with other areas of science and engineering for more recent years is shown below: Academic year Curriculums Increase (percent) 1960-61 1 1963-64 2 @egniperapiiins see ee teres eee A Se ee 159 310 95 IPR Sica SCiremCes "ees eer ae ees oe gS eee eS 25, 707 30, 959 20 Mathematical Subjects! .. 22 a2 AM fs 11) PETE ON rae 11,770 15, 974 36 BOM COLI we | Be Oe Se a ree fe = Ph ee 36, 636 48, 917 34 Biological’Sciences 22 ee aoeeeeea ae ee tere AN BAER 14,775 20, 639 40 1 “Enrollment for Advanced Degrees. Fall, 1960’; U.S. Office of Education Circular 674. 2“Students Enrolled for Advanced Degrees, Fall, 1963’’; U.S. Office of Education, Rept. OE-54009-63 Mr. Drewry. Then you mentioned also, on page 2, that there are 3,000 people now engaged professionally in oceanography, which is more than double the number in 1960. I would like to know what the source of your facts is on that, because I understand that manpower studies by the Science Foundation and the National Academy are said to disagree by about a factor of two. So, could you make the reports available that support that? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 313 Dr. Hornic. I will make the data available. I should point out now that manpower statistics are a little slippery, because many of the people engaged professionally in oceanography are not labeled as oceanographers. They are physicists, chemists, biologists, and engineers, all working in oceanography, so one has to exercise a certain amount of judgment, but we will certainly supply you with the data. (The following material was supplied for the record :) Professional staffs in oceanography, science, and engineering Average Field 1958 1960 1963 annual increase (percent) Owmanvermaphy 1. 48. eee Ne ee Sees A548 | eae re ee 3, 207 21 INatumaliscien ce spi a6 tee 335, 000 410, 000 7 IEC RTICO RIT comes eee ae oe te EE a | aE eee 850, 000 950, 000 4 1 Vetter, R. C.: ‘Growth and Support of Oceanography in the United States, From 1958 to 1963”; Na- tional Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography, July 1964. 2 “Profiles of Manpower in Science and Technology’’; National Science Foundation, NSF Doc. No. 63-23. Mr. Drewry. You have used a flat figure, so I realize it is a slippery one and if you could express it in another way so we could apply some weights of our own to It Dr. Hornig. I will be very happy to. Mr. Drewry. On page 5 you mentioned that there are two important committees in existence to provide advice to the President on diverse activities in science and technology: the Federal Council and the President’s Science Advisory Committee. You serve as Chairman of both groups. Since you chair both groups, in your capacity as Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and since both groups advise the President with advice which can be shielded by a well- accepted privilege, how can the Congress have assurance of advice or information from either group? This is a problem with which we were confronted in the early discussions during the 6 years we have been studying this subject, when we were told that no legislation was necessary, because the [CO was in existence and because the Council existed. But we got a turndown, I think, from Dr. Wiesner at one point that it would not be proper for him to appear, because he was an arm of the President and not statutory. So, we still have the same problem with regard to you, to when you want to be here and when you have to be here. Dr. Hornic. May Lanswer that question now ? Mr. Drewry. Yes. Dr. Hornie. As to my ability to shield the President and Congress from facts and judgments, I note of the President’s Science Advisory Committee that all of its members are appointed by the President. Although I am the Chairman, they have a clear root directly to the President. Since they are all strongminded people, when they have disagreed with the Chairman, or the Chairman has not acted, they can and have taken their points of view directly to the President, with the cooperation of the Chairman, I might add, although this has been very infrequent. Thus, I do not. believe that their advice can be suppressed. Nor would I have any interest in doing so. 53-367— 65-21 314 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION As regards the Federal Council, I would simply note that all of its members are also senior officers, in some cases leaders of agencies, so that the President has many alternative sources of advice. In par- ticular, the agencies can communicate directly with him. I do not think we ever have tried to suppress information developed in the Federal Council, but I think it would be a very unwise thing to attempt to do. In any case, there are many channels for the advice developed in the Council to flow to the President and to the Congress. Now, there is, in fact, a conflict in my position as special assistant and as Director of OST. One of the reasons, I think, for establish- ing OST was to make me accessible to the Congress and I think I have been quite freely accessible to the Congress. In the process of giving advice to the President, of course, there are privileged matters which may frequently arise, and all I can say is that in practice no serious problems, at least since I have been here, seem to have developed. I have never found one-half of myself in conflict with the other half, but if this problem should deevelop, there might be a case at some time in the future for separating the roles of the special assistant and the Director of OST. There are very cogent arguments, however, for bringing these to a focus rather than proliferating the mechanisms for the discussions of these problems. Mr. Drewry. Of course, the question was not directed to Dr. Hornig as a principal, but to the principles of the thing—whoever may occupy the chair as Federal Council Dr. Hornic. I would say, generally speaking, as Director of OST, because in the future it may not be one man. As Director of OST and all of its activities, the Director is obligated to. report to the Congress. As special assistant he is a White House staff member and, in general, would not testify. Mr. Lennon. We will go off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. Back on the record. Dr. Hornie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have appreciated the opportunity to talk about these problems with the committee. Mr. Lennon. The next witness is Dr. Robert W. Morse, Assistant Secretary of the Navv for Research and Development, and Chairman of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography; accompanied by Capt. J. Edward Snyder, Jr., special assistant to Dr. Morse; Capt. T. K. Treadwell, Deputy Oceanographer of the Navy;-Rear Adm. John K. Leydon, Chief of Naval Research; Robert Abel, Executive Secre- tarv, ICO, and the Panel Chairman of the ICO. Would vou gentlemen come around, please. and while you are com- ing around, let me announce that Dr. John W. Clark, of the Research Committee of the Subcommittee on Oceanography of the National Association of Manufacturers, I understand is due here, and from the west, coast—and that you asked the committee counsel if you could not be heard this morning. Tt so happens that Dr. Morse and his group—this is their third day they have been waiting. We will go off the record a minute. (Discussion off the reecord.) Mr. Lennon. Back on the record. Dr. Morse, we are delighted to have you and your associates. I see only one of them, but I understand they are here. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 3L5 STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT W. MORSE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; CHAIRMAN, INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY ; ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. J. EDWARD SNYDER, JR., SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO DR. MORSE; CAPT. T. K. TREADWELL, DEPUTY OCEANOGRAPHER OF THE NAVY; REAR ADM. JOHN K. LEYDON, CHIEF OF NAVAL RESEARCH; ROBERT ABEL, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ICO; AND THE PANEL CHAIRMAN OF THE ICO; DR. KEITH KRAUSE, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, HEW Dr. Morss. Yes, sir; there are a variety of people here whom we will call up as questions come up. Mr. Lennon. You have a prepared statement. Do you want to read it, please, sir? Dr. Morsr. Mr. Chairman, I do have a prepared statement. I will abreviate it some perhaps, because so much ground has already been covered. First, I would like to express for the Interagency Committee on Oceanography members our appreciation for this opportunity to dis- cuss the organization of the national oceanographic program. We can appreciate the task which you have set yourselves in reviewing all of the existing proposed legislation concerning oceanography. Naturally the oceanographic community is heartened by the great interest displayed in our program by the Congress of the United States as evidenced by the numerous bills which have been proposed this session. The fact remains that it is a forbidding task and one which merits our complete cooperation and willingness to participate optimistically and with open minds. Although this is my first appearance before your committee, I am aware of your strong initiative in bringing the deficiencies of our Nation’s program in oceanography in the past several years has been impressive. We have achieved a considerable buildup of capital fixtures, in- cluding laboratories, classrooms, and ship bases. We have doubled the size of our oceanographic fleet and probably quadrupled its total effectiveness. We have achieved substantial improvements in in- strumentation of all kinds. College enrollment in oceanography has quadrupled since 1958 and several new institutions have established programs in oceanography. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to make a few comments concerning the various bills already pronosed and what they may portend for oceanography in the United States generally. Commendably, they are all trying to accomplish the same purpose and that is to utilize the seas around us in the best interest of the peoples of the United States. The question is, How best to implement this policy? The spec- trum of organization proposed in these bills runs from the single agency concept to a continuation of the present confederation which appears loosely knit in the eyes of some, and highly effective in others’ view. I stated to the Senate last February that I was completely new to this business. However, a year’s experience as Chairman of the ICO has allowed me to form certain conclusions concerning our organiza- tion’s effectiveness and the possibilities of improvement thereto. 316 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION First of all, the matter of increasing the stature of membership is one which perplexes us considerably. On the one hand, we can readily perceive the advantage of membership by secretarial officers whose recommendations are synonymous with policy. On the other hand, additional demands would be placed directly upon Cabinet officers and agency heads who already have heavy burdens of responsibility. If a council supplants the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, the limited amount of personal time which the council members could devote to council activities might result in less consideration of ocean- ography within the executive branch than presently exists. If the Council and the Interagency Committee on Oceanography both exist, there will be, or could be, at least, substantial duplication of efforts and possible conflict of proposed programs. We think it is better to leave oceanographic planning and coordina- tion in the hands of the policy and operation officials who work with the oceanographic program, serve on the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, and who are thus most qualified to advise the President on its needs. In any case, no matter what is done, a lower level of coordination is required. It is for these reasons that I cannot support the concept of the National Oceanographic Council as exemplified by Congressman Fascell’s bill, H.R. 5654, or Congressman Ashley’s bill, H.R. 6457. Secondly, a characteristic common to almost all the existing bills is their provision for an analytical staff competent to examine oceano- graphic issues within economic, political, administrative, and techno- logical frameworks. These bills also provide for funds to administer the staff and the organizational needs of the ICO generally. Thus far the problem of interagency funding has been vexing. Navy underwrites most of the ICO staff needs, via the Office of Naval Research. At the present time, four agencies contribute to staff salaries and eight print our publications. The funds proposed by these bills, although modest, would be most welcome since they would fill an obvious void. Accordingly, I have no quarrel with this aspect of the bills. A third proposition whas has appeared in recent legislation concerns the establishment of a high level commission to examine our national needs in oceanography and to provide counsel to the Government in planning an adequate oceanographic program. I am in accord with the objectives of such a commission and have so stated in the past. In recognizing the desirability of such examination, Dr. Hornig last June convened a special panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee. Several ICO members and panel chairmen have met with this panel. IT am personally satisfied that their proceedings and findings will prove fruitful and capable of being used profitably in the national interest. For this reason, it is my belief that the intent, at least, of Congress- man Roger’s bill, H.R. 9064, can be met without legislation. Fourth, the concept of a Marine Exploration and Development Commission and its assignment to conduct a program of exploration and development of our Continental Shelf treats a substantive issue and merits serious consideration. The world family of nations has now ratified a measure spelling out the rights and privileges of each nation regarding exploitation of marine resources. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 317 We have a concomitant obligation to address ourselves to the ques- tion, “What do we do about it?” At least eight of the ICO member agencies are doing something about it, as described generally in our national oceanographic program document and more comprehensively in a document in preparation, “Oceanographic Research in the Fed- earl Government.” The ICO decided earlier this year that our interests, that is, the interests of the committee, in ocean engineering must now focus on the Continental Shelf. The ICO believes that H.R. 2218 comes close to providing all the legislative support needed to develop and main- tain a Continental Shelf campaign designed for payoff. 1 would suggest, however, that modification of the bill to provide authorization of funds for general program administration would solve the remain- ing problem of funding the transagency studies that are a prerequisite to good planning. This is the basis of my belief that the stronger arrangements speci- fied in H.R. 5584 by Mr. Rivers, H.R. 5884 by Mr. Keith, and H.R. 7849 by Mr. Teague are not needed at this time—that the ICO ought to be given the opportunity to proceed within the authority encom- passed by Mr. Lennon’s bill. Fifth, Congressman Wilson has introduced a bill calling for a National Oceanographic Agency. While this would admittedly solve many of the oceanographers’ problems, such as gaining the attention of a wholly oriented group in Congress, it would cause serious prob- lems for other agencies. This proposed centralization would excise the useful oceanographic services and products from several Federal agencies which require them in accomplishing their own missions. Oceanography, as with many other sciences, provides maximum benefits to the Federal agencies when its results are applicable to specific problems within the Government. Many Federal agencies require varied kinds of oceanographic information in order to do their jobs. In fact, this link to the missions of the agencies makes the oceanographic program productive and viable. Most information is highly specialized and obtained to assist in meeting existing or foreseeable problems. Examples are the kind of information needed by the Navy Department to hunt submarines, to be prepared to launch Polaris missiles, and to conduct amphibious and submarine operations. _ Similarly, in the Commerce Department, oceanographic informa- tion is required for chartmaking and assisting maritime trade, in the Department of the Interior for exploiting the mineral and food resources of the ocean and increasing U.S. efficiency in fishing, both commercially and as a recreational asset through sport fisheries. The Public Health Service needs oceanographic information as it affects offshore pollution, and the Atomic Energy Commission as it affects disposal of atomic waste and radioactivity in the oceans. If each of these Federal users must go to a different agency to obtain oceanographic support, both the user and oceanography will suffer. I believe that no central, single oceanographic office could ever ade- quately fill all these specialized requirements. _ There is a continuing need for national coordination and collabora- tion on projects of mutual interest. Difference agencies often need the same information; and only one agency then need obtain it. The 318 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION information collected by a single agency has to be available to all agencies. For example, the broad array of oceanographic activities of the Navy is related to the mission of the Navy, but it should be, and is, available to the civilian agencies. Sixth, there have been several bills introduced during the past 5 years dealing with one or another substantive issue within the ocean- ographic program. Such a bill, H.R. 5175, by Congressman Lennon, provides for a study of legal problems relating to the management, use, and control of natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. I wholeheartedly endorse this bill in principle, although it seems to me that its implementation is more properly vested in other agen- cies. This is precisely the type of study which general administra- tive funding of the sort I have just recommended for the ICO chair- man could support. In summary, Mr. Chairman, I believe a slightly augmented version of your own bill would provide the most favorable climate for execu- tion of a strong national program in the best interest of all concerned. With the provisions I have outlined, I would favor its passage and enactment. I am certainly free for questions, Mr. Chairman; and I hope that I am free to call on experts as they are needed. Mr. Lennon. Yes, sir; you certainly are, Doctor. Mr. Rogers of Florida. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Morse, we are delighted to have you here and know of vour interest and the good work you have done with the Navy and the ICO. What is the budget division for oceanography as to major depart- ments now? The Navy is for research. The Navy has about—these could just be round figures. Dr. Mors. Rather than guess, I think I could supply a rough table. I would say in research—the Navy in research, for example, for 1965, for deciepie is $32 million. This does not count ship construction, for example. AGidtognns, T understand. How much in Commerce? Dr. Morse. Well, in research, it is about $650,000. Mr. Rocrrs. $650,000. Dr. Morst. Now, this does not include the Weather Bureau. I am sorry—that is the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and that is what is called “research.’ Of course, the survey operation is much larger. Mr. Rogers. What is their survey ? Dr. Morse. $9.1 million in the survey, and in 1965 there was $9 mil- lion for ship construction. Mr. Rogers. How much for ship construction this year? Dr. Morsr. In 1966 there is no ship construction. The survey oper- ation is $10.6 million. Mr. Rogers. I beg your pardon. Dr. Morss. $10.6 million in 1966 for survey, but none for ship con- struction in 1966. Mr. Rogers. None for construction. All right. Now, what about Fisheries and Wildlife for research? That is in—I am sorry, I beg your pardon. Let me go back a minute. The Bureau of Standards for research ? Dr. Morsr. We carry none in our program. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 319 Mr. Rogers. I see. So, the total for research in the Commerce De- partment, which is strictly designated as research, is a little over $650,000 2 Dr. Morse. Yes sir. This is Coast and Geodetic Survey. In our breakdown we show about $200,000 in 1965 in the Weather Bureau, which shows as almost $800,000 in 1966, and in the Maritime Admin- istration, it 1s $50,000 for research. Mr. Rogsrs. For research ? Dr. Morse. Yes, I cannot guarantee, of course, that comparing that with, say, the Navy budget necessarily meets the same definitions, but I think we have made an attempt to try and insure what we call re- search in one agency is equivalent to what it is called in another agency. Mr. Rocmrs. As far as ICO is concerned, this is what is done for research in that agency ? Dr. Morse. Yes. Mr. Rocrers. That would be for 1 year approximately how much? I think you gave me a 1965 figure and 1966. Dr. Morsz. In Commerce? Mr. Rogers. Let us take 1 year. Let us take the present year. You have given me the present year for Navy, did you not, for research, the $32 million ? Dr. Morse. In the 1966 budget in Commerce it is just over a mil- lion dollars—$1.4 million. Mr. Rocrers. And it was $32 million in 1966 for Navy? Dr. Morse. I am not sure I gave you the 1966 figure. Let me look again—in 1966 research is $33.4 million. Mr. Rogers. $33.4 million. Now, Interior ? Dr. Morse. In 1966, in research—and this is its Bureau of Com- mercial Fisheries—it is $12.6 million, and in Mr. Roesrs. And is this for research ? Dr. Morsr. This is research; yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. All right. Dr. Morse. And another element of the Interior is the Geological Surgey, which has $670,000 for research, and Bureau of Sports Fish- eries has about $700,000 in research, the Bureau of Mines about $25,000. Mr. Rocers. Is this all oriented toward what we call oceanography, or oceanographic programs? Dr. Morsr. Yes, sir. This is all to be counted in what we submit in the budget as counted toward oceanography ; yes. Mr. Rogers. And has the approval of ICO? Dr. Morsz. Yes. Mr. Rogers. So that is about almost $13 or $14 million ? Dr. Morse. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Would that be right? Dr. Morss. Yes, sir. Mr. Rogers. Now, the National Science Foundation. Dr. Morse. 1966, it shows $25.1 million for research. Mr. Rocrrs. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare? Dr. Morss. $2.6 million for research in the Public Health Service and $390 in the Office of Education. Mr. Rocers. Education is also doing research work in oceanog- raphy ? 320 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Dr. Morsr. This is the sponsoring of academic work. Mr. Rogers. Yes. The Department of Agriculture ? Dr. Morsz. None. Mr. Roczrs. None? Dr. Morsr. Correct. Mr. Rogers. The Atomic Energy Commission ? Dr. Morse. In research, the Atomic Energy Commission shows $4.6 million. Mr. Rogers. And NASA ? Dr. Morsr. None—or at least we carry “none” in our budget. Mr. Rogers. And Smithsonian ? Dr. Morsr. Smithsonian submitted at least as $1.7 million. Mr. Rocers. Now, what about the Departments of the Army and Air Force? Dr. Morse. The Air Force has no oceanographic research. The ArmyEngineers show $1.3 million. Mr. Rocers. $1.3 million ? Dr. Morse. Yes. Mr. Roecers. I believe the Department of the Air Force did have a project going. They had five grants, I believe, in 1965; did they not ¢ Dr. Morsr. The Air Force you are talking about ? Mr. Rogers. Yes. Dr. Morsr. We decided not to include those in our program, these are in the Geophysical. We assumed these were related more to geo- physics, apparently, than to oceanography. Mr. Roemrs. I see. I notice in your testimony you say you think some legislation should be passed. Dr. Morsz. Yes, sir. Mr. Rocrrs. Some bills—I believe there are only about really— one bill, perhaps two, with the Continental Shelf problem involved, with some change. But you do not approve of a commission because you say it is being done by the panel appointed by Dr. Hornig, in the Office of Science and Technology. Is that correct ? Dr. Morse. Well, let me put it this way. I feel very strongly that the objectives of a commission are very much needed. I think the whole program very much needs a relook and in the future, particu- larly if one views the program beyond the narrow scope of oceano- graphic science, I feel that the question of development of resources of ocean technology, the use of our knowledge about the oceans as it relates to the national welfare is, I think, one of the areas where we need a great deal of definition. We need much more in the way of facts, of specific programs, rather than vague, general tests. I think this can be done only by a considerable amount of attention by a wide variety of people. Mr. Rogers. Now, even if it has to be your personal view, and I would assume you would want to qualify it, rather than a departmental view, do you not think that we really need a national commission that would be broader than the charter of the group that has been set up to study the science implications of oceanography as set up by Dr. Hornig ? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 321 Dr. Morsr. My personal view, of course, as I testified, I am confused sometimes whether I am speaking for the Navy, the ICO, or myself. Mr. Rocrrs. Yes. Dr. Morsr. My personal view, and I certainly have discussed it with Dr. Hornig, is that I think a national commission, whether or not it needs legislation to set it up is another matter, would be a good thing. Mr. Rocers. That is encouraging to hear you say that. Dr. Morsr. If I may add, especially one that goes out of business when it is through. Mr. Rogers. Yes, I will agree with that. To go in and make a very thorough study, put some real emphasis on it, and then turn over their findings and get out of the business. Now, do you think a panel could make an adequate study of all of the ramifications of oceanography, meeting for 18 days in 9 months? Ina 9-month period of time ? Dr. Morsr. I think the answer to that is “No.” Mr. Rogers. Why, certainly, I would agree. And this is what the panel that has been set up has as its schedule, to study and report back in the 9-month period. Now, let me ask this. Who sits on the ICO from the Bureau of the Budget ? Dr. Morsr. There is no member of the [CO—there is a Bureau of the Budget observer. Mr. Rogrrs. Who is this person ? Dr. Morsr. Roy Dillon is, and he has been sitting with the com- mittee for quite some time—3 years—and is quite familiar with the programs, and this, I think, has been very much an advantage to us to have someone who has been capable and continuing. Mr. Rocers. Is he an oceanographer by his background ? Dr. Morsz. No, sir. Mr. Rogers. Do you know what his background is? Dr. Morss. I could not say. He is an expert with dollars, I under- stand. Mr. Rogers. With what ? Dr. Morsz. An expert with counting dollars, by profession, I believe he is an economist. Mr. Rogers. We need more of those, I am sure. What I am concerned with is, it seems to me from reading over the various statements that we have had so far from the various govern- mental departments, that the Bureau of the Budget is exerting more control on the testimony, the departmental testimony, than the depart- ments themselves. I have some concern about this and I hope we can maybe get the Budget, Mr. Chairman, and go into this a little bit later. on. Is it necessary for you to clear this statement and the position you take with the Bureau of the Budget? Dr. Morse. It certainly was cleared with them. I believe it is nec- essary to do that. Mr. Rogers. It is necessary ? Dr. Morsr. Yes, sir. T realize you do have to go to the Budget. What I am saying is, where you have a difference in departmental view with the Bureau of the Budget, must you accede to the Budget’s view ? 322 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Dr. Mors. I do not feel qualified to comment on that. TI just have not had enough experience in that. J can say that the statement was written not in the Bureau of the Budget, but by my staff. Asa general policy, I do not think I am the one to say. Mr. Rocrrs. How much time are you able to spend on oceanography, Dr. Morse? Dr. Morss. I spend personally—of course, it fluctuates, depending on the time of year. I would say on the average I spend about 10 or 15 percent of my time, which is not based on a 40-hour week. Mr. Rocers. Yes; I understand. Now, should we—there were suggestions that we should create two core departments, perhaps you heard that testimony. Dr. Morse. No, sir; I heard the testimony on both occasions. Mr. Rocers. That was by the Commerce Department, and I notice that the Commerce Department in the field of research only has about a budget of $1.4 million, and this is supposed to be one of the core departments as suggested by Commerce in this field, although Navy, spending $32 million, Interior with about $14 million, and the Na- tional Science Foundation with some $25 million. What is your reaction to that suggestion ? Dr. Morsr. Well, I heard Dr. Hollomon’s testimony, and I also was here when Dr. Hornig commented on it this morning. I endorse what Dr. Hornig said and I might add to that. T think it depends very much on what is meant by physical oceanog- raphy. I think it is very clear that in terms of research, and much of the research that you have talked about that is in the Navy, par- ticularly within the Office of Naval Research and within the National Science Foundation, to an oceanographer would be physical oceanog- raphy—that is, it is directed at making physical studies of the ocean. T think it would be a mistake to transfer that program either bodily or even by direction, that is by supervision, to the Commerce Depart- ment. I say it for certain abstract reasons, which I think Dr. Hornig stated very well, but I also believe in it for pragmatic reasons, because I think these programs are going very well and I think in terms of the overall problems facing the national oceanographic picture, I think that is perhaps the one, that is in physical scientific kinds of oceanog- raphy, perhaps the one that is best coordinated. It isthe one that is the healthiest. It is not the focus of our outstanding issues today. However, if in Dr. Hollomon’s testimony he really meant by physi- cal oceanography the systematic surveying types of operations—and I do not think this is—which are very essential, not only to the Gov- ernment’s programs, but internationally and certainly to industry, in order to have this information available and have it covering large areas of the ocean, that this activity is one which the Department of Commerce traditionally has great competence in. Mr. Rocers. Do you think of surveying as really being research ? We already know how to do it, do we not, unless we are out on re- search missions to find out how to do it differently ? Dr. Morss. I think it has been one of the areas which I have tried to put a lot of attention to in not only acquainting myself with the national program, but what the ICO’s function is. We continually try to get a better understanding of what is meant by oceanographic survey. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 323 I think it is a phrase which is very deceptive, because it is a creation sometimes that 1s within this phrase. It can be many things with quite different purposes. Now, one of the recommendations of the National Academy’s ocean- ographic committee of some years ago, which really provided much of the impetus to the present program—was the attention on the neces- sity for oceanwide surveys. In their mind, what they did was make recommendations for sys- tematic surveys of the ocean, the ocean bottom and so on, on a world- wide basis. ‘They assumed, and rightly so I believe, that this is the foundation for all activity in oceanography. This is ‘a survey not directed at a avec purpose, for the same rea- son you just want charts of the United States or maps and so on, it is a service to everyone. This program, I think, has to be distinguished from the survey activity that an oceanographic laboratory might want or be required to make itself with vessels to obtain a solution to a prob- Jem or some specific and special aspect of oceanography it is interested in. The Navy has surveys which are sometimes much more specific, where the area is determined by some operational need, where the instrumentation or the detail may well be of a classified nature. This Navy effort has to be related to that systematic survey and I think the ICO has tried to provide those answers. These Navy efforts are also called oceanographic surveys. I believe the area of systematic open literature worldwide surveys is one where we are deficient. I think we have not kept pace with the projections that, say, the National Academy of Science made. And I would certainly be the first to welcome and support greater activity by the Commerce Department in this area. In fact, I am delighted by Dr. Hollomon’s testimony, because I look forward to a substan- tially larger proposition in the 1967 program coming from the Com- merce Department than has come from it 1n the past. Mr. Rocrrs. Now, let me ask two or three questions quickly. Does the Commerce Department, for instance, make its budget sug- fae in the field of oceanography before or after clearing with ICO? Dr. Morst. The general sequence by which the program is con- structed is that the program does not start in the ICO. It starts in the agency. The initiative for programs—the fundamental initiative, of course—comes from the agencies before the position of the agency is frozen. The ICO has a chance to see it and have an impact on it, but—— Mr. Roerrs. But the final determination is in the agency? Dr. Morsz. Yes, sir. Mr. Rocrrs. Have you had difficulty with any particular program since your short stay here with the ICO ? Dr. Harris. With any particular agency ? Mr. Rocrrs. Yes. In other words, where you felt added emphasis should be placed and that the agency itself did not share that feeling of the ICO? Dr. Morss. I personally know only of one where the result was the opposite—that 1s where I think—I am quite sure that the ICO, by calling the attention of the agency and the Federal Council to a certain 324 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION problem, namely, the rising costs of managing ships, resulted in the National Science Foundation’s budget going up because of our calling attention to this need in their own budget which Mr. Rogers. In the National Science Foundation ? Dr. Morsr. Yes; and their own agency head was most cooperative in understanding this problem and in backing our position within that agency. Suet tesa But you had no difficulty along the other direction since you have been here ? Dr. Mors. I have to say “No.” I recall no specific case. Mr. Rocers. In making up the national oceanographic program as far as the Government is concerned, there is then no central start given to the program ? Dr. Morsz. It is important to realize, I believe, that the IGO—and the ICO panels which are the operational aspects of the committee— plays a very important role. It is not an initial affair, but a year-by- year affair, so that the effects of the ICO perhaps do not show in the year that it is discussed. In other words, there is a carryover of problems, of course. If the problem is not really satisfied in 1 year, then this is an issue that certainly gets back to the department, so that I think in that sense, that the continuity of the operation feeds back to the agency which may well stimulate a proposal from that agency back to the ICO, which might have grown out of discussions the previous year. Mr. Rogers. Does the Navy fund the Sea Lab? Dr. Morse. Yes. Mr. Rocmrs. And as I recall the testimony, there were other agen- cies, of course, that were participating ? Dr. Morse. That are participating, yes. Mr. Rocers. Is this classified or unclassified ? Dr. Morse. There is no classified work in Sea Lab. Mr. Rocers. Should the Navy do work that is unclassified or should it be confined to classified ? Dr. Morsr. I think very definitely it should do unclassified work. Mr. Rocers. Why should it not be in the Commerce Department if it is unclassified—or Interior ? Dr. Morse. I think, first, by saying that there ought to be such work in the Navy does not say there should not be such work in the Com- merce Department as well. I think it is extremely important to the Navy that it participate in the important oceanographic questions... The ocean is such a basic—it is the basic environment of the Navy. I think the Navy has to know as much or more about it than anybody else if it is to do its job correctly. This means it not only has to have such men in the Navy, such as Commander Fry who described his quplient ong yesterday, who are scientifically oriented, but are naval officers. I think this is important to the Navy and to oceanography. I think it is important that the leading oceanographers work with the Navy, without a third party, say, in between. I think there must be a mutual sharing of responsibility. Mr. Rocrrs. I thought the idea was that the information could be interchanged ? Dr. Morsr. Information is, of course, interchanged, but I think it is an improper or too mechanical a view of science and technology to NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 325 view it as an exercise in producing information. It is a much more dynamic thing than that. That is, the people and the ideas are more important in the long run than information. Mr. Rocurs. Let me say that I think your testimony is very helpful and I am delighted to see that you do think a real panel is necessary to study the program before we branch out into something taking some drastic action perhaps. Thank you very much. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Bauer? Mr. Baver. With respect to this privileged group of planning agen- cies that was mentioned this morning under the President’s science advisor, that is the Federal Council for Science and Technology, and the so-called PSAC. ICO, as I understand it, organizationally, is a committee of the Federal Council; is that correct ? Dr. Morsr. Yes, sir. Formally we report to that. Mr. Bauer. Then you are privileged in the sense that the Congress has no responsibility as far as you are concerned, if you do not want to testify you can say, see the President; is that right, under your present organization ? You see, this raises a problem, if an appropriation for administrative purpose is to go to ICO without ICO having formal statutory position so that Congress would have some supervision over the operation, then you recognize the question of the management situation is untenable, it seems to me. In other words, if ICO is to be funded as you suggested would it not be better then to maybe put the Federal Council of Science and Technology in a body by statute that is responsive for the Congress, than to have it purely a Presidential advisory group ? What is your feeling on that? Dr. Morsr. I would say, first, I do not feel competent to really com- ment on the question. Mr. Bauer. You see the problem ? Dr. Morsr. The Federal Council, though, is itself, you see, a col- lection of Presidential appointed essentially cabinet people. Mr. Bavzr. It only exists at the President’s pleasure ? Dr. Morse. Yes, sir. Mr. Bauer. And isto advise him directly. You have no thoughts, then, as to how this management change could be effected to have ICO have some statutory base ? Dr. Morsr. As I said in my testimony, this is a vexing problem and one I have wrestled with myself. There are several alternatives. The present one is, of course, what we are doing now, which I think works in a pragmatic sense. But, nevertheless, I think it puts certain burdens on the agencies that we have to solicit help from, not that we do not run into great cooperativeness—we do run into a great coopera- tiveness. It does mean that we do not show this activity to a single body of Congress. Mr. Baver. Well, ICO basically then is only concerned with Gov- ernment research ; is that correct; not with respect to the whole prob- lem of the study of the marine environment ? Dr. Morsr. Let me just express my thoughts on this, because this is one that I have wrestled with myself greatly this year. 326 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION First, it is clear that what we report on in this blue book, say, which we call the national oceanographic program, in a technical sense is a misnomer; it is the Federal oceanographic program. The national oceanographic program, if one could define such a collection of resources and activity would, of course, have to include industry, the State governments, the private institutions, educational institutions, and so on. Clearly, the ICO cannot concern itself with that in an action sense. We do not have purview over it. We do, however, do as much as we can to relate our activity, both as a committee and the activity of the agencies which we support to the outside world—that is to industry, the States, and so forth. We have, ourselves and through our staff, supplied information, suggested channels of approach, cooperated in generating reports with industry, in order to develop information, to call attention to the problems, to call attentions to the programs, to encourage outside groups to engage in oceanographic activities. This is, though, as I hope I make clear, often done by informal means. There isno legal mechanism. Mr. Bauer. In other words, it is a planning group, Doctor. There is no intention on the part of the ICO to take planning cognizance over how do we develop the fisheries or how do we develop the geo- physical research or exploration for oil ? Dr. Morse. No, sir. Mr. Bauer. And the same thing would apply to the PSAC. It would deal with governmental programs only. Dr. Mors. You mean the special panel on oceanography. I would say they are just an information developing group for Dr. Hornig. They certainly cannot tell anybody what to do. Mr. Bauer. In other words, there is a vacuum as far as any plan- ning with respect to our national overall utilization of the oceans. There is now no one group that is able to come up with a plan as to how we should best develop the assets of the ocean ? Dr. Morse. I think it is fair to say there certainly is no one doing it. If you mean the whole broad concept including fisheries, maritime resources, the development of resources, and so on; there are a great many activities devoted to that question, I think there are groups try- ing to look at it, but there certainly is no group—it is clear that any group is free to look at it, but it is also clear that there is no group that controls it, and I am not sure there should be. Mr. Bauer. I am talking about as far as planning is concerned, do you not think that would be important to have planning along those lines? Dr. Morss. I would say, sir, that it is important that there be joint planning. I think it is fairly clear that there cannot be centralized planning of that total program because industry is heavily involved. Many of the industrial programs may or may not be of the concern of the Federal Government, a lot of them are. The State governments have a stake in the development of the oceans. It is also an interna- tional problem in the sense that the development. of the oceans, though we clearly are concerned first with our national goals, have to be re- lated to the activities of the other nations. F NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 327 It is an issue that cuts across every segment of society and it is very difficult to see how there could be centralized planning. There cer- tainly has to be joint planning and understanding of the limitations of the various groups involved. I think it is important that as we look ahead to develop those areas, for example, that the Federal Government could only take the lead in, and I think it is clear what some of them are. The large scale surveying operations of the oceans is clearly not a function that you can say is the responsibility of industry to take the lead in. I think the Federal Government has to take the lead here. Mr. Bauer. I was thinking particularly of the locations of mineral resources on the Continental Shelf. In view of the fact that the current expenditures of the oil and phys- ical science industries are around $300 million a year, I was wondering if we were intending to duplicate their work. Dr. Morse. I would not feel competent to comment in detail, I do know that Admiral Karo has looked into the type of surveys that the oil companies do, that clearly there is much information that is of use and has to be exchanged but also much of this information is very specific in nature and where the measurement standards are not up to the qualities that you would want to see as basic information on which the whole program should be based. Mr. Bausrr. Thank you, Doctor. There is one last question I have. In Dr. Hornig’s testimony on page 300, he says as follows: Dr. Hornic. The ICO itself has done a great deal of soul searching, but what I referred to is that it has the difficulties that any interagency coordinating group has, which is that people are a mixture of representatives of someone else and free intellectual agencies. Could you talk to that? What is this “soul searching” ? Dr. Mors. I have never yet been on a committee, sir, that did not spend 25 percent of its time justifying itself to itself. Mr, Bauer. Is it the question of working for an agency and working on a joint planning committee? Dr. Morse. I would not say conflict, I would say competition. The members of the committee are themselves, of course, involved in the oceanographic activity of their own agency and, therefore, have something to say about what goes on in that agency, and rather than talking about someone else’s problem, I could mention, say, my own as participating on the committee, because I am also Assistant Secre- tary of the Navy. It has become clear to me that in that mixed role that I have myself that I have to perform two judgments in a sense, often on the same question, and I think one has to admit that they may not always come out the same. That is I am sittmg on the ICO where I feel that my duty and obligation is to promote the strongest oceanographic position of the Government, that within the context we are judging issues there, that the desire to pursue a given course or given level of expenditure, say, may be evident, but that when I come back and then deal with that part of the budget of the Navy, say, which has oceanography in com- petition as it should with other areas in the Navy, then one makes a 328 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION separate and perhaps different judgment of what you are comparing the validity with. . I think, though, that on the whole that one’s action within the Navy is, therefore, more informed because of knowing what it fits with. If we do not do it we know the impact to the whole program. Never- theless, I would be the first to admit that sometimes the judgments you make in the agency may not coincide with the judgment you make in the ICO. Mr. Bauer. Thank you, Doctor, that is all I have. Mr. Lennon. Dr. Morse, for the record, the Council that Dr. Hor- nig is Chairman of, he wears a dual hat as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, but the Federal Council is made up ex- clusively of governmental representatives and, of course, the ICO is, too. How many members are there on the ICO? Dr. Morss. There are nine members. Mr. Lennon. You have, of course, three observers. Dr. Morss. Yes. Mr. Lennon. One of whom was an observer of the Bureau of the Budget. Dr. Morss. Yes. Mr. Lennon. You were asked whether the Bureau of the Budget sat in on ICO meetings and I see he is specifically named as an ob- server in a publication issued by the ICO. Some mention was made by Mr. Rogers with respect to the research part of the Department of Commerce in the national oceanographic program, I think you mentioned the figure $35 million. Dr. Morsr. Yes. Mr. Lennon. Actually out of the total of the $141 million for fiscal 1966, the Department of Defense part of that was $67,099,000, a little bit less than 50 percent of the total national oceanographic budget for fiscal 1966. You have a ship’s panel, I understand, in ICO. Dr. Morsr. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. They take the recommendations from the several agencies who are interested in new construction. Do you have with you the requests by agency to ship’s panel, then to the ICO and then to the Federal Council on the number of ships each agency requested for new construction for fiscal 1966? Dr. Morss. For 1966? Mr. Lennon. Yes, sir. Dr. Morss. Here is Captain Treadwell who is the chairman of that. Mr. Lennon. We will take them in the order of the Department of Defense, Commerce, and on down the list, please, sir. Dr. Morsr. Do you have the figures? Captain Treapwetu. I do not have those figures with me, sir, I can provide them. Mr. Lennon. What I want is the requests from the various agencies to ICO which were then turned over to the ship’s panel which then made its recommendation back to the ICO which then made its rec- ommendation to the Federal Council. Captain Treapwe tt. I can provide that for the record; I do not have it with me. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 329 (The information requested follows:) Funpine History OF 1966 OCEANOGRAPHIC SHIP CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM NAVY Proposed : TE TUT ERS BON US Raf NS Bi IO a, TP Ne ae + $13, 500, 000 AIM STAN Steer eect ee see eS ee es ele A A ee eae ee ee LE *4, 600, 000 2PNGORY (new desiguyVsee oe 6 Cals FO) eee bee ee 8 11, 100, 000 1 Not nominated for, nor included in, ICO national program. DOD BuBUD Review : Small AGS dropped. ICO recommendation including increment : 2 AGOR______________ 11, 100, 000 BKC S. & T. recommendation; 2 AGR____-_______-_ 11, 100, 000 President's ‘budgeti: 2) AGORM1) eds Meng (eas ese airs 8 11, 100, 000 Congressional approval: Pending. COAST GUARD No proposed program. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposed: Wooden trawler (Antarctica) _______-_-_----_______- $700, 000 Desien, Study,for Arctic-Dargesce 241 cee Te ee 100, 000 No changes. Congressional approval: Pending. U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY Proposed : RCV AS Sp WGA Wie 2 a a a Ne a a eb Ne $9, 600, 000 i Marmer replacement. 205 Ook Do oo eh ee 900, 000 Commerce Department review : Both ships dropped. ICO recommendation including increment: 1 class 1A______________ 9, 000, 000 E.C.S. & T. recommendation : ICO recommended class 1A dropped. President’s budget : No ship construction program. BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES Proposed : Completion of Kelez conversion. ~____~__ ee $40, 000 Completion of Oregon replacement_________-___ = 650, 000 PAC CSISM CEU CICS = 22 et Ns ee al ee | eek Rat 45, 000 WAGIINGIO TEPlAGeM CM be: 2 eke tes ee x Bay Oe Cee Bee ee 645, 000 Interior Department review: Mackinaw replacement and one $30,000 study dropped. BuBUD review : $15,000 design study dropped. ICO recommendation including increment : Competition of Kelez conversion__________________ $40, 000 Completion of Oregon replacement______________- 650, 000 600-ton exploratory fishing vessel_______________-___~____ 2, 000, 000 H.C.S. & T. recommendation: 600-ton exploratory fishing vessel dropped. President’s budget: Completion. of KMelez conversion 2=-—_=-- =. $40, 000 Completion of Oregon. replacements 2. =_ = 650,000 Congressional approval: Granted. Mr. Lennon. It just so happens that our ship construction for fiscal 1966 is at the lowest point it has been in a number of years, that is true; and I want to know not what the ICO recommended, but what did various agencies request of ICO, please, sir. Captain Treapweu. I understand. 538-367—65—— 22 330 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Lennon. I notice, Doctor, in your statement you commented on H.R. 2218. I quote from page 6 of your statement, down at about line 8: The ICO believes that H.R. 2218 comes close to providing all the legislative support needed to develop and maintain a Continental Shelf campaign designed for payoff. Now, how would the passage of 2218 accelerate or set the stage for the development and maintaining of a Continental Shelf campaign designed for payoff? Dr. Morss. Yes, sir, I think what I really mean by that remark is that I feel that the present agencies of the Government have within their present charters or objectives the means for doing this. We have talked earlier, and previous witnesses have mentioned, for example, that the Department of Commerce certainly as well as the Navy to some extent, but certainly the Department of Commerce in the civilian sphere has the authority presently to engage in what- ever surveys are needed on that shelf. Mr. Lennon. With that I agree. The General Counsel, Bob Giles of the Department of Commerce in a letter directed to this committee stated flatly and categorically that ESSA in the Department had the authority to make a study of the Continental Shelf in tota. We have that in a letter in this compilation reference on the bills. He did that in saying that one of the gentlemen who had introduced a bill calling for a study or authorizing a study, that that was not necessary, they already had the authority. Now, how would 2218 implement or set the stage to assist in the ESSA in making the proper exploration of the Continental Shelf? Dr. Mors. Perhaps I am attributing something to H.R. 2218 that in a sense already exists. I think certainly Mr. Lennon. Let us stop right at that point. It struck me when you included that in your statement, because Dr. Hollomon’s testi- mony was to the effect that while they had the authority they had to depend on the Appropriations Committee and on the recommenda- tion of the President’s budget; that they had a continuing authoriza- tion and no specific authority. Well now let us suppose, Doctor, that there is a drag, and they have already let a small contract for an infinitesimal part of the exploration of the Continental Shelf, but that is getting started. But let us suppose that next year it is not included in the ICO’s recommendations, a continuing funding of this. Then when they go before the Appropriations Committee they are bucking the President’s budget, and the Appropriations Committee will not have the support of an authorization committee. We had this same experience with the Coast Guard which for a period of 16 years, due to a legislative or technical draftsmanship oversight, that the Coast Guard lost its annual authorization and we just restored that a couple of years ago. So that the Coast Guard did not have the support. of the authoriza- tion committee. That is the reason that the Members of Congress are generally concerned. You say, well, the Appropriations Committee can have the legisla- tive oversight, but they do not have the time, because they must ap- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 331 propriate for every facet of the Federal Government, every nickel, and they do not have the time to devote to, well we will not call it legislative oversight, that is a rather harsh name, but a general inves- tigation to determine the progress of a program that the Congress is just as much interested in as 1s the executive branch of the Govern- ment, I assure you. You say, too, further, that you would suggest, and I read on that same page, on line 14: I would suggest, however, that modification of the bills to provide authoriza- tion of funds for general program administration would solve the remaining problem of funding the transagency studies requisite to good planning. I do not know when you prepared this statement. When was it prepared, Doctor ? ‘Dr. Mors. This was first submitted last week, sir. Mr. Lennon. Last week. In the report from the Navy, which you represent, as well as the ICO chairman, a letter from the Department of Defense, on July 29, which has not been very long ago, you did not raise this question at all. You gave carte blanche endorsement to 2218 without any suggestion of a change or modification in it. I wondered what had happened since the 29th of July and, say, about the fourth day of August when this text of the statement was prepared ? Dr. Morssz. The position I am trying to present to you, sir, on these bills is not the Department of Defense’s position, but the ICO position. Mr. Lennon. The Department of the Navy would not be different from the ICO. | | Dr. Morsz. I can pinpoint the Navy’s position. Mr. Lennon. You are chairman of the ICO by reason of the fact you are Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Dr. Morsr. No, sir; this is a separate appointment that Dr. Hornig makes. The ICO was set up by Jerry Wiesner and Jim Wakelin, who was my predecessor, was the first appointment and when he left Hornig appointed me to this position, but it was a separate—it is a separate decision than being the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Mr. Lennon. Let me see if I can find the report on 2218 from Dr. Hornig, I have it here if you would like to see it, this letter that he did not make the suggestion that you just made in your testimony with respect to modification of 2218. But I am glad to see that there 1s a little change in thinking, even in the last 10 days. Now, let us talk about this suggestion, and I do want counsel to give serious consideration to this, that you would suggest that the bill be modified to provide authorization of funds for general program administration. You say that would solve the problem of funding these agency studies, requisite to good planning. Do you mean an open-end authorization there, Doctor? Dr. Morsr. No, sir. Mr. Lennon. I want to pin that down, it may be a good point we could add to 2218. 332 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Dr. Morsr. What I have in mind is, first, I think it should be very clear that the ICO as a group should not conduct programs; that 1s, these programs must be conducted by the agencies. Nevertheless, I think for the planning of substantial programs such as in the areas of surveys or long term continental shelf, interagency activity that there has to be some very solid planning that crosses the boundaries between the agencies. I think this is an ICO function and that we are very limited at the moment as to the amount of staff we can put on such activities; we are limited in the amount of money that we ourselves can have available for either using outside contractors for such studies or paying for these costs within other agencies. TI think it would be useful to us to have that—that is the ability to make this longer range plan, that I think is a weakness to us, and if one is going to expect rather substantial areas of concern such as the continental shelf and the use of resources on it to be an ICO function, the amount of work just to even understand this program is considerable. Mr. Lennon. The General Counsel from the Department of Com- merce says emphatically and categorically that ESSA in the Depart- ment of Commerce has the authority to make the exploration of the total continental shelf on the United States. Dr. Morse. I think within the continental shelf, if one is going to develop a program that is comprehensive, that it is inescapable that this go beyond the concern of the Department of Commerce. Tt must involve the Department of the Interior in the development of resources and I might say that although the Navy is not itself con- cerned with the development of the resources as a direct mission, the engineering knowledge which the Navy possesses in similar kinds of areas, and actually from activities in the continental shelf, is con- siderable. This expertise, knowledge, and so on, must be applied and available, too. Mr. Lennon. Dr. Hollomon isa member of the Federal Council? Dr. Morse. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Suppose this bill was modified, and I am asking you now as the head of ICO to take a new look at this bill to draft an Fie or a modification that would implement your suggestion in this bill. I would assume that if such an amendment was adopted and the bill ever became Jaw it would provide x number of dollars on an annual basis which would be used purely administratively by the ICO. Is that. what you are talking about ? Dr. Morss. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Now, since you are a part of the Federal Council, and the ICO, I would like for the committee files a recommendation, but I want your specific thinking and language and a figure—I never did believe in open end authorization, I think there ought to be a sum certain set, if they want to come back and ask for an amendment, fine. So, I would like very much to have that. The bill, 2218, does provide, as you know, for the appointment of an advisory committee by the President for oceanography on repre- sentations of scientists selected on the basis of universities, non-Fed- eral universities, agencies and from other interests. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 333 The President is only authorized there. What would you say if there was a directive in the language of that legislation ? Dr. Morsr. I would hesitate to comment on that language. Mr. Lennon. Every one of the other bills provides for a national council and several of them, Senate bill 944, which has already been passed by the Senate, they adopted an amendment in committee pro- viding for a national advisory commission, they did not authorize, it was a directive, and I am wondering what would be the reaction, I would like you to talk to Dr. Hornig about this, we did not have time this morning, I promised him he could get away by 10:30, that why should not the President appoint ? Dr. Morse. I can tell you what my recommendation would be now, this is not—— Mr. Lennon. I want it coming from you and I want it coming from Dr. Hornig, from the Federal Council under the President, but I want to know the reason why the President should not appoint a national commission, representative of the university level, the competence in oceanography and industry of, say, 15, not just 7, but 15. If you had 7 you would have 4 attending at meeting, so if you have 15 you would get 8 or 9, even if it is $100 per diem. So I want the thinking, sir, on that. Dr. Morsz. Mr. Lennon, my concept of the organization is that the President should establish this Commission on Marine Sciences to be composed of 15 members appointed by himself and including individ- uals drawn from industry, universities, and private institutions en- gaged in marine science and technology. Mr. Lennon. I think you must recognize, I believe, the Congress is going to pass something this year. I regret that the bill 2218 was not passed 2 years ago so we would now be in a position to see what, if anything, 1t had accomplished; a lot of people say it would not accomplish anything, I donot know. But we do not want to have the experience we had before. You said you would be glad to comment on it as an individual. Dr. Morsr. Let me suggest this, that I raise this point that you have raised with Dr. Hornig and will submit to you separately a com- ment on that point. Mr. Lennon. You are in complete accord with the objectives of the bills stated in the past. Thank you, Doctor. (The following letter was subsequently received for inclusion in the record :) AUGUST 28, 1965. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. My Drar Mr. CuarrMan: As T testified before your subcommittee, a charac- teristic common to almost all the existing bills is 'their provision for an analyti- cal staff competent to examine oceanographic issues within economic, political, administrative, and technological frameworks. These bills also provide for funds to administer this staff and the organizational needs of an ICO type of operation generally. ‘Thus far the problem of interagency funding has been vexing. Navy underwrites most of the ICO ‘staff needs, via the Office of Naval Research. At the present time, four agencies contribute to staff salaries and eight print our publications. The funds proposed by these bills, although modest, would be most welcome since they would fill an obvious void. I suggested that modification 334 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION of your bill to provide authorization of funds for general program administra- tion would solve the remaining problem of funding the transagency studies requi- site to good planning. You requested that I submit for the record a suggested modification to H.R. 2218 which would incorporate the above thoughts. It is suggested that H.R. 2218 be modified to include a section on authorization which might read as follows : “AUTHORIZATION “Sno. 7. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act, but sums appropriated for any one fiscal year shall not exceed $1,000,000.” ‘Sincerely yours, RoBEerRT W. Morse, Chairman, Interagency, Committee on Oceanography. Mr. Drewry. Just one question, Dr. Morse, I think the subject has pretty well been. covered. You mentioned there needed to be a lower level of coordination, rete as I understand it to the fact that there should always be an : You made very clear the ICO function within the Government, but that it cannot function on some of these broader levels. But as I further understand it the ICO does not get into the picture as coordinator until after the individual recommendations have come from the departments themselves. Would it not strengthen the function of the ICO if it were in a position as a group of working level personnel who are familiar with the details of these different things, too, in advance, form a little “think factory” and make recommendations which are going to be the sub- ject to veto by the Secretary level any way. They would thus, at least, be in a position initially to recommend and urge. Then when the Secretaries have gotten their thoughts together, either accepting or not accepting, the ICO can appoint, as in the case you mentioned in the case of the National Science Foundation, the funds for the ships.. Again, the Federal Council apparently has veto power, but it seems to me it would strengthen the ICO considerably if it could be a plan- ning or recommending group—recommending to the planners. What is your thought on that particular point ? Dr. Morser. I think you repeated my point that quite independently of whether one had a commission or whether one had a high-level ad- visory group or whether one had a national oceanographic council, quite independently of that I think every one would have to agree that there still has to be a group that performs the ICO functions of co- ordination since no such high-level group could do it. That, though, does not answer the question, would such a high-level group assist the ICO in carrying out its jobs? I think the real area of confusion would come primarily at the Fed- eral Council level and not at the ICO level. I think the relationships of that group to—let us assume that we are talking about a national oceanographic council which is a very high-level group—I think the conflict with the ICO would not nec- essarily be as much of a difficulty as the overlap in assignment of re- sponsibility with the Federal Council. IT think Dr. Hornig commented on that and I think it would be of greater concern to his organization which must look and comment on NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 335 the total scientific and technological picture. This would create confusion. You are asking me to comment from ICO’s point of view. Mr. Drewry. My point was that as I understand it ICO does not get into the picture until after the agency programs have been devel- oped somewhat, as a general proposition. Dr. Morss. Yes. Mr. Drewry. And my point is that since we are going to need an ICO anyway—it is supposed to be a coordinating outfit, and it is low level—why would it not strengthen the entire picture as it presently stands if the working level group in the Government, the ICO, should have functions in which it could recommend changes after the pro- grams have more or less become hard. Am I making myself clear? Dr. Morss. Yes. We do have a body to which we could recommend. I think as a body we certainly would feel free and have felt free in the past to comment to the Federal Council and to make recommenda- tions to the Federal Council of what we have felt were deficiencies in the programs that have been formulated. The mechanism for acting on such recommendations exists through the mechanism of the Federal Council and Dr. Hornig bringing in- fluence back on the Department and particularly also, of course, the case that he can make to the Bureau of the Budget. Now, I think purely from an ICO point of view as to what it does, a very high-level committee, and if you take as the objective of the game to get more money for oceanography—I mean if this is what we want to say is the objective of the game—certainly no high-level ocean- ographic council can do you much harm. The worst they can do is not to do anything and, in fact, that might be Eee what they would dv because they would be very busy people. They also would be people that have to make balances and I think from a pragmatic point of view the oceanographic program has al- ways got to be balanced with something else, and I think this is inescapable. I have not given you a very clear answer. But I just do not think a national council of oceanography would do much good frankly, personally. Mr. Drewry. Well, my question was directed to the strengthening of ICO irrespective of what high level group you may have. I had the same thought the chairman had that. within H.R. 2218 is the pro- vision for permissive authorization of an advisory committee. The Advisory Committee, the origin of which was very much along the lines of the Commission that has been discussed—and I think in the earlier form of the legislation it was a directive as well as an authorization—I have a feeling that maybe from your testimony we are coming close to some compromise areas—the one of the funding question if that can be worked out, if the Advisory Committee can be made a mandatory body and perhaps even enlarged, then also some- one raised the point that it would be liable to turn rusty if there was no provision for a turnover. It would be simple enough to provide for alternating terms—have staggered terms—so you could bring new views and direction into it. 336 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION For example, you might have an oil man one year, an instrument man another year, and somebody else later on. But the ICO would in any case be there to work on the Government’s part of any overall program. : If the ICO would have the power or made it the practice of sitting together at their various meetings and say, “Fellows, here is some- thing that ought to be done, we will recommend that to the different departments, to the department that ought to ask for it.” Then the department might accept that. It might have been some- thing that department had not thought of from the broad standpoint. Then it gets in their budget and the Federal Council will have a look at it, presumably, and they will have the same veto power they have now, but in the meantime the ICO will be strengthened as I see it by that. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Doctor, we certainly appreciate your presence here today Mr. Asuiuy. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a couple of questions of the witness ? Mr. Lennon. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. Back on the record. Allright, Mr. Ashley, you may proceed. Mr. Asutry. Mr. Secretary, I have a not too parochial interest, I hope, in the Great Lakes, which, of course, is the largest body of fresh water in the entire world. ig the Great Lakes included in our national oceanographic pro- gram ? Dr. Morsr. No, sir; we have not presented, except perhaps there may be some peripheral activity, but in general we have not included that in our listing of what we call the national oceanographic pro- gram. Mr. Asniry. Well, as you look to the future would you expect there would be additional effort in this area ? Dr. Morse. Yes, sir. If I might take a moment just to comment. Mr. Asuury. Please. Dr. Morsn. This is relevant to this. The ICO or the definition of what is called the national oceanographic program is just that, it is a definition, and if you look back in the history of the development of the recent activity in oceanography its generated from an obvious need that, as a science, oceanography in this country was just not getting the attention and support that the subject merited and so it was natural that the activity of the ICO has, in the past, concentrated rather heavily on what one could call traditional oceanography—that is within the science particularly. One of the issues that we have continually discussed within the ICO and, in fact, we have a meeting of the committee this afternoon, and this is one of our particular items—is that it is becomming evident to us that we must enlarge the area in which we are trying to look at to include activities such as, for example, the area of exploitation or engineering actiivties in the ocean which we have only recently tried to understand and have set up groups to pull the information out. The more one expands this way the more one finds activities in other places. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 337 I would say that again the Great Lakes is an area that I think we should include within our purview. “Mr. Asuiry. To what extent has there been acquatic research go- ing on in the Great Lakes in recent years that are sponsored or sup- ported by the Federal Government ? Dr. Morss. Well, within the Federal Government, I believe there is activity related to certainly the Public Health Service. I have a representative from the Public Health Service here, perahps he could coment on their activities in the Great Lakes if he would take a moment. Mr. Asutny. Give me just a general idea of the Federal agencies that are sponsoring or conducting work in the Great Lakes area. Dr. Morse. In the Great Lakes region there is work—Public Health Service 1 mentioned, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and the Na- tional Science Foundation are the primary other ones. I think there are activities, one that I happen to know about, where the activity in oceanography is leading back to activities that certainly are applicable to the Great Lakes—that is the use, for example, of merchant ships to carry observational packages to make observations. This program is in ONR and, I believe, is planned to be extended to the Great Lakes to use the freighters on the Great Lakes to make ob- servations as ships of opportunity. Mr. Asutry. Are the Federal activities with respect to the Great Lakes tied together in any organizational way ? Dr. Morse. Not within our organization. There is within the Fed- eral Government none. There is, of course, at the University of Michigan the Great Lakes Research Institute, and I assume this is a vehicle through which the agencies do— Mr. Asuixy. In other words the activities that are going on are autonomous activities with various departments and are not tied together with appropriations from the various agencies and depart- ments; is that right ? Dr. Morss. Yes. Mr. Asuuny. Is there any kind of a center or headquarters for Great Lakes research at the present time? Dr. Mors. Not in the Federal Government. The Great Lakes Re- search Institute of the University of Michigan is one such institution that exists outside. Mr. Asutey. And that is supported ? Dr. Morsr. This is supported by—I believe the Science Foundation supports these activities. ett Sree Can you give us any idea of what Project Neptune is about ¢ Dr. Morsr. Well, Project Neptune is that ships of opportunity pro- gram which most of which has been devoted to the activities in the oceans and will be applied—extended—to the Great Lakes, although I am not sure that the title “Project Neptune” is appropriate to the Great Lakes. I do not know if Neptune resides there or not. Mr. Asuiry. To what extent does the fearful pollution situation that we are all becoming aware of with respect to the Great Lakes play a deterrent role in the activities of the Federal Government as far as the aquatic research is concerned ? Dr. Morse. IT think I would not feel competent to comment on that. 338 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Dr. Krause is here. Could you make a couple of remarks relating tothat? Heis from the Public Health Service. Dr. Krausr. Mr. Chairman, interest in the Great Lakes certainly that we have from the water pollution control point of view is that of a disposal area and the effects upon the Great Lakes as a disposal area for the residues of man’s endeavors and its effects on health, fisheries, navigation, water uses for industry, and any other use— recreation—all of these things are, of course, of paramount importance. This is a very large body of fresh water, and it is imperative that the knowledge is available to know what the ultimate fate of the mate- a commonly known as pollutants are when they enter these bodies ot water. For this reason it is necessary to know what the circulation patterns, what the biology and chemistry of the Great Lakes system is, and’ this, of course, is the reason why a rather substantial program has been inaugurated in an attempt to find out some of this basic information in the Great Lakes system. Mr. Asutey. Mr. Chairman, I have just a final question or two. I believe, Mr. Secretary, that Mr. Abel is seated next to you. Dr. Morsz. Yes. Mr. Asutzy. And I have in front of me a document prepared by Mr. Abel in June of 1963, “Aquatic Sciences in the Great Lakes Area.” The second paragraph in this introduction reads: Increasing national and regional interest in the Great Lakes as one of our greatest natural resources has brought to the attention of Federal, State, and local authorities the urgency for an upgrading in research programs pertinent to the area. There is an additional paragraph in which Mr. Abel states it is the purpose of this report to tabulate studies in aquatic sciences being prosecuted under Federal sponsorship for participating in this area. That was in June of 1963. I would like to ask Mr. Abel if he can tell us what has happened, particularly with respect to Federal activity in the research area hay- ing to do with the Great Lakes since that time. Mr. Ave. That particular statement, Mr. Ashley, was taken from a report of the United States-Canadian International Joint Commis- sion. As you say, that report and the statement is now 2 years old. We have with us the individual reports for this past year of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Laboratories, the Public Health Service, and a number of other laboratories who have been engaged in work up in that area sponsored separately by 11 Federal agencies. In most cases it is recognizable from the reports themselves, and in some cases with the budget figures attached, that there is a considerable increase and effort by these agencies through their in-house labora- tories or through privately sponsored university laboratories. I think Dr. Krause can comment for the Public Health Service with—TI think they have increased their own efforts in this area. Mr. Asuuny. Is there an increase in this area for coordination ? Dr. Morsr. Not in this sense, we have several instances of coopera- tion—with the Coast Guard, National Science Foundation, and Office of Naval Research sponsored laboratories have worked together. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 339 Mr. Asutey. What is envisioned by Project Neptune? What is sought to be accomplished ? Dr. Morsr. This project tries to take advantage, as I understand it, of the on-going mission of commercial carrier vessels which are mak- ing transoceanic trips anyway. The concept is that we can, by putting small portable oceanographic laboratories and some staffs on board, take advantage of the hulls be- ing in position, so to speak, at any one time and then can take ocean- ographic measurements free of charge except for the subsistence of the people on board. This particular committee has had hearings that brought out the project status to that date and some plans for the future. The first mission was carried out last winter, I believe, on one of the American mail ships carried on with personnel from the Santa Bar- bara Laboratory, Office of Naval Research, particularly your own staff, Mr. Drewry and Captain Bauer, who entered very much into the work. Mr. AsHiry. Where is the evaluation with respect to the Project Neptune carried on? Dr. Mors. I believe this is outlined in your hearings conducted January 20, 1965, your serial 89-1, which was in itself an evaluation of the progress made to date by the chief scientist of the laboratory and a number of other participants. Mr. Asutzy. Do you foresee the establishment of any kind of head- quarters for the Great Lakes where the aquatic scientific effort can be centered ? Dr. Morss. I do not know of any plans in this direction at this time. Mr. Asutry. Would it appear that this is desirable? Dr. Mors. We are always looking for better coordination of all of our activities. I personally am not that closely associated with plans and activities in the Great Lakes area to know whether any of them or any groups of them would benefit by closer ties to the others. I suspect the easiest way to get at the answer to this is to ask the gentlemen who are concerned, such as Dr. Krause, concerning the nature of the cooperation with other agencies and whether they really believe anything more is indicated. Mr. Asuury. I would like to have you comment on that, Doctor. Dr. Krauss. Yes, there are plans for the development of a regional laboratory to be located at Ann Arbor at the University of Michigan under the Water Pollution Control Act, the purpose of which is to further the studies and to assist in the institutions in the area in their studies of the various facets of, particularly the water supply and water pollution control, as it affects the Great Lakes system. This certainly is in the works. The aspect of interagency coordination, there has been a considerable degree of interagency coordination primarily through transfer of funds, this sort of thing, under what might be called a contractual relationship or agreements among the agencies to do certain portions of efforts deemed necessary to meet certain definite needs as of the moment. This is a specific kind of need. For example, relationships on this basis have been established with the Weather Bureau, with the Corps of Engineers, with the Bureau 340 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION of Outdoor Recreation, and a number of the other agencies along these lines, in the course of the studies now going forward in the Great Lakes system under the sponsorship of the Public Health Service at the moment. Mr. Asuirey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy and your indulgence. Mr. Lennon. You go ahead, now, Dr. Clark said he could come back. So if you want to ask questions go ahead. Mr. Asutry. You did mention, Doctor, that this was going to work with respect to the University of Michigan. Do you have any timing on that? What is the general program and the timing of the program ? Dr. Krauss. I am not exactly sure of the timing right at the moment. I can provide that for the record if you would ike: Mr. Asutry. I would appreciate that. Dr. Krause. All right, we will do that. (Information to be furnished follows:) STaTus OF MIDWEST WATER LABORATORY, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, DIVISION OF WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL The Midwest Water Laboratory will be located on the north campus of the University of Michigan, at Ann Arbor. The building will have 50,000 square feet of floor space, and a staff complement of 150 people. The estimated cost of this facility is $2.5 million. General Services Administration is expected to advertise for construction bids in October 1965 with construction to begin approximately 2 months later. The laboratory is expected to be completed in May 1967. As of June 30, 1965, two full- time persons were on the staff in Ann Arbor; by July 1966, the Laboratory Di- rector and a small complement of key personnel are expected to be in Ann Arbor and engaged in laboratory program planning. Mr. Asutry. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. The representative on the ICO from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, is Mr. or Dr. Harry G. Hanson. Mr. Aspen. Mr. Harry Hansen. Mr. Lennon. Is he here this morning? Mr. Ase. No; he is represented by Dr. Krause. Mr. Lennon. Doctor, let me direct my question to you, the appro- priation for 1965, to HEW for the oceanographic program was $314 million; is that right ? Dr. Krause. For oceanographic for 1966? Mr. Lennon. 1965, actual appropriations. Dr. Krauss. Yes; I believe that is correct. Mr. Lennon. And your budget request this year, which has been approved, is $4.4 billion ? Now, Doctor, we are going to exercise a little legislative oversight. I assume that you are in charge of the expenditures of this particular fund SPProp Halen to HEW for a national oceanographic program, right ? Dr. Krauss. A portion of that. Mr. Lennon. I want for this record item by item, and category by category, the expenditures of your agency of this $314 million in fiscal 1965. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 341 Now, that is not an unreasonable request. It is part of the oceano- graphic program. It may be that part of it was used in the Great Lakes area for your contractual relationship with the Corps of En- gineers related to pollution, and so forth. As a matter of fact, we are going to ask every agency before we get through to furnish us for the record an item-by-item, detailed account of the expenditures of the last fiscal year on the basis of their appro- priations. Then our staff can read it and have you gentlemen back next year, and we are going to check again as to how you are getting along on these programs. Thank you, so much, I do not think that is an unreasonable request, we have the responsibility or are supposed to have it. Thank you so much. (Information to be furnished follows:) PusLic HEALTH SERVICE HXPENDITURES FOR OCEANOGRAPHY, FISCAL YEAR 1965 I. OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY A. total of $3,230,000 was obligated for oceanographic activities by the three Divisions in the Public Health Service having programs in this area. The break- down by activity and Division is tabulated below. [Dollars in thousands] Divisions Activity Environ- Water Total mental Radiological Supply Engineering ealt. and and Food Pollution Protection Control Research and training__-__._________-__-_-_-__-- $1, 025 $75 $1, 405 $2, 505 Instrumentation 2-222 2222 se 0 45 0 45 Surveys and investigations__.__.____-_____-___- 0 30 650 680 Motalsseet as wah eet ee Pee 1, 025 150 2, 055 3, 230 II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Programs conducted under these amounts are described below by activity and division involved. A. Research and Training 1. Hztramural Grants.—Yederal grants-in-aid are used to support appropriate authorities, agencies, institutions and individuals in conducting research and related programs. Public Health Service grants are of four types: (a) Research grants: Awarded to individuals for the conduct of basic and applied research projects. (b) Training grants: Awarded to establish or expand training programs at educational institutions. (ec) Demonstration grants: Awarded to support investigations and studies of an applied nature, demonstrate the feasibility of new methods, evaluate applica- tion of research findings, and expedite incorporation of new knowledge into routine practice. (d) Research fellowships: Awarded to individuals for support in specialized Scientific training in institutions of their choice. These grants are made in areas directly related to the agency’s missions ; some of the grants involve work in oceanography. The types and amounts of grants 342 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION in which oceanographic aspects were involved are listed below by Public Health Service Division : [Dollars in thousands] Division Research | Training | Fellowship |Demonstra-| Totals grants grants grants tion grants Environmental Engineering and Food Protection! << +. f ST ks Ee eUAS Ss eee $320 a |S" aks OL ENbs 2 Se $325 Radiological Health___-__---_.-_-____--_2_- (ity Seeeeeom- ree sees te eee ED) ae, 75 Water Supply and Pollution Control______ 575 $85 $40 $222 922 A Otalst..- ss eee = i A Sa ee 975 85 40 222 1,322 2. Intramural research.—A total of $1,183,000 was obligated for oceanographic research. A description of research activity is indicated below by Public Health Service Division. (a) Environmental engineering and food protection: A total of $700,000 was obligated for intramural research by the Division of Environmental Hngineering and Food Protection. These funds were spent for the following activities: Public Health Service shellfish sanitation research centers at Dauphin Island, Ala.; Kingston, R. I.; and Purdy, Wash., conducted studies on the fate of patho- genic organisms (including viruses) in estuarine waters and on the accumula- tion of suspended, colloidal, dissolved and/or radioactive pollutants by shellfish, with emphasis on pesticides and other toxic (to humans) materials and indus- trial wastes. (6) Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control: A total of $483,000 was obligated for intramural research by the Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control. These funds were spent for the following: (1) Investigation of the characteristics of currents and tidal action and how these movements affect the distribution and fate of pollutants in near- shore waters; (2) The assessment of how pollution affects water uses, e.g., aquatic life and recreation. B. Instrumentation A total of $45,000 for instrumentation was obligated by the Division of Radio- logical Health for developing instruments for automatic measurements of water quality and for automatic meters used in estuarine waters. C. Surveys and investigations A total of $680,000 was obligated for surveys by the Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control and the Division of Radiological Health. Activities con- ducted by these Divisions under surveys are described below. 1. Division of Radiological Health.—A total of $30,000 was obligated for sur- veys in fiscal year 1965 for the following activities: (1) Sampling and analysis in harbors used by nuclear-powered vessels. These harbors were Cape Kennedy, Pearl Harbor, and San Diego Bay. (2) Evaluation of bottom sediments and suspended materials as indicators of radioactive contaminants in the vicinity of nuclear facilities. Areas surveyed were in the Columbia and Savannah Rivers. 2. Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control.—A total of $650,000 was obligated for surveys and investigations of pollution in coastal and estuarine areas. Activities conducted by the DWSPC in this category are indicated below. (a) Comprehensive studies: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act author- izes preparation of comprehensive water pollution control programs for river basins in the United States, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, State and interstate water pollution control agencies, municipalities, and industries involved. Comprehensive program development involving oceanographic activi- ties were: Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Project; Chesapeake Bay-Susque- hanna River Basins Project; and the Hudson-Champlain and Metropolitan Coastal Comprehensive Water Pollution Control Project. The programs included investigations of the effects of waste disposal on water quality in estuaries and coastal areas, water movements, marine biology, water quality conditions, and other aspects of the environment. (b) Technical assistance: Technical assistance in the solution of a variety of problems is available to Federal, State, and local interests under authority NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 343 provided by the Federal Water Pollution Contro! Act. Technical assistance is being provided at the request of the Corps of Engineers to evaluate the possible effects on water quality that would result from the diversion of a portion of the Cooper River from the harbor at Charleston, 8.C., to prevent excessive silting. (c) Enforcement: Studies of pollution were made in two marine areas in connection with Federal enforcement activities. These enforcement activities were (1) the Washington State Enforcement Project and (2) the Raritan Bay Project. Oceanographic activities in the Washington State Project consisted of studies on pollution of the navigable waters of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and all estuarine waters and waters tributary thereto in the State of Washington. Studies were conducted to determine the dispersion, trayel, and persistence of pollutants, the biological and chemical quality of the marine environment and its living organisms, and sources of waste waters dis- charged into the study area. In the Raritan Bay Project, among other things, water quality data of the bay were collected, industrial wastes characterized, dye releases studied and analyzed, and a report on shellfish as an economic resource prepared. Mr. Lennon. This is a memorandum handed up to us from Mr. Caldwell of the Army Engineers and I think it relates to some of the questions that were propounded by you, Mr. Ashley, so, Captain, you hand it over to him and if you see anything in there you want to ask questions about. Mr. Rocrrs. Mr, Chairman, while he is reading that, may I say I appreciate the testimony of Dr. Morse, I think that he has been most frank with the committee in giving his personal views, I do think the ICO has been doing a good job under the handicaps they have set up for them, I think the information they have given the committee today has been most helpful and I appreciate it. Mr. Lennon. Thank you. JI do want to repeat, Doctor, that you give us suggested language for modification of H.R. 2218, and also speak to Dr. Hornig with respect to the suggestions, as we call them, because if we are going to encourage the private enterprise system who are en- gaged in oceanography and our people at the university and college level then it ought to be in an advisory committee because right now, under the reorganization act and under the Executive power of the President to establish in his Office, everything is government. Is that a fair statement ? Dr. Morsr. Everything is what, sir? Mr. Lennon. Government. Dr. Morsr. Well, except for the President’s Science Advisory Com- mittee, which reports—which is not part of the Federal Council. Mr. Asuury. I am advised that the U.S. Lake Survey District of the Corps of Engineers has approximately the same mission in the Great Lakes as the Coast and Geodetic Survey has in the ocean and that a lake survey has been established in cooperation with the other Federal agencies operating in the Great Lakes and that the Great Lakes data center has been or is being established. aa does that have reference to, Doctor? Are you familiar with that ¢ Dr. Krause. Well, certainh Mr. Lennon. Will the gentleman yield at this point ? I wonder if you will address your question to the gentleman who passed up that memorandum. Mr. Asutry. Fine, good. Mr. Lennon. We do not want to hurry you, sir, but that is already the first bell. Come around and identify yourselves and answer the gentleman’s question. 344 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Catpwe.u. Joseph Caldwell, I am Chief Technical Adviser of the Research Center of the Corps of Engineers. I passed the mem- orandum up to the counsel to clarify what was going on, I was not particularly asking to appear before the committee; I have been before the committee; I have been before the committee before and I do not mind coming up today. I wanted to clarify there is a coordi- nation of agencies informally in the Great Lakes that the U.S. Lake Survey District has the responsibility for charting the Great Lakes, keeping up with the hydrology of the Great Lakes and making certain investigations into the limnology I think they would call it rather than the oceanography of the Great Lakes—that the Weather Bureau, the Coast Guard, I think I mentioned the Public Health Service also have a great interest in what is going on and there is quite a lot of coopera- tion and coordination between these gentlemen. They have established a Great Lakes data center at Detroit, the Corps of Engineers operates the data center and everybody else pours in what data they have to the center. In addition to that they have this coordinating agency or group which meets periodically to try to coordinate their efforts in the Great Lakes. It is not a formal coordinating committee but one that has grown up to meet the need of keeping up with what each is doing. On top of that we are cooperating with—I may get the name of this organization wrong, but it is the National Maritime and Engineers and Shipbuilders Association. They are trying to—they want to build bigger tankers in the Great Lakes and the Coast Guard has to approve the bigger tankers, so they need additional data on which to base these things and the Corps of Engineers is obtaining wave data and the Weather Bureau is obtaining wave data and we are trying to work this out as to whether the Coast Guard will allow the larger tankers and other vessels to operate in the Great Lakes. I thought I would like to add that if that is helpful. Mr. Asutry. That is helpful, Mr. Caldwell, that is of considerable value in clarifying the questions I have with respect to what is going on in the Great Lakes. Mr. Catpwetu. Yes. Mr. Lennon. Thank you very much, I appreciate your being here. We may send for you and give you a chance to appear again. The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10, and we will resume these hearings with regard to the legislation pend- ing before this committee. W will meet at 10 a.m. The committee stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, August 12, 1965.) NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 1965 Houser or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE Commirrrn on Mercuant 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. Bob Casey, of Texas, presiding. Mr. Casty. The committee will be in order. I am pleased to have our colleague, Congressman Van Deerlin, of California, present, who wants the privilege of introducing some of his fine people from California, He also has, like most of us, more things than he can do, and he has to get on to another committee meeting, which we well understand. So, Congressman Van Deerlin, we are pleased to recognize you for the introduction of some of your California friends. STATEMENT OF HON. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Van Derrurn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that the subject of oceanography is one that knows no bounds and certainly not the bounds of my home community. It just happens that in the hearings that you scheduled this morning you have called generously upon expert opinion from within my com- munity and, therefore, I feel especially privileged to be able in advance of their several appearances this morning to present them on behalf of San Diego, Calif. The first witness whom you are going to hear is Dr. John Clark, who speaks not for San Diego this morning, but for the National Association of Manufacturers. His firm has been making a study for the NAM in this very vital field. You are going to hear from the new president of our chamber of commerce, Mr. James Gillean. He actually comes not from the city of San Diego, but from the city of La Mesa, but they regard him so highly they elected him president of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce anyhow. With him is the chairman of our chamber’s oceanography subcom- mittee, Fin Claudi-Magnussen. And also on the agenda are additional witnesses. One of them is Dr. W. M. Chapman, who speaks for Van Camp today, but who is 18 yearsa San Diegan. You are also going to hear from an executive of the Westinghouse Electric Corp., J. H. Clotworthy. The company’s studies in this field 345 538-367—_65——23 346 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION have been profound already. Its interests are, therefore, also identi- fied with San Diego, a rising center in the study of oceanography. I know that San Diego has come to be identified with the devel- opment of aeronautics and space. This stems from the fact that we built the plane in which Lindbergh flew to Paris, and we built the missiles that put the first men into space. I don’t want you to be confused by this, to think that our limita- tions are established in the field: "We are preparing also to probe the ocean’s depths. I thank you for making my excuses, Mr. Chairman. Your Texas colleague, Walter Rogers, is probably already wondering where his committee member is, so he can start a hearing on an FPC matter. I thank you for the privilege of appearing and I know you will give rapt attention to these expert witnesses from the community of San Diego. Mr. Casry. Thank you, Congressman Van Deerlin. We appreciate your introduction of your friends and constituents. Don’t use;me as an excuse to Congressman Walter Rogers. It probably will not stand you in good stead. The first witness we will call this morning is Dr. John W. Clark, of the National Association of Manufacturers’ Research Committee, the Subcommittee on Oceanography. STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN W. CLARK, OCEANOGRAPHY SUBCOM- MITTEE, RESEARCH COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OF MANUFACTURERS Dr. Cuark. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, it is a real privilege to be here this morning and to present some thoughts on this important subject. Mr. Casry. We are pleased to have you, Doctor. We look forward to hearing you this morning. Go right ahead, Doctor. Dr. Crark. My name is John W. Clark. I am currently a con- sultant on ocean engineering in San Diego, as Congressman Van Deerlin has pointed ‘out, and a member of the Oceanography Sub- committee of the Research Committee of the National Association of Manufacturers on whose behalf I am testifying today. This testimony represents considerable work by this subcommittee. I do not wish to take too much individual credit for it. For the past 2 years, until very recently, I was ocean engineering coordinator with Battelle Memorial Institute of Columbus, Ohio, and for the previous 8 years I was with the Nucleonics Division of Hughes Aircraft Co., where one of my responsibilities was the design, development, and construction of remote-control systems. One of these has been in use in offshore oilfields of California for almost 5 years. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like your permission to enter the written testimony in the record and would like to simply sum- marize some of the highlights of this testimony for the members of the committee. Mr. Casry. That will be fine, Doctor. We will enter your state- ment and you can summarize it. (Document referred to follows:) NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 347 STATEMENT OF JOHN W. CLARK OF BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Or MANUFACTURERS My name is John W. Clark, currently a consultant on ocean engineering and a member of the Oceanography Subcommittee of the Research Committee of the National Association of Manufacturers on whose behalf I am testifying today. For the past 2 years, until very recently, I was ocean engineering coordinator with Battelle Memorial Institute of Columbus, Ohio, and for the previous 8 years I was with the Nucleonics Division of Hughes Aircraft Co., where one of my responsibilities was the design, development, and construction of remote-control systems. The Well-Head Manipulator or “Robot,” which was developed under my direction for one of the oil companies, is an example of an underwater remote-control system. It has been in use in offshore oilfields for almost 5 years. My appearance here today is to express the association’s views in favor of H.R. 9064 by Representative Paul Rogers and others, which would establish a 15-member study commission, and in opposition to the other bills before this subcommittee. We take this position in spite of our sense of the urgency of developing the ocean’s resources. We feel that a greatly expanded effort by both industry and Government is justified; but we do not wish to see this expansion handicapped by premature establishment of a new coordinating or administrative ageney. This is particularly true in view of the fact that well over half the cur- rent expenditures in the ocean come from private resources. After a study in depth of the nature and direction of future efforts in the ocean, we will be in a position more adequately to judge the type of legislation that will meet our needs. For a number of years this country has had, and continues to have, an oceano- graphic program which is planned and coordinated by the President through the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal, Council for Science and Technology. The membership of the committee includes nine Federal Bureau chiefs representing all agencies of the Government with responsibilities in oceanography. The broad goal of this program is: “To comprehend the world ocean; its boundaries, properties, and processes, and to exploit this comprehension in the public interest, to enhance our security, culture, international posture, and economic growth.” * The National Association of Manufacturers Oceanography Subcommittee has been investigtaing the diverse field of oceanography and its implications for the future benefits to our Nation and mankind. Our concern covers the broad area of what we have termed “ocean-related business’—defined to be any business whose income is directly or indirectly derived from operation in the ocean but exclusive of shipping, operations of the surface Navy, or those concerned with rivers, harbors, or marinas. We find that, on a cash flow basis, less than 40 percent of the business was derived from Government expenditures and more than 60 percent was commer- cial in nature during 1968. We estimate that percentagewise there has been little change since. In the Government area the largest part is accounted for by the Navy’s anti- Submarine warfare (research, development, test and evaluation) program and much of the remainder is planned and coordinated through the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. The latter’s program is well documented in its annual report. The commercial business directly concerned with oceanography is heavily concentrated in this country in operations of the oil and gas industry and the fishing and byproduct industry. Only about one-tenth is currently generated through production and research for other minerals and recreational activities. While the total business generated from oceanographic operations, as defined, is somewhut less than $2 billion annually and about 40 percent of the total in- voived in space exploration, its rate of growth—estimated at 15 percent per year—is greater than that of the space program. It should be pointed out that one strong motivation to develop the ocean is purely economic. The ocean is potentially a source of raw materials: minerals, oil and gas, food products. Increasingly, these will be obtained from oceanic sources at less cost than from land sources. Some of the actions needed before really effective development of the ocean’s resources by private enterprise are discussed in the following paragraphs. 1 TCO pamphlet No. 17, January 1965. 848 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION We also find, that despite the increased attention to oceanography, there continue to be various handicaps to greater exploitation and development. There is insufficient exploration and mapping data, even with respect to the Continental Shelf. There is a lack of detailed engineering information with regard to par- ticular areas. As a nation, we have not developed the technical knowledge for site occupation, improvement, or development, nor the skills for the manual operations that will be required. There is inadequate dissemination of the vast amounts of basic oceanographic scientific information which have been collected and developed over the years. Ocean-tested equipment and instrumentation is still largely in the developmental stage and underwater transportation and communication leave much to be desired. The above-mentioned technical obstacles will be solved, in large measure, through the efforts of industry, Government, and institutional research. How- ever, resolution of the fundamental problems in the legal area will be determined, primarily, through various Government procedures. These problems include the formalization of the limits of U.S. sovereignty and the clarification of State versus Federal rights; mechanisms for obtaining land titles and mineral rights; the status of patents under Government research contracts; and the develop- ment of safety standards, insurance coverage and regulation. These hearings, and the number of bills that have been introduced are ample evidence that Congress also is concerned with the current status and the pros- pective future progress of our efforts in oceanography. Nevertheless, none of the bills before you provides guidelines for creating the governmental administra- tive and regulatory structures, now lacking in the legal area, which would facili- tate and encourage the development of the ocean’s resources. The fact that the Nation does have a large and growing program, both govern- mental and private in ocean-related business should be carefully considered. The haste with which we embarked on the governmental space program is not ap- propriate in oceanography where major efforts are already underway. The vast amounts of capital, research, and manpower that were a necessity before that first giant leap into space could be accomplished are not required in oceanography, where, as new knowledge is gained, we proceed step by step. Further, by con- trast with the situation in oceanography, there was practically no economic in- centive in space exploration and development ; Government provided the capital and direction exclusively for defense and national prestige purposes. We conclude, therefore, that enactment of H.R. 9064, which provides for a study commission with equal representation from government, industry, and research organizations participating in oceanographic work, is the logical ap- proach to the development of a sound long-range program. Dr. Crark. I would like to bring out a few key things that have emerged from this study. The first point is that ocean-related activities are much bigger than is commonly realized. I believe it is correct that the interests of this committee concern all aspects of the ocean’s resources, the develop- ment and exploitation of these for the benefit of the country as a whole. And if one defines his interest in this way and attempts to identify business activities in this context, he finds a total of almost $92 billion annually spent in these activities. I have made my own definition of what is and what is not included in these figures. This does include the oil industry, the mining in- dustry, the fisheries industry, and a part of the Navy’s antisubmarine warfare expenditures, that part concerned with work in the ocean’s depths. It also includes the scientific aspects of oceanography. This figure does not include shipping and the merchant marine, as normally thought of, nor does it include rivers and harbors, and. ac- tivities of this type. To put it differently, the topic of my discussion is activities asso- ciated with the utilization of the ocean’s depths as distinct from the ocean’s surface. As I said, this figure is nearly $2 billion. It is actually about $1.7 billion. The major elements of it: A half billion dollars for oil and NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 349 gas, four-tenths of a billion dollars for fisheries, about four-tenths billion for the relevant part of antisubmarine warfare, $140-odd mil- lion for the national oceanographic program as we have heard re- peatedly in these hearings, and a little under $100 million for activi- ties relating to minerals. "This is hard minerals as distinct from oil and gas, and a few other scattered activities give the total of about $1.7 ilion My point is that this is already an activity of considerable magni- tude. It is also an activity of rapidly increasing rate. In some sec- tors the rate of increase is almost 15 ) percent annually. One might ask why this rather large activity on the part of business, science, and Government. There are three motives, and this is nothing new, but, it needs to be said in the interest of clarity. The first motive for interest in the oceans is economic. The oceans are a source of raw materials. natural resources of many kinds. And when consideration of cost indicates that it is more effective to develop a given resource from the ocean’s depths than to obtain the same re- source from the dry land, industry will move into the ocean to get it, and it is that force which is at work already. The second motive for being interested in the oceans is military. They form our outermost frontier, as is evident to all. And the third motive is the purely scientific interest in learning more about this 71 percent of the planet. In my discussion this morning I would like to emphasize the eco- nomic motive, not with any lack of recognition of the importance of the other two, but speaking on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers it is natural that our interests are directed primarily toward economic motivation and economically oriented activities. With this in mind. we find that there are three distinctly different sorts of things needed to encourage private investment and private en- terprise to move into the oceans even more actively than they are already doing. These three activities are distinctly different in kind and I would like to identify them below: The first is legal. This has been mentioned briefly in the earlier hearings, but it needs to be looked at very carefully. In this con- text we are referring to the administrative and the regulatory aspects of legislation. We need clearcut guidelines to put it simply. To whom does one go to drill a hole in the ocean if he wants to do so? To ype county courthouse does he turn to stake his claim to a certain area ? It is most important that in developing one resource, one does not inadvertently handicap the development. of another. A clear admin- istrative structure is needed above and beyond the excellent steps which are already in progress. In parallel with this is a need for regulatory action to control the safety of personnel, the assurance of the ownership of patents and many other aspects of ocean operations. The map on the stand at the side of the committee room dramatically demonstrates the magnitude of what we are talking about. The bold red outlines which indicate the Continental Shelves indicate about a million square miles of territory which contains some riches already 350 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC “PROGRAM LEGISLATION known in terms particularly of oil and gas, and of manganese, other riches which one can only conjecture. The Geneva Convention of 1958 granted to the United States the privilege and the duty of developing this area. One of the prerequi- sites to the development of any area is a structure which permits the orderly and well-planned development of this by private industry, since insofar as we are talking of the discovery, the development and the utilization of natural resources, this is done in very large part by private industry. The area is even larger than the map indicates, since the Geneva Convention also states that the sovereign nations have the right and the duty to develop resources beyond their adjacent Continental Shelf to any depth at which they are technologically capable of operating, and this at present is a limit not too well defined, but certainly extend- ing far beyond the 200 meters water depth indicated on the chart. The second area in which additional effort is needed is in develop- ment of ocean engineering data. It is useful to make a distinction between engineering data and scientific data, in spite of the fact that the borderline is somewhat cloudy. Engineering data needed to perform useful work in the ocean. They cover such matters, for example, as the nature of the soil on the bottom. It is vital to know whether a particular spot is soft and silty or hard and rocky, to give a very simple example, before one can even contemplate exploiting it in any detailed way. One needs to know a great deal about methods of working in and near the ocean floor, because it becomes more and more clear that a great deal of the actual development of the ocean’s resources will be done in the ocean itself rather than from vessels which float on its surface. The data needed are collectively referred to as engineering data since their motivation is to enable the performance of useful, economi- cally productive work. The obtaining of the data may be technically extremely demanding, and they do not in and of themselves come out of scientific studies. A great deal of the engineering data and knowledge required are already being generated by those private concerns which are active in the ocean. But on careful study one can find a few examples of engineering problems whose scope is so great or whose complexities so diffuse that it is more appropriate to seek a governmental rather than zn industrial source for them. Most importantly, while there is considerable activity in ocean engi- neering, there is at present almost no central focus for it, and it is rather difficult and time consuming to discover what is known’ and what is not known. The third leg of this triangle is the scientific knowledge.of the ocean. It is to this point that the earlier testimony has primarily been directed before this subcommittee. It is vital to any corporation or any indi- vidual who contemplates a business venture in the ocean that he have good scientific data about its properties and its performance. He does not always want the same data that a scientist wants, and this has given rise to some problems on occasion. The point which is being brought out here is that these three needs— the legal, the engineering, and the scientific—are all equal. One must NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 351 have all of these. One must be careful not to let one outweigh the other in the attention and the quality of work devoted to it. For these reasons, and as a result of careful consideration of the activities in the ocean currently and of the numerous legislative pro- posals that are under consideration, we of the National Association of Manufacturers Subcommittee on Oceanography support Repre- sentative Rogers’ bill, H.R. 9064, because of the need to bring the three aspects of oceanic development—the legal, the engineering, and the scientific—into perspective, and to make sure that all are being properly developed and to make sure that the present and the probable poten- tial needs of the business community. the scientific community and of the Government, are all properly considered. The membership of this proposed Commission, to be drawn equally from Government, from academic circles, and from business, should accomplish these ends. That completes my remarks, Mr. Chairman, and again I thank you for the privilege. Mr. Casey. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions of the Doctor. Mr. Lennon (presiding). Doctor, I note your prepared statement, in the third paragraph thereof, where you say : We feel that a greatly expanded effort by both industry and Government is justified ; but we do not wish to see this expansion handicapped by premature establishment of a new coordinating or administrative agency. Now, there is only one of these bills that is before the committee, and that is the bill from the gentleman, Bob Wilson of California, that would actually establish by statute an administrative agency com- parableto NASA. Dr. Cuarx. That is correct. Mr. Lennon. Do you think any of the other bills, cther than the four bills that you support—including the one from the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rogers; Mr. Downing introduced a comparable bill; Mr. Reinecke, I believe, did; and one other member. Now, other than those five bills, do you think there is anything in these others that would handicap or would result in the premature establishment of a new coordinating agency ? Dr. CuarK. No, sir. Mr. Lennon. That is exactly what I did not understand by your general statement, that we do not wish to see this expansion handi- capped by a premature establishment of a new coordinating or ad- ministrative agency. So, your opposition then, as I understand it, would be related to the bill introduced by the gentieman from California, Mr. Wilson, that would establish the administrative agency ? Dr. Cuarn. Right. Mr. Lennon. Referring again to your statement, on page 4. in the second paragraph thereof, and I shall not quote you verbatim, but summarize. You say that these hearings and the number of bills that have been introduced are ample evidence that Congress is also concerned with the current status with respect to the progress of our efforts in oceanography. 352 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The part that follows I will quote: Nevertheless, none of the bills before you— meaning the committee— provides guidelines for creating the governmental administrative and regula- tory structures, now lacking in the legal area, which would facilitate and en- courage the development of the ocean’s resources. In other words, none of these bills, and I think there are about 17 of them, in your judgment would provide the guidelines for making the governmental structure now lacking. Is that your sentiment? Dr. CuarK. That is correct. Mr. Lennon. All right, sir. Do you think that we should have legislation that would provide the guidelines for creating the gov- ernmental, administrative, and regulatory structure that would facili- tate and encourage the development of ocean resources? Do you think we should have legislation that would obtain that objective? Dr. CuarK. This moves a little out of my personal field of knowl- edge as I do not presume to tell you gentlemen what should be legisla- tion and what should be otherwise. Mr. Lennon. I appreciate that, but I would not resent it at all if you said, “In my judgment, here is a work draft of a piece of legisla- tion that, as a scientist and an engineer speaking for the National As- sociation of Manufacturers, which have a great interest in this field,” that we think would obtain the objectives that you say ought to be obtained in the language that I have just quoted from your statement, and let us take a look at it. Now, would such legislation provide for the establishment of an administrative and regulatory agency? That is what you say it should do. Now, how would you go about doing that unless you took something of the nature of the legislation suggested by Mr. Bob Wil- son, of California, in his bill? Dr. CrarK. This was not intended to be implied by these words. Mr. Lennon. I would like for you to say what you have in mind when you say that none of this legislation would obtain the objectives that you think ought to be obtained. T guess you are referring to the four bills that are identical with the one introduced by Mr. Rogers. Those, too, would not get the objective you seek, yousay. Is that right? Dr. CrarK. This is correct. Mr. Lennon. All right. Now, we will use the type of bill you think would, Let us not come up here—“I do not agree with this.” Now, we are talking about the Federal agency, too. We do not agree with this, we do not agree with this, we do not agree with this, we certainly do not agree with that. But you come up with no alter- native, no draft legislation that we can analyze and apply our practical judgment to these things. Now, you take a few minutes now, Doctor. You have given a lot of thought to it, and tell us the type of legislation you think we ought to get and have and get the objectives that you say we must obtain. Go ahead. We will listen to you now. Dr. CrarK. This is precisely why we feel that this commission is required. We have spent among the people concerned with this a good deal of time attempting to do exactly what you ask—draw up NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 353 draft legislation which could be discussed and criticized and improved. The problem proved to be far too complex and too difficult for this straightforward approach. One of the objectives of the proposed commission would be to do precisely this task, after weighing with considerable care the conflicting demands of the interests involved. So, L agree with you completely, sir, that we do not wish to be nega- tive, but we wish to be positive and ‘creative. But we also wish to recognize the magnitude of this task and not proceed prematurely to draft legislation. Mr. Lennon. In other wor ds, you say in your statement there is no hope through legislation at this time to obtain the objectives that you say are needed, that we are going to have to study this thing for at least a year or two? Dr. Crark. This is correct. Mr. Lennon. Through a commission established by legislation. Then let that commission analyze the findings of their subpanels and committees and then come up with a recommendation. Dr. Crark. Right. Mr. Lennon. What do you think of the method that is now being used by the Federal Council, and then down through the ICO, Doctor ? Dr: Crark. Well, first, I want to add my compliments to those of others to the work of the ICO itself, to Dr. Abel and his people. Mr. Lennon. The ICO you are talking about ? Dr. Cuark. Right, in turning out very valuable information to those of us who work with the oceans. Mr. Lennon. But you say in your statement, as I read it, that none of this information is available. You complain that the data and the information secured is not available. Now, I was under the impression that we did have a data center. Dr. CiarK. Right. Mr. Lennon. That is a center from which oceanographic informa- tion which certainly from the Government was funneled into—which did not have a national security connotation, which was available to the industry and to the public, too. Dr. Cuiark. Right; this is scientific data. And my complaint is concerned with the engineering data which are simply not under the assignment of the ICO and its associated organizations. Mr. Lennon. Now, what agencies of the Federal Government are engaged in or concerned with the engineering data? The Corps of Engineers is, for one, I would think. Dr. CuarKk. Right. Mr. Lennon. Now, what other agencies? How about the Coast and Geodetic Survey ? Dr. Cuark. Very much so. Mr. Lennon. They are? Dr. CuarK. They are concerned; so is the Bureau of Mines. Mr. Lennon. Isthat data available? Dr. Crarkx. Their data are available insofar as they are funded to obtain them. Mr. Lennon. J am sorry. Dr. Crark. Their data are available insofar as they are funded to obtain them—engineering-oriented information. 354 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Lennon. Well, now, let us assume that established in the De- partment of Commerce, the environmental sciences under Dr. Hollo- mon, and they have now let a contract, relatively small, for a survey of the Continental Shelf. Will not that data be available to industry ? Dr. Cuark. Yes, sir, available and useful. Mr. Lennon. And that is related to engineering, that 1s what we are speaking about now ? Dr. Crark. Right. Mr. Lennon. Will not subsequent data secured by ESSA—will not that be available to industry ? Dr. Ciark. Right. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. How would you propose, then, that engineering data obtained by an agency of the Federal Government be handled other than the way it is now being handled ? Dr. Citarx. The NODC, in particular, the National Oceanographic Data Center, is extremely effective. Mr. Lennon. Is what? Dr. Cruark. Is extremely effective. Mr. Lennon. You say it is? Dr. CuarK. Right. But what has been lacking, and I exaggerate just a little to make my point Mr. Lennon. Yes, please. Dr. Cruark (continuing). Is a clear mistake, a charter, that data which are needed for engineering purposes as distinct from scientific amassment of knowledge, is a proper concern of these Government agencies. Mr. Lennon. Well, do you not think when there was established in the office of the Department of Commerce, the Department of Science and Technology, that that was an objective step in the direction that we seeek, sir ? Dr. Cuarxk. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. I think it has been delayed—I am sorry, it has just been started, but nevertheless it is there. Now, in the Department of the Interior they have a little different mission. I am talking about outside of the Marine Fisheries, Com- mercial, and Sport Fisheries. They are interested in also the Contin- ental Shelf and the resources of the sea bottoms. Is not the information that they secure available—engineering and otherwise—to the public at large unless it is related to matters concerning national defense ? Dr. CrarKk. Yes, sir, completely. Mr. Lennon. I would like to see, and I know counsel would like to see, a draft of what you think we ought to do to get the objective you say we have not obtained. You think we cannot do it, you thik we have to study it a couple more years. We have been at this thing now since 1959 and we have been wait- ing for folks like you to come up and bring this draft legislation that you think, representing industry, would obtain what we all seek to obtain: a broader spectrum of knowledge of scientific and engineering data. Mr. Mosher ? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 355 Mr. Mosner. Doctor, you testified in favor of the Rogers bill. As I remember Mr. Rogers’ bill, it provides for a commission and inves- tigation and study and recommendations. “As you conceive of the work of that commission, how would it differ from and go beyond the work of this committee? How would you distinguish the type of mission that you would assign to that com- mission and the mission that very obviously this committee feels that it has? Dr. Crark. That is a question I must admit I had not thought about. I think one difference is a matter of how much individual time the commission members could devote to amassing data and analytical work. Mr. Mosner. I would expect you to say that perhaps the commis- sion could be useful to this committee because it would have more spe- cialized skills represented on it and more time, but its mission would merely augment and be supplementary to the work of this committee. Dr. CrarK. Precisely, and it would be thought of as an arm of this committee, or very nearly. Mr. Mosuer. I would have expected Chairman Lennon to ask you what your objection is to the bill that he introduced. Mr. Lennon. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. Moser. Yes. Mr. Lennon. I was taking too much time, but I will come back to it. Mr. Mosusr. I will defer to the chairman. Mr. Lennon. You go ahead and finish, and I will come back. Mr. Moser. I will just ask him then, ‘that is the only question I had in mind. What are your objections to the Lennon bill ? Dr. Cuarx. I have no strong objection to any bills other than this monolithic agency-type of bill. More especially, I favor a bill to undertake the broad gage study and analysis. Mr. Lennon. Now, will the gentleman yield to me at that point? Mr. Mosuer. Yes; but I wanted to suggest that on the first page of his prepared testimony, you say you appear in opposition to Mr. Lennon’s bill. I just wondered what the opposition is? I do yield, sir. Mr. Lennon. Doctor, do you know the chronological history of the hearings of this committee and the legislation it has reported out re- lating to oceanography ? Dr. Criarg. Not in detail. Mr. Lennon. And the inability, even after we reached a consensus, with all of the agencies of the Federal Government, after a pocket veto of the bill, then the Senate did not act. Now the bills that the gentleman just referred to, 2218, 3310. and 3352, by members of the committee. Those bills are identical. They do have the support of every agency of the Federal Government from the Executive Office of the President on down. Now, having unqualifiedly endorsed the bill, 9064, and its companion bills introduced by Mr. Reinecke, Mr. Hanna, and Mr. Downing—I know you are familiar with these—I wonder if it would not be pos- sible to amend section 4 of the bill 2218, referred to sometimes as the “bill I introduced,” and make it conform with the provisions of the Rogers bill, 9064, which would, in fact, create a commission and would direct—not authorize—the President to appoint a committee, as my 356 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION bill does, consisting of not less than seven members, but directing the President to appoint a commission of 15 members, 5 representing Gov- ernment, 5 representing industry, and 5 representing—I believe Mr. Rogers—the university laboratory level, and let them, independent of the provisions—the other provisions of 2218—make the study and make the recommendation ? Now, I see the necessity if we are going to get any legislation in this session, either in the earlier months of the next session, that there is going to have to be a give-and-take. If the Senate insists on the passage of its bill, 944, my judgment is we will wind up perhaps with another pocket veto. So, I am seeking here—I am disappointed that we did not get our bill through 2 years ago, and then take a look to see what has been accomplished. I am just tired of studying this thing and studying it. Dr. CrarKk. Right. Mr. Lennon. What would you say about that? If we could take a combination of the bill introduced by Mr. Rogers and the others, a combination of the bill introduced by Mr. Pelly of this subcommittee and Mr. Bonner of the full committee, and myself. Now whether or not we would then run into the objections of the Executive, I do not know. That is something we will have to de- termine at a later date. How do you feel about such a legislation as that? Dr. Ciark. I would be very much in favor of it. Mr. Lennon. Do you basically disagree that the fundamental au- thority respecting oceanography at least for the next year or two ought not to be lodged in the Executive Office of the President? Dr. CrarKk. I do not understand your question, sir. Mr. Lennon. I said, do you object to the philosophy as it is now, for the basic tenants of oceanography to be lodged in the Office of the President, through the Federal Council ? Dr. CrarK. No. Mr. Lennon. You do not? Dr. Crarxk. No. Mr. Lennon. Then you think you can agree with what I have in mind ? Dr. Ciark. Yes; I can agree. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Rogers? Mr. Rocers. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do not see that there is anything wrong with what the chairman is saying. I do not see any conflict between the Commission and the bill that you have introduced. I think it might be a very good solution. I have been impressed by the fact that the testimony we have heard to date shows a very definite need for a study to be made, as you have endorsed in your statement. For instance, the Commerce representative came up and said he wants two corps created in Government to do it. Then the Navy came up and said, we do not really agree with that. We do not think Commerce should take over in this area. Wecan do it. Then Dr. Hornig, the President’s Science and Technology Adviser, he says, “No; we need a study and I am doing it myself, and I am not NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION SOL. going to study everything that needs to be studied,” so I think it has been pointed up that we really need a study and I am delighted to see your organization come out and say so. But certainly in line with what the chairman had said, there is no reason why the study cannot go along concurrent with the development of the program that the chairman has suggested, so that we have a basic setup and some legislative direction which certainly is needed and has been pointed up, too. Now, the Senate bill, of course, has, as I recall, reported out a Na- tional Council, which the executive department 1s against, and they have testified, but 1t also includes a Commission study which I was glad to see. So I think we are not too far apart in our thinking on what needs to be done. I want to commend you and your organization for bring- ing to the committee your statement saying that you know that some- thing needs to be done, but before we jump into some big agency or oe we want to know where we are going and what needs to e done. So, I would say along with the chairman that certainly there is no reason why something cannot be worked out, incorporating the Com- mission to make the study and also incorporating some legislative language setting up a program and directing it to the committee in Congress which can help the oceanography program. So I want to commend you and your organization for your very fine statement and the position you have taken and I think we are going to need the help of industry, which you say is now expending about 60 percent of the funds in an effort where the Government is doing only about 40 percent, and I think it is important to the advancement of oceanography that this partnership continue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Reinecke ? Mr. Retnecke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like to thank Dr. Clark for bringing, I think, severar interesting and important points. One Mr. Rogers has just mentioned, that industry has been, in fact, the predominant factor in this to date, and certainly the experience to date has shown that private industry and private enterprise will do more about research than the Govern- ment systems a lot faster and less costly. And I think the hearings we have heard to date have not investi- gated the need for the ocean engineering aspect of this field, and have not investigated the free enterprise participation. I am in full accord with what Mr. Rogers has just said. Another point you bring out here about the legal determination, this could very well shape—and I would like to get your comment—it could very well shape the structure of the interadministrative organization, whether it is a NASA-type, a Council or whatever, and we would be hasty to jump at this point and form an organizational body without knowing what the legal ramifications are. We could do a great deal of disservice, I believe. Does this sound reasonable ? 308 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM. LEGISLATION Dr. Cuark. Yes; this is very well put. To restate it again, we are trying not to be negative, we are as eager to see these endless studies terminated as anyone else, but we do not want to see premature deci- sions made that may shape favorably or unfavorably the whole direc- tion of the ocean’s development. We particularly want to see very careful thought given to legislation which will encourage private industry to move even more aggressively than it already has. Mr. Reinecke. I thank you, Doctor. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any further questions. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Reinecke. Mr. Downing, we are delighted to have you because of your great interest in. this. Mr. Downrne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Dr. Clark, too, for his appearance today and his con- tribution to this legislation. In your prepared statement you say : Our concern covers a broad area of what we have determined ocean-related business. Then you go on to say: We find that on a cash-flow basis less than 40 percent of the business was de- rived from Government expenditures and more than 60 percent was commercial in nature during 1963. Would you mind developing this concern a little further? Are you saying that the Government should spend more and industry less, or what is the point you are getting at there? Dr. Crark. I am not actually saying that anyone should do any- thing at this point. I am simply pointing out the topic of discussion, defining the subject of the discourse. Mr. Downtne. In other words, you are not concerned about it. You are just pointing it out? Dr. Crark. Right. Mr. Downine. Thank you very much, Dr. Clark. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Casey ? Mr. Casey. Doctor, in your studies, of course, there is one thing that you mentioned that is in the Geneva agreement, that is in the process of being ratified. Dr. Cuark. It has been ratified. Mr. Casey. It has, which gives the countries the development of mineral resources. Is that not correct? Dr. CuarKk. Yes, sir. Mr. Casry. And as far as they are able to operate, whatever depth limit? Have you made any study of what Russia—whether Russia is contemplating a project similar to our project? Dr. Ciark. As far as has been published, I have access to only open literature data concerning the activities of the Russians, there is no project comparable to our project contemplated by these people. Mr. Casey. Have you heard of a possible program, say, in the Black Sea? I think that they are contemplating that. That might be in that category—may not be as deep a water, but in that category. Dr. CuarK. No, sir. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 359 Mr. Casey. You have not? Dr. Crark. No, six. Mr. Casry. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Counsel ? Mr. Drewry. Dr. Clark, when we first heard from Mr. Trussell of the interest of the National Association of Manufacturers in appear- ing, it came at least to me, as a surprise that the NAM had a com- mittee on oceanography. How long has that been in being? Dr. Ciarx. Just over a year. Mr. Drewry. A little over a year. In your statement—even as you are calling for a new study—you indicate that you have done quite a bit of studying and have put your finger on a large number of areas, specific areas that need to be treated, which would indicate to me that the National Association of Manufacturers is pretty deeply into this subject and possibly will continue to be. What I am getting at is, with this developing interest in industry on an organized basis that In your own way, as a very effective orga- nization, you will be deing just what you are asking that there be done already, and you certainly have no slowness about coming to Congress to express your views. T really just wanted to make that observation, because I think that in the short time—only a year—you have been with the association, your presence would indicate that the association is bearing down on this subject. So maybe this desirable natural program can be con- ducted with a more lively, active, continuing interest in tandem with a commission type study while that special group looks into further range aspects of the big problem. Dr. CrarKk. This is certainly true. Mr. Retneckn. Mr. Chairman ? Mr. Drewry. Yes, sir. Mr. Retnecke. Perhaps this is a good example of where they will act far faster than the planned economy of the Government. I would like to subscribe to your remarks along with that. Mr. Drewry. That is all, Mr. Chairman. I simply wanted to ex- press that thought. Mr. Lennon. Dr. Clark, I want to express my appreciation to you and your organization for the responsive interest the industry is show- ing in this overall problem. Thank you for your statement. Our next witness is the vice president of the Westinghouse Defense & Space Center, and general manager, underseas divsion, J. H. Clotworthy. Is that Dr. Clotworthy ? Mr. CrorwortrHy. No, sir. Mr. Lennon. It generally is at that level. You may go right ahead. Anyone accompanying you whom you would like to have sitting with you? Mr. Crorworrnry. I do not believe so, sir. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, go right ahead. 360 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION STATEMENT OF JOHN H. CLOTWORTHY, GENERAL MANAGER, UNDERSEAS DIVISION, VICE PRESIDENT, DEFENSE AND SPACE CENTER, WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CO. Mr. Crorworrny. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, Iam John H. Clotworthy, vice president of the Westinghouse Defense & Space Center in Baltimore, Md., and general manager of its under- seas division. Westinghouse has long experience in the development and manu- facture of underseas weaponry and electronics equipment and is a major contractor to the Navy for the Polaris program. In recent years, Westinghouse has embarked on a far-ranging ocean engineering program that includes a family of manned submersibles—the first of which will soon be commissioned—oceanographic sensing equipment, advanced underwater breathing equipment, bottom-scanning sonar, and commercial fishing systems. Westinghouse Electric Corp. is also a major builder of desaliniza- tion plants throughout the world. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your subcommittee and to discuss a national ocean pro- gram and its importance to industry and the Nation. I am speaking today not as a scientist, but as an engineer and a businessman. My oceanographic affiliations consist of being a found- ing member and currently chairman of the financial committee of the Marine Technology Society. I have for 5 years been a member of the National Security Industrial Association’s Anti submarine Warfare Advisory Committee, and was chairman of the ad hoc committee of NSIA which last year prepared a study and a recommended program titled ““A National Ocean Program.” This was March 1964, and copies of this report were distributed to the Congress. Several vital factors must weigh heavily in determining the Federal role in a national ocean program. And each of these factors must, in the end, support our national goals. World politics, the national economy and public attitudes are prime considerations, but each and all of these factors hinge upon our scientific and technical effort in the ocean. No nation holds guaranteed dominion over the seas. Yesterday it was Great Britain, today the United States, and tomorrow perhaps someone else, unless we are ever vigilant of our commitment to prog- ress. The advent of Polaris and accelerated antisubmarine warfare efforts have clearly marked the sea as an area of utmost strategic importance and, because of shifting world politics, perhaps our only long-term deterrent stronghold. But other nations are challenging our leadership. As noted by Representative Rogers several weeks ago, the develop- ment of new unmanned merchant marine vessels by the Soviets and their supremacy over domestic fisheries offers lucid evidence of that challenge. Our commitment to assist other nations in building gen- eral technological competence further binds us to maintaining a role of leadership. : The economic benefits of a national ocean program have been well documented. For example, a recent report of the National Academy of Sciences entitled “Economic Benefits From Oceanographic Re- search” presents a detailed schedule of beneficial projects and their NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 361 attendant costs. And, I might add, they are presented in a manner that is very attractive from the businessman’s point of view. A major thrust into the ocean could be expected to become a rec- ognizable element in our gross national product and help to satisfy the future need for new employment opportunities in both the pro- fessional and labor markets. The national economy has become increasingly dependent on imports from sensitive areas of the world because of a depletion of certain of our domestic resources. And the implications here—in an era of possible major conflict—must not be understated. In short, the re- vitalization of our resource recovery industries should be a national goal of the highest priority and can be accomplished by opening the frontiers of the sea to their use. The frontiers of earth—and new of space—have long inspired Americans to greatness and to progress. All Americans flew with John Glenn in his historic flight beyond the frontier of our atmos- phere—and this was not far removed from childhood remembrances of the exploits of Buck Rogers. The adventure of undersea explora- tion fancifully related in the fiction of Jules Verne now offers another real and worthwhile adventure for man beyond his early horizons. Recent public showings of Captain Cousteau’s film “World Without Sun” have eliminated imaginative speculation and plunged many Americans into serious thinking about man’s ability to live and work in the new environment of inner space. To the public, a major thrust into the world ocean has come to seem a natural and reasonable part of the technological revolution. Science and technology have opened the way beyond this undersea frontier by virtue of our military experience in submarine and missile technology and as a result of private investment by oil, mining, and fisheries interests, power companies, and private explorers. The Navy’s Sea Lab Ii program off California this year and Captain Cousteau’s Conshelf will establish that man can live and do useful work in the shallow oceans, at least to the limits of the Continental Shelves. But these and similar achievements have propelled our undersea technology to a level beyond that of our oceanographic science. In- deed, our scientific knowledge of the sea is so limited that beyond certain elementary assumptions, we cannot forecast the scientific prob- lems, much less define them adequately, with certainty. This much, however, is certain: Unless we achieve a much better understanding of the ocean, further development of ocean technology will be stifled. In short, all the motivations for an effective national ocean program are present, but we lack the broad base of scientific knowledge needed to proceed with this major endeavor. I think this is the first case, at least to my knowledge, where the technology is actually advanced be- yond the science, and the technology is, in fact, pushing the science. Now, to gain this scientific competence is not something that indus- try or the academic community can achieve for itself. The job is too big for private investment or endowment. More significantly, it is too closely linked to the formation of public policy to be entrusted to private direction. In brief, the problems faced by the ocean sciences are outside the ability or sphere of any private group. It is tradi- tionally and most appropriately a major effort which requires action and coordination on the Federal level. 538-367—65——24 362 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION It is my belief that the primary need to be considered by members of this committee and the Congress is the attainment of a solid founda- tion of knowledge of physical oceanography, marine biology, marine geology, geography, and geophysics, and all of the other segments of this advanced field of scientific endeavor which we label “ocean- ography.” In a few brief examples I would like to try to tie the knot between scientific inquiry and application in an effort to show how an improve- ment or a gain in technology is tied to a much broaded base of scientific knowledge. This will be quite superficial, of course. The varying salinity in the oceans affects transmission of sound in water and therefore is important in the development of sonar and other underwater electronic techniques. At the same time, salinity may be a critical factor in supporting certain marine life. This same marine life could also be affected by variances in water temperature, another basic variable in the sea. These factors may determine breeding grounds and could be vital in any ocean conservation program. Why are certain species found in one area only? Why do they migrate? How often do they reproduce? The answers are difficult to find, but are obviously valuable to the commercial fishing fleets. The waves and currents born off the Aleutian Islands could be the source of the ocean forces eroding the coast of California. What causes these currents? And following that answer—how can we take advantage of our knowledge to effectively combat shoreline erosion ? Knowledge of currents and waves and storms could save lives and money by permitting better routing of ships. The first attempts at this have already been made. Studies of sea ice may permit development of polar sea routes for the future’s freight-carrying submarines. The meteorologist knows little of the currents and deep stirring of the great oceans which affects the atmosphere above and which may strongly influence the climates of the world. The mining engineer works with the handicap of limited knowledge of the ocean floor, its mountains, ridges, valleys, shelves, and covering sediments—knowledge of all of this is crucial to devising methods for finding and extracting mineral resources. Much more must be learned about the dissolved minerals and gases in the ocean before the chemical resources of the seas can be exploited. But to sum up and from a broader and more important viewpoint, the scientist lacks a comprehensive and thorough knowledge of the rela- tionships between all of these scientific disciplines. He does not know precisely or is he able to predict how the known variables of the sea operate. In addition, there are other variables that are at work in the sea that have not been defined and that have a tangible force in the ocean. A well-coordinated effort will begin to answer these problems and provide the impetus needed by the scientific and industrial communi- ties to complete this necessary initial work. Government legislation need not be of the inclusive nature of the enabling legislation that established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, be- cause we have already a sufficient investment for a beginning and the nucleus of a scientific community which is capable of growth. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 363 But ocean science does require a greater effort by the Federal Gov- ernment than is now being exerted. I advocate a strong interagency body with executive powers to ta and direct a national ocean science effort that will open the way for the natural forces in the economy to move ahead with the creation of a comprehensive ocean technology. That these forces will cause the economy to move ahead is self- evident, considering that there is already a large commitment based on unsettled scientific orounds. The organization established by the Congress should be prepared to support existing scientific investigations taking place at our leading oceanographic institutions. It should analyze the gaps in the existing program and initiate programs to fill these gaps. When industry is unwilling or incapable, it should be prepared to perform limited ap- plication engineering when this is a clear requirement. That the translation of effort from Federal scientific program to working industrial technology would be a rapid one seems obvious to those of us in industry who are prepared to make major investments. We are already well along and show a clear pattern of growth in ocean technology. Federal action of the nature I have suggested would unlock the safe and multiply the degree of industrial involvement in and commitment to the world ocean and its resources as a principal economic activity in the United States. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Clotworthy. Mr. Casey ? Mr. Casry. Mr. Clotworthy, you state that you do not believe we need an organization such as NASA. What do you advocate? Do you think we need any legislation at all? Do you propose a further Federal effort ? Mr. Crorworrnuy. Yes, sir; I believe we do need legislation. Let me try to frame this answer from a businessman’s point of view for lack of a better definition at this time. If we wish to accomplish a particular goal, the general course of the events is to establish an organization which has a clear charter, which has the executive au- thority, and which has the competent people to guide it. We tell them what we want to accomplish and they proceed with the task. There are certain factors associated with the accomplish- ment of goals that are so basic a part of the equation and so basic a determining factor in success that they cannot be argued, and I think most simply they are stated as responsibility and authority met within the organization. I believe there is a need for Federal legislation which provides an executive body that has both the responsibility and the authority to accomplish the goals. I feel that the present method of operation through the ICO, while it has been effective for many years, and is doing a superlative job, is not capable of mounting the effort, taking the steps to achieve spe- cific national goals. I think we have a general understanding of the direction in which we should go, what our national goals should be, though maybe they have not been codified; but I do ‘believe that a coordinating agency as opposed to an executive agency is not the way to get there. 364 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION I do not believe that a group of men sitting around the table repre- senting the interests of many agencies of the Government, as highly motivated as they may be to achieve certain national goals, can suffi- ciently disassociate themselves from the problems of their parent agency to act in the executive manner necessary to accomplish the task. Moreover, they do not generally have the power, because the ap- propriations that support each of the agencies are an independent matter. They come before Congress through a number of committees and generally the oceanographic part of the work of each of these agencies 1s never looked at in terms of the potential accomplishment on the whole for the country. Undoubtedly, the support of the present agencies is needed. and I am not advocating that we scrap the mechanism for working through the present agencies. What I am advocating, though, is a stronger role and a boss. Mr. Casry. Well, it sounds to me like you are talking for something like NASA, because you have voiced what a lot of us voice here, that you have this interagency operation and you have much more major problems in their agency other than oceanography, and if they get in a budget behind oceanography, for it naturally is one of those that suffers, and if the primary objective is defense, they will build a few planes before they will expand their oceanography. Or, if it is In- terior, why, I think one of my colleagues here stated they would be liable to build a few roads in the park before they go more into oceans. It seems to me you are talking more about something like NASA, where that is its charter, and its primary function is a separate and distinct agency with that objective. Now, am I wrong, and if I am wrong, what is in between something like NASA or the interagency setup ? Mr. Ciorworrny. Take first things first. I am not advocating, as I said in the prepared remarks, a NASA-type organization. I will try to draw the distinction between a NASA-type organization and the type of organization I am advocating. I think there is a marked difference if you stand well back from the problem and analyze the need for a sudden thrust into space and the current need for an acceleration of our national oceanographic program. The thrust into space had to be built up to a high level in a very short time. In addition to this, there were very few facilities avail- able. There was no bodies of scientific people available, or a true comprehension in any breadth of organization in the Government of how to get. from here to here—whether it be the moon or just to get a bigger booster. This dictated, I think, much of the framework in which NASA had to be established if it was to succeed. It said that the agency must go out and establish facilities of its own, it must have the power to operate, react very rapidly, to implement goals that it had established. We are not in that condition where the oceans are concerned. We have many fine scientific institutions in the United States that have been working very successfully, though inadequtely funded, for many years. There is a basic cadre of competent scientific people at work. There is a basic organizational structure within universities that treats the discipline of the sea. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 365 There is a basis on which to build, so I do not think we need the crash effort, if you will, that was present in the days of NASA, but I do think that many of the administrative elements that were present in NASA, that is, the ability to establish goals and to take action necessary to achieve their accomplishment, must be present in any agency or council or whatever you wish to call it, that deals with the national ocean program. But the most significant thing is that the type of body selected work through the existing organizations, wherever it is possible, and set out on its own only when an existing organization or the industrial community is incapable or unwilling to do it themselves. Mr. Casry. You are not going to get any of the present existing agencies or departments to admit that they are not doing what they should be doing. That is why we are holding these hearings and why we have these bills. We are not satisfied with the efforts and that is why you are here: You are not satisfied with the efforts. Mr. Crorwortnuy. Yes. I suspect that these agencies would be very pleased, though, if that part of their annual budget dealing with the oceans was decided for them. But the individual agency basis is not the proper way to establish goals for the coming year or defend them. These goals should be established and depended by a body which is responsible to the Congress and answerable in gains made in ocean- ography. At the present time, quite a number of the agenices have ocean- ography way down on the list of priorities, as you have recognized. T think if they would be relieved of the problem of defending a non- mainstream element of their operation, relieved of this responsibility by an agency above them, they would be quite willing to proceed and to continue doing the fine work that they are doing now with what I consider to be an administrative inhibition on their effectiveness. Mr. Casry. I do not know whether we are getting anywhere on this other than the plea or the argument we have heard in the last few days was that the Office of Science and Technology feel that they are handling this properly and giving it a pretty good push and that they are studying further and trying to develop better goals, but I think the real effort and real interest is being lost in the—for a better description—Rube Goldberg manner in which they go around punch- ing buttons, which in turn punches this committee, and the next com- mittee, which finally gets back to the man who headed the first com- mittee. We have one of them wearing three or four hats and he admits he does not have time Mr. Lennon. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. On the record. You may proceed. Mr. Casry. And JT think the gentleman is Director of the Office of Science and Technology. He just has his hands full, so that we do not believe it is given sufficient attention, and he admits that he spends very little time on oceanography. He has one man on his staff that is supposed to be assigned to ocean- ography, but also that man has other things to do, so J think I under- stand what you mean is that we do not need to go in an all-out effort 366 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION such as NASA did, because we have technical knowledge, we have trained personnel and trained people, both in industry and in Govern- ment, which you did not have. But I think structurally we have to have ‘something like NASA if we are going to focus the attention and the effort that should be focused and the effort that should be made in oceanography. As vou are talking about the budget, we are trying to get their ithe et pulled out so it would have specific attention. We tried that once before. In fact we passed a bill and it was pocket-vetoed. Do you think now the bills that we have before us that we make a study, or should we try to set up a separate agency or separate head who has nothing but this, or do vou think we ought to just try to im- prove on the system that we have? Mr. Crorworrny. No; I think something new is needed. As you have observed just now, even with a body of people eminently quali- fied to study the problem, it still turns out that it is a part-time job. I think that is the sickness that the program had from its nception. With the exception of the small staff. Mr. Abel has in the ICO, there is no body of people working on a full-time basis on a national ocean program. It is part time for everybody and I think it is this factor more than anything else that dictates an agency or a council-tyne of approach—a body with executive ability working full time to establish goals and implement their achievement. Mr. Casey. J do not think anvone on this committee criticizes the abilitv of the people that are in the various agencies, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, or on the science and technology staff, or a member of the Council, but we are critical of the mechanics of it. We are critical of the amount of time that they are permitted to devote to it, and T dare say if we could take these men that have appeared before us from the various agencies on oceanography and take them off everything else and nut them on just oceanography, we would have a program we could really be proud of. Mr. CrorwortHy. Indeed you would. Mr. Casry. Then, specifically, vou are not recommending any nar- ticular bill, as T take it, that is before this committee, but vou are here in or eey of us doing something to bring it together and to give it better direction. Is that correct? Does that summarize your position ? Mr. Ciorwortuy. Yes, sir. Mr. Casry. Thank vou. Mr. Jiennon. Mr. Reinecke? Mr. Retnecxr. How many people are involved in the division m your company with resnect to undersea investigation ? Mr. Crorwortuy. Something in excess of a thousand. There are several divisions of the company which have a major role in undersea efforts. The division I head in Baltimore, the Underseas Division, is in- volved in undersea weaponry. sonar. oceanographic instruments, and small manned submersibles of the research variety. There is some- thine in excess of a thousand people involved there. We have a division in Sunnyvale, Calif., which is the lead division on the Polaris nrooram. Now, there are many thousands of people involved in that division. The Atomic Divisions of Westinghouse in the Pittsburgh area, of course, have been supplying nuclear reactors for submarines for many, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 367 many years, and the division in Philadelphia has provided propulsion gear for subsurface vehicles for many years. So I represent only one part of the total Westinghouse effort where underseas is concerned. The division I head does have the responsi- bility for providing the leadership in the corporation for the future efforts in underseas work. Mr. Rernecke. Your listing of the various activities there indicated that almost all of your effort is with respect to military or Government work. Is that right? Mr. Crorworruy. A major percentage of it is. Mr. Rernecke. Is there any appreciable program having to do with private investigation for private industry ? Mr. Crorworrny. Yes. There is obviously a great area between pure military and pure industrial. We havea program with the Coast and Geodetic Survey. We have had several programs with universi- ties, particularly the University of California. Our most significant program with an industrial element in it is the current effort to devise new methods for catching fish by applying the fruits of some modern technology to the age-old problem of how to locate and catch fish. In addition, we have had an extensive cooperative program, how to build small man submersibles, both for research as well as for exploitation. Mr. Rernecxe. The reason I asked that is, frankly, your statement is you feel that further development of the ocean technology will be stifled unless—what I feel you saying is, unless the Government spends more money, it is too big for private investment and to have private direction. Further, you say, when industry is unwilling or incapable, it should be prepared to perform limited applications. Do you really feel this is so much a Federal role that we should put industrial participation at a second-class level ? Mr. Crorworrry. No. Let me clarify that. In my prepared statement I have tried to draw a clear distinction between the science and the technology. The technology is the applier of science. I feel that the private sector of our economy is amply motivated to exploit the ocean, to apply the science, to develop the technology, and that the natural forces at work in the economy are quite satisfactory and will provide impetus where impetus is needed. The thing that I am advocating is a much stronger support and a well-directed support of the basic science, the gathering of basic sci- entific data about the ocean, upon which a technology can be founded. I am saying, in effect, that technology has moved ahead quite rapidly on the basis of unsettled scientific ground, and what I feel is necessary in order to prevent a stifling of this already considerable movement in the private sector of the economy is now a bolstering of our effort in the pure science. Mr. Reinecke. Do you not feel that private industry will, when necessary, make its own investigations into the realm of pure science that would either encourage or help this particular technology ? Mr. Crorworruy. There is no “Yes” or “No” answer to that ques- tion. We are currently involved every day in the fringes of pure scientific investigation. One must be, because the application of the 368 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION knowledge requires a very great comprehension of the scientific basis from which it evolved, but what I feel is lacking is a comprehensive understanding, a comprehensive body of scientific data about the ocean, a complete understanding of the ocean and its mechanisms. Now, the utilization of this data, the body of scientific data, is equally applicable, whether it is in a military role, perhaps in a geo- political situation, or in a straight industria] situation. It is infor- mation that is of value to anyone who has any tangential interest im the ocean. I am saying that industry or the scientific community alone cannot accumulate this body of knowledge. It is too big a job. More im- portantly the priorities must be set, because you cannot do everything today, and I think the setting of objectives is a matter of national importance and should not be directed by the private sector. Mr. Retnecke. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that point, because I feel very strongly that our best interests here are going to come from private industry. Thank you. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Rogers? Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clotworthy, I think you have made the point very well and your technology is pushing science and what we need to do is move ahead very quickly on our research. I presume something like NIH, the National Institutes of Health, where we do supposedly do research and it is applied by the technicians all over the country for the benefits of our Nation. I wonder if you have in mind—you say you do not want NASA, but you want some direction. Would it be your idea that it might be helpful for us to consider legislation or encourage the setting up of oceanography in the President’s setup somewhere, like in the Office of Science and Technology, where the President appoints this man to bring together all of the various budgets to look over to see if we are making the effort to present an overall program of the planning before it goes to the various departments, have some say-so there ? Is that what you have in mind? Mr. Crorworruy. Yes, I would advocate something on that order. Tt must be high enough in the Government to attract the proper respect and attention to the goals and the means for reaching them. Mr. Roczrs. Well, the President has appointed a Special Assistant for Poverty, he has an Assistant for Consumer Affairs, he has one, I see, on crime now. So maybe we could give some thought to this. I think if we can perhaps come out with some legislation directing full attention, and I think the commission will do this in studying the problem, put some real emphasis, then I think the President is going to be very much in favor of something, because I think this will bring it to his attention properly, and there will not be many fields left for him to act in anyhow next year; unless he has some good field to go forward in, I am afraid—so much has been done this year, that I thmk he will grasp this with great vigor and probably move forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Downing, do you have anything? Mr. Downtne. No questions, than you. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 369 Mr. Lennon. You state on page 6 in paragraph 3: “I advocate a strong interagency body with executive powers.” Now when you say an interagency body, you mean a body repre- senting the various agencies of the Federal Government that have an interest in varying degrees in the wide scope of oceanography ? Mr. Crorworruy. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. I know you are familiar with the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Mr. Crorworruy. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Headed by Dr. Hornig, the Chairman. Now, on this Council you have each of the agencies of the Federal Government, or at least all those who have a direct interest in ocean- ography, someone at almost the highest level of that particular agency. Could you get an interagency at a higher level representing the vari- ous agencies in the Federal Council of Science and Technology than we have now ¢ Mr. Crotworruy. No, sir. In fact, you could not, but I believe that you could get people from the agencies for whom the oceano- graphic program was their full-time job. Mr. Lennon. Now, of course, the Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography is a creature of the Federal Council for Science and Tech- nology, established at the instance of the Federal Council, and its Chairman is appointed by Dr. Hornig, the Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Now, that is not too far afield, but what you are complaining about, as I understand it, is that the Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography gets down to the level in the agency where it can not speak with authority for the agency ? Mr. Crorworru. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Is that the complaint ? Mr. ‘CLtorwortuy. And the Interagency Council is a coordinating body. ‘They are doing a marvelous job of preventing duplication of efforts, one agency to another, but Mr. Lennon. But what? What is the inherent weakness of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography since it is the creature of the Federal Council and since it has in its composite membership a person designated by the head of that particular agency for member- ship on the ICO? Mr. Crorwortuy. If there were some means of closing the loop between Dr. Hornig down through the chain into the various agencies that are members of ICO, through the various committees of Congress, who take a look at the budgets of the member committees, back to Dr. Hornig again, and if there was a generator of some impetus Mr. Lennon. The fuction of the ICO, as it was related to us in the past, was that it was to voice the feelings and the objectives of the various agencies through the composite organization of ICO and their respective lesser panels, them that was to go back to the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Is that not being done? Mr. Crorworruy. I am not sure I get the distinction. Mr. Lennon. I said the ICO being a creature of the Federal Coun- cil for Science and Technology was to make these studies and its recom- mendations to the various agencies as relating to oceanography, and 370 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION then it was to make its recommendations to the Federal Council, which is in the highest level that you can get in the Executive Office of the President. Mr. Crorwortuy. Certainly. Mr. Lennon. Now, on paper it looks pretty good. There is no faraway chain of command in this setup, it is a direction where the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, of course, wears two hats. He is Chairman of the Federal Council in the President’s Office. I just do not know how you could, by legislation, create what you propose here in your statement as a strong—a stronger agency with Executive powers in attempting to stimulate oceanography, than you have now. And I want you to tell me how the Congress could draft legislation that would beef up the powers of the ICO. Mr. Crorwortiy. Unless I am ill informed on the subject, the Fed- eral Council has no muscle when it comes to setting budgetary levels in the agencies whose recommendations come to it through the ICO. They do a lot of other things, too, which dilute the total activity of the Federal Council—oceanography is just one of the elements of it. The member agencies, at least as I understand it, establish their budgets through normal agency procedures and they first recommend and then defend these budgets in many parts of the Congress. The loop back to the Federal Council is never closed, the means for putting the screws on the committee of Congress who must approve the budgets of any one agency is not there. ‘The means to say to that agency that the oceanographic portion of its budget is sacrosanct, you cannot tamper with it—that is not there. I feel that the total expenditure for a national oceanographic effort must be set. at the highest levels, must be defended in a body at the highest levels, and that the Congress look at progress in oceanography with a broader perspective. What is it accomplishing? What will it accomplish for the Nation ? And, in turn, be able to hold the agency accountable for success. T do not believe that the Federal Council has that kind of mechanism in its structure. Mr. Lennon. You do not feel that the Federal Council has the mechanism in its structure to review and to have oversight over the various agencies who get funds from their particular budget? Is that the basic complaint here ? Mr. Crorworrny. It has the ability to review and recommend, but there it stops. And it can only recommend downward into the agency. The agency still must carry the ball when it comes time for the prepa- ration of the budget. Mr. Lennon. Well, the President got out this year on March 2 his special message and attached thereto was the national oceanographic program and a line item on each agency and each department and each function and each mission in oceanography. And I dare say that both the legislative committees and the Ap- propriations Committee has by this time approved it in toto. I am sure that everything that was requested has been authorized and appropriated. Now, there are some areas in which you do not have an annual authorization, such as the Department of Commerce that we talked NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 371 about yesterday, with the ESSA program. We are seeking informa- tion, sir, and I appreciate your—I have been very greatly impressed by the sincerity of your statement and your general knowledge with the subject. If you can help us, we want help. Now, Mr. Counsel ? Mr. Drewry. Mr. Clotworthy Mr. Lmnnon. Before you start, could we go off the record? (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. Back on the record. Thank you very much. Mr. Drewry. Mr. Clotworthy, I am interested in your problem about “closing the loop” and about “providing muscle.” Have you given any thought to whether the NACA. concept would be adaptable in this situation? That is, a step short of NASA. I think actually it was out of NACA that a lot of the early space and aeronautics effort was made and probably out of NACA that NASA developed. T am not too familiar in detail with the group, so I am a little hesi- tant in advancing the thought. NACA was a Government agency, at that time without appropria- tions, and yet it was a little offbeat for a Government agency to cope with special problems in fields where both industry was concerned and where Government was concerned. I recall that NACA had non- Government members as well as Government members. Are you familiar enough with that to have any thoughts as to whether that might be a focal pomt. It is not—of course—true in one sense to say there is nobody working full time on oceanography. There are a great many people doing it in Government—in Westing- house—and many other industrial organizations and institutions. But there has been a problem for some time to find a focus. That is the thing we are groping for. And the focus is not needed for surface items, because they are being done. The focus we need is of a coordi- nating nature—of how to make various disciplines work into a program. The program problem comes into certain areas where there seems to be nothing being done and yet where perhaps the Federal Govern- ment should be doing it. Would an agency of that sort, such as NACA, offer any possible solution to close the gap or produce the muscles ? Mr. Cuorwortuy. The NACA approach was considered at length when the NSIA ad hoc committee on the national ocean program had its deliberations. The NACA appreach represents what to us appeared to be a very reasonable means for moving ahead. I am not completely familiar with all of its ramifications, but from what I do know, it is a very satisfactory approach. Mr. Drewry. And may at least as an interim measure lead ulti- mately toa single agency ? Mr. Crorworruy. Yes, sir. Mr. Drewry. Just one further question. You mentioned NSIA, and you mentioned your affiliation with it. Are vou in a sense representing their views here today ? Mr. Crotwortuy. No,sir. My own views. 372 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Drewry. Westinghouse and your own ? Mr. Curorworrny. Yes, sir. Mr. Drewry. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Before you leave, sir, do you know who the Presi- dent’s Science Advisory Committee’s Panel on Oceanography is by individuals or by business relationship or scientific connection ? Mr. Crorworrny. I know some of the people who have served and are serving on that Committee. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Counsel, would you obtain the names and identi- fication by location and profession of the job assignments of the Pres- ident’s Science Advisory Committee on Oceanography, who Dr. Hor- nig says is making a study of the very things that are proposed by the several commissions that are proposed in the bill ? Thank you very much, sir. We do appreicate your appearance here. Now, Mr. Clark, we can accommodate you. We want to do so. Mr. Downine. Mr. Chairman, may I say here that Mr. Clark is a graduate of that great educational institution of VMI, and he and I were in school together there and also at the University of Virginia, so he isa highly qualified person. Mr. Crark. Thank you, Mr. Downing. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Clark, as an individual and as a friend and former classmate of one of our most distinguished members, we want to wel- come you here before the committee. Do you have a prepared statement ? Mr. Crark. Yes, I do, sir, and it has been filed with the committee yesterday. Mr. Lennon. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. On the record. STATEMENT OF DURLAND E. CLARK, JR., THE WESTERN OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE Mr. Crarx. Iam Durland E. Clark, Jr., and I am appearing today on behalf of the Western Oil & Gas Association and the American Petroleum Institute. Since this statement was filed with your com- mittee yesterday, the Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association has asked to be named as a party toit. We appreciate your invitation for us to appear here today and in the interest of brevity we have not. attempted to analyze each of the several bills and make recommendations to you on them. However, we would refer to certain segments of a number of the bills with which we cannot fully agree. We refer to the various sec- tions providing for Federal participation in the exploration for, and economic development of, physical resources of the Continental Shelf, either directly or through grants to private industry. We are opposed to this concept and believe that its retention in any legislation reported by your committee could ultimately put vari- ous agencies of the Federal Government in the offshore oil business as a direct competitor with private enterprise unless the petroleum industry is excluded. ‘ We have attached hereto as addendum an illustration of certain language that might be attached to H.R. 7849, which would result in this exclusion. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 373 We believe that the unintended result of some of this legislation would be detrimental to the continued activities of the American petro- leum industry on the Continental Shelf. Of course, we are referring to the vast offshore explorations carried on by the petroleum industry in the offshore exploration, not only in the gulf and Pacific coasts, but in the Great Lakes and Alaska. Last year these produced 153 million barrels of oil, worth about $361 million, and I might add this eae is on a sharp increase. This activity with its attendant risks has been conducted by private capital and the estimated investment in State and Federal submerged lands is in excess of $3.5 billion. Tn addition, more than $250 million has been spent on pure research of an oceanographic nature such as wave studies, meteorological studies and equipment research and development. As a direct consequence, the United States alone in the last decade has received $1.2 billion from lease mineral bonuses on Outer Conti- nental Shelf offerings, $14 million in rentals and an estimated $16 million a year in royalties. Sums paid to individual State govern- ments would, of course, be in addition to this figure. For example, the State of Louisiana has received in excess of $700 mullion from in- dustry offshore operations. This oil and gas activity by the petroleum industry is unique in the sense that of man’s historic uses of the sea, this is by far the most recent and complex, being measured timewise only in decades and is exceeded by no other industry in terms of the amount of capital required to conduct its operations. No other industry would be directly threatened to the degree that is possible under certain provisions of the bills before you. The sec- tions providing for direct Government participation in, or financing of, offshore mineral exploration and development could operate to force withdrawal of private investment from this activity. We, therefore, recommend that the specific field of exploration for, and production of, oil, gas and sulfur on the Continental Shelf and other submerged lands to which U.S. jurisdiction might attach, be specifically excluded from the provisions of any bill which this sub- committee may recommend. We noted with interest the passage of Senate bill 944 and have quoted in our statement certain segments there which pick up the point that we are making, namely, that private investment occupies a unique role in this field. We have also attached to this statement, which is being filed for the record with you, suggested modifications of S. 944 to achieve the results we are after. Our recommendation is not a plea for permission to operate on the Outer Continental Shelf under other than existing conditions. You are aware that the petroleum industry’s activities there are regulated and supervised by a number of Federal agencies. Among these are the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, Department of Defense, and Fed- eral Aviation Agency. We would anticipate no basic changes in the roles of these various agencies whose efforts have made possible the accomodation of both petroleum activities and other necessary uses of offshore waters. 374. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM ‘LEGISLATION In conclusion, we would add that the provisions of the various bills regarding the administration of oceanographic matters, be it by a Cabinet-level department, Federal council or commission, is a matter which can best be decided by the Congress and has not been specifically studied by us. We do appreciate the opportunity to have appeared here before you, Mr, Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Clark, we are delighted to have your statement and, of course, 1t will be included in the record in its entirety. | (Mr. Clark’s statement follows :) STATEMENT OF DURLAND EH. CLARK, JR., ON BEHALF OF THE WESTERN OIL & GAS ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Durland HE. Clark, Jr., and I am appearing today on behalf of the Western Oil & Gas Associa- tion and the American Petroleum Institute. The Western Oil & Gas Association is a trade association whose members produce, refine, and market more than 90 percent- of the crude oil and associated hydrocarbon products in the six Western States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, and Arizona. The American Petroleum Institute is a nationwide trade association represent- ing all sections of the petroleum industry. We appreciate the invitation of your chairman for interested parties to appear at these hearings, and trust that our comments will be helpful. We have been aware of the growing attention being paid to the subject of oceanography. It was with great interest, therefore, that we examined the several bills before you on this subject. In the interest of brevity, we will not attempt at this time to offer specific comment on each of the many bills under consideration. ‘Instead, we will make an observation and recommendation on a provision common to many of these bills. We refer to the various sections providing for Federal participation in the exploration for, and economic development of, physical resources of the Con- tinental Shelf, either directly or through grants to private industry. We are opposed to this concept and believe that its retention in any legislation reported by your committee could ultimately put various agencies of the Federal Govern- ment in the offshore oil business as a direct competitor with private enterprise unless the petroleum industry is excluded. Using H.R. 7849 as an example, we would like you to note the relatively minor language changes needed to exclude the offshore petroleum industry from this bill’s provisions. This language is shown in the addendum attached to this statement. If these or similar changes are not made in H.R. 7849 and other bills before you, we believe that the unintended result will be detrimental to the continued activities of the American petroleum industry on the Continental Shelf. We are, of course, referring to the vast offshore explorations carried on by the petroleum industry not only on the Gulf and Pacific coasts of the United States, but in the Great Lakes and in Alaskan waters. These activities encompass exploration, development drilling and extensive production facilities necessary to bring oil and gas production onshore. Last year 153 million barrels of oii were produced from these offshore areas. This production generated $361 million of new wealth. This activity, with its attendant risks, has been conducted by private capital and the estimated investment in State and Federal submerged lands is in excess of $3.5 billion. In addition, more than $250 million has been spent on pure research of an oceanographic nature, such as wave studies, meteoro- logical studies and equipment research and dev elopment. As a direct consequence, the United States alone in the last decade has received $1.2 billion from lease mineral bonuses on Outer Continental Shelf offerings, $14 million in rentals, and an estimated $16 million a year in royalties. Sums paid to individual State governments would, of course, be in addition to this figure. For example, the State of Louisiana has received in excess of $700 mnillion from industry offshore operations. The offshore oil and gas activity of the petroleum industry is unique in the sense that of man’s historic uses of the sea, this is by far the most recent and complex, being measured timewise only in decades and is exceeded by no other industry in terms of the amount of capital required to conduct its operations. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 375 No other industry would be directly threatened to the degree that is possible under certain provisions of the bills before you: The sections providing for direct Government participation in, or financing of, offshore mineral exploration and development could operate to force withdrawal of private investment from this activity. We therefore recommend that the specific field of exploration for, and produc- tion of oil, gas, and sulfur, on the Continental Shelf and other submerged lands to which U.S. jurisdiction might attach, be specifically excluded from the provi- sions of any bill which this subcommittee may recommend. S. 944, the proposed Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1965, recently passed by the Senate, has as one of its expressed purposes: “encouragement of private investment enterprise in exploration, technological development, marine commerce and economic utilization of the resources of the marine environment.” (See. 2(3).) With this stated purpose we agree. We also note with satisfaction that the report which accompanied S. 944 (S. Rept. 528) stresses the importance of private enterprise in the development of marine resources. To quote from that report. “While there are important areas involving marine science activity which properly fall within the scope of the Federal Government, the real potential for use and development of marine resources must be brought to fruition by American private enterprise.” We applaud those words and firmly believe that, insofar as the petroleum in- dustry is concerned, they should be spelled out in whatever legislation you may recommend. Attached to our statement is a second addendum suggesting language which could accomplish this. Our recommendation is not a plea for permission to operate on the Outer Continental Shelf under other than existing conditions. You are aware that the petroleum industry’s activities there are regulated and supervised by a humber of Federal agencies. Among these are the Bureau of Land Manage- ment, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, Department of Defense, and Federal Aviation Agency. We should anticipate no basic changes in the roles of these various agencies whose efforts have made possible the accommodation of both petroleum activities and other necessary uses of offshore waters. In conclusion, we would add that the provisions of the various bills regarding the administration of oceanographic matters, be it by a Cabinet-level depart- ment, Federal council or commission, is a matter which can best be decided by the Congress and has not been specifically studied by us. We appreciate the opportunity you have afforded us to submit our views and make a recommendation. Please be aware of our extreme interest in these proceedings and of our continued desire to be helpful in your efforts to develop acceptable legislation from the various proposals before you. ADDENDUM SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 7849 On page 2, insert the word “marine” before the word “resources” in lines 3, 5,and 15. On page 4, add to line 5 the following definition : “(5) The term ‘marine resources’ means all physical, chemical, geological and biological resources other than sulfur, crude oil, natural gas, condensate, tar sands, shale and associated hydrocarbons.” On page 13, in lines 10 and 11, delete the words “physical, chemical, geological and biological” and substitute the words “the marine”. On page 13, in line 16, add the words “marine resources of the” before the words “Continental Shelf”’. On page 13, in line 19, after the word “development” add “of the marine re- sources of the Continental Shelf’. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO S. 944 In section 2(1) strike the period after the word “environment”, insert a comma and add the words “other than sulfur, crude oil, natural gas, conden- Sate, tar sands, shale and associated hydrocarbons.” In section 3(f) (2) after the word “environment” insert the following: “other than sulfur, crude oil, natural gas, condensate, tar sands, shale and associated hydrocarbons,”’. 376 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION In section 3(f) (3) after the word “environment” insert the following: “other than sulfur, crude oil, natural gas, condensate, tar sands, shale and associated hydrocarbons,”. In section 8(a) after the word “disciplines” insert the following: “other than those relating to the exploration, development, production and exploration of sulfur, crude oil, natural gas, condensate, tar sands, shale and associated hydrocarbons.” Mr. Lennon. Mr. Casey, any questions? Mr. Casry. Mr. Clark, I note you do not take any position on the bills here, but with reference to the chairman’s bill stating that we ought to start doing some study about the legal aspects of the control, undevelopment or what have you of the development of the deeper waters, do you think your segment of industry would probably be in favor that that should be looked at now before it gets to be a problem ? Mr. Cuarxk. If I understand your question, sir, we are expecting some legislation in this field and we feel that it is most worthy of a number of national objectives. I thought the previous witness de- veloped quite well a specific area here; namely, that science and tech- nology might very well be separated here. I regret that there was not time to reach a full industry position and study on the mechanics of doing this, which are the nature of the questions which you gentlemen have been asking this morning and where we would like to be as helpful as we could. We do not have such a position, but I think I might reflect something to you that has been common to all of our discussions; namely, that you are somewhat in an area where you walk before you run and there seems to be merit in certain of the bills, I believe Mr. Rogers’ and a companion bill introduced by Mr. Downing, which calls for a com- plete study and specification of areas of need with a definite time to come back and report, I believe in section 4(f) of Mr. Rogers’ bill, with a recommendation for an organization and budget as to how this might be accomplished. Mr. Casey. Well, in addition to the bills with reference to organi- zation, our committee chairman here, Mr. Lennon, has a bill to set up a study of the legal aspects. Right now there are no laws governing, and we do not exercise—nor is there any contemplation that I know of about exercising sovereignty beyond the Continental Shelf, but as the technology grows and we get beyond the Continental Shelf, there is going to have to be some international laws probably or interna- tional regulations, and I just wondered if the oil industry, in particu- lar, might not feel that that was the course we could have. Mr. Cuark. Yes, sir; but we believe it exists to a large degree today. T believe U.S. jurisdiction attached not only to the Continental Shelf, but to adjacent areas to which engineering and exploitation might attach. Several years ago, in some of our early discussions with the Bureau of Land Management, this subject came out very clearly. They did not want to offer leases, for example, off the west coast beyond the Continental Shelf, and this map, of course, will show that sometimes within half a mile of shore you can be in excess of 200 meters water depth, so this obviously had to be accommodated. They asked us where we thought we should be able to go. We can only have one answer to that; namely, as far as we can be protected. We believe that existing international law, which provides for us to move outward from the Continental Shelf, should pertain. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION BL Mr. Casey. That is true if it is something that comes from the floor of the ocean ? Mr. Cuarx. Yes, sir. Mr. Casry. But we have no agreement with reference to extraction of minerals from sea water or from anything above that ocean floor. Mr. Cuark. In that aspect, sir, there would be merit in this, but I hope you realize that my interest here is parochial to the extent of the industry that I am representing, and when we look at the entire prob- lem, of course, this becomes very clear. Mr. Casry. You have some members of the American Petroleum Institute that are doing more than just drilling for oil, as you well know. Mr. CrarKk. That is correct, sir. Mr. Casey. And they are interested—some of them, you know— they are interested in all forms of energy. When you start talking about energy, you get a lot of energy out of ocean waves as far as that is concerned. Mr. CuarK. Yes, sir. Mr. Cassy. Thank you, sir. Mr. Lennon. Before we proceed any further, I want the record to show that we again today have the pleasure of having with us—and I think we have at all of our hearings—Mr. Dan Markel, the technical consultant to the Senate Committee on Commerce, who is interested in this whole subject. We appreciate very much, Mr. Markel, your being here. Mr. Downing? Mr. Downtne. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clark, as I gather, you would like for the petroleum aspects of oceanography to be excluded from this legislation ? Mr. CrarK. Yes, sir; some aspects of it. That is correct. Mr. Downine. And it is your fear and that of your industry that the Federal Government would possibly become a competitor of pri- vate industry in this field? Mr. Crarx. That is correct. Mr. Downtne. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Clark, did I understand you to say while you were representing the API—the American Petroleum Institute—as well as the Western Oil & Gas, that the total industry has not de- veloped a position on this? Mr. Crark. That is correct, sir. Mr. Lennon. How long would it take to develop one for the total industry ? Mr. CuarK. Well, sir, if I could give—if you will forgive an ob- servation, they say a camel was a horse designed by a committee. I think it might take a little time. If it is something you desire, we could certainly tackle it. Mr. Lennon. It has been suggested to me by counsel it would be well if the record reflected the total interest, if we could on this mat- ter—if such can be obtained. Give me some projected time, months, weeks, or what. Mr. Cuarx. Sir, I think within 30 days we could do this. Mr. Lennon. If we have not reported this legislation by that time, it would be well for this committee to have that information. 53—-367—65——_25 378 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. CuarK. Yes, sir. (The following letter was subsequently submitted for nici in the record :) AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, New York, N.Y., September 2, 1965. Hon. Atton LENNON, f House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: The petroleum industry welcomes the opportunity to present its views on the broad subject of oceanography. Our economic stake in the marine environment gives us a vital interest in legislation dealing with the oceans. ‘The petroleum industry has been very active in many phases of this science for many years and the American Petroleum Institute, also, has done research in this area for 35 years. As a result of your request to Mr. D. HE. Clark, who appeared before your committee on August 12; we assembled a group of petroleum experts who re- viewed the various bills on oceanography which are currently before Congress. Several of the proposed bills contain provisions for the centralizing of all oceanographie activities in one agency in the Federal Government. We do not believe that creation of such an agency would be for the best interest of the country. Oceanography is a name that can be applied to any braneh of science if it happens to have application in a marine environment. As has been brought out in your hearings, there are a great number of Government agencies that must use one or more phases of oceanography.. To attempt to remove these activities and centralize them in one group would be like trying to take all the activities in physics away from those agencies that apply physics in pursuit of their missions and centralize them in a single group. You will recall that some time ago there was an attempt to set up a U.S. Department of Science. Objec- tions were raised to this idea since science is used by most departments and agencies of the Government and, therefore, to strip these groups of their sci- entific activities would cripple their ability to undertake some of the missions for which they have a primary responsibility. We believe the same reasoning argues against the creation of a single department to handle oceanographic activities. Some of the proposed bills, including S. 944 as passed by the Senate, would create a new organization to try to coordinate all of the oceanographic activity in the Federal Government. While improved coordination is undoubtedly desir- able, we think a new organization would only duplicate or replace the present coordinating committee and activity which is currently being handled by the President’s Office of Science and Technology. Our industry favors actions designed to provide basic informattion about the oceans in the belief that such knowledge will be highly useful to many segments of the national economy. If your committee, however, wishes to propose legis- lation bearing more directly upon specific oceanographic programs and their administrative direction, we think it important that the science of oceanography be clearly distinguished from the technology employed in its application. ‘This basic science for example could involve the complex relationships of ocean cur- rents, marine biology, temperature and salinity variables, meteorology, etc., and is properly a sphere for Federal programs. On the other hand, technological developments in this environment, and most specifically commercial exploitation of mineral and other resources, have been and should remain an important field for private investment. We would encourage increased Federal programs in oceanography focused on scientific inquiry. It would be expected that the obtained data would be utilized by industry and other agencies in the develop- ment of the needed technology. You are aware of the substantial investment of the petroleum industry in the exploitation of subsea mineral resources. Future years hold every prospect for continuation and expansion of these efforts not only in oil, gas, and sulphur production but to an enlarged list of minerals and chemicals. This enlarged search will not be, of course, exclusive to our industry. It will be based, how- ever, upon the continuation of economic incentives and protection of proprietary rights in discovery and development in an ever increasing geographic area. We believe that a constant review of Federal law in this field is desirable and would NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 379 expect such to be part of the studies of the Public Land Law Review Commission, International law and agreements in this field will be of increasing importance. The American Petroleum Institute heartily subscribes to the proposition that the Federal Government’s role in oceanography is important and necessary. The question that follows is how can this role properly be played. We regard the existing framework as adequate to meet the current needs. The President’s Office of Science and Technology appears to us as the most appropriate vehicle for initiating comprehensive programs and coordinating the vast numbers of programs and missions in oceanography underway in various agencies of the U.S. Government. For example, within this Office is the ICO which was established specifically for the purpose of coordination. Its endeavors should be permitted to continue by strengthening its staff and providing proper funding. We believe that the bill proposed by you, H.R. 2218, would strengthen the current activity of the President’s Office of Science and Technology, and will insure that the country’s activities in this important field are better guided and coordinated, and will obtain surveillance at the highest level. Also, we like the provision which calls for annual reporting of the status of the oceanography pro- gram to Congress. We would recommend, however, that the definition of ocean- ography contained in section 6 be modified as follows: “Suc. 6. As used in this Act the term ‘oceanography’ is defined as the acquisi- tion, assembling, processing, and dissemination of all scientific and technological marine and related environmental data, including, but not limited to, physical, chemical, geological, biological, fisheries, hydrographic and coastal survey, mete- orological, climatological, and geophysical data with the object of comprehending the world ocean, its boundaries, its properties, and its processes, and cf encour- aging the use of this comprehension in the national interest, in the enhancement of our security, our culture, our international posture, and our economic growth.” Our definition places stress upon the Federal Government’s encouraging and participating in the development of basic research for dissemination to the pri- vate sector. By dissemination of basic data to the public at large, the Govern- ment is contributing to the advancement of science, and its application for useful purposes. Applying this basic research data is a job for which the private sector is admirably fitted and given the opportunity it can do so as history amply indicates. In the development of both marine science and technology, there will be numer- ous areas of joint interest in Federal and industry programs, especially relating to matters of national defense. The petroleum industry would expect to cooper- ate fully with governmental departments having need of any special expertise in marine operations or equipment, and in particular, we would be happy to be represented on the Advisory Committee provided in your bill H.R. 2218 or on the Commission provided in S. 944. Similarly, these skills may be made available in assisting research in specific Federal programs such as the Mohole project. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to explain further the petroleum indus- try’s ideas concerning oceanography. If we can be of further assistance, we hope you will call on us. Sincerely, FRANK N. IKARD. Mr. Lennon. Counsel ? Mr. Drewry. Of all the people engaged in oceanography in the sense that we are trying to lead to, the oil industry is paramount. It is doing more and has done more, spent more money at it, and is mak- ing more money out of it than anybody else. The interest and the knowledge of the oil industry, if it could be brought to bear and give the Congress the benefit of its experience and knowledge that they have developed, I think could be very helpful to us in any concept of a national program of oceanography. It would seem to me that the oil and gas industry should be defi- nitely a participant in it if anybody is, and that was the thought behind my suggestion to the chairman that he ask you whether you could get a broader position and a more detailed position than the slightly negative one that you presented today. 380 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Cuarx. Yes; I appreciate that. Mr. Drewry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Captain Bauer? Captain Bauer. Mr. Clark, would it be all right to include in your thinking other minerals such as some of the oil companies owning or leasing gold right and so on and so forth on the Continental Shelf off Alaska. Just petroleum products, it seems to me, might be too narrow. We might include all minerals? Mr. Crarx. Yes, sir; there should be a general exclusion, I believe, in those areas of technology in which companies operating today and are investing money. This is true; there have been gold applications in Jakes. In fact, on a worldwide basis one of the companies was interested in diamonds off South Africa. There have been phosphate leases off California. There are other things involved; yes, sir. So this could be expand- ed. The reason that point was not picked up is, we did not feel that was exclusive to us and we were pointing at our prime area of empha- sis. We thought others would possibly pick that point up. Captain Baurr. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you. I want to again express our appreciation for the attendance of so many people here today. Mr. Reinecke, I believe you said you pass ? Mr. Rernecse. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. And say to you, Mr. Gillean and Mr. Chapman, that I cannot be here tomorrow, but the committee will meet tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock in this room. The committee is now adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, August 13, 1965.) NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 1965 Hovust or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE CoMMITTEE ON MercHant Marine AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bob Casey, presiding. Mr. Downine. The committee will come to order. Our first witness this morning will be Mr. James M. Gillean, presi- dent, San Diego Chamber of Commerce. He is accompanied by Mr. Finn Claudi-Magnussen, chairman, Oceanographic Committee, San Diego Chamber of Commerce. Gentlemen, we are pleased to have you here this morning. I presume you have a prepared statement ? STATEMENT OF JAMES M. GILLEAN, PRESIDENT, SAN DIEGO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY FINN CLAUDI- MAGNUSSEN, CHAIRMAN, OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMITTEE, SAN DIEGO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. Gutman. Yes, I have, Mr. ‘Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished committee members. First let me say it is a pleasure for us to appear here and we ap- preciate very much the opportunity you have afforded us to attend. I do have a prepared statement which I should like to read. Mr. DowniNnc. We appreciate your taking the time to come here and make this contribution, and it is a very valuable contribution. Mr. Guean. Thank you, sir. Mr. Downtne. If you will go ahead. Mr. Gittean. First I should like to very briefly trace the history of the interests of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce in oceanography. The San Diego Chamber first became interested in oceanography some 60 years ago, in 1905, when it spearheaded a drive to raise funds for the purpose of constructing the original building to house the then Marine Biological Sciences Institute which became absorbed as part of the University of California in 1912, known today, of course, as the famous Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Some 2 years ago the San Diego Chamber of Commerce organized its oceanographic committee which uses the title “Oceanographic” in the popular sense but directs its attention to all aspects of marine science and development, particularly as they relate to San Diego. 381 382 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Because of the community’s preeminence in this great new field of exploration and activity we were able to attract to the committee men of great capability, nationally and internationally recognized as ex- perts in all facets of oceanographic research, development, and produc- tion. I thought it would be interesting for the members of your com- mittee to know who these men are and I am providing each member with a roster of that particular committee, which, incidentally, num- bers almost 50 persons of preeminence in this field. That appears in the brochures which we have distributed. The first task which our committee assumed was to identify and catalog all educational, governmental, research and development, mili- tary, commercial and industrial agencies and firms in the San Diego area working in the marine field. Of the more than 50 identified, in excess of 30 are engaged in developing and building components, in- struments, and hardware for scientific, military, and commercial uses. The committee has published a brochure, Oceanography im San Diego, Calif., which we believe is the first produced by any community in the United States. It describes pictorially and editorially San Diego’s ocean environment, its natural resources, its technical, edu- cational, research, library, and support facilities, its firms with ex- perience, its human resources—in short, San Diego’s present inventory and potential capacity in the oceanographic field. The committee has also cooperated with the famous Scripps In- stitution of Oceanography of the University of California and the Navy Electronics Laboratory in identifyimg San Diego as an oceano- graphic center of worldwide interest and prestige. The Naval Electronics Laboratory was first established in 1906. The present name, of course, is derived from its activities much, much better than that. Oceanographic enterprises are growing rapidly in San Diego. Re- cent, additions include Sealab (the Navy’s underwater living experi- ment) and the Navy’s Deep Sea Submergence Group, General Dy- namics Marine Technology Center, Lockheed’s Ocean Science Center, Kennecott Copper Co.’s Special Projects Office, the Westinghouse Deep Star oceanographic submarine, and Marine Science International. Add these to the list which appears in the brochure we are providing for the members of the committee and I feel certain that you will know why we felt impelled to come to Washington to share with you in these hearings our thoughts on the kind of Federal legislation we think would best implement the national oceanographic program. Rather than address ourselves to the details of the specific bills which are under study, we present to you our recommendations for the prin- ciples we feel should influence the nature of the legislation to be adopted and for the type of organization which could best implement the most effective national program. Here to present the recommendation of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce Oceanographic Committee is its chairman, Mr. Finn Claudi- Magnussen, director, planning and marketing, Whittaker Corp., Narmco Research & Development Division. .Mr. Claudi-Magnussen and his company are currently designing and building structures for deep sea use. Mr. Casry. Proceed, ‘Mr. Claudi-Magnussen. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 383 Mr. Cxaupi-Macnussen. Gentlemen, I am here representing the chamber of commerce as chairman of its oceanographic development committee. I would like to add my appreciation for this opportunity of bringing to you some recommendations which we hope will guide you in your very important work in surveying our national oceanographic program. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed to read these five points for the record. Mr. Casey. Proceed. Mr. Cuaupi-Maenussen. 1. The ocean sciences are undergoing a significant change from what many have known as oceanography toward full utilization of the vast resources in and under the oceans. The change is accompanied by increased emphasis on and capability in ocean engineering designed to develop, occupy, and use these re- sources. Any legislation adopted should recognize this fact and should lead to maximum development of our national capabilities for ocean utilization in the scientific, engineering, industrial, and govern- mental fields. 2. It would appear that the strategic military power on the seas be- tween the free world and the Sino-Soviet bloc has reached the point where neither side has a clear-cut advantage. Under the circum- stances, control of the ocean resources may wel] become a decisive factor. Adequate legislation should therefore make provision for U.S. occupation, use, and development of strategic ocean resources and for an expanded role for the U.S. Navy in providing support for such activities. 3. At present, the national oceanographic activities are divided among a large number of bureaus and agencies, with each assigned a relatively minor proportion of responsibility and limited funds. A project which would require financial support of a magnitude exceed- ing the capability of any of these bureaus or agencies, or which would require participation by more than one of them would cur- rently present great difficulties in funding, coordination, and manage- ment and would seriously impair national developments in this vital field. Legislation should be designed to correct this situation. 4, An appropriate organization should be established within the executive branch of the Federal Government with advisory and op- erational responsibility, also with the capacity to financially support national oceanographic programs and to coordinate and assist in 1m- plementing through existing agencies and bureaus an adequate and ‘balanced national program of oceanography. 5. The membership of such an organization should be composed of representatives of Government, business and industry, and the aca- demic community. This completes my prepared statement. I shall be happy to attempt to answer questions and provide clarification on any point. Mr. Casry. Thank you, gentlemen, for a very interesting presen- tation. T want to compliment you on your originality shown in this folder. It is very informative and I think this gives a very graphic display of what San Diego is doing. I wish my city could show this same progress. Mr. Downing? 384 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Downtne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I go along with the chairman on this interesting approach to a very challenging subject. I also would like to say that this is a novel presentation. I was so much impressed that I sent the entire package down to my own cham- ber of commerce with the suggestion we get into this field, too. Mr. Gititean. Thank you. Mr. Downtne. I want to commend you and your chamber for this contribution to this subject. Mr. Gittean. Thank you, Mr. Downing. Mr. Downine. In your statement, Mr. Claudi-Magnussen, in para- graph 4, yousay: An appropriate organization should be established within the executive branch of the Federal Government. Are you familiar with the various bills which are pending before the committee at the present time? Mr. Craupi-Maenussen. I have reviewed several of the House bills; es, sir. ‘ Mr. Downrtne. Which of those bills, if any, most nearly meet these objectives ? Mr. Cuaupi-Maenussen. Mr. Gillean has pointed out we are not here to support or to be opponents of any one bill. The type of organization which is in recommendation No. 4 which best reflects the consensus of the oceanographic community in San Diego would be one which is located within the area pointed out with a direct line of communication with the Chief Executive, at least as close as possible, with both advisory capacity and the ability to provide certain funds as required. Perhaps on the second point we can clarify what we have in mind. We are concerned about some of the situations which we have run into described in paragraph 3 where a worthwhile project may be right- fully and logically assigned to a bureau or to an agency but it is of such magnitude that it presents difficulties in undertaking. At that point we would feel something the equivalent of the Defense Department can direct funds to get the project moving. Thisis along the lines of coordination. We feel a little money speaks quite loudly in bringing about coordination between the several agencies and groups which have to work together on these various projects. Mr. Downtne. Thank you very much. Mr. Casry. Mr. Mosher? Mr. Mosuer. Mr. Claudi-Magnussen, in your first paragraph do I read in there correctly an implication that oceanography perhaps is a term that is too limited, that you are suggesting we begin to use some broader terminology perhaps even in our legislation ? Mr. Cravupi-Maenussen. I notice several of the bills before you use the expression “oceanography and related items.” Frankly our activi- ties in the chamber of commerce in San Diego has had problems in what to call ourselves. The term “oceanography” is the scientific ac- tivity of learning about the ocean. “Ocean engineering” is used quite commonly today and it means generally the ability to implement this knowledge in doing useful work in the ocean. That is a distinction. Yes, we are pointing out in paragraph 1 that this is a very impor- tant aspect of the overall ocean activities, this ocean engineering, this ability to operate in the ocean and harvest its resources. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 385 Mr. Mosuerr. Are you suggesting that “ocean engineering” would be a better overall term and it would include oceanography ? Mr. Cuaupi-Macenussen. No, I am afraid that would not be right because that also delineates a certain segment of the spectrum of ocean activities. It would, strictly speaking, not include the scientific ocean engineering. Frankly, I am at a loss in that regard. We have had discussions among the experts and they speak of oceanic activities. Mr. Mosuer. This committee, in writing legislation, might invent a hrase. Mr. Craupt-Maenussen. It would be well. If there is a term which would describe the broader aspects this is what we are pointing out, that this legislation should take care of what is a growing activity in the overall field of oceanics. Mr. Mosuer. Oceanography itself is an inadequate term ? Mr. Cuaupi-Maenussen. For lack of a better term we are using that in its broader encompassing meaning than the strictly scientific mean- ing. Mr. Mosuer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Retnucxe I am happy to welcome these two Californians to the committee and compliment you on your fine presentation. I am happy to see the West showing some life in this because I think we are being scooped by the east coast and if we are not careful we will lose some interesting industrial activity. Mr. Claudi-Magnussen, you mention in your third paragraph that you feel there needs to be a coordination of these various activities. We recognize this and we are looking for suggestions. Do you have any such suggestions ? Mr. Cxiaupi-Maenussen. I would like to refer back to comments I made a moment ago. We do feel that if the organization we advocate in the executive branch has some ability to provide funds as required to get programs moving that this would provide the catalyst, the impetus to get a project going. In this connection we know from large private industrial companies that it is much easier to achieve coordination, a meeting of the minds, and assignments of responsibilities among different segments if there is the ability to say “Now we want you to work together, we have some money to assist you in getting this program going.” We feel some funds would be quite effective. Mr. Reinecke. Are you familiar with the structure of the ICO at the present time? Mr. Craupi-Maenussren. Not in detail, but generally. Mr. Rernecxe. Do you feel this is the type of coordinating agency which should be put together ? Mr. Ciaupi-Maenussen. The ICO is doing a very outstanding job. I would reflect the opinions of the large segment of the oceanographic community in San Diego if I were to say that the more direct line of communication with the Chief Executive than such a group has the more it would please the oceanographic community. In other words, we want as high an authority as possible. Mr. Reinecke. Do you feel at the present time that the ocean engi- neering aspect has been played down and put into a secondary position ? 386 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Craupi-Maenussen. I don’t think it has been done so by design but I think that that aspect of the oceanograpic activities as grown very: significantly. Even the Navy in its deep-submergence program, car- ried on for military purposes, of course, is developing technologies: which can be very important to private industry. oF As I have pointed out in point 2, we feel that the ability to occupy, if you will, the position they have this can well become a factor of strategic importance because of this balance of very powerful military organizations. It hasa neutralizing effect. ; Mr. Retnecke. Do you feel that the status, or lack of status, or legal understanding prevents coordination ? Mr. Ciaupi-Maenussen. From what I gather in talking to several members of our committee in discussing that aspect of it this is a field’ that has fallen behind. Clarification of the legal aspects needs to be strengthened. Mr. Rernecke. Private industry would move along faster if they knew exactly where they stood ? Mr. Craupi-Macenussen. Yes. Uncertainties there add to the amount of risk. Mr. Rernecke. You feel that should be taken care of in this: legislation ? Mr. Craupi-Maenussen. Yes. Mr. Reinecke. Thank you; I have no further questions. Mr. Casey. Does counsel have any questions ? Mr. Drewry. In your statement you bring out some broad guide- lines. You do not indicate any preference from this wide selection. Are there any particular bills which you favor more than others? Mr. Craupi-Maenussen.. I do not recall the specific approaches rela- tive to the atuhors of the bill and their numbers, but as I recall several of them reflect this philosophy of the executive branch being more: active and activein an advisory capacity. Mr. Drewry. It would not necessarily have to be a separate agency ? Mr. Craupi-Maenussen. No. Mr. Drewry. If there is to be a coordinating agency then it should have not only the function of coordinating but some operational function. Mr. Ciaupi-Macnussen. That is what we reflect here, not im any sense usurping the responsibilities of financial capabilities of the estab- lished bureaus and agencies but rather to act with reserve funds so they can put these into effect when deemed necessary to bring about coordination in getting the job done, or perhaps to augment the exist- ing financial capabilities of whatever agency or bureau has this job: assigned to it. Mr. Drewry. You gave an example of a project which would require financial support. Mr. Craupt-Maenussen. Yes, I would be very pleased to give am example. I do not know all the details of the situation, but in San Diego the National Steel & Shipbuilding Co. is low bidder on the: Project Mohole, $4.5 million lower than the next lowest bidder. How- ever, their bid exceeded the ability to fund for this by the National Science Foundation. I understand that the problem in such a situation always exists, but in the case of the National Science Foundation it is of more: NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 387 concern to that agency to start on a program assuming that in the next fiscal year there will be further moneys allocated to complete it which perhaps might be in excess in other agencies. There is a situation where we would hope that some additional moneys could be provided to the National Science Foundation to get this job going. This is an example of how one would use such reserve funds, di- rector’s funds, or funds resting with this group in the executive branch. Mr. Drewry. In the Mohole project we have an example of a single project under a single directorship where they have had no problem in getting to the Appropriations Committee. I do not see how it would necessarily be any different if it were any other agency unless there was provision to have large amounts of completely unspecified or unearmarked moneys. Mr. Craupi-Macenussen. Many programs are undertaken with par- tialfunding. Youhaveto get started. Mr. Drewry. I see what you mean. Mr. Craupi-Maenussen. The point is that if there is financial capa- bility to fund 80 percent of the task, perhaps this is a problem. If the cognizant bureau or agency is able to allocate 100 percent of the funds for the project this would be an example of a situation where perhaps the additional support could be provided to get the job done. Mr. Drewsy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Casry. Mr. Bauer ? Mr. Bauer. I have just two questions, more or less hypothetical. Is it usual for industry to mix management functions with staff functions ? Mr. Crauprt-Maenussen. Sir, | did not understand. Mr. Bauer. Is it usual for industry to mix line operative functions and staff functions in the same group, the line operators being the people who do basic Mr. Craupt-Maenussen. It is often done. In most of the situations Iam aware of the line function as being one of augmenting and sup- porting rather than being a prime responsibility for a function. In our company we have a staff assistant to the president for certain functions, but he is not only advisory to the president, he also has some financial capabilities to allocate some moneys to augment, support, and stimulate activities within his area of responsibility. Mr. Bauer. Outside of that area it is not an operating authority ? Mr. Cuaupt-Maenussen. That is right. Mr. Bauer. Is it usual to give responsibility to one group and au- thority to another group? In other words, can you spht up authority and responsibility and have a successful industry ? Mr. Ciaupi-Maenussen. Again, under the circumstances for which I gave an example, the segment of the organization which receives ad- ditional support has the major line of responsibility for the execution of the program. My. Bauer. So in any one box the authority and responsibility coexist in that one box. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Casry. On the Mohole project it is my understanding that the National Science Foundation has appropriations for this project. 388 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The limitation was that the Bureau of the Budget had to approve these me Of course, there is no line item in their appropriation for ohole. Is that correct, Counsel? Mr. Drewry. Frankly, I do not know, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Casny. My recollection is that their appropriation is for a lump sum for all of their functions, Mohole being one specific project. Of course, they have various grants which are made and other studies they undertake. Gentlemen, I again want to compliment you on your presentation. I think you have certainly reflected a great credit on San Diego and San Diego should be very proud of its chamber of commerce and the knowledgeable men they have interested in this particular subject. Mr. Gittean. Thank you very much again for your time, gentlemen. Mr. Cuavupt-Maenussen. Thank you. Mr. Casry. We will next hear from Dr. W. M. Chapman, director, Division of Resources, Van Camp Sea Food Co. Doctor, itis.a pleasure to have you again. I understand you are not going to endeavor to read all of this state- ment this morning, but that you will give us the benefit of a summary nna statement and the benefit of your wealthy knowledge in this eld. STATEMENT OF DR. W. M. CHAPMAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF RESOURCES, VAN CAMP SEA FOOD CO. Dr. CuHarman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may be permitted to do so, I have two statements, one in respect to H.R. 5175, the law of the sea matter, a bill which I favor, and one more generally on the general ocean policy. I would like to file those for the record and speak extemporaneously and submit to questioning. Mr. Casey. Without objection that will be done. (The statements referred to follow :) STATEMENT oF W. M. CHAPMAN RESPECTING H.R. 5175, THE LAW OF THE SEA AND PuBLIC POLICY My name is Wilbert McLeod Chapman. I am director, Division of Resources, Van Camp Sea Food Co. In appearing before you this morning, however, I am testifying in my personal capacity. I have been asked to speak as an expert on the subjects of the law of the sea and public policy related thereto. Such ex- pertise as I have on the subject arises from having been special assistant to the Under Secretary of State for Fisheries and Wildlife for 3 years beginning in mid- 1948, and from that time until the conclusion of the second United Nations Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea in the spring of 1960 having partici- pated in most of the fishery negotiations in which the United States engaged with various nations, international conferences called on this subject under the aegis of the Organization of American States and the United Nations, and sessions of the International Law Commission and the General Assembly of the United Nations devoted to this subject. LAW OF THE SEA The law governing activities upon the ocean is quite different than the law governing activities on the land both in basis and in substance. The essential difference stems from the type of ownership. Bae { Substantially all of the dry land in the world (comprising about 29 percent of the earth’s surface) is the property of some group of people organized into a NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 389 sovereign nation. There are presently about 115 such sovereign organizations. Within the territory of each such organization, or nation, the laws it has devised for the goverance of its own citizens are supreme excepting as it has agreed to their modification in specific instances by treaty among it and other sovereign nations. Infringements of any these several bodies of law are punishable by the sovereign of that territory and by no other. On the other hand substantially all of the world ocean (which, with its com- municating seas and gulfs, covers a little more than 71 percent of the earth’s surface), is the commonly owned property of all of the sovereign nations of the world. Individual persons do not, and cannot, own any part of this great ex- panse of territory. It is governed under international law. Individual citizens of any country can be, and are, the objects of international law but only soy- ereigns are its subjects. The essence of sovereignty is independence of other sovereigns. The activity of any person or entity upon the ocean, so long as it affects only other persons or entities subject to the same sovereignty, falls within the purview of the law of the sovereign of that person or entity, and infractions are punish- able only by it. In the United States (and many other countries) a separate body of law called admiralty law, covers the bulk of such activities. This law is at the Federal Government level. There is also much other law at the Federal level bearing upon such activities growing out of various Federal laws adopted to implement agreements made among the United States and other sovereign zovernments, the Submerged Lands Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Act, ete. Within the U.S. system of sovereignty certain important segments of this sort of law have been delegated to the purview of ‘the law of the several State gov- ernments of the Union. Among these are the regulation of fishing and of the harvesting of resources of the Continental Shelf in certain definite areas defined by the Submerged Lands Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Act. Thus there are 50 separate bodies of law governing these sorts of activities under, in, and on the ocean by U.S. citizens. When, however, actions of a person or entity on the international common of the high seas affects, or comes in conflict with, the activities of a person or entity pertaining to another sovereign these effects or conflicts are governed under international law. This is the law which governs sovereigns and not their subjects. It is with this sort of law which the present statement is primarily concerned. Much of the comment which has given rise to H.R. 5175, and similar proposed legislation, suggests that there is no regularized public order of the ocean. To the contrary the public order of the ocean is highly regularized, most of it has been rather recently codified in four conventions arising from the 1958 Geneva International Conference on the Law of the Sea, and there are a number of ex- cellent and comprehensive reviews of the status of this law in most prominent languages, and particularly in the English language. Most of the present ferment over the law of the sea in the United States is not due to lack of law, or uncertainty about it, but to the impossibility of the U.S. Congress legislating effectively in respect of it so as to keep it abreast of desired public policy in the United States, and to the very slow anc cumbersome methods by which the U.S. Government can obtain modification of this body of interna- tional law to comport with its views of proper public order and policy. Within the United States there are bodies of citizens who want some aspect of the law of the sea modified in one direction and others who want the same aspect of it modified in another or opposite direction. This conflict is reflected in repre- sentations by both sides of the controversy to the legislative branch of the U.S. Government. In most conflicts of interest like this among groups of its citizens the United States resolves the problem by a legislative action in the Congress, and appropriate action in the executive branch of the Government, all subject to review by the judicial branch in the light of the Federal Constitution, other law, general public interest, etc. In the case of such conflict of interest over the law of the sea, however, the legislative branch cannot initiate this sequence he- cause it is without power to legislate effectively in this field. Other sovereigns are not required to take cognizance of any of its actions as affecting their own citizens. The only way the matter can be moved is for the executive branch of the U.S. Government, as the sovereign in international relations, to reach agreement on the change in international law with the other affected sovereigns. If the subject in conflict affects only one or a few sovereigns the United States is often able to obtain such agreement rather readily but the agreement is with- 390 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION out effect in respect of sovereigns not party to the agreement, or in respect of their citizens. If it is desired to change a basic part of international law there must be general agreement amongst the nations. Even then the agreement is not binding upon any sovereign (or its citizens) not a party to the agreement. Amongst those sovereigns who have agreed to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice recourse to that body may be had in case of con- flict under recognized international law, but by no means all sovereigns have accepted that jurisdiction. The U.S. Government is one sovereign which has not fully accepted that court’s jurisdiction. THE PROBLEM The primary problem with which we are here engaged, it appears to me, is not a knowledge of the law of the sea, or a lack of the law of the sea, but a most frustrating inability to quickly change the law of the sea to conform either to our ideas of how it should be construed, or to keep it abreast of new demands brought about by new sorts of uses capable of being made of the sea arising from the application of advances in science and technology. The new problems aris- ing out of the burgeoning increase in knowledge and understanding of the ocean, and of new technologies capable of utilizing this new knowledge and under- stading, are thrusting themselves at us in an intemperate and uncontrollable rush; at the same time we do not have several of the oid problems yet resolved. In my view what is wanted is not just a study of the law of the sea. Many fine studies of this nature are on the shelves of the Library of Congress. What is wanted, instead, is an examination of what these new and old problems re- specting the use of the sea are, and are likely to become; how they impinge upon the existing law of the sea; and what should be the public policy of the United States in respect of these problems, jointly and severally, which would best serve the general and long-term interest of the United States. The term jointly and severally is used advisedly and not as a term of art. Our experience over these past 20 years is that it is enormously difficult, if indeed it is possible, to open up for modification one aspect of the law of the sea, and get that attended to according to our satisfaction, without at the same time having other sovereigns open up for modification other aspects of the law of the sea whose adoption would adversely affect our interests in a major manner. It may be instructive to consider one example, that arising from new knowledge and technologies making possible the harvesting of petroleum resources from beneath the sea. PETROLEUM RESOURCES During the last World War, and shortly before, it was discovered that large resources of petroleum underlay the land under the sea bordering the continents and technologies were developed which made it practical to harvest these newly found resources under deeper and deeper water, farther and farther offshore. Much accumulated knowledge arising from harvesting such resources under dry land indicated that there required to be a governing of the means of harvest so that the individual and the public interest would be best served. Further- more, the tax revenues that could be expected from such harvesting, as well as the possible profits, were very large. U.S. law was not clear in all cases as to whether these resources fell within the purview of the Federal Government or of the several State governments. Great political and legal turmoil ensued within the United States over these questions which was finally resolved by judgments of the Supreme Court and new acts of the Congress. These aspects of the problem were solely within the purview of the United States as long as they were confined to area within the territorial limits of the United States which were then, as now, considered to reach out seaward by 3 marine miles from the dry land of the United States, with the possible exception of some areas facing on the Gulf of Mexico. The trouble was that these petroleum resources extended out to sea more than 3 miles, and more than 12 miles in some instances, and were harvestable in these more remote locations as well. Their harvesting in these more remote areas of the Continental Shelf required governing just as it did elsewhere, and for substantially the same reasons. But the resources on the Outer Continental Shelf did not belong to the United States, or to any other single country, under international law, and they were in the international domain. To clarify this problem a change in international law was required. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 391 Toward the end of the war the Department of State undertook inquiries among the prinicpal maritime nations aimed at finding out whether or not there would be agreement to changing international law so that the resources of the subsoil of the Continental Shelf would appertain to the adjacent coastal ountry so long as the character of the superjacent water as high seas was not not altered. It discovered that there was almost uniform agreement among these mations to such a change. It is important to note, in reading what follows, that neither then nor since has there been any substantial disagreement amongst nations respecting this change in international law. Accordingly President Truman, in September 1945, issued a proclamation declaring the subsoil of the Continental Shelf and its resources adjacent to the United States as appertaining to the United States, and specifically stating that this claim did not purport to change the character of the superjacent water as high seas. All of this was agreeable among the nations and led in the direc- tion of settling the internal squabble amongst the States and Federal Govern- ment in the United States as to which owned and would govern, and collect taxes from, the harvesting of these resources. Also President Truman’s proclamation opened a Pandora’s box of claims by other sovereign nations seeking to alter other aspects of the law of the sea in manners critically disadvantageous to U.S. desire and interest. It took 15 years of very serious diplomatic activity by the United States and its allies to bring these other claims under control, and all of them have not yet been extinguished. The reasons for this included: (1) Informal diplomatic notes are not binding in general in international law. There requires to be a treaty which is signed and ratified by each sovereign to which it applies. (2) If the matter is of general interest, as is a change in the law of the sea, a conference of plenipotentiaries is required to which all nations affected may come. Decisions of substance at such conferences require a two-thirds majority vote. (3) Other sovereigns, while agreeable to the change the United States had in mind, had other changes in the law of the sea which they wanted made. Several of these would have been severely damaging to U.S. interest if adopted. ‘These other sovereigns did not wish to vote for the ideas of the United States in the ensuing conferences held on this subject if the United States would not vote for their ideas. To start this action off, Mexico in October 1945 indicated its intention of claim- ing as its sovereign territory the sea, as well as the Continental Shelf, adja- cent to its coast to such a distance as it felt from time to time to be appropriate. Argentina in October 1946 claimed as its sovereign territory both the Con- tinental Shelf off its coast (Several hundred miles wide in some places) and the sea above it. Chile in June 1947, having a very narrow Continental Shelf but not wishing to be left out, claimed sovereignty to the sea and the land under it to a minimum distance of 200 miles offshore. Peru in August 1547 followed with a Similar claim. Other claims of varying nature by other sovereign na- tions followed. In Latin America these claims became politically active in the Organization of American States and its specialized organs. By 1954 there was a general sentiment in Latin America that the proper breadth of the territorial sea for Latin America was a minimum distance of 200 miles. Those nations sought to adopt that policy as international law for the Latin American region. This was impossible to do under international law because— (1) twenty-one nations in one region of the international commons can- not legislate away the rights of the other 94 nations in that region by their own unilateral action, and (2) it is impractical to legislate for one sector of the high seas without legislating at the same time for the rest of it. These conflicting and extravagant claims in Latin America could not be lived with by the United States as a principle maritime power. Mercantile and mili- tary policy, quite aside from resource harvesting policy, absolutely forbid be- coming subject to such claims. The same was true of other maritime nations. Accordingly the United States stimulated the United Nations and its special- ized agencies to become active in this subject, as a means of getting this by now flaming controversy into an arena where it could be brought under control. 392 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The International Law Commission began a study of this subject at its first meeting (in 1947) and brought out reasonably comprehensive reports and recom- mendations in time for consideration by the 1954 General Assembly. At the 1954 General Assembly the Department of State felt confident that it could get agreement on the key change it wanted in the law of the sea—that the Continental Shelf and its contained resources would appertain to the adja- cent coastal country without changing the character of the superjacent waters. as high seas. In this aspiration it was sadly disappointed because at this point it ran headlong into the fishery problem which it did not then, and still scarcely does, think to be of much consequence. THE FISHERY PROBLEM The fishery problem is exceedingly complex. It has been considered in detail by other authors and I will treat it in an oversimplified manner here expecting that the serious student will go to the extensive literature for more intense inquiry. In the context of the conditions of 1954 the following aspects of this complicated problem were politically active: (1) Iceland lived from the ocean. Well over 90 percent of its gross national products came from the ocean. It sold this product primarily in Europe, whose fishermen also came to fish in the Icelandic sea area. Iceland wished to exclude these European fishermen from these grounds in order to improve both the fish- ing opportunities of its own fishermen there, and their market opportunities in EHurope. Under ordinary conditions such a position would have appeared to be impos- sible of attainment but the mid-1950’s were not ordinary times. The cold war struggle was at its peak. Keflavik Airport in Iceland was then absolutely re- quired for the quick transport of fighter planes (and other airborne material) from the arsenal of North America to the possible theater of war in Europe. The fjords of Iceland were ideal as bases for submarines to be used in inter- dicting surface commerce between North America and Europe if that were de- sired. Accordingly in the mid-1950’s Iceland had an extremely valuable bar- gaining position between Hastern Europe and the NATO allies on its aspect of the fishery problems. It set out to exploit this bargaining position with great skill and force. (2) Japan was just then coming back in the good graces of the comity of nations under the strong tutelage and sponsorship of the United States. The United States required, at that stage of history, a strong bastion on the eastern side of the Communist land mass (Japan) just as eagerly as it did on the western side of it (Western Europe). At that stage of history Japan was almost as dependent upon the sea fisheries as was Iceland. The dif- ference between these two key allies, was, however, diametric. Iceland wanted everybody else to stop fishing in her sea area; Japan wished to fish in all sea areas. (3) The key Latin American countries in this imbroglio at this stage of history did not have considerable fishing industries but wanted them in order to improve their economies. They conceived that if they could attain soy- ereignty over the fishing grounds in the high seas off their coasts they could— (a) Derive taxes from the fisheries by other nations off their coast; and (b) By a judicious use of the taxing and other powers inherent in sovereignty, induce the rapid development of fishing industries in their countries by capture if not by other means. (4) Aside from being caught in severe diplomatic squeezes amongst its allies in these controversies, the Department of State found itself in just as tight, and just as violent, domestic political difficulties. The Pacific North- west salmon and halibut fisheries wished to keep Japanese from fishing salmon and halibut on the high seas, and especially in the eastern Pacific. The Cali- fornia tuna fishermen made substantially all of their catches in the high seas off western Latin America and wished to continue doing so. The gulf coast shrimp fishermen made a considerable part of their catches off Latin America and wished to continue doing so. The New England fishermen were being squeezed out of their own market by imports of Icelandic fish and were then fishing the Grand Banks and Nova Scotia banks off Canada. They did not wish to assist Iceland further in the market and they did not wish to give Canada excuses to exclude them from the Continental Shelf fisheries off the Maritime Provinces and Newfoundland (which had recently become a part of Canada). All four of these groups were vigorously active politically in the United NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 393 States and they represented the same schism of policy internally with which the Department of State was faced externally on this aspect of the problem of the law of the sea. The immediate effect of these conflicts on the 1954 General Assembly was that Iceland teamed up with Latin America and other like-minded minor powers to prevent a solution of the Continental Shelf (petroleum) problem until the fishing limits problem was solved at the same time. The preparatory research and diplomatic activity respecting the fishery problem had not been done by the International Law Commission which had requested that a conference of experts be convened to advise it on the technical aspects of the fishery problem. In a brilliant tour de force the Icelandic representatives caused— (a) The whole problem to be referred back to ILC for further study as a whole, and (b) An International Conference on the Conservation of the Living Re- sources of the Sea to be called under the United Nations. The United States required to support this move because— (a) It could not get this problem out of the OAS system, where it faced certain and disastrous defeat, except by transferring the action to the U.N. system, and (b) It could not use the U.N. system unless it would consider the fishery limit and the Continental Shelf issues together as one unitary problem. ABSTENTION ISSUE Under these pressures the Department of State moved surefootedly and vigor- ously. The four internal political forces (salmon, tuna, shrimp, New England ground fish) found that they had to form a temporary truce internally in order to give the Department of State strength to operate externally or none of their positions would have a chance to prevail. Accommodation of their interests were found in this internal formula: (1) The shrimp, tuna, and New England people would not oppcose an attempt by the Department of State to seek adoption of the principle of abstention into international law if, (2) The salmon and halibut people would not oppose an attempt by the Department of State to secure international consent to a narrow territorial sea and freedom to fish under appropriate conservation regulations as needed on the high seas. Roughly speaking the principle of abstention provided that where it can be demonstrated that a stock of fish in the high seas is being fully utilized by the fishermen of one or more nations, and where the fishery in question is under scientific management and regulation designed to provide from that stock of fish the maximum sustainable productivity, the nations whose fishermen have not historically fished on these stocks should agree not to fish upon them so long as the nations fishing them continue to carry out necessary conservation measures and to fully utilize the stocks. Fishing in the same areas for other stocks of fish would not be affected. It will be noted that this gave the Department of State a perfectly schizo- phrenic position to sell internationally on the fisheries issue by being on the side of freedom of fishing on the one hand while against it on the other. This schizo- phrenia was conveniently cloaked under the all-covering mantle of conserva- tion—creating conditions which would lead to the obtaining of the maximum sustainable yield of food from the ocean. Indicating the complexity of these issues, this cloak has logical validity. The shrimp, tuna, and New England people accepted this formulation secure in their belief that no considerable group of nations would agree to such a self-defeating proposition as the so-called principle of abstention and that in the ensuing diplomatic activities the principles of a narrow territorial sea and of freedom to fish on the high seas under appropriate conservation regulations would win out. This strategy worked with complete success. At the United Nations Con- ference on the Conservation of the Living Resources of the Sea held at Rome in the spring of 1955 the salmon and halibut advisers on the U.S. delegation, in the last analysis, requested the delegation not to put the principle of abstention to a vote because a precount of possible votes satisfied them that it would be soundly defeated and thus permanently killed. The principles of a narrow ter- ritorial sea and freedom to fish on the high seas under appropriate conservation regulations survived this Conference unscathed. 53—-367—_65——26 394 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The same situation was repeated at the 1955 session of the International Law ‘Commission in Geneva, held directly after the Rome Conference. As an added attribute of these two conferences the extravagant 200-mile claims to extending Sovereignty were overwhelmingly killed. THE COLD WAR AND THE INTERNATIONAL STRAITS ISSUE Remember that all of this imbroglio had been brought to the fore by an attempt to regularize the handling of petroleum harvesting rationally on the Continental Shelf by means to which nebody in the international community was strongly opposed, and on which there was almost uniform agreement. By the end of 1955 this problem was no closer to being settled than it had been at the time of Truman’s proclamation in 1945, because it had become entangled in other controversial issues surrounding the law of the sea. There now arose, at the 1956 session of the International Law Commis- sion, a latent separate issue which was quickly to gather more diplomatic Strength than all of these other issues combined. This was the issue of the 12-mile limit for the territorial sea and the contingent international strait issue. In the activities at Rome and Geneva in 1955, involving the fishery aspects of this subject, the Russian and United ‘States delegations had acted together as complementarily as if they had had the same instructions, for the rea- son that their fisheries interests were essentially the same. From 1956 through 1960 these two powers came into violent opposition in the ensuing actions respecting the law of the sea because when the 12-mile issue came into play the world power struggle automatically came to the fore and on this issue the United States and Russia were as far apart in the period 1956-60 as great powers can be without going to war. Again one must oversimplify the comment because of space restrictions and refer the more serious student to the ample literature on the subject for ade- quate detail. Essentially the military problem came down to this issue: Under a 3-mile breadth for the territorial sea a naval power like the United States could bring its power (under late 1950 military technology) quite quickly to bear on any trouble spot in the world and if it could maintain its supply lines to this trouble spot by sea it would have great advantage at war vis-a-vis a land power such as the then existing Communist alliance. Under a 12-mile breadth of the teritorial sea an estimated 116 important international straits would fall subject to national sovereignty. Even under a 6-mile rule for the territorial sea 52 of these straits would be so affected. Also high seas areas like the Aegean Sea would become mostly territorial sea over which air flights could not be made without permission of the neighboring sovereigns. Additionally, in many parts of the world ocean the naval task force required by the miiltary tech- nologies of the late 1950’s could not be deployed because there would be inade- quate sea room for this purpose. Naturally Russia, under the world power conditions existing in the late 1950’s, would have given almost anything to secure international agreement to a 12-mile territorial sea; just as naturally the United States would have given as much to get international agreement to a 3-mile breadth for the ter- ritorial sea and thus preserve the status quo. The 12-mile issue was of such overwhelming importance to both these giants, because of the military overtones it bore, that both threw aside their respective fishing interests and concentrated their diplomatic strength on the military-diplomatic issues in the ensuing con- ferences from the spring of 1956 through 1960. There was never the remotest chance that in the period 1956-60 Russia could get even a simple majority of nations to agree to a 12-mile limit for the territorial sea. On the other hand if she could prevent the United States and its allies from achieving agreement to a 3-mile limit for the ter- ritorial sea she could establish the framework which might permit the estab- lishment of a 12-mile limit at some future and near time. A great number of new nations were due to come into being in 1960 and directly thereafter. How they might vote in a subsequent conference on this issue, if it could be kept open, was moot. Russia felt, and the United States feared, that Russia might win in the course of time if the 3-mile issue were not settled before all of these new nations became independent. The key to the whole issue was the rules of procedure in international con- ferences held under the auspices of the United Nations. It requires a two- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 395 thirds majority to win on substantive issue; one-third plus one vote can block the adoption of a substantive measure. Russia, in the period 1956-60, with its captive and allied bloc votes, could not get a blocking one-third of the votes. At this juncture of history, however, came the Suez incident and the rallying of an Arab bloc devoted not necessarily in favor of the Soviets, but against Israel. For reasons too long to go into here the League of Arab States felt that a 12-mile limit for the territorial sea would aid their effort to strangle Israel economically. The Arab bluc plus the Soviet bloc votes added together comprised almost a blocking third for the Conference, Russia required to pick up only another two or three dissident votes and then wait for history to take its course. THE GENEVA CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA, 1958 AND 1960 Over this issue the two United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea of 1958 and 1960 were fought. From the first Conference four excellent treaties emerged which codified almost the whole of the law of the sea. These were: Convention on the High Seas, Convention on the Territorial Sea, Convention on the Continental Shelf, and Convention on Fishing, and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. They form an admirable framework of in- ternational law for administering public order on the ocean, as far as they go. They haye been undergoing, since 1958, the time-consuming process of obtaining sufficient ratifications to come into force. The first three treaties had obtained sufficient ratifications for this purpose by 1964 and are in force. The fourth requires four more ratifications to come into force and this should happen during 1965 or early 1966. They can be taken as presently representing the law of the sea. The Convention on the Continental Shelf, by coming into force in 1964, finally accomplished the U.S. policy on the resources of the subsoil of the Continental Shelf enunciated by President Truman in 1945, and put into domestic law by the Congress in the Submerged Lands Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Act of 1954. This did not, however, quiet the diplimatic, military, fishing, and domestic political hornet’s nest which the original proclamation nearly 20 years ago had stirred up. The 1858 Conference on the Law of the Sea left two issues unresolved : (a) The breadth of the territorial sea ; and (b) The limits of control by the coastal State over the fisheries in the high seas off their coast. These issues were partially resolved. The International Law Commission, in its 1956 session, had said that these limits lay between 3 and 12 miles, that any limit beyond that was outside international law, but that between those two ranges there was no agreed limit binding upon nations. The 1958 Conference was unable to agree on these issues because of conflicts over the fishery problem. The abstention issue and the 200-mile issue had been killed but whether the fishery limit was to be 3 or 12 miles, or somewhere in between, could not get a two-thirds vote at the 1958 Conference any better than could the territorial sea limit, and the latter lost its chance because of the residual conflicts over the former. The only thing that happened on these issues were clear votes over- whelmingly in favor of no limits in either instance beyond 12 marine miles in breadth. Both Russia and the United States were in favor of that. These two issues could not be resolved in the 1958 General Assembly either and it established the Second Geneva Law of the Sea Conference for 1960 to consider just these two issues. At this conference the whole of the diplomatic forces of Russia and the United States were opposed to each other headlong. The petroleum-Continental Shelf issue was out of the way; the bulk of the law of the sea was codified, agreed to, and not at issue; the fisheries interest was completely submerged by the super- vening military-diplomatic issues in the positions of both the principal com- batants. The issue at all times was desperately close as to whether the United States could obtain a two-thirds vote for a narrower territorial sea than 12 miles, or whether Russia and its allies could obtain a blocking third of the votes and prevent any agreement. In its vigorous and desperate struggle for votes the United States compromised, step by step, until both its fishery and naval interests would have been seriously compromised had the final compromises been acceptable. The United States was prepared to accept a 6-mile limit for the territorial sea in the last analysis in 396 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION order to prevent the eventual impact of a 12-mile limit. While the 12-mile limit would have put 116 important international straits under national sovereignty, the 6-mile limit would so reduce 52 such straits and the U.S. naval people would not have considered that much of a victory. Throughout the whole intense Conference the fishery issue was intractable. There was no way in which a two-thirds vote on anything could be had because there were always enough dissident fishery votes on any formula that was sug- gested so that the Russian-Arab bloc could make up a blocking third. The United States finally adopted a fishery position likely to be least offensive to its allies, quit compromising on the fishery issue, and sought to drive its combined last compromise position through by sheer diplomatic power. The result of all this intensive work really came down to this: A simple majority of nations were always, and I think still are, in favor of a 3-mile limit for the territorial sea. These include the principle maritime nations. They never got a chance to indicate this by any vote because there obviously was not a two-third majority in favor of this limit. The reason for this was that allies, some of whom wanted a 3-mile territorial limit strongly, wanted special fishery concessions of one sort or another that other allies would not accept. In the last analysis the final compromise lost by one vote, and that was on the fishery issue. There was a considerable sigh of relief that it was all over. The principle of the narrow territorial sea had not only won over the Russian principle of a broader territorial sea, but had won by a larger margin of votes than it had done at the 1958 Conferences. Since the compromises suggested by the United States to attain these votes had been defeated the United States could, in good conscience and under international law, revert to its 3-mile limit position, which the chief of the U.S. delegation promptly did at the end of the voting. But it was a close thing, that none of the participants would like to see repeated. THE AFTERMATH At the conclusion of the 1960 Conference on the Law of the Sea the United States publicly reverted to its policy of a 3-mile breadth for the territorial sea and plainly stated that the other positions it had put forward on this subject during these Conferences were compromises designed to reach agreements. Since no agreement had been reached, these compromise suggestions were not to be taken as representing continuing U.S. policy. Not only has the United States said this publicly but it has backed up this policy by force of arms off Matsu Island and elsewhere in the Orient in the ensuing years, and is doing this now on almost a daily basis in the Gulf of Tonkin. The situation of North Vietnam, the island of Hainan, a carrier task force, and a small war form a precise example of why the United States, a sea-air power, requires a narrow territorial sea in international law and why the Communist land powers favor a broader one. The number of member nations of the United Nations has increased from about 88 in early 1960 to about 115 in early 1965 but there has been no stampede of the new countries to a 12-mile limit for the territorial sea. As a matter of fact Monday morning quarterbacks looking backward could say that the 1960 Conference should have been postponed to about 1962, because it turned out that the former French colonies since becoming independent nations have mostly held to French guidance in general non-African foreign affairs, and the French position has been solidly in favor of a 3-mile territorial sea. In the interval also the International Convention for the North Pacific Fish- eries, which had in it the only international recognition of the so-called prin- ciple of abstention even temporarily in any agreement among nations, has run its initial 10-year period and is under renegotiation. The Japanese have stated flatly that, while they are only too happy to join in on all efforts needed for the conservation of the fisheries of the North Pacific, they will not agree to any new treaty which contains the principle of abstention either in those words or cloaked in other terminology. Accordingly that issue is dead. Iceland has reached an accommodation with the other European fishing nations under a formula which retains a narrow territorial sea but has a 12-mile limit exclusively for fishery jurisdiction. This issue appears to be quiescent and may even be fully settled. The extravagant territorial and fishery jurisdictional claims of Latin Ameri- can countries were firmly killed in 1955 and buried in 1958. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 397 The vast bulk of the law of the sea has been codified and accepted by the mations, and is no longer in issue among them. Much is heard these days to the effect that the delegations of the United States to these two International Conferences on the law of the sea were ill prepared, poorly led, or incompetent. I served as an adviser to the U.S. dele- gation to both of these Law of the Sea Conferences, ‘as I have served on many other delegations to other conferences over the past 18 years, including several of which I have been chief of delegation. I can say unequivocally that these two delegations had better and more complete background material prepared and available to it, better diplomatic preparation made for it, was more com- petently led by a chief of delegation who had superb direct support from the President of the United States, the Secretary of State and a well-rounded dele- gation of highly competent experts in all pertinent fields, and had the full support of every U.S. mission in every country in the world more quickly and efficiently at the command of the chief of delegation in Geneva, than has been the case of any other delegation of the United States upon which I have served or about which I have heard. Nevertheless we came very near to losing our shirts. Surely from this ex- perience some useful lessons can be learned, and these should have some perti- nence to the present legislation. Some of these lessons are: (1) Do not attempt to open up for modification any aspect of the law of the ssea without a very careful study and estimation of what other aspects will be opened up at the same time by other independent sovereign nations, whether friend or foe. It is to be noted that during the 20 years of this last hassle we had much more serious trouble from our closest allies we had from our most vigorous foes. (2) Having ascertained as well as possible what other aspects will be opened up do not get involved in any international conference on any aspect of the ‘Subject until all aspects which may be opened up have been examined from the standpoint of the general and long-term interest of the United States. It ais necessary that each aspect be examined from the standpoint not only of what the United States will gain from a favorable vote, but what it will lose from an unfavorable vote, and also from the standpoint of what compromise may be necessary during the course of the negotiations. It needs to be understood that to win a vote and an issue in a United Nations conference it is necessary to get a two-thirds majority vote of those present and voting. On several quite important issues in all four of the con- ventions resulting from the 1958 conference the U.S. delegation required to modify its desired position materially in order to line up enough votes so as not to lose the issue, which would have been worse. HEven then some of the wins came by only a one-vote margin, and the terminal vote at the 1960 con- ference was lost by only one vote. (3) Having examined all issles likely to rise at such a conference, and then eval- uated what the interest of the United States would be if it lost on any, or a few of those issues, only then is it possible to evaluate whether or not the United States wishes to reopen the law-of-the-sea controversy on any issue, oF whether it is not best to get along with what exists and let sleeping dogs ie. (4) If the decision is to reopen the matter then legal, technological, scien- tifie, political, and diplomatic spadework must be done in depth and detail which the sponsors of H.R. 5175 may not have thoroughly thought through. Otherwise, on the basis of our full experience of the 20 years from 1945 to 1965, one can wager confidently that the United States will lose more than it will gain from reopening the law of the sea for modification. THE PRESENT SITUATION One must keep in mind ‘that almost all aspects of these issues are quite dif- ferent in 1965 from what they were in 1945, or even in 1955. An incomplete list of these changed conditions may be instructive. (1) In 1945 the United States was overwhelmingly the dominant military and diplomatic power in the world. In 1955 there was no other prominent divisive power except Russia and the Communist bloc. In 1965 neither the United States nor the Russian alliances are sufficiently tight so that blocks of votes can be much depended upon, and there are several subsidiary centers of diplomatic activity quite competent to act independently only for the purpose of 398 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION showing that they are independent and not even necessarily in their own best long-range interest. (2) In 1945 our knowledge of the ocean and its resources was not markedly different than it was in 1905, and the situation by 1955 was only beginning to change. In the past 10 years we have learned more about the ocean and its re- sources than we knew totally in 1955, and ocean knowledge and understanding is just now beginning to develop rapidly as the ocean science and technology of the United States, Russia, and many other nations spurts forward. It seems certain that our knowledge of the ocean and its resources in 1975; will bear only a modest relationship to our present knowledge and understand- ing of these things. I do not think we can sensibly predict at the moment what the ocean use problems will be in 1975. (3) The important players in the game in 1965 have quite different rank,. status, and objectives than they had in 1955. In that year Peru was not even considered to be a fishing country ; in 1964 it became the biggest fishing country in the world in terms of volume of catch. In 1955 the geographical position of Iceland was critical to the NATO alli- ance; in 1965 long-range jet airplanes, nuclear-powered submarines carrying Polaris missiles, and other weapons and logistic systems have rather strikingly changed the military parameters of this problem. In 1955 France was a lesser factor diplomatically in amongst the other na- tions of Western Europe, and the United Kingdom was still strong; in 1965: France assumes a quite different diplomatic rank and is not disposed to accept much guidance from the United States, or any other nation. In 1955 Japan and Germany were still recently defeated nations knitting up the wounds of war, repairing their economies, and being very cautious diplo- matically ; in 1965 both stand among the rich, powerful, industrial countries and assume steadily the stronger diplomatic posture that goes with these things. In 1955 the United States stood next only to Japan as a fishing nation and Russia was a largely land power; in 1965 the United States stands about fifth in the rank of fishing nations; Russia has double the fishing power the United States has, is still rapidly advancing in that field, and is now setting out with what appears so far to be successful efforts to similarly overtake and pass the United States in the merchant marine field, etc., etc. (4) The production of fish from the world ocean has doubled in the past 10 years; it has been increasing at the rate of 8 percent per year in the past 5: years ; and the rate of increase appears still to be increasing. This has brought a whole new range of conditions. (5) Mining for oil and gas at sea in 1945 was experimentally possible; im 1955 commercialiy possible; and in 1965 has become one of the major world industries. The Persian Gulf has about as many oil wells in it as around it; the North Sea and the Baltic Sea are being explored for production as if the: water was not there, etc., etc. (6) People were thinking about scuba diving in 1945 and in 1955 it was: beginning to be a sport. Now the ocean has scuba divers in it like it formerly had swimmers on it; men have lived for weeks at 50-fathom depths in undersea: houses built for the purpose; it is evident that there are no physical, psycho- logical, or physiological reasons why men cannot work for useful periods to depths of 100 fathoms; and there is no reason to think that men will not be prospecting the whole Contiental Shelf as thoroughly as they do the land in a few years, and perhaps more safely than they have done the western deserts and mountains. The wealth of the Continental Shelf is about to be tapped thoroughly. (7) Vast deposits of highly valuable minerals (manganese, vanadium, cobalt,,. nickel, etc.) have been found on the deep seabed in such profusion as to stagger the imagination and steps are already afoot to bring them to harvest. Not only are those deposits so large as to be able to provide the whole world industry with its needs for these metals for a thousand years, but some of them appear to be being deposited at a rate greater than total world use at present. (8) In 1945 we could say stoutly tht Asniatics should fish on salmon fron» Asiatie streams and stay away from our side of the ocean in salmon fishing; in 1965 we know that salmon from Asiatic streams can be caught commercially in the Gulf of Alaska, and salmon from Alaskan streams can be caught similarly off the Asiatic foreshore. Bluefin tuna tagged off Mexico are caught in the Sea of Japan; others tagged off Bermuda are caught off Norway and France; those: tagged off Norway are caught in the Mediterranean. Skipjack tuna tagged off NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 399 Mexico are caught off Hawaii; albacore tuna tagged off Mexico are caught off Japan. All of this is new information since 1945, and most of it since 1955. We are just beginning to learn about the movements of the living resources of the sea and the impossibility of fencing them into pens constructed of nice lines diplo- mats draw on charts at international conferences. (9) In a million years time, or such a matter, man has learned something of that 29 percent of the earth’s surface that is dry land, and learned reasonably well how to bend its resources to his use. Only now is he beginning to earnestly inquire about that other 17 percent of the earth’s surface which is the ocean and learn how to bend its resources to his use. The increase in knowledge and understanding derived from the past 5 years of ocean research with modest resources have been so astounding that one can only say that the major effort now beginning to be directed toward that end is likely to be as important to man’s activities and welfare as was the industrial revolu- tion of the 17th and 18th centuries, or the neolithic revolution of the fifth and sixth milleniums B.C. Whoever can see today what change will be required in the public order of the sea in the next few years is indeed a farsighted person. SOME QUESTIONS In the field of public policy respecting the law of the sea one hears a number of questions asked. It may be useful to examine a few of these to see how the law now stands and to see where the interest of the United States may lie. The 3-mile limit for the territorial sea (1) The 3-mile limit is outmoded it is said, and the U.S. Department of State should quit acting like an old fogey and get in line with the times. This state- ment has been said in print repeatedly by one or two proponents and one might ask several questions about it. If the United States is going to abandon the 3-mile limit for the territorial sea what limit should it adopt? Upon what other limit for the territorial sea could a larger consensus be established? What broader limit for the territorial sea would better serve the general and long-term interests of the United States and the rest of the nations? The International Law Commission has said that there is no case in international law for a limit of more than 12 miles and voted on proposals at the 1958 conference indicate little or no support for a limit beyond 12 miles. The 3-mile limit never came to a vote in 1958 or 1960. There is no reason to: believe that very many who voted for 6 miles plus some formula or other being pushed by Canada or the United States or both to help on the fishery interest, would not have voted as readily for a 3-mile limit. It is certain that a con- siderable number of countries that voted for a 6-mile limit, plus something, under pressure from the United States in search of a compromise to get a two-thirds vote, left the 3-mile limit most reluctantly. It was my belief then and now that a majority of nations, and certainly the group of nations carrying the bulk of the world’s commerce, favored a 3-mile limit then and do now. It was highly doubtful to me then, and is now, that the maneuvering of the United States in 1958 and 1960 to pick up additional votes by going to 6 miles plus something extra for fisheries resulted in adding many votes to its side of the column. The logic, and the history of the logic, for the 3-mile limit put forward repeat- edly by the United States was not successfully met then nor has it been yet. This logic was simply weakened by trying for a 6-mile limit. The extremely vigorous efforts of Russia to get support for a 12-mile limit in 1958 and 1960 was without success. It was so lacking in success that Russia never brought the 12-mile limit to a vote because it could not get even a blocking one-third on that issue by itself. It also tried various formulations around this limit to attract additional votes. Its attempts in 1960 to do this resulted in less votes for its proposal in that year than it got in 1958. There has been no rush of nations to a 12-mile limit for the territorial sea in the intervening years since 1960 when so many new nations have arisen. There is not, and there has not been, any enthusiasm for any limit of the breadth of territorial sea between 3 and 12 miles that has, or has had, as many proponents as even has had the 12-mile limit. The breadth of the territorial sea has never been agreed to among nations and one sees little reason to expect that it ever will be. There will always be nations 400 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION who will wish to seek gain from other nations by controls of one sort or another over navigation or other sea use. This has always been the case and it has been always the responsibility of some country or group of countries to keep the sea open for general use by repressing such special interests as long as there has been history. Whenever and wherever ruling sea strength has waned, from the second millennium B.C. to the present decade, piracy has automatically cropped up quickly. It is present now occasionally in the Celebes Sea and the Strait of Malacca. The rapid growth of sea use in this century, the swift rise in volume of ocean transport that goes with increasing industrialization throughout the world, and the general increased pace of international communication by sea, make a fully free use of the sea more vital to humanity today than ever before. Certainly the interests of the United States in all aspects are served best by a narrow territorial sea and before any change is sought in the 3-mile policy of this Government the reasons for this, and the gain to be derived from it, should be subjected to the most critical examination. The 12-mile limit for fisheries (2) There is much talk in the United States presently about adopting a 12-mile fishery limit as differentiated from a 3-mile limit for the territorial sea. This derives almost entirely from fishery interests and their representatives who are interested in preventing foreign fishermen from competing with them in fisheries in which they are engaged. This has become politically popular in some parts of the country. From the fishery standpoint the whole matter is rather trivial, as I have dis- cussed at greater length in another connection. The number of fish stocks fished upon by U.S. fishermen that will gain more protection from a 12-mile limit than from a 3-mile limit are not many or very important. On the other hand a 12-mile fishery limit adopted by neighboring countries off which American fishermen fish will hurt some of our fisheries somewhat in special localities but its effect on the whole fish production of the United States would not be very much either. Additionally there will not likely be any great amount of diplomatic activity grow out of such an action on our part. Canadian fishermen have pressed their Government already to take such action. Mexico already claims 9 miles of territorial sea on the Gulf of Mexico side and would not be adverse to wider limits. The country fishing off our coast most actively, Russia, is the prime exponent of the 12-mile limit and would undobtedly be pleased by us taking such action. ‘The countries of northern Europe have already become accustomed to such accommodations off Iceland, Norway, Faroe, ete. Japan is slowly edging toward this viewpoint. Accordingly for the United States to accept a 12-mile limit for fishery jurisdiction only would be a matter of acquiescence not generation of a new action. Since this will not provide the protection desired by the U.S. groups pressing for this action some attention should be paid in consideration of such action, to the grounds upon which it is taken. If it is taken on the basis of protecting our fishermen from foreign competition then one must have some concern about the political consequences of the lack of such protection that it will afford, and the effect of what the next step these groups want will be upon the public policy of the United States respecting the law of the sea. One must have some concern also for the eroding effect of a 12-mile fishing limit may have upon the 3-mile breadth for the territorial sea, and judge whether this is of consequence to general U.S. interest. Continental Shelf jurisdiction (3) Among the interests in the United States, in both fishing and mineral production, some concern is expressed respecting jurisdiction over the Con- tinental Shelf and its resources. In the case of mineral resources there still are unsolved some questions of what the limit of the territorial sea of the United States is in the Gulf of Mexico. This affects the relations of the United States with other countries, and particularly with Mexico. It also can hardly escape having an effect on the relations of the United States to the 3-mile limit for the territorial sea and thus this whole field of its military and diplomtic policy. There is no country, to my knowledge, which claims one breadth for the territorial sea off one part of its coast and another off another part of its coast. How the United States could maintain a 3-mile limit off its east and west coasts and its island NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 401 possessions and, at the same time, a 9-mile limit in the Gulf of Mexico, is not clear. On the other hand the Gulf States continue to press for a 12-mile territorial sea not because of any desire to control the superjacent water and its resource, but because the Outer Continental Shelf Act of 1954 gives the States the re- sources of the Continental Shelf off their coast within the territorial limits of the United States. They want the oil and gas under this extra 9-mile strip of bottom off their coasts, or at least the revenues therefrom. Aside from this, the jurisdiction over the resources of the subsoil of the Continental Shelf and of at least the upper part of the continental slope ap- pears to be quite clear. All of this under existing international law is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Inside this jurisdiction that part of the Continental Shelf within the territorial limits of the United States is subject to the governance of the adjacent State of the Union, and that outside those limits is subject to the governance of the Federal Government. In either case a body of law exists for the governance and this does not differ markedly from the way such resourse harvesting is done ashore, respectively, under State or Federal law. A person or firm can acquire title to, or can lease, land areas of definite dimensions and have exclu- Sive rights to the harvest of the resources under that land. This law stems from the Outer Continental Shelf Act of 1954. Although there are little, if any, international implications in it, if a review of the effect of the law of the sea is to be made it may be well to review the effect that these State and Federal laws have had upon the stimulation of the harvesting of these resources, and whether or not modifications in them might be required if it is desired to stimulate a more rapid harvesting of these resources. The living resources of the high seas over the Continental Shelf, or those that in the harvestable stage are mobile without being in constant physical eontact with the seabed or the subsoil, present a quite different, and tremendously complex, series of problems. These support the major present fisheries of the world. There is a considerable body of thought in the United States and elsewhere in the world that these resources and their harvesting should be under the ex- elusive jurisdiction of the adjacent nation. Argentina in 1946 clearly claimed sole sovereignty over the Continental Shelf and the epicontinental sea. So have some other countries rather less clearly. This is what Iceland wanted in its international strivings during the 1950’s. I think that a clear majority of the citizens of Alaska want just this, and there is much sentiment for such a policy from the coastal fishermen of other coastal States of the Union as fishermen from Asia and Europe increasingly fish off the coast of North America. At the 1958 Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea voting was very close as to whether bottom fishes should not be considered as resources of the Continental Shelf and thus be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the coastal State. It is unlikely that this sentiment has lost ground in the United States or in other countries in the intervening years. On the contrary, should the United States wish to open this question in an international conference it is likely that a simple majority of votes could be had for it although a two-thirds majority vote would perhaps be not possible. Obviously in a general review of the law of the sea this is one matter that requires major study. The difficulty is that all of the information required for such a study is not available and much of what is available is so scattered through the literature that its collation for study is, in itself, a major task. It is to this task that Senate Joint Resolution 29 and related bills address them- selves. That bill is to authorize and direct the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries to conduct a survey of the marine and fresh-water commercial fishery resources of the United States, its territories, and possessions. It gives the Bureau until January 1, 1968, to submit its report and authorizes $200,000 for the purposes of this study. It appears to me that Senate Joint Resolution 29 is a necessary counterpart of H.R. 5175 and that both are badly needed. It is impractical to evaluate the legal problems of management, use and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds unless we have a much better understanding of what those resources are, and how they act, than we presently have. We have not had a general review of the fishery resources of the United States since 1945 (79th Cong., Ist sess. S. Doc. No. 51, p. 185). That review was much less comprehensive than the one called for by Senate Joint Resolution 29 or than 402 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION is needed for present purposes. Since 1945 perhaps as much new knowledge and understanding of the ocean and its resources have been gathered as had been gathered totally up to that time. One simply cannot rationally approach the question of whether it is in the best interest of the United States to attempt to have the living resources over the Continental Shelf appertain to the coastal States until such a study is made. (4) What is the Continental Shelf? Basic to a determination of what should be the form jurisdiction over the resources of the Continental Shelf or over it, is a definition of the Continental Shelf. The negotiators at Geneva in 1958 found this to be among their most difficult problems. They ended up with the definition: “the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the terri- torial sea, to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas.” [Italic supplied. ] Much is left to be desired about our knowledge of the resources of the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast of the United States to a depth of 200 meters. To authorize and direct the basic research such studies require there are several bills presently before both the Senate and House, and it is highly desirable that an appropriate bill of this nature be passed. Tech- nology has been perfected, or is being perfected, with which the necessary explorations and surveys can be made. As noted previously, there is at present sufficient experience to indicate that man properly equipped can work and live at such depths for extended periods of time. One can be permitted the expecta- tion that wtihin 10 years our knowledge of the resources of the Continental Shelf to a depth of 200 meters will be radically different than it now. As poor as our knowledge of the Continental Shelf is it is ever so much better than our knowledge of the resources of the continental slope “to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas.” Commercial fishing techniques perfected in recent years permit an ever deeper penetration of trawl gear along the continental slope. There are several places where trawling to a depth of 600 meters is commercially practiced and it is said that the Russians are now trawling commercially in the Eastern Bering Sea to depths up to 1,000 meters. Also the general statement can be made that the living resources capable of commercial capture along the continental slope are rich, and in some instances possibly richer than on the adjacent Continental Shelf. The oceanographic reasons for this are not clear, but may be associated with internal waves. In fact not too much is known about these matters to very great depth or in very many places. About the only thing that can be said is that our ideas about the productivity of the continental slope in terms of living resources is undergoing change rather rapidly. So far as I know our knowledge of the resources of the seabed and subsoil of the continental slope is much more meager than our knowledge of the living resources of the area, which is not very good. We are just coming to the point of developing manned deep sea submergence vehicles that can work conveniently for satisfactory periods of time in adequate depths to explore the continental slope. Instrumentation of all sorts required for exploration at such depths is being perfected steadily and now rather speedily, but it must frankly be stated that our knowledge of the continental slope at present is pretty poor. The exploration of ‘inner space” is not much less difficult nor will it be much less costly than the exploration of “outer space.” Funds have not yet been provided by the Congress for a serious attack on these deeper water problems. Such action by the Congress, however, now appears to be imminent. (5) The deep sea bed The deep sea bed underlying most of the world ocean (and covering well more than half the earth’s surface) lies at depths greater than 2,000 fathoms. We have no information that would lead us to think that there are commercially abundant living resources in such depths. On the other hand there is much information to the effect that there are major, in fact enormous, deposits of valuable minerals on the deep sea bed and that the technology for mining them is on the verge of becoming practicable. This raises all sorts of vexing problems in international law and public policy. Does the clause “to where a depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said areas” apply to the deep seabed if that is being mined commercially? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 403 The qualifying adjective “adjacent” in the preceding clause of the definition would argue against such a determination, especially in view of the fact that these great deposits are found in midocean far removed from adjacent Continental Shelves, as well as closer to shore. Certainly the negotiators at Geneva had no such interpretation, or development, in mind, as a reading of the pertinent debates clearly shows. Is it necessary for a property right to be vested in a harvester of such resources in order to encourage him to harvest? These mineral resources are so vast and cover such enormous areas that it is not at once apparent why a firm would rather have rights of exploitation to one million-acre patch of bottom over that of some hundreds or thousands of other million-acre patches, nor is it apparent what extra inducement to harvesting sole rights of exploitation to a very large piece of ocean bottom would be. If a property right, or an exclusive harvesting right, is good public policy what governing entity would grant it? The political turmoil probably attendant to splitting up the ocean bottom as to sovereignty amongst any group of nations, or the whole lot of them seems to me to make this whole approach impracticable, especially while the nations are still making war over sovereignty contests respecting that 29 percent of the earth’s surface which is dry land. It has been seriously proposed by individuals from time to time that ownership in all resources of the high seas and the deep sea bed be vested in the United Nations not only as a means of assuring appropriate governance, but by giving it ability to charge rent for their uses securing the partial financial independence of the United Nations. Would this be practical? Would it be good public policy for the United States or for other nations? Could the United Nations actually be reshaped to govern 70 percent of the earth’s surface even partially? Would it be good public policy for the United Nations to be financially independent? Would such treatment actually speed up making these resources available for the use of mankind? (6) The far-ranging fishes Fish are perhaps the most vexatious subject with which students and prac- titioners of the law of the sea have to deal. This has always been the case since there has been what could be called a law of the sea, and it is perhaps more the case today than ever before in a history. Furthermore no easy answers to the fishery problems appear in the horizon. The more we learn about fish, fisheries, and the ocean the more complex and numerous the problems seenr to become, and the less tractable the solution. The effect of changing spawning locations of the herring in the North Sea and Baltie Sea on the composition and strength of the Hanseatic League cities in the 15th and 16th century is well known. The Dutch and English wars of the 17th century over the same general subject have been made much of. But I doubt that there has been a decade since that time when the vessels of one country have not ‘fired on those of another country over a fishery dispute. The basic difficulty is that commercially important fish of a great many kinds engage in very long migrations which are essential to their life history. Some mention has been made before of the transoceanic migrations of salmon and different kinds of tuna. These are not exceptional. Herring, cod, mackerels, whales, eels, fur seals, halibut, ling-cod, saury, shark, black-cod, and a good many other kinds of fishes are known to regularly migrate over distances of not only hundreds, but of thousands of miles. The more tagging experiments are carried out the more kinds of fish are found to engage in long migrations. These are vital to the life of the species in ways that cannot be successfully modified as yet by man. If the fresh water eel or the penaeid shrimp cannot get out to sea to spawn the species will die; there is no way to kill off a salmon run so quickly and so efficiently as to build a dam across the river so the salmon cannot come out of the sea and go upstream (often a thousand miles upstream) to spawn where it was hatched. These are only glaring and important examples from dozens more that could be cited. These migrations fall into no regular pattern which would permit a splitting up of the ocean into regions, or even quite big pieces, so that a group or nations could band together and huband all the species well in the area. There is little evidence of much desire by groups of nations to act together in this manner even if it were naturally practical. There is an International Commission for the North Pacific Fisheries which is one of the most ambitious in area of the intergovernmental fishery commissions 404 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION established for this purpose (aside from the whaling commission which has attempted to be worldwide, but which has not worked very well). It only at- tempts, however, to deal with a few of the commercial species in the area, and these are the boreal, not the subtropical or tropical species. This treaty grew out of the original thought that if Japanese salmon fisher- men stayed out of the eastern Pacific then the United States and Canada could continue to husband and use the salmon which hatched in their rivers. No sooner had the research under the treaty gotten underway than it was found that salmon from North America went normally and abundantly to the western Pacific to feed, that salmon from Asiatic streams came regularly to the eastern Pacific to feed, and that on these feeding migrations they could be readily caught com- mercially on the high seas. The original basis of thought in the treaty just did not fit the habits of the fish and now the treaty must be rewritten on some other basis, for which a satisfactory rationale is yet to be found. In the eastern Pacific the tunas are ignored by the International North Pa- cific Fisheries Commission because they migrate right out of the area into the tropics and on into the Southern Hemisphere. Peru, Chile, and Ecuador have a South Pacific Fisheries Commission which was originally founded to “protect” the sperm whale and tuna from invading foreign fishermen. But the sperm whale ignore the whole thing by wide swinging migrations out of Antarctica, through the area of the South Pacific Fisheries Commission, on out into the cen- tral tropical Pacific, and back down to Antarctica, not spending too much of their life in the area of the South Pacific Commission. The yellowfin tuna migrate north out of the area; the skipjack tuna apparently migrate north and west out of the area. In the North Atlantic there is the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic to the west and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission to the east. As in the North Pacific neither of these commissions attempt to deal with the Atlantic fisheries of the low latitudes. Bluefin tuna and fresh water eel are known to cross from one area to the other, and other species will probably be found to do so. The Greenland cod make a greater or lesser contribution to the Icelandic cod stocks with the waxing and waning of current strengths in that sea area, the periodicity of which is not yet well understood. These far-ranging fish simply do not lend themselves to nicely thought-out and compartmentalized governance. The intergovernmental commissions referred to represent preliminary gropings by nations to contend with such problems. Admittedly they are not dealing with these problems satisfactory as yet, but they are the best tools for this work that man has yet been able to devise. How does one divide the ocean into regions or areas in which the fisheries can be rationally managed and keep the fish in the region or area where they are to be rationally managed? (7) The far-ranging fishermen Of course fishermen ranged widely under sail. Portuguese fishermen were pos- sibly fishing the Grand Banks when Leif Erickson came by, and certainly shortly thereafter. Rather small sailing vessels from New England discovered many of the islands of the central Pacific in their search for whale, and quite literally fished the whole world ocean. Vitus Bering brought his Aleut sea otter hunters from the Aleutian Islands to Sitka in their paddled kayaks, etc. But it has been the past 10 years that truly worldwide fisheries have been successfully initiated. It was only 1956 when the first tuna-long liner from Japan came to the Atlantic. Now 170 to 200 long-range long-liners work this ocean out of Japan, and a total of about 700 roam the whole world ocean freely, easily and profitably. Russia has led the way into the world ocean for the European coun- tries and now its vessels fish substantially the whole world ocean. Other Euro- pean countries are now beginning to expand their fisheries geographically. Tai- wan Chinese fish the central Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and occasionally the trop- ical Atlantic. Norwegian fishermen catch porbeagle shark off New York, land them in Hamburg for transshipment for the Italian market, and are planning to fish tuna in the Gulf of Aden in the off season, ete. The wide-ranging fishermen are no less a problem for students and practitioners of the law of the sea than are the wide-ranging fish, and for much the same reason. If the fishermen of this type are confined to smaller areas their cost per ton of production goes up, they go broke, and the fishery dies. ‘ Aside from the economic and political stress this would occasion that particular kind of fish would not get fished effectively, and would not produce what it can for the use of man. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 405 (8) The intergovernmental fisheries commissions To solve some of these problems connected with the ‘rational’ management of high seas fisheries governments in different groupings have formed intergovern- mental fisheries commissions among themselves so as to jointly govern their fishermen operating fisheries in the same areas of the high seas on the same stocks of fish (as has been mentioned above). Some of these are charged with duties concerning one species of fish in one area (the International Pacific Halibut Fisheries Commission), or all 'the species in one area (the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries), or a group of species for the whole world (the International Whaling Commission). Duties of such commissions involve three sorts of problems— (a) The research required to determine the effect of the fishery upon the fish stock. This always extends to much research on the effect of natural changes in the environment on the fish stocks as well; (0) The establishment of proper regulations to prevent overfishing of the particular fish stocks; and (ec) The division of the fish resulting from this management activity among the fishermen of the different nations involved. Generally speaking these commissions have carried out the research function well and much of what we know about the ocean and its living resources has come from their work. The establishment and implementation of regulations needed to prevent the overfishing which the research has detected, required by the second function, has not yet been worked out on what could be said to be even a reasonably satisfactory basis. The only such commission I know of which establishes an annual quota designed to produce the maximum sustained yield from the fish stock under its purview, does not divide the yield under this quota among national quotas, and successfully stops the fishing by all nations when the quota is taken, is the International Pacific Halibut Fisheries Commission. Only one species of fish and two countries are involved. It has imperfections, and may now be threatened in its structure by the activities of Japanese and Russian fishermen, but for 30 years it has fulfilled its full function adequately and is a long way from dead yet. The only one of these commissions that I know of which has done the research function well, established and implemented the required regulations well, and divided the fish resulting from the management activity amongst the national fisheries involved to their reasonable satisfaction has been the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. It deals with two species of salmon coming from one river system (Fraser) fished only by two nations (Canada and the United States). It divides the catches as near to half and half between the national fisheries as it can. It has its problems, but it also has worked for about 30 years with good satisfaction. The Fur-Seal Commission has also worked excellently and is the oldest of all of these commissions. It works differently. The four nations (Russia, Japan, Canada, United States) involved agreed to stop all killing at sea and to do all the harvesting on the rookeries. This stopped the Canadian and Japanese fish- eries completely because they had no rookeries. Russia and the United States do all the harvesting and each gives a certain quota of skins each year to Japan and Canada. In both Russia and the United States the whole operation is Government owned and operated. This treaty put the entire private sealing industry of all four countries out of business. It has had the outstanding merit of having worked satisfactorily for more than 50 years. The North-West Atlantic and ‘the North-Hast A'itlantic Commissions have in- troduced mesh-size regulations which have had beneficial effects in some of the trawl fisheries within their purviews. Neither, however, has come to grips with serious overfishing problems as yet. Both have these just over the horizon. The Inter-American 'Tropical 'Tuna Commission has done a beautiful job of research, has discovered one overfishing problem within its purview and framed adequate regulations to prevent it, but has not yet been able to get the fishing nations to agree to implement its recommendations and prevent the overfishing. The International Whaling Commission so far has failed in all respects. Its research has been inadequate; its regulation recommendations have been con- sistently late and inadequate; the nations have refused to prevent overfishing of the whales; and the Antarctic whaling business, as well as the whales, is diminishing steadily. : None of these intergovernmental activities aside from the Fur Seal Commis- sion are much more than 30 years old and some are only half that old or less. 406 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Thirty years is not long for the formation and perfection of new human institu- tions. The entire theory upon which these institutions are formed is less than 60» years old. Our whole knowledge of the ocean and its inhabitants is substantially” a thing of this century, and the substantial investigation of the world ocean in a. methodical way has only been going on this past 10 years and is still in its. infancy. Accordingly one should not throw very heavy rocks at these struggling new intergovernmental institutions. Instead one requires to study the whole lot of them very carefully as to function, activity, and success or failure—not as their proponents or detractors describe these things, but in the cold, dispassionate light of the competent disinterested scientist. They represent 'the original and only attempts that sovereigns have yet made to govern their subjects jointly in the harvesting of the common property re- sources of the high seas. Since the high seas and its resources are certain to play a rapidly increasing role in the welfare of mankind generally, and at this juncture there is no available means for converting these common property resources into resources controlled uniquely by one sovereign, much less by one: firm or person, time is pressing. One can certainly predict more international trouble arising from these prob-- lems. There does not seem to be any easy way to legislate these problems away or otherwise dispose of them by the 'waving of some magic wand. ‘They are serious and they will get worse. They have prevented the peaceful solution of other law of the sea problems before and will probably do so again. By some- means short of war they require to be dealt with. In the past they have been the- occasion for war and they can be again quite easily. They are serious, intractable- and growing in number and intensity. They deserve our serious attention and’ study. CONCLUSION The purpose of H.R. 5175, and related bills, is to provide for a study of the- legal problems of the management, use, and control of the natural resources of the ocean and the ocean beds. In this short review I have sought to describe briefly and oversimply some of” the interactions ‘that there have been among nations in this field over the past 20 years, some of the reasons for this, the way in which these problems have- interdigitated with (and interacted upon) each other, something of the com- plexity and intractableness of the several sorts of problems, how some of them stand at ‘the present day, Some of the questions thatt needed study, and give some- idea of their importance to the peace and welfare of mankind generally, and of" the United States in particular. The reason for this exercise has been an attempt to emphasize that the legal problems cannot be settled solely in their legal context. The International Law~ Commission exercised some of the best international law talent in the world for- a period of 8 years in as effective a manner as can be readily imagined on the legal aspects of these problems. It found out that a solution was not available- Simply in the legal context. Upon its recommendations the United Nations convened one multination con- ference to bring the resource aspects of the problem into proper perspective (Rome) and two multination conferences on the law of the sea (Geneva) to add’ political aspects to the legal and resource aspects of the problems involved. . Through these major conferences it accomplished a great deal not only in the codification of the law of the sea but in its progressive development—what passes in international circles for actual legislating. It was a creditable performance - but it was by no means fully successful. The full weight of diplomatic effort by 88 nations was unable to fully solve these problems because interaction over the - use of the common property living resources of the high seas stood in the way. The nations, by twos and threes, and by tens, are attempting through the inter- governmental fisheries commissions to solve the problems of jointly handling common property resource harvesting problems of the high seas with only modest success to date. While I have not said so before, the facts are that these interna- tional attempts have been just about as successful as have been the unilateral at- tempts by any one nation to handle problems of the same sort arising among dif-- ferent groups of its own citizens within its own territory. There does not appear to be any general panacea for such problems available - just now. Where there has been some success in dealing with them it has been where adequate and impartial scientific research has clearly demonstrated the - relationships among changing ocean conditions, changing fishing pressures, and = the changing ability of a fish stock to produce fish. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 407 The theoretical basis of all of this has been pretty well worked out. For every fish stock under every ocean condition there is a point of maximum sustainable productivity beyond which more fishing will produce a less weight of fish, and before which also less weight of fish will be produced by that stock of fish. The nations agreed, in the 1958 Convention on Fishing and the Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, to require their fishermen to conserve high seas resources, and defined conservation as being “the aggregate of the measures rendering possible the optimum sustainable yield from those resources so as to secure a maximum supply of food and other marine products.” They were unable to agree on any other standards such as maximizing the economic yield. While there are other factors preventing the implementation of this high resolve adequately and in timely fashion, ignorance of the relationships between the ocean, the fish, and the fishery so as to be able to determine when an overfishing problem is developing and what to do about it when it does develop is certainly the most important factor. No such problem has been solved except when ignorance of these factors has been dispelled. This takes much expensive research and to date the nations have not been prepared to provide adequate funds to conduct it. While I strongly favor the enactment of H.R. 5175 I wish to make it plain that a study of the legal problems of the management, use, and control of the natural resources of the ocean and the seabed will not be adequate to secure their wise management, use, and control. There require also to be studied the resource, political, diplomatic, sociological, and economic aspects of these problems as well. H.R. 5175 will provide a most useful beginning on this subject; Senate Joint Resolution 29 is also needed. The bodies of law at the State, Federal, and international level will require to be studied together before even the: legal aspects of the problem will become clear. I am very much in hopes that this Congres will act favorably on H.R. 5175 (legal studies), Senate Joint Resolution 29 (resource studies), Senate Joint Resolution 1079 (Continental Shelf research), and some such legislation as S. 944 (organization of ocean activity at the Federal level). With these tools at hand we may be able to move forward more surefootedly in developing the use of the ocean for our own economy and at the same time improve the general lot of man by providing improved access to the great resources of inner space. STATEMENT OF W. M. CHAPMAN, VAN CAmp SEA Foop Co. My name is W. M. Chapman. I am director, Division of Resources, Van Camp Sea Food Co., 840 Van Camp Street, Long Beach, Calif. Our business is the harvesting, processing, distribution, and marketing of the living resources of the sea on a worldwide basis. Our interest in the ocean is as deep and wide as the ccean. This morning I intend, however to speak about the national ocean policy and means with which to implement it, on a much broader basis than our specific interests. THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM What we are engaged in with these hearings is finding the means for opening up a new environment for the occupation and use of our Nation and mankind. This is not a new kind of endeavor for the people of this Nation, nor for mankind generally, but it is useful to recall a few examples in order to evaluate the nature of the problem and the normal way in which we have treated problems of this nature before. Our ancestors who landed on the eastern seaboard came to an environment not markedly different than the one they had left in Western Hurope. It was a forested, well-watered country of the nature which their weapons, tools, ideas, and institutions had been fashioned to fit. This people moved slowly but per- sistently and successfully through the forests, felling trees, building cabins, mak- ing rail fences, digging shallow wells, or getting water from the numerous springs and permanent streams, pushing the natives westward, and fully and suecess- fully settling, occupying, and using the environment. It needs to be noted that at every stage of this more than 200-year period of settlement activity government was a major partner in all moves, financing the Baltimore and Ohio Canal, the Erie Canal, other avenues of transportation, exploration, surveying, and the necessary warfare, among other things. When this settlement movement came out of the forested area onto the arid Great Plains the people encountered a new environment in which their weapons, 408 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION tools, ideas, and institutions (which had been fashioned for the forested, well- watered environment) did not work successfully at first. For approximately 45 years (from 1840 to 1885 and approximately along the 98° meridian of longitude), the settlement halted close to the edge of the forested area while the new weapons, tools ideas, and institutions required to conquer and make useful the new arid environment were developed. As a matter of fact the settlement movement made a 2,000-mile jump across the arid area by way of the Oregon Trail to the forested, well-watered environ- ment of the Oregon Territory and, having settled that familiar environment at last, worked back from the West as well as forward from the East when the new weapons, tools, ideas, and institutions required for the conquest of the arid, unforested environment were developed. There were four major problems that had to be solved before the people could settle and use the arid Great Plains: (1) Transportation, (2) fencing, (3) water, and (4) farming. The transportation problem was breached by the railroads, built with massive subsidy from the Federal Government. The fencing problem was solved by the invention of barbed wire. The water problem called into being great effort by the Federal Government which grew into the Bureau of Reclama- tion and finally the Department of Interior among other things, and is still with us. The farming problem was attacked in a major way by the Federal Govern- ment through subsidies of the land-grant colleges with which to develop new farming methods and for the formation of the Department of Agriculture (Webb, “The Great Plains,” 1931). These movements (and other major developments such as the invention and successful introduction of the Colt six-shooter, agricultural machinery suited to the Great Plains, etc., were initiated during this 45-year pause at the edge of the old environment. Only after these things were successfully initiated did the tide of settlement move forward again into the new environment. The point is made that subsidy and great exertion by the Federal Government was necessary to make this settlement and use of the new environment possible, and that once the new weapons, tools, ideas, and institutions were developed the conquest and use of the new environment made this Nation the most wealthy and powerful on earth. Basically this was because for the first time in history a numerous people could provide ever-increasing volumes of food with ever- decreasing effort, and food for the Nation and a large part of the rest of the world became no longer the crushing problem of survival. The development of the heavier-than-air flying machine, first as a weapon of war in World War I, gives another example of this sort. The airplane was the tool which made possible the conquest and use of another new environment, the lower atmosphere. Massive subsidies and assistance were once again given by the Federal Government for approximately a 30-year period (from 1920 to 1950) and by these means a great civilian air industry was formed that has become a major sinew of our economy and a powerful backup force for our defense, the likes of which no other nation has or is close to developing. The point is made, again, that this revolutionary conquest of a new environ- ment was not likely to have been made without massive governmental aids, or at least not in one lifetime. ‘The point is also made again that, once the en- vironment was conquered, the new industry in the new environment was not only able to pay its own way, but became a major strength of the economy to the extent that President Johnson in his budget message for fiscal 1966 an- nounced, with no great industrial cry, that special user taxes now would be employed so that the civilian industry would itself pay for the services Gov- ernment still renders to it. A third example of this sort, the conquest for use of a new environment, is now being conducted almost exclusively by financing from the Federal Govern- ment—the conquest for use of nearby space, and the beginning of exploratory probes throughout our planetary system. I say “almost exclusively,” because the Comsat worldwide communication system, using satellites, is already being developed as a commercial enterprise of considerable magnitude with major investment of funds in it from the private sector of the economy. In spite of the major costs to Government, now running in excess of $5 billion per year, of this massive attack on the environment of nearby space in order to render it useful to the Nation and to man, there is very little criticism of the cost and there is enormous public support for the idea of reducing nearby space to our use. Very few doubt that this will be accomplished in the reasonably near future. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION A09 In the consideration of the numerous bills presently before the committee dealing with the organization of ocean affairs in the Federal Government, we are once more engaged in the preparatory phases of an attack on a new en- vironment, the ocean, designed to conquer it and render it more useful to the Nation and to man. Here the possible advantages to the Nation are as enormous as was the con- quest of the arid environment of the Great Plains, at least as great as the conquest of the environment of the lower atmosphere, and on the surface of things, at least, more obvious than those that will result from the conquest of nearby space. Here, again, however we are at the point where we were in 1840 on the move westward. ‘The weapons, tools, ideas, and institutions which we have developed for the successful occupation and use of the continent, the lower atmosphere, and nearby space are not suited to a successful occupation and use of this new en- vironment—the ocean. New weapons, tools, ideas, and institutions require to be developed to insure the successful occupation and use of this new environment. In our previous examples of this sort massive initial assistance has been required from the Federal Government. I do not think that anyone acquainted with this ocean problem doubts that massive assistance from the Federal Govern- ment also will be needed in the initial stages of learning how to occupy and use more fully the ocean. The question we are concerned with is not that, but is how much, in what form, and with what urgency of timing this Government activity should be undertaken. Perhaps the last point might be considered first. THE STRATEGIC CONSIDERATION The attitude of the United States toward the ocean has vacillated between wide extremes in our short history, not once but several times. At one extreme, sea power and sea use is the driving objective of Government and citizenry alike; at the other extreme, the ocean and its use is practically ignored. Whatever the contemporary attitude of government and citizenry the one incontestible fact that stands out in this history, and in our present posture, is that the ocean and its uses control the power position of the United States in the world whether we see this or ignore it at the moment. The control and use of the ocean is the difference between the life and death of our society, our economy, and our way of life. In our control, in neutral control, or in the con- trol of a friendly power, the ocean provides a necessary highway among us and our friends; in enemy or unfriendly control, it forms a wall cutting us off from friends and things necessary for our survival. These strategic considerations have been well known for a long time and are adequately set down in the writings of Admiral Mahan and others. As a matter ‘of fact, while the geographic parameters have enlarged, the strategic considera- tions of a seapower versus a landpower were as well set down by Thucydides in the fourth century B.C. as they ever have been since. The trouble is that we know all this, but when things get peaceful we get busy with other problems and forget it. Our land resources are so great, our economy iS So strong, our military prowess is so overwhelming, our progress in space is so stimulating, that it is easy to lose sight of the harsh, cold fact that the ocean connects much of these things together and that the control and use of the ocean is our strenght or our weakness. In the last analysis, however, when the United States is faced with the possi- bility of the control and use of the ocean falling into unfriendly hands it will fight. It always has done so, and it always must do so. When England sought to control absolutely the maritime commerce of the Colonies. they revolted, be- eame a nation, and fought Mngland again in 1812 when again she attempted to dominate our ocean commerce. In between these two wars the embryonic U.S. Navy was sent to crush the Barbary pirates who were harassing our ocean trade. The issue which finally brought us into World War I was the fear that Germany would win control of the Atlantic shipping lanes. The issue that finally brought us into World War II was again the fear of Germany domirating the Atlantic sealanes, and at last the crushing blow of Japan against our Seapower at Pearl Harbor. Nuclear weapons have in no manner changed this strategic consideration. They have the power only to postpone the final decision and to escalate the final holocaust. 53-367—_65—— 27 410 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION In fact, nuclear weapons, because of this power, have altered this problem in a subtle but major manner which it is easy to overlook but which cannot be ignored. We have magnificent military power with which to dominate the ocean, the land, the atmosphere, and nearby space. Nuclear strategic weapons to be de- livered either by manned bombers, intercontinental missiles from launching pads within our land space, or by Polaris missiles from submersibles or other nuclear- powered craft scattered over or in the whole expanse of the world ocean, give us the absolute power with which to obliterate any nation or section of mankind. The trouble is that our major power competitor, Russia, has sufficiently close to the same military power that a conflict on this scale between the two would likely obliterate both, and a considerable sector of the rest of mankind as well. Both powers, and the rest of the world (possibly excepting mainland China), undestand this strategie situation and thus these weapons and this military power are effectively neutralized until the final Armageddon. Military seapower can only be used by the United States or Russia in brush-type wars in which the other has not a vital interest or in situations which will not bring about a direct confrontation between these two major powers from which one or the other will not retreat (as did Russia in the Cuban missile incident). Thus the power struggle over the control of the ocean in a general, overall strategic sense has slipped subtly away from the grasp of the military for the time being because nobody will let them pull the strategic trigger. The strategic consideration now increasingly becomes the worry that the occupation, through use, of the ocean in an almost peaceful world could quickly be shifted to its control in a less peaceful world, or that it could quietly and imperceptibly lead to an alteration of the power balance between Russian and us by peaceful eco- nomic means that could become a tactic for our slow strangulation under condi- tions considerably short of major war. A probably not very accurate analogy might be drawn from our history of the occupation of the central arid portion of our continent where the settlers so often by occupation and use subtly, or not so subtly, pressed the cattle barons, who had the power and the legal rights, off the land and settlers’ rights came to dominate wherever settlers could survive by use and occupation of the land. RUSSIA’S USE OF THE OCEAN Throughout its entire long history up until after the end of World War II Russia has been almost the epitome of the classical landpower and the very reverse of a seapower. Its ocean frontiers to the north, and seasonally on the northeast and northwest, were icebound. It came late to access to ice-free ports on the Black Sea, and even later to access out into the Mediterranean, through the Dardanelles, and later yet to secure outlet from the Mediterranean into the world ocean. Russia in recent years has bent every strength to rectifying this situation. Nothing motivated Stalin more strongly in the last phases of World War II than securing ice-free ports on the Siberian coast and rendering secure access from its own ports to the North Atlantic from the Barents Sea and the Baltic. Only NATO support of its stubborn Scandinavian neighbors to the north and its Greek and Turkish neighbors to the south prevented its domination of these peoples to secure access to the world ocean. It now has effectively gained that access through the strategic neutralization of major military power noted above, although it still labors vigorously to additionally safeguard its egress from the Mediterranean through the Red Sea and through Gibraltar with various activities in North Africa and through the Arab world. Very large efforts in science, technology, and economic activity have been, and are being, engaged in by Russia to move out of its landlocked situation into a position where it can fully use the ocean without the consent of any other power and so that, in case of need, it can interdict the use of the ocean by another power sufficiently to serve the Russian purpose. In these efforts it has been most successful to date. Heretofore there have been two primary uses of the oecan by man aside from the military use: transportation of things and fishing. Russia was not a major merchant marine operator before the last war, and the United States was. I am informed that the Russian merchant marine will exceed the carrying tonnage of the U.S. merchant marine in the near future. Their fleet is new and modern; ours is even now using large numbers of World War II vessels. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 411 The Russian merchant marine is alive and vigorously growing; our merchant marine is noted as our sickest industry. Prior to World War II Russia scarcely fished upon the ocean out of sight of its own land, now its vessels customarily fish throughout the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Antarctic, and Arctic Oceans. It is third in rank in the production of fish in the world (not counting mainland China whose statistics are suspect), having long ago surpassed the United States which was until recently the No. 2 fish producer in the world. As a matter of fact in 1964 the United States fell back a little in fish production, and Russia produced more than twice as much fish from the world ocean as did the United States. Russian fishing fleets are modern and increasing in modernity, number, and scope of operation rapidly. U.S. fish production and fishing vessels have been approximately static since the war. Russia has fleets of better vessels fishing off New England, Alaska, and the west coast of the United States than has the United States, and the disparity of fishing competence off our own coast is increasing rather than shrinking. Recent official visitors from the United States to Russia have reported in a rather patronizing manner on the greater Support given ocean research in the United States, the better laboratories and equipment we have for ocean research, and the better our whole oceanographic apparatus and knowledge of the ocean is. I have not been to Russia and I cannot testify to these things. I do keep reasonably well abreast of the published literature and I do travel around the world a good deal. In the ocean research literature I find no convincing proof that we are leading the Russians in oceanography; in ports all over the world I see convincing proof that they are licking the britches off of us in the applica- tion of science and technology to the use of the ocean. Where the Russians are outshining us brilliantly is in the rapid application of what they learn about the ocean and its resources. I will confine my observations to the fishery field where I am experienced. Their pattern in this field is clear. Their oceanographic vessels reconnoiter an area of ocean as a Strictly research effort as do our research vessels. They are followed the next year, or soon thereafter, by the research vessels of VNIRO, the fishery department of the state planning committee of the U.S.S.R. These vessels do quite competent hydrography of a more detailed nature and at the same time are equipped to do exploratory fishing at least sufficiently to find out what their echo sounders are seeing. Next come the commercial fishing vessels to explore on a commercial basis. They are also equipped with scientists, and if there is a Sizable group of these vessels they are accompanied by a fishery research vessel which aids them as a group to follow the thickest congregations of fish. As the fishery develops and puts strains upon the populations being fished, the population dynamicists are brought into the picture so that overfishing can be detected and prevented. If there is an international fisheries commission in the area being fished that they ean join, the Russians join it and wholeheartedly participate in its work. Back home in Russia the marine architects continue to develop new models of vessels to more effectively fish the areas of new interest, whether they lie in high latitude or are equatorial. The new vessels that are coming along steadily into the fleet are changing shape in accordance with the new designs and experience. Unlike the case of the United States, new fishing vessels and equipment are bought outside the country continuously wherever the best vessels can be had at the best price, whether in Germany, Denmark, England, France, the Nether- lands, or Japan. The same sort of development and applications are going om with their gear research and the technology and engineering of fish preservation and processing both ashore and afloat. Great emphasis is given to the auto- mation of all operations at sea and ashore concerned with the catching, dressing, preservation, processing and transportation of fish and fish products. We talk about automating at sea ; the Russians do it. Over the whole operation, as well as its separate parts, trained economists and analysts continually work and rework the resulting data and apply their findings to the most effective patterns of fleet deployment with season, fish availability, weather, market conditions, etc., and to the matters of logistic support of far- flung fleets. The industrial managers of large fleets of large vessels covering large discrete areas of the world ocean are the headmen under the chairman of the fishedy de- partment of the state planning commission. To them the scientists, technologists, engineers, economists, and designers bring their skills for the solution of opera- tional problems. 412 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION All of this is backed up by a massive educational activity at secondary and university level particularly created to train the specialists required for ocean harvesting. In this system there are special schools and colleges for training oceanographers, marine biologists, ichthyologists, fishery engineers, fishery tech- nologists, naval architects, fishing masters, fishermen, etc., on a scale not dreamed of in the United States. The prime purpose of this elaborate apparatus is to catch fish for the nutri- tion of Russia ; I have no reason to suspect that it is not paying its way through this function alone. It performs other valuable functions for Russia as well, because it is integrated into national policies and activities abroad to a degree we do not contemplate in our similar activities. The tactical defense posture of the United States suffers vis-a-vis Russia be- cause Russia has fishing vessels operating where it needs them for this purpose and the United States does not. Some aspects of this were reported upon by President Johnson in his news conference on April 3. It is no accident that the fishing base in Cuba is in a good position to interdict commerce headed for the Panama Canal, if need be. The same is true of their fishing developments in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea in their relation to transit through Suez; the gift of a merchant marine and navigation academy to Indonesia, which lies athwart the routes of access between the Pacific and Indian Ocean; the undertaking to provide Senegal, whose port of Dakar domi- nates north-south traffic from Europe to the Cape of Good Hope, with a modern tuna fleet and processing industry; aid in fishing and marketing to Iceland and the Faroe Islands, which lie adjacent to the main commercial artery between North America and Western Hurope; the promise to build a fishing harbor for Tanzania at Zanzibar, which lies athwart the East African ocean trade route; or the offer to offload fish at Ceylon and help that country, which lies athwart the Aden-Singapore marine route, develop its fisheries. Having numerous and large fishing vessels working normally off West Africa makes them handly to keep an eye on what is going on down the Atlantie Missile Range. Experimental fishing vessels off California serve the same purpose on the Pacific Missile Range. Russian fishing vessels turn up wherever the United States is shooting off something interesting over the ocean, and for the most part itthey are making a living fishing there at the same time. Russian fishing fleets and fishery research vessels constantly send back to home data centers in Moscow oceanographic and meteorrological data of prime military value from the whole world ocean, gathered as a normal part of their exploratory and industrial activity. Itis paid for by fish. _In a good many parts of the world protein malnutrition is a major problem. Animal protein from fish is perfectly suited for correcting this problem. Diplo- matic favor comes to countries which aid these developing countries develop their own fisheries and provide them with fish in the interim (the United States is great for providing wheat, corn, and rice but not animal protein). The most rapidly increasing domestic fishery in Africa is in Ghana. This has moved with massive and practical help from Russia. In addition, Ruissia is landing 20,000 tons of fish per year in Ghana from its own vessels’ catches off Angola to Senegal, to the great benefit of Ghana and its own profit. Russian vessels at present are landing somewhat more than 2,000 tons of fresh frozen fish per month in Nigeria where the need for animal protein is great. It is planned that their landings will treble to a level of 6,000 tons per month within 18 months. The same thing is going on in Congo (Brazzaville), Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. The promise to build a tuna fishery in Senegal is in the same category, as is the promise to build a fish harbor in Zanzibar.. Russia is building a modern fishing harbor for Egypt at Alexandria on the Mediterranean and another at Ras Banas on the Red Sea. Bulgaria is furnishing the modern trawlers and crews for the Red Sea Development Corp. operations at Massawa, Ethiopia. Russia has offered large fishery development aid projects to India and Ceylon, ete. I am sure that if the committee consults ONI and CIA it ean obtain much information on the role of Russian fishing and merchant marine vessels in furnishing small weapons and the means of subversion in many odd corners of the world. In summation Russia is applying science and technology to its increased use of the ocean in a much more effective manner than is the United States, this is thoroughly integrated into the diplomatic, military, and political activity of Russia in the outside world in a degree not remotely realized by the United NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 413 States, and Russia is rapidly gaining a preponderant position in the use of the ocean in the twin fields of merchant marine and fisheries, while the United States is stagnant or slightly retrogressing in these fields. When this obvious Russian thrust is considered in relation to the strategic considerations noted above it seems to me to give some impetus for the United States to move somewhat more rapidly in its application of science and tech- nology to its greater use of the sea. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS Quite aside from these strategic and diplomatic considerations is the cold, hard dollar value of the merchant marine and fisheries to our domestic economy. Two short quotes from ‘Economic Benefits From Oceanographic Research” National Academy of Sciences Publication 1228, are pertinent : (1) “We estimate that with present technology the total freight cost for U.S. ocean trade will be $5 billion per year by 1975,” and (2) “The value of the U.S. catch to the fishermen in 1962 was $381 million, which corresponds to something over a billion dollars of the gross national prod- uct, since the products approximately triple in value between the producers and the final consumers. From the 50 percent of the total supply provided for by imports, probably another half billion dollars was added to the gross national product by processing and marketing within the United States.” Since the writing of that report the demand for fish in the United States has continued to increase and be met by imports. In 1964 imports of fish (in terms of round weight) represented 62.4 percent of the total supply of fishery products in the United States instead of the 57.7 percent of 1963 or the 50 percent esti- mated by NASCO above. In 1963 the cost of these fish imports were $491 million. While the cost statistics for 1964 are not yet finalized I am told by BCF that the value of fish imports last year were close to $600 million. There is a widespread feeling here that the use of protein from the ocean in the United States stays about level and does not compete with land-produced protein in the United States. This simply is not true. The supply (market) of fishery products to the United States (in round weight) was 5,641 million pounds in 1948 and it has increased steadily each year to 12,032 million pounds in 1964 (C.A.S. No. 3800, April 1965, Department of the Interior). Thus the market for fish protein in the United States over the past 18 years has more than doubled, and it is presently increasing at a considerably more rapid rate than is the population. The point made here is that from a strictly economic viewpoint the merchant marine and the fisheries are a not inconsequential part of the national economy. When viewed in relation to the balance-of-payment problem they loom consider- ably larger. It is pertinent to consider them in this light because freight hauled in foreign bottoms results in dollar drain as does fish that is imported. The merchant marine can, of course, be built to whatever size is required by the application of appropriate subsidies. Efficiency of maintenance, operation, modernization, and replacement can be induced by appropriate terms of subsidy contracts. In first-class, liner-type cargo vessels sailing established routes the U.S. merchant marine is second only to that of the British in size, and second to none in quality. The 15 leading U.S. lines run their 300 vessels on subsidy contracts which require them to keep their fleets modern. As a result 80 per- cent of all cargo vessels in the world capable of more than 20 knots fly the U.S. flag (editorial, Life magazine, July 30, 1965). A judicious use of the “carrot and stick” method, employing Government money where risk is too high to warrant the private sector employing its funds, is a normal way that the U.S. Government has sponsored growth in sections of its economy it wanted to grow since colonial times, conservative views to the contrary notwithstanding. While I am certain that research itself does not hold the whole answer to the needed improvement of the merchant marine, still it is noted that NASCO (‘“‘Heo- nomic Benefits” op. cit.) estimates that $461 million spent on research in this field will yield $958 million in benefits, which is not a bad cost-yield ratio. The case of fisheries is even more clear-cut. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries estimates, on the basis of as yet very incomplete exploratory fishery activities, that the fish stocks in the immediate vicinity of the coasts of the United States are capable of a sustained yield of about 22 billion pounds per year, or nearly double the present rate of national consumption. 414 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION There is no natural reason why the United States cannot only produce all of the fish it eats, but be a major net exporter of fish and fish products. Ifa small part, in terms of value, of the services that the U.S. Government provides for its farmers were provided for its fishermen there would not appear to be any reason why this could not be done economically also. Thus the merchant marine and the sea fisheries, quite aside from strategic considerations, are of considerable importance to the total economy and both are capable of becoming much more important in it. In terms of tonnage the U.S. merchant marine’s share of the U.S. foreign trade has fallen from 50 percent to 9 percent since 1945. In terms of round weight the U.S. fisherman’s share of the U.S. market for fishery products has fallen from 80 percent to 38 percent since 1948. Both of these trends are perfectly capable of reversal, and it would not take much of a reversal in them to materially affect the trend in the balance- of-payment problem. ; THE CONTINENTAL SHELF The Convention on the Continental Shelf, resulting from the 1958 conference on the law of the sea, came into effect in 1964 upon the ratification of it by the 22d country. Under it the resources of the Continental Shelf adjacent to its coast became the exclusive property of the coastal nation. Under the convention of the United States gained title to a very large extension in its sovereign terri- tory. The exact size of the new territory is not finite because it is capable of expansion. The definition of the ‘‘Continental Shelf” in the convention reads “the seabed and submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the area of the territorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural re- sources of the said areas.” [Italic supplied.] The known resources of this new territory are enormously valuable. Under the Tidelands Act of 1953 and the Outer Continental Shelf Act of 1954 right to lease these lands for harvesting was divided between the Federal Government and the governments of the several States. Petroleum, gas, and sulfur are the principal resources for which these lands are now being leased for harvesting. Already the Federal Government and the State government together are getting a greater annual dollar income from the leases of these submerged lands than the total amounts of money being spent by the Federal Government and the State governments on oceanic research and development. The Federal income from this source alone yields upward of $300 million per year aginst a cost this year of about $140 million for the national oceanographic program. While I have no figures, it is certain that less than 1 percent of the total Continental Shelf is presently under lease for these purposes. Technologies are now available, or within close reach which would make it possible for men to live and work for extended periods of time (weeks) at depths up to 200 meters, the normal depth of the outer edge of the Continental Shelf. Thus it is now on the verge of being possible for a “prospector” with a pick to work over the mineral resources of the Continental Shelf with as great care as ean be done on land and with less danger than many prospectors have worked under in the desert regions of the West. Deep-sea submersibles are in the design or construction stage which would give this underwater prospector a dependable “burro” for his use. There is every reason to expect from existing knowledge that the mineral carry- ing charactertistics of the Continental Shelf are quite similar to that of the adjacent continent except that added to this are deposits of strictly oceanic origin, such as phosphate deposits. Thus there is major incentive to exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf from the standpoint of net dollar income to the Govern- ment that would result from increased leases, and from added benefits that would flow to the gross national product from creating the new extraction industries. Additionally, there is the “kicker” provided by the definition of the Continental Shelf in the convention. As techniques are developed enabling the exploitation of natural resources in deeper and deeper water, more and more new territory will come within the sovereignty of the nation capable of doing this. Lastly, there is the precept that the U.S. Government has followed consistently with each new territorial acquisition since President Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark out to explore the Louisiana Purchase 160 years ago. The first thing to do when we get a new piece of territory is to explore it to see what we have gained that may be put to use. Having done this the hisoric precedent is then for the NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 415 Government to give such aids as are required for the development of the use of the properties. Under the Continental Shelf Convention the United States has made one of its most valuable and extensive territorial acquisitions. We should attend to its exploration and development for use. THE OCEAN AND THE WEATHER The advancing science of oceanography and meteorology in these postwar years are demonstrating more clearly each month and year that the relationship between movements in the upper ocean and the lower atmosphere are so in- timately coupled that they require to be studied jointly to be understood and predicted. They form a great heat engine in which the power is provided by the sun. The energy from the sun is absorbed in the ocean as in a reservoir, the flowing surface currents of the ocean transport the energy of the sun great distances. It is back radiated into the lower atmosphere and provides the energy which creates the winds, transports the water from ‘place to place, ete. The complicated nature of this transport and exchange of energy and moisture between air and ocean, its effect on climate and weather, and the understanding required for prediction is still rather vague. One reason for this is that most of the weather observation stations are located on land, whereas the 71 percent of the earth’s surface that is ocean receives most of the sun’s energy and transports it elsewhere over the earth’s surface. Observation stations at sea are still very few, and in the Southern (ocean) Hemisphere almost nonexistent. If man is to predict or, even in the future, manipulate weather it is obvious that a great many more observation stations will be necessary in the ocean. It was the realization of this that led to President Johnson’s Reorganization Plan No. 2 of last month which merged the U.S. Weather Bureau, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory into a new agency, the environmental Science Services Administration in the Department of Commerce. While the great effects of weather upon all of man’s activities on land, and particularly his food getting, will bring home to one the high desirability of fur- ther understanding of circulation in the upper ocean once it is understand that this largely controls the weather of the air, it is not unlikely that the study of ocean circulation for the purpose of predicting ocean climate itself will turn out in the long run to be of greater importance to man. It is obvious that a knowledge of both air climate and water climate is of high economie importance to those who travel upon the sea because the location and strength of ocean currents, and the location and strength of air storms over the ocean, have such a strong effect not only upon losses at sea through damage, but loss of time getting from one port to another, fuel consumption, etc. The great rivers of the upper ocean such as the Gulf Stream and the Kuroshio are well known to almost everyone acquainted at all with the ocean because they are such clear cut, strong, and visible features. Less well known are the great eurrents that are submerged, like the Cromwell Current of the equatorial Pacific, put that vary greatly in strength and velocity. The ocean is not a simple struc- ture. It tends to layer with depth and the currents at the different depths go different directions at different and variable speeds. These things are also be- ginning to assume importance as man increasingly moves beneath the surface of the ocean, and will do so even more as submersible freighters come into service. The variation in the ocean currents also have a profound effect upon the abundance of harvestable aggregations of fish, their location in space and time, and the degree of their aggregation and availability. In some places, such as West India, annual changes in the current structure (related to the reversing monsoon system of that area) cause profound changes in the availability of fish to the fishermen in annual cycles, with longer term cycles superimposed on that. These annual changes may bring modest riches in one year or deep deprivation in another. In other cases long-term variations like the el Nino of Peru affect profound changes in the population of the guano birds, their rate of reproduction and guano production, the whole agriculture of the adjacent land, and the pro- duction of the fisheries. In other instances, such as the Norwegian herring, much longer term cycles in the ocean climate cause profound changes in the economic structure of the industries based on the local fisheries. Those who extract the mineral resources of the Continental Shelf are already finding out that their chief problem is not boring into the shelf, or scraping 416 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION things off the shelf, but is being able to predict changes in both the air weather and the ocean weather so that they can effectively employ their engineering | talents in rational alinement with anticipated changes in the environment. They are learning that the air storm surges at the surface of the ocean are no more important to the effective employment of their tools than are the more difficult to observe and understand changes in the currents, internal waves, and shifting interface between earth and water at the bottom of the sea. Before prediction must come knowledge and understanding. The fluid ocean is in constant motion at all levels. Every drop of the whole ocean is in constant motion. Every drop and every part of the whole ocean is moving in relation to every other drop and all other parts of the whole ocean. If the westerly winds blow strongly away from the continent, new, cold, nutrient-rich water upwells from below to replace it affecting the strength of all of the related current sys- tems, biological productivity, the aggregation of fishes, the cooling or warming of the local air which induces calms or storms in the lower atmosphere, which affect the climate of the adjacent land and the farming there, etc., in infinite variety and enormous complexity. ; If there is anything that is coming out of the rapid advances in oceanography and meteorology since the war it is the knowledge that the whole world ocean and © the whole lower atmosphere are a closely coupled apparatus in which changes in one part affect changes in another part on a worldwide basis, and to understand what is happening, or going to happen, in the air weather or ocean weather in a local area, one needs to know what has happened in this heat engine elsewhere beyond the horizon and to understand what that means in relation to what is going to happen locally. Prediction is what is needed to promote economic yield. The first step in this process is ocean surveys on an oceanwide basis for the purpose of establishing base maps of the distribution in space of ocean proper- ties, just as one does on land. Since the ocean is continuously in motion these maps must be first just of average conditions. Since the ocean movements change in a fairly regular manner with the seasons the next step is the construction of maps showing average conditions by season. The highly dynamic nature of the ocean leads one then to the need for con- tinuous measurements of parameters so that one can have maps showing devia- tions of conditions presently from the average conditions of these base maps. Only then will one have the information required to elucidate the changing nature of ocean climate and with which to make the predictions that are required for more economic and successful occupation and use of the ocean. THE CHARACTER OF THE HIGH SEAS As when the area of settlement came up against the new environment of the arid Great Plains about 1840, it is necessary not only to construct new weapons and tools with which to deal with the new environment but also new ideas and new institutions. There are two ideas concerning the high seas which are difficult for landsmen to comprehend, and yet which must be taken into account—one is size, the other is the common property nature of the resources. It is scarcely possible to convey the concept of size of the ocean to a landsman who has not sailed for days over its vast empty stretches in a small vessel. One can only repeat that about 71 percent of the earth’s surface is covered with interconnecting salt water, and that what we are talking about is the surface area equivalent to 15 new continents. Several United States could be plunked down in the Pacific without touching edges. hi Se ee rr ~ Aue ae = NE Vy NA 1 » tn mig ESI WEEE 2 4 2 y eee a 1h ee § y eA) : ; bax Ee a wis | i m 2 & tonitress, ; we wy em, ‘ : ; Se Oe ee a oie.’ Y ‘ae ‘uns g ry p Went h 4 Pe ewar yy L Py eoe 3 kar 2a t ingen cu heed sam w . he Federal Council. Gethas one i rs , pay Ete Pu eh NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION TUESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1965 Hovuss oF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE Com™Mirrer or MercHAant Martini 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 subcommittee will resume its hearings. For our first witness this morning, I would like to call the distin- guished gentleman from Hawaii, the Honorable Spark Matsunaga. STATEMENT OF HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII Mr. Matsunaga. ‘Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, J thank you for this opportunity of appearing before you and express- ing my views with respect to H.R. 10432, the Marine Resources and Hngineering Development Act of 1965, which, along with other sub- stantially similar bills, is now under consideration by this subcom- mittee. My deep and abiding interest in the ocean and its treasures comes no doubt from my island background. As a boy on my native island of Kauai, fourth largest in the Hawaiian group, I was never very far from the ocean, which I grew to love and respect. Like countless other boys, I often wondered about the mysteries which are locked in the depths of the ocean. Lord Byron’s “Ode to the Sea” became one of my favorite poems in high school, for it so well expressed the seem- ing invincibility of the sea. Oceanography, the science that deals with the ocean and its phenom- ena, is probably less known and understood today than our space program, which has made giant strides in recent years and captured the imagination of not only Americans, but also of the peoples of the world. The development of our oceanic resources through research has been a field of increasing importance in my own State. As mani- festations of this, we have the Geophysics Institute, which is located on the campus of the University of Hawaii, the sponsoring of inter- national scientific conferences on tsunami research, the recent appoint- ment of Prof. Henry M. Stommel, one of the Nation’s foremost author- ities on oceanography and presently a member of the faculty at Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology, to fill the newly established Capt. James Cook chair in oceanography at the University of Hawaii, and the National Science Foundation’s Mohole project which is designed to 465 466 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION find out more about the earth’s core through undersea drilling tech- niques. All of these programs are indicative of our continuing efforts to add to our meager store of oceanographic knowledge. The situation in Hawaii probably could be duplicated in many other States which border the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. In these and other States there are at present various governmental and private agencies which are fully cognizant of the need to know more about the treasures to be found in ocean depths. But these agencies do not represent a concerted national effort, nor are they necessarily striving to achieve acommon goal. There is in fact an urgent need to coordinate their efforts and to enlarge and accelerate bbe present ocean research and development program on a national asis. The best and most effective vehicle to accomplish this would be to establish in the executive department an office such as the National Council on Marine Resources and Engineering Development which is proposed in H.R. 10482. The proposed Council would concern itself with all marine science activities embracing not only oceanography, but also engineering, technology, and other related activities. The Council would be authorized to go beyond the scope of pure scientific consideration of marine matters and include within the sphere of its concern the exploration, development, and use of all the resources of the sea. It would interest and encourage pivate industry in the de- velopment of hitherto little known marine resources, as well as give renewed vigor and vitality to our declining American fishing industry. In connection with the development by private industry of the un- tapped resources of the sea, I am convinced that the oceans of the world are limitless sources of protein suitable for human consumption and able to maintain in vigorous health a world population several times its present size. Further, there are indications that vast deposits of metal ores, including manganese, nickel, cobalt, zinc, iron, and alu- minum, are lying at the bottom of the sea in quantities greater than the present human population could ever use. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10432 and its companion bills would provide the governmental structure which would best achieve the rapid, effi- cient, and orderly accomplishment of the exploitation of our oceans in cooperation with industry and our scientific community. I therefore strongly urge that the measure be reported favorably by this subcommittee. Thank you very much. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, sir, for giving such a fine statement. Next I want to call our colleague from the State of Pennsylvania. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES G. FULTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Mr. Fuuron. Thank you for the opportunity to present my state- ment this morning. I would first like to compliment Mr. Fascell for introducing his bill, H.R. 5654 to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes; to establish a National Oceanographic Council; and for other worthwhile purposes. I feel so strongly about the legislation that I have likewise introduced an identical bill, and I hope it will be considered along with the Fascell bill. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 467 Our past experience has demonstrated that. our U.S. national wel- fare depends upon the quality, scope, and vigor of our scientific achievements. As a member of the Science and Astronautics Com- mittee of the House of Representatives, I see the real need of substan- tial support for a sound oceanography program as it is now so small in comparison to our U.S. space achievements through the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Air Force. ‘There is a tremendous need for a far-reaching U.S. national scientific effort, conquest of the ocean, the last remaining frontier of our planet, and our biggest earth challenge yet. Here are discoveries that wait which we can't imagine, and wealth and higher living standards for all the world’s peoples. Food, metals, minerals, and all the earth’s treasures in great abundance await man in our oceans and seas. The oceanographic research budget for fiscal year 1966 of $78,031,000 is really dwarfed in relation to the currently authorized NASA budget of $5,190,396,200. We must make a sound start in exploring the phe- nomena of our oceans and Great Lakes. Because I feel the modification, control, and exploitation of the ocean environment to meet our growing human needs will require a control organization, I am supporting strongly the proposed Oceano- eraphic Council. The Council will be composed of the Vice Presi- dent, certain Cabinet members, inclnding the Secretary of the Interior, and certain other heads of agencies, including the Director of the Office of Science and Technology. The function of the Council is to advise and to assist the President in the field of oceanography and marine sciences and to survey all sig- nificant oceanographic and marine science activities. The Council would develop a comprehensive program of activities that would be administered by the departments and agencies of the Federal Gov- ernment. Of great importance to our Nation is the strategic importance of the ocean. The cloak of concealment that is virtually opaque to all forms of energy (except sound) is of immense military significance. The Polaris deterrent, antisubmarine and mine countermeasure forces, aircraft carriers, and amphibious forces, all depend for safe effective operation on accurate knowledge of the ocean environment. ‘There- fore for purposes of U.S. national defense and free world security, it is essential that the oceans and seas be observed and studied from sur- face to its floor. T am particularly interested in presenting a sound oceanography bill to Congress to assist in meeting the ever present problem of world population explosion. In the underdeveloped areas of the world, the ocean with its huge and inefficiently exploited food resources is of tre- mendous importance to the peoples of all nations. The supply of min- eral resources on land is limited, while the ocean contains at least 65 basic elements and already provides substantial quantities of mag- nesium, bromine, and salt. Many scientists believe that additional untold resources await oceanographic research. The problem of ocean pollution from industrial wastes carried by the river of inland States such as Pennsylvania is one for our country’s consideration. Information is needed concerning the capacity of the ocean to eliminate harmful pollution effects and at the same time pro- tect, marine organisms. The fishing, shipping, mining, and petroleum 468 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION industries, as well as our scientific minded city of Pittsburgh, part of which I have the honor to represent are among those for whom the ocean has a special significance. For these reasons—and many others—I feel that the bill introduced by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fascell, and cosponsored by others, including myself, will give a realistic approach and substantial assistance to the national oceanographic program. Mr. Lennon. The subcommittee thanks you for an excellent state- ment, Congressman. Weare delighted and honored to have next this morning, Dr. Harold Seidman, the Assistant Director for Management and Organization of the Bureau of the Budget. After several false starts, Doctor, we finally have the honor of hay- ing you here. Mr. Semman. I am delighted to be here, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. If we may go off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. Back on the record. Now, Doctor, will you proceed, sir. STATEMENT OF DR. HAROLD SEIDMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET; ACCOMPANIED BY CLIFFORD L. BERG, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET Mr. Srerpman. Mr. Chairman, before I proceed with my formal statement, I thought it might be helpful to the committee to give some technical clarifications relating to Dr. Hollomon’s testimony with respect to the reorganization plan. Mr. Lennon. Dr. Hollomon, of the Department of Commerce? Mr. Srrpman. Yes, sir. You recall he talked about the role of the Environmental Science Services Administration, and I wanted to point out that the Presi- dent’ message transmitting the Reorganization Plan No. 2, as in the case of all messages transmitting reorganization plans, has somewhat of a different legal status than the normal Presidential message. The plan and the message have to be looked at as a whole; in fact, ae message is printed together with the plan in the United States ode. As Dr. Hollomon pointed out, the President’s message says that the new Administration will provide a single national focus for our efforts to describe, understand, and predict the state of the oceans, the state of lower and upper atmosphere, and the size and shape of the earth. So, the approval of the reorganization plan also in effect is approval of this particular provision of the message which states as one of the roles of the Environmental Science Service Administration, to pro- vide a single national focus for our efforts to describe, understand, and predict the state of the oceans. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Doctor. You know you and I discussed that the other day and I am very happy to have that explanation included as part of the hearing record. Thank you, very much. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 469 Mr. Semman. Now, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed with my statement. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your subcommittee to discuss several pending bills designed to strengthen the Nation’s efforts in the study and exploitation of the vast ocean resources of the world. The measures before this committee reflect a growing recognition of the need to seek greater understanding of the oceans. As Presi- dent Johnson stated when he transmitted to the Congress the Nation’s proposed oceanographic program for fiscal year 1966: But never until recently did man seek great understanding of the oceans, be- cause he saw little necessity. There was always a new frontier, unexplored land, unexploited territory. Now our view of the sea has had to undergo a drastic change. We have always considered them as barriers to invasion; we now must see them as links, not only between people, but to a vast new untapped resource. The growing recognition of our need to improve our understanding of the oceans is reflected also by a significant increase in the funds we are devoting to oceanographic research and survey programs. Obligations of Federal agencies for oceanography are estimate to inerease from $62.1 million in 1961 to $141.6 million in 1966. The bills now before the committee obviously represent differences of views as to means rather than ultimate objectives. T will confine my remarks, therefore, to certain basic organizational issues raised by the proposed legislation. JI will not describe existing Executive Office arrangements for planning a coordinated national program in oceanography, since this subject was covered by Dr. Donald Hornig, Director of the Office of Science and Technology, in his testi- mony before your committee. Oceanography presents a difficult and complex but by no means unique problem in Government organization. Oceanography is not an end or purpose of Government in itself. Indeed, at other witnesses have undoubtedly pointed out, ocean- ography is not a discrete scientific discipline, but is a composite of such basic sciences as marine biology, geology, physics, and chemistry. Oceanographic programs embrace a host of diverse activities rang- ing from marine charting to fisheries development and ocean forecast- ing. Oceanographic activities are a necessary incident to, and cannot be divorced from, the basic missions of such agencies as the Navy and the Department of the Interior. Except for the National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution, all of the present agencies concerned with oceanography conduct oceanographic activities in support of their basic operating missions. In the foregoing respects, oceanography is similar to meteorology and water resources research in that it encompasses a variety of activi- ties necessary for meeting an agency’s immediate operational require- ments. Given the diversity and varied purposes of the activities grouped under the general heading of oceanography, consolidation of all func- tions relating to oceanography and related sciences in a single agency, as would be provided by H.R. 921, is neither desirable nor feasible. Establishment of a National Oceanographic Agency would run counter to the basic princple of executive branch organization stated 470 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION in section 2(a) (4) of the Reorganization Act of 1949, which directs that agencies and functions of the Government be grouped, coordinated and consolidated “as nearly as may be, according to major purposes.” Any attempt to separate oceanographic functions from the missions which they now serve could cripple seriously a number of on-going programs or give rise to overlapping and duplication. How do we draw a line between oceanography and the other func- tions assigned such agencies as the Coast Guard? As the Treasury Department points out, “Where does the oceanography aspect of, for example, ocean-station vessels begin and end? H.R. 5884 and H.R. 7849, bills which would establish a Marine Exploration and Development Commission, also create problems of overlapping and duplication and have other undesirable organiza- tional features. ise The proposed agency would overlap and duplicate activities now being conducted on the Continental Shelf by a number of Federal agencies. While the bills attempt to resolve this problem by providing that the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, and the Interior shall be mem- bers of the Commission, we have serious reservations about the ability of an agency organized along these lines either to administer effec- tively the programs undertaken directly by the Commission or to coordinate successfully related agency programs. Finally, we believe it would be unsound to create a new agency con- cerned with development of natural resources in a particular geo- graphic area, thereby complicating national planning for resource de- velopment and coordination of resource programs, As in the case with other scientific and technological programs which necessarily cut across agency lines, we need to develop satisfactory means for coordinating, not consolidating, the diverse and separate programs administered by a number of Federal agencies which relate to the general field of oceanography. This fact is recognized by H.R. 2218, H.R. 5654, and H.R. 6457, all of which seek to strengthen and improve existing arrangements for coordinating oceanographic programs. We continue to believe strongly that the desired objectives could be accomplished most effectively by the enactment of H.R. 2218. This bill properly assigns to the President, as Chief Executive, responsi- bility for defining national goals with respect to oceanography, sur- veying all significant oceanographic activities, developing a compre- hensive program of oceanographic activities to be conducted or supported by Federal agencies, designating and fixing responsibility for the direction of oceanographic activties and resolving differences arising among Federal agencies with respect to oceanographic activities. The President is authorized by the bill to utilize such advisory re- sources as he may deem necessary, including an Advisory Committee on Oceanography drawn from outside the Government. The President would be required to report annually to the Congress as to the general status of oceanography, progress in research and de- velopment, financial plans, including proposed appropriations, cur- rent and future plans, and requests for such legislation as may be necessary. . NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 471 Enactment of H.R. 2218 would give appropriate recognition and emphasis to the growing importance of oceanography. The bill es- tablishes congressional policies and intent with respect to oceanography and assigns clear-cut responsibilities to the President for carrying out these policies and reporting on plans and progress to the Congress. Under the provisions of H.R. 2218, however, the President retains essential flexibility to develop those administrative and organizational arrangements which he believes will assist him most effectively in carrying out the responsibilities assigned to him by the Congress, and in accomplishing the purposes of the act. The need for flexibility in establishing coordinating arrangements was stressed by President Johnson in his message transmitting Re- organization Plan No. 4 of 1965 to the Congress. Reorganization Plan No. 4 abolished nine statutory boards, councils, and interagency committees and transferred their functions either to the President or a designated official. The President emphasized that we must have— the capacity for fast flexible response to changing needs imposed by changing circumstances. He noted further that: As Government grows more complex and programs increasingly cut across agency lines, we must exercise special care to prevent the continuance of obsolete interagency committees and other coordinating devices which waste time and delay action and the undue proliferation of new committees. Mr. Chairman, I might add that in developing Reorganization Plan No. 4, we found that some of these bodies which have been created by the statute never met because they were not suited to executive branch needs and organization. I think this illustrates the difficulty we have with a number of bills before this committee. Others such as the National Housing Council have not met since 1961, so the creation of a statutory interagency committee does not necessarily achieve the objective if it is not suited to the arrangements which are required within the executive branch. Mr. Lennon. I do not mean to have you digress from your state- ment, but if it is a statutory committee, created by a statute, and it did not meet, then it is clearly the fault of the executive that the statutory committee did not meet; is that not true? Mr. Srripman. No. Mr. Lennon. Why not? Mr. Sempman. I would not agree, Mr. Chairman. It did not meet because—— Mr. Lennon. There was no need for it. Mr. Sripman. No useful purpose to be served by the committee meeting. Mr. Lennon. Even though they may sign a bill into law, then, the executive makes the determination that it will flaunt the will of the Congress in creating the statutory committee which the President signed into law by failing to carry out the responsibilities in admin- istering the law. What function does the executive have except to administer the law which is passed by the Congress which the President signs? ~ T resent this implication that once the President affixes his signature to a bill that through the Bureau of the Budget-or'any other agency of 472 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION the Federal Government, from the President’s Office on down, that they just simply ignore it. ; But rather than to offend the Congress by vetoing the bill, they sign the bill and just pay no attention to the implementation of that legislation. That is just what you said in your statement, that the National Housing Commission was created by law, but the President did not carry out his obligation to see that they met. I think that is an indictment of the Executive, not of the Congress. Mr. Sempman. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think I should explain further. In creating these bodies and in providing for these interagency com- mittees, the Congress was assigned to them by law for only advisory functions. There was no requirement in the law stating that there must be meetings. Mr. Lennon. Well then, the executive ought to come back and say, now, this legislation has outused its practical purposes. We recommend that it be repealed. Do not repeal it by an indirect act of the executive agency. I agree with you, sir, Doctor, that if there is a world of laws on our books that are not being implemented they ought to be repealed, they ought not to be ignored. That is the way I feel. Mr. Srrpman. This is exactly what the President did, Mr. Chair- man, when he sent the reorganization plan to the Congress, and I am sure that you are not suggesting that pro forma meetings be held by bodies when they no longer have any useful business to transact. This would seem to me to be a waste of the time of officials and the waste of the Government’s funds. Mr. Lennon. But you are offering that as an explanation, the fact that did not meet is the reason why the President proposed Reorga- nization Plan No. 4. I was saying when the usefulness of a Commission created by a statute has ceased, then legislation ought to be recommended by the executive branch of the Government to repeal that unnecessary legis- lation. Of course, you say that is what is done by actually effecting a re- peal by the adoption of the reorganization plan, is that correct? Mr. Serpman. That is correct. Mr. Lennon. I apologize for breaking in. You go right ahead with your statement. Mr. Serpman. H.R. 5654 and H.R. 6457 differ from H.R. 2218 mainly in limiting the President’s flexibility in establishing and maintaining necessary coordinating arrangements. Both bills would establish statutory interagency committees—con- trary to the doctorine underlying Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1965 which was concurred in by the Congress. H.R. 5654 would establish a National Oceanographic Council in the Executive Office of the President, and H.R. 6457 would establish a National Oceanographic Council in the Office of Science and Tech- nology. For the reasons cited in the President’s message on Reorganization Plan No. 4, we are opposed to the establishment of such statutory interagency committees. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 473 And, Mr. Chairman, the objection we have to these bills would apply to that part of S. 944, which also provides for a statutory oceanographic council. The independent National Oceanographic Council which would be established by H.R. 5654 inevitably would fragment responsibili- ties now assigned to the Office of Science and Technology for advising the President on the coordination of Federal programs relating to science and technology. Further, there would appear to be little to be gained by substitutin a statutory interagency committee which the Office of Science an Technology has already established in this area. H.R. 6457 attempts to protect the status of the Office of Science and Technology by establishing the National Oceanographic Council within that Office. The Oceanographic Council, however, would for all practical pur- poses be an independent entity with its own staff and would not be subject. to direction by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology. Such an arrangement would confuse greatly responsibilities for ad- vising the President on oceanographic matters. I will touch only briefly on H.R. 9064, which would establish a National Commission on Oceanography, and H.R. 5175, which would provide for a study by the Coast Guard of the legal problems relating to the management, use, and control of the oceans and ocean beds. The Office of Science and Technology, in its report to your com- mittee dated July 6, 1965, pointed out that a study similar to that con- templated by H.R. 9064 is currently being conducted by a panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee. Consequently, we concur in the view of the Office of Science and Technology that a statutory study commission should not be created at this time. We defer to the views of the appropriate agencies concerning the need for the study of legal problems provided by H.R. 5175. If such a study is undertaken, it would fall more logically within the province of the Department of the Interior than the Coast Guard whose responsibilities for ocean resources are rather limited. In summary, the Bureau of the Budget favors enactment of H.R. 2218. We are opposed to the enactment of H.R. 921, H.R. 5654, H.R. 5884, H.R. 6457, H.R. 7849, and H.R. 9064 Mr. Lennon. Mr. Rogers? Mr. Rocers. I wanted to check something, I am sorry I was a little late. I wanted to check the statement, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. Lennon. All right, we will return to you. Mr. Rogers. Fine, thank you. Mr. Lennon. I think it is interesting to note that of the number of witnesses who testified before the subcommittee in the 2 preceding weeks, including Dr. Hornig and Dr. Hollomon, and many others, that this is the first instance, and it is indicative of the Bureau of the Budget, that we use both sides of the paper. You are the first witness that has done that; I commend you; I think that is fine. [Laughter.] Doctor, let me ask you if you have seen this week’s issue, rather, this month’s issue of the American Legion magazine? 538-367—65—— 31 474 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Seipman. No, Ihave not, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Let me commend for your earnest perusal and study an article that appears beginning on page 8 and the authors are Deane and David Heller, “The Extraordinary Powers of the Bureau of the Budget.” ¢ This is the caption of it, “How a Superbureau in Washington Manipulates the Laws, Censors Witnesses Before Congress and Dic- tates to Departments and Agencies by the Exercise of Powers Never Set Forth in the American Constitution.” They quote some very distinguished Americans now in high places; one of them being a former distinguished Senator from the star State of Texas in which he describes the Bureau of the Budget as a “ezar,” that is the quote, and he goes on from there. . He is just warming up as he goes on. And he quotes a number of other distinguished persons who are in Government with respect to how he then said that the Bureau of the Budget was able to determine the will of the Congress without authority under the Constitution, and JI touched on it briefly a few minutes ago in what I said, but this article is much more eloquent and factual, and I comemnd it to your reading because it is being widely disseminated among the Member of Con- gress and it is a little bit, well, frustrating, to read it and see the quotes of some of the people who are now in high places who have reversed their position like they have in so many instances in the last few years on so many other things. Mr. Sermpman. I would mention that our former distinguished Sen- ator from the State of Texas, who is now the President, has made more recent statements about the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Lennon. He has made many statements, because I remember many of his statement on important issues as both a Member of the House and the Senate and as majority leader, but people do change. Mr. Serpman. I have not read the article and I am unable therefore to rebut the specific criticisms. J think the chairman is aware, how- ever, that no powers are vested in the Bureau of the Budget; it serves the President, and the actions that are taken are on behalf of the Presi- dent, not the Bureau of the Budget. Mr. Lennon. I am not being critical, Doctor, I am just quoting those in high places in Government who work with you. I am not uoting myself, this is what President Johnson and some others in Gaara have said about the Bureau of the Budget, and I do think it is rather challenging, and they do document it, of course. Doctor, let us now, 1f we can, talk specifically about some of the bills because we do need your counsel and advice. My recollection is that the Sente bill, 944, which passed the Senate on August 5, I believe, and is now over here and has been referred to this subcommittee within the last few days—it passed the Senate on Au- gust 5—did you testify before the Senate Commerce Committee during the consideration by that committee of this bill ? Mr. Sripman. No, I did not, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. My recollection is that at the time of its introduction it provided for a National Council, the Vice President, who should be the Chairman, and then the various Secretaries of State, and, in fact, all of those who hold Cabinet-level status. My information is that either in committee or on the floor it was amended to provide for a commission of—my recollection—five repre- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 475 sentatives from Government, five from industry, and five from uni- versities, institutions, or laboratories, and so forth. It so happens that there is pending before this committee, and you commented on it already, H.R. 9064, I believe that is your bill, Mr. Rogers, identical to the Senate bill, or it was before it was amended in the Senate. Mr. Rocrrs. Yes, sir. Mr. Lennon. Well, there are three bills: Mr. Fascell, of Florida, H.R. 5654, and. H.R. 6512, and H.R. 7301 by Mr. Hanna, of California, and H.R. 7798 by Mr. Huot, of New Hampshire. At the time of the introduction of those bills on this side of the Hill, they were identical with the Senate bill 944. Since then, however, the Senate bill, as I understand it, has been amended to create a commission. You will recall] that we passed here in the House legislation year be- fore last that is identical to H.R. 2218, the bill that is now before us, ate it, of course, was not even considered by the committee in the enate. So, it would look like to get legislation, and I am inclined to believe that the executive branch sort of hopes that we do not get any, period, but it would look lke now at this time in the session that there is going to have to be a consensus between the two bodies with respect to legislation that both bodies will pass. I was thinking about the possibility of H.R. 2218 being amended to provide, it provides for an advisory commission, counsel may correct me if I am incorrect, but it does provide for an advisory commission to the President, but my recollection is it only provides for a minimum of seven. Mr. Drewry. That is correct. Mr. Lennon. And it is permissive only, a minimum of seven. What would you think, Doctor, if 2218 was amended to provide for a Presi- dential Advisory Commission, not on a permissive basis but a directive basis such as some of this other legislation provides for ? To authorize and direct the President to appoint an Advisory Com- mission of not less than 15 members, 5 of them should come from Government, 5 of whom should come from industry, and 5 who should come from your laboratories and universities and that segment of the interested people in oceanography ? Dr. Seman. Mr. Chairman, first, before I respond directly to that inquiry, I do not think we would have a great deal of problem with the provision which is in S. 944 on the Commission, which is merely an authority to create such a commission, without expressly requiring It. Certainly I would say we are openminded on the latter proposition which the chairman has advanced. Our principal problem, as you know, has been the fact that there is a panel of the Science Advisory Committee currently studying oceanographic programs. We were not objecting to the creation of a commission in principle but our objection was related rather to timing. It seemed that we would be able better to judge what the charter of the Commission ought to be and where it should concentrate its efforts after we had the report from the panel of the President’s Sci- ence Advisory Committee. 476 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION So, I think we do have some problem on the timing here which ought to be considered, but certainly this is a matter, as I say, on which I think we are openminded. I do not know that we have any fixed position. Mr. Lennon. Now, on the Federal Council of Science and Tech- nology, every major agency of the Federal Government is represented by a member; that is true, is it not? Mr. Srmpman. That is correct; every one that has an interest in oceanography. Mr. Lennon. An interest in oceanography. Even the Department of State, I believe, has a representative on the Federal Council. Mr. Serpman. There are important international implications, Mr. Lennon. That is at the observer level, just as the Bureau of the Budget has a member on the Federal Council, but that is always at the observer level. Mr. Semman. Correct. Mr. Lennon. The National Council as provided for in the Senate bill, is, of course, a directive; in other words, it would be established in the Executive Office of the President a national council, and so forth, and it goes on to name them. I am mistaken in my impression that the Senate bill 944 requires the President to appoint a commission. I think that is within his discretion as I see it now. I stand corrected on that. So, your position is that with the existence now of the Federal Council for Science and Technology you have in essence and in sub- stance the same sort of a council that he would have under S. 944; is that a fair statement? Mr. Serpman. We do not claim that the Federal Council on Science and Technology is the same sort of council as would be provided by S. 944. Our point is that effective coordination of Federal programs, and particularly developing Federal programs, can be most effectively dealt with by the President, because the situation changes from time to time, and what might be a satisfactory arrangement today might not be the best arrangement 12 months from now, and that we can best achieve the goals which I think both this committee and executive branch want to achieve through flexibility in terms of the organiza- tional and coordinating arrangements. The situation with respect to oceanography is common to other areas of science. The functions under H.R. 2218, and under the other bills which pro- vide for a statutory council, are almost identical. Under H.R. 2218, they are made the responsibility of the President; the Congress re- quires him to carry them out and report back to the Congress on what he has done, but leaves the particular organizational arrange- ments for determination by the President. Mr. Lennon. It seems to be the thinking, apparently on the part of the Commerce Committee in the Senate, which is reflected in the total body of the Senate on the passage of this bill on a voice vote, that. perhaps we do not have the coordination at the higher echelons in Government in oceanography that we ought to have. So many witnesses have indicated their philosophy that the Federal Council for Science and Technology was devoting so little time and so little of its personnel to the consideration of the overall spectrum. of oceanography. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 477 That has been the testimony before this committee by many people and organizations outside of the Government that are engaged in oceanography. Mr. Seman. Well, as I think I indicated in my statement, there has been a substantial increase in the Federal expenditures for ocean- ography since 1961. And there has been a small increase since last ear, and a larger percentage of that is in ocean surveys and reserach ecause a large amount of the funds previously had gone into capital requirements in providing ships. May I just add, Mr. Chairman, I think this issue runs to the pro- gram iand program level rather than coordinating arrangements. I do not think a statutory council would contribute much to solving this particular problem. Mr. Lennon. But out of the budget for fiscal 1966 for the national oceanographic program, by agency, the Department of Defense, more particularly the Navy, of course, gets about 50 percent of the total budget ; is that right? Mr. Srmpman. That is correct. Mr. Lennon. Sir; $67,999,000 against $141 million. That is just under half of the total budget. Mr. Seman. For 1966, it would be $68 million in defense, the next largest amount would be $30 million in the National Science Founda- tion. Mr. Lennon. Now, since ESSA has been established in the Depart- ment of Commerce, and their counsel, in a letter addressed to the committee, says that they have authority to contract and to make sur- veys of the Continental Shelf, and their spokesman here the other day indicated that there had been a contract recently signed by ESSA of the Department of Commerce for the survey of a part of the Con- tinental Shelf. Do you know how much is involved in that contract, Doctor, in dollars and cents as affected against its total budget of $13 million for 1966 ? Mr. Szemman. No, sir; I do not know. I do not have the answer on that. We could provide it for the record. (The following information was supplied for the record :) CONTINENTAL SHELF STUDY BY COMMERCE The Coast and Geodetic Survey signed a study contract with the Battelle Memorial Institute in May 1965, for $55,000. The study is to extend over a 14-week period, and the report should be completed by mid-September. The objectives of the study are— 1. To identify the present and likely future economic benefits that can be derived from the present and possible future activities of Commerce’s survey activities in the Continental Shelf regions; 2. To consider the capability of the Department for meeting future user needs identified in this program ; and 3. To delineate present and future geographical regions of commercial interest in the Continental Shelf areas. The study is intended for use in planning Commerce’s future programs. On August 19, 1965, the Department supplied the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries with background on this project, including a copy of the contract. Mr. Lennon. Well, you say that a substantial part of the fiscal year 1966 budget is to be spent in surveys ? 478 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Now, as I understand it from Dr. Hollomon’s testimony, ESSA in the Department of Commerce is the only agency which now has the legal authority to make surveys of any consequence of our oceans anywhere. Isthat true? ; Mr. Srroman. I do not think that is entirely correct. It is my under- standing that the geological survey of the Department of the Interior is now engaged in a cooperative program of reconnaissance on the Atlantic Continental Shelf. Mr. Lennon. In a letter, and I am going to read that letter to you, it is from Mr. Bob Giles, the General Counsel, directed to Mr. Herbert Bonner, in which he points out that the ESSA in the Department of Commerce has the authority to make these surveys under this Reorga- nization Plan No. 4 that established ESSA in the Department of Com- merce, and he goes into some detail to explain that they do coordinate and advise and counsel with the Department of the Interior, but he does not say anything there about the Department of the Interior being actually involved, contractually or otherwise, in making these surveys. Mr. Sxmman. Although the Department of Commerce has a focal role, other agencies, including Navy, are engaged in surveys. This is indicated in the national oceanographic program for fiscal year 1966, the table A—8, on individual agency budgets, shows that surveys are being undertaken, were undertaken by the Navy in 1964, there were none in 1965 and 1966; Geological Survey is engaged in surveys; also the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Mr. Lennon. Well, Doctor, I am looking at the same thing on the individual budget for agencies by functional areas. So while I notice that the program for fiscal 1966, budget by functional areas, carries the figure $78 million for research out. of a total of $141 million; then I read on and finally come down to table 3, that is what you are referring to; I believe the Navy’s part of that is $33 million for research. Mr. Seripman. That is correct. Mr. Lennon. Now how is the Navy engaged in research with respect to anything that would exploit the resources of the ocean? Their research is related to antisubmarine warfare and sonar and things of that nature. They are not interested in trying to find some method that we can develop that we can exploit the resources of the ocean, arethey? They are still attached to Defense, in other words? Mr. Sripman. The purpose of the programs of the Navy are to meet the special requirements of the Navy which are support of its mili- tary mission, primarily. t ; Now, as in other cases, survey work or research carried out in terms of a specialized mission may have significance in other areas. We are compiling a common body of data and information which may be significant for all of the agencies which are engaged in oceanography. Mr. Lennon. Now, Doctor, let us return, if we will, to a little more detailed discussion of the Senate bill which we have to consider, too, in these hearings, and you have not spoken directly to that, but you have spoken in opposition to comparable, almost identical House bulls. Which part of S. 944 do you think could be used as an improve- ment to H.R. 2218 ? : Mr. Serpman. I think certainly we would be prepared to give con- sideration, Mr. Chairman, to that part of S. 944 beginning at section NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 479 4 which deals with the authorization to the President to establish a Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. Mr. Lennon. I would think, Doctor, that you probably have had a chance to analyze S. 944 since its passage by the Senate. You say that a Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineers, Re- sources, or section 4, in substance, would perhaps be a good substitute for that part of 2218 which provides for the establishment by the President of a Presidential Advisory Council. Mr. Sripman. That is correct. I think we might have some techni- cal language to suggest in section 4. Mr. Lennon. Now, Dr. Morse in his testimony, I believe it was Dr. Morse, of the Navy, suggested—he did not suggest, he recommended specifically that—I think it was he and Dr. Hollomon both, 2218 ought to provide some annual authorization for funding the work of the interagency committee on oceanography. They both, as I recall it, made that recommendation, one or the other did certainly, stating that the Interagency Committee on Oceanography was dependent upon working, the individuals assigned to that intraagency committee by the various departments and agencies and they had no staff, no central staff at all—that it was on a part-time basis. I think they had one man that gave most of his time to it, and he had no staff, What do you think about that, Doctor? Some nominal sum on an annual authorization basis. When I say “nominal” I would certainly think of seeing a couple of hundred thousand dollars, or a quarter of a million dollars at the very tops, myself; I do not know what other members of the committee might think. Mr. Srrpman. The bill could provide authorization for administra- tive expenses. Mr. Lennon. Within the Office of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography ? Mr. Sripman. The Interagency Committee on Oceanography is a subcommittee of the Federal Council on Science and Technology. Mr. Lennon. I realize that, but apparently what their complaint is, is that it is not being funded so that they can have a staff, even a very small staff, to kep the thing moving all the aime. Comment on that; is that true or not, or are those gentlemen mis- taken? They are on the ICO and I thought they ought to know. Mr. Srrpman. They have five professionals on the staff of the ICO, according to Mr. Berg of my staff, who is accompanying me. I think if the need could be demonstrated and justified, more staff could be pro- vided. I do not know what the specific difficulty is here. I think Mr. Berg said most of this is funded by Navy today. As you know, under general law there is authority for the members of interagency committees to contribute funds for the support of the committee. _ Mr. Lennon. That was certainly my impression, Doctor, and that is the reason I questioned these gentlemen rather closely when they came up with this specific recommendation in their testimony that that would be, in their judgment, they said, a very effective thing to do, and it appeared to me that there must be some justification for it. I would be glad to have your comments, sir. Mr. Sempman. With the chairman’s permission what I would like to do is specifically look into this matter and if I could send a letter to 480 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION the committee I think it would be more helpful than giving my offhand judgment; I have not specifically looked at it; I would like to find out what the facts are, how many were proposed, how many were granted, what the reasons were, and if the chairman ‘would agree, I think this would perhaps be the most helpful to you rather than giving an off- hand comment. Mr. Lennon. I would like very much to have that at the earliest con- venient date to you, sir, because we do want to reach some understand- ing on this legislation very shortly after we complete the hearings. (The document follows :) STAFFING OF INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY The ICO staff is currently composed of five professionals and four clerical mem- bers. The estimated total cost for staff activities during fiscal year 1966 is $119,- 925, of which the Navy will contribute $93,895, the Coast and Geodetic Survey $17,030, and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries $9,000. All personnel pulevs are supplied by the Navy with the except of one from the Coast Guard. The central problem involved in providing for an expanded staff within Nave resources is that of directing defense funds and personnel spaces from military to nonmilitary purposes. If required to do so, Navy would support an increased staff but would prefer that separate and additional resources be made available. To date, no specific recommendations as to type and numbers of additional personnel have been formally developed. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Rogers, are you ready now ? Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, what does the Bureau of the Budget regard as the Presi- dent’s policy and instructions with regard to ‘oceanography ? Mr. Semman. I think those are generally contained in his letter transmitting the 1966 oceanographic program to the Congress, from which I quoted j in part. Mr. Rocrrs. This just says there, you see the oceans as links rather than barriers, but I think surely there must be more of Mr. Seman. The President said : We are looking forward to a period when our investment in ocean research may bear fruit in terms of faster and more comfortable transportation * * * more accurate prediction of storms and tides that endanger life and property and the strengthening of our national defense. The specifics are to be found in the President’s budget recommenda- tions. The budget recommended by the President, I think, is almost identical with that recommended in the national oceanographic pro- gram. Mr. Rocrrs. Do you see any problems with oceanography? Does the Bureau of the Budget feel there are any problems concerning oceanography, or are things going along pretty well? Mr. SempMman. From what I have been told, I think there has been progress; there are problems. It is a very difficult organizational area, and I think it would not be correct to state that it is not. The new science programs by their very nature necessarily cut across agency lines and create some very difficult problems of crganization and. co- ordination. I would not be frank before this committee if I said we thought we had solved them all; we have not. Mr. Rocrrs. Of course, there are problems, very difficult problems, if we are going to have an active program of oceanography. Is the Bureau of the Budget aware of what is being done in this field ? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 481 Mr. Seman. I think the staff on the budget side of the Budget Bu- reau is aware of this; I personally am not. Mr. Rogers. I understand you might not be. Who on your staff deals with oceanography ? ‘Mr. Seman. In my immediate staff it is Dr. Berg; then on the budget side, I come from that part of the Budget Bureau that deals with management and organization within the Government, each otf the divisions concerned with specific programs does deal with oceano- eraphy Mr. Rogers. Who does it? Mr. Serpwan. Each of the budget divisions. For example, the examiner who deals with the Environmental Science Services Admin- istration would be concerned with that part of it. We have faced the problem in the Budget Bureau, of coordinating scientific programs, that cut across agency lines. We have created what we call a coordinating examiner who has the function of pulling together all of the oceanographic programs, and I think the coordi- nating examiner is Mr. Dillon who is in the Military Division. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Dillon? Mr. Serpman. Mr. Dillon. Mr. Rocers. So he is the top man more or less? Mr. Srmman. On the budgetary side. Mr. Rocrrs. On the budgetary side; in other words, to handle the amounts of money to be approved ? Mr. Srerpman. That is right; he is also the Bureau of Budget’s ob- server on the ICO. Mr. Rocxrrs. Now, is he an oceanographer ? Mr. Seman. No. Mr. Rogers. Does he have any background in science ? Mr. Semman. I really could not respond to your question, Mr. Rogers. I would be glad to get the biographical data for you. Mr. Rogers. I think this might be interesting for the committee if you could let us have the background of those men who deal with the oceanographic program in the Bureau of the Budget. (The information follows :) BIoGRAPHICAL DATA ON BUREAU OF THE BUDGET STAFF Enoch Leroy Dillon, budget examiner, Military Division. Attended University of the Pacific and received B.S. degree in business administration in 1948. In 1952, obtained masters degree in economics from Catholic University, and in 1953 engaged in additonal graduate work in economicy at American University. For the periods 1944 to 1946 and 1951 to 1952, served as a U.S. Army Infantry officer in the United States, the Philippines, Japan and Korea. Organization and methods examiner with the Department of the Treasury from 1948 to 1951 and from 1952 to 1955. Joined the Military Division of the Bureau of the Budget in 1955, and since 1961 has been an examiner in naval research, development, test, evaluation, and procurement. In 1961, designated as Bureau coordinator for Federal oceanography programs. Clifford L. Berg, management analyst, Office of Management and Organization. B.A. in political science from University of Minnesota in 1942, followed by World War II experience in military personnel assignments. Master of public admin- istration from Harvard in 1951, and Ph. D. in government and economics from Harvard in 1955. Civilian personnel assignment in Veterans’ Administration and Air Force from 1946 to 1956, excluding academic leave from 1950 to 1952. Joined Bureau of the Budget as a budget examiner on hospital programs in 1956 and in present assignment of responsibility for science and education organiza- 482 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION tion since 1958. Associate professorial lecturer, the George Washington Uni- versity. Hugh F. Loweth, Assistant Chief of the Education, Manpower and Science Division. Graduate Trinity College, Hartford, Conn., B.A. in history and politi- cal science. Graduate study in public administration at Maxwell Graduate School, Syracuse University. On the staff of the Bureau of the Budget since 1950. Since 1954, responsible in part for programs of the National Science Foundation and since 1957 concerned also with coordination of general science activities of the Federal Government, particularly those affecting academic in- stitutions. From 1962 through June 1965, Chief of the Education and Science Branch, Labor and Welfare Division. Responsible for education and science aspects, which include the National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution. Harry C. McKittrick, Assistant Chief of the Resources and. Civil Works Divi- sion (interior programs). Graduate of Park College with A.B. in economics and business administration, 1943. Joined the Bureau of the Budget in 1948 reviewing programs of the War Department and other national security ele- ments, serving as a staff assistant to the Director, and in asisgnments in the fiscal analysis and legislative reference offices and in the agriculture unit. Has been in present assignment since 1957. Hilary J. Rauche, budget examiner, Commerce unit (science and technology), Commerce and Housing Division. Attended University of Notre Dame under NROTC (Holloway) program from 1950-54 and received B.A. (economics). Upon graduation, commissioned ensign, U.S. Navy, and served approximately 5 years on active duty as unrestricted line officer. Released to inactive duty as lieutenant in early 1959, and completed 1 year of graduate study in economies at University of California, Berkeley, in 1960. Filled positions in the AHC’s San Francisco Operations Office as management analyst (1961) ,,administrative assist- ant in contracting unit (1962), and contract negotiator and administrator (re- actor R. & D. and physical research programs). Left AEC in June 1965 to join professional staff of Bureau of the Budget. Participates actively as a ready reservist (lieutenant commander) in the Naval Reserve. Mr. Rocers. Dr. Berg helps you with oceanography, as I under- stand ? Mr. Seripman. Yes; he does. € Mr. Rogers. Just for my own knowledge, I am sorry I do not know your background, Dr. Berg. . Mr. Bere. I am not a scientist, either; my background is in govern- ment and economics, and I work in the general area of science orga- nization, of which oceanography is, of course, only one element. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Seman. I might point out that Dr. Berg has spent some years working in the field of science organization. The study of Federal or- ganization for meteorology, with which your committee is familiar and the methods we have now developed for coordinating meterologi- cal programs stem directly from Dr. Berg. Mr. Rogers. If you had a commission—perhaps one of you can an- swer this—if you had a commission, how many days do you think it ought to spend, a national commission, on studying the problems of oceanography, to present a comprehensive look and recommendations to the President? Say you wanted it to survey the entire program, set goals where we should go, what we should do, the legal problems in- volved, the organizational problems, the budgetary problems, the pro- posed funding to come up, say, in a 5- to 10-year program; how long do you think a commission would have to function ? Mr. Serpman. I cannot, again, address myself specifically to ocean- ography. I would need to talk to Dr. Hornig and others knowledge- able in oceanography. Based on my general experience with study commissions of this type and the complexity of the subject matter, a NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 483: my own view and personal opinion would be that it could probably not be done in less than 2 years. Mr. Rogers. And how many days in the 2 years do you suppose it would have to be ? Mr. Seman. The amount of time required for members of the commission and staff of the commission would differ. The staff would have to devote almost full time to the effort. Mr. Rocers. You would have to have a good staff. Mr. Seman. IJ do not know how many days members of the com- mission would have to meet. Normally a commission is concerned at the outset, one, with the selection of staff, providing guidance to the staff as to the areas which should be studied and setting out the tasks which are to be performed; and then usually there is a period of, say, 6 months while the staff is at work, and then there is another meeting, in which they review progress reports of staff seeing that they are moving along the lines desired, to see whether modifications are required in the work that is being done; then a subsequent meeting may be held in 3 months or 6 months, to review progress reports. Normally there will be very intensive work by the commission at the end in developing recommendations, writing a report and so on. Mr. Rogers. Well, I would agree with you that it is going to take some time, maybe at least a year and a half, to do an adequate study to know. We all admit there are problems in the field, something should be done. Russia is doing a great deal; we are going to have to match this, if we keep up with what the President wants us to do, to stay ahead of the field. Dr. Hornig has set up a panel which you referred to but do you know that panel which is supposed to come up with a study is going to meet for 9 months, but only 2 days a month, which means a total of about 18 days; there is no one staff man assigned for responsibility, they do not really have any staff, and out of this we are supposed to get the study to tell us what to do. Mr. Serpman. Mr. Rogers, I think the purpose of the PSAC panel is certainly not the same as that of the proposed commission. I do not think it is expected to produce an indepth study. However, certainly that panel operating as you described could illuminate some of the problems and perhaps clarify some of the priority areas to which such a commission should address itself. Mr. Rogers. But it is not even looking at legal problems, for in- stance; it is not in the charter. And certainly everyone agrees this is something that should be considered, at least according to the testimony of Dr. Hornig. Furthermore, it is completely outside of the Government, the Government itself does not even have a represent- ative on the panel for the consideration of what the Government itself is going to do. Mr. Semman. As I understand it, the purpose is to look at the program and identify problems and the areas warranting priority attention. Mr. Rocrrs. This is what concerns me, and yet everybody comes up, because the Bureau told them to say, well, now, you are not for this study because we are going to set up an in-house study over here in the Office of Science and Technology which was set up just a few A484 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION months ago when they understood that this was a movement and this is the feeling of industry itself which testified here, this is also the feeling of those who are in the program, that we need a comprehen- sive study of some significance to help direct us where to go, and I would hope the Bureau of the Budget would reexamine this and see about cooperating and trying to have a comprehensive study made, putting it on the level that will attract some national attention to it rather than having a little in-house study made, where we have had 10,000 of those. The Navy has just done one. He does not have to do that; you can conduct in-house studies in one department after another, and this could be done to serve as an “S.O.P.” to us to tell us, well, we are studying again. What we want to do is have a study that can give us advice; you say there are problems and I agree with you, and you do not have the answers to them today, and I do not think we do, either, and for us to move effectively I feel we ought to relook at this and I hope you can get the Budget to go over this again and see if you do not really think it is time now to do something rather than postponing and postponing with a study, study, study. We know the areas that need to be looked at. Mr. Sripman. Mr. Rogers, I think in response to the questions asked me by the chairman with respect to the Senate bill, I indicated that we were openminded as far as the Commission is concerned. Mr. Rogers. I am delighted to hear that. Mr. Semman. And certainly we will be prepared to give this very serious consideration. Mr. Rocrrs. Yes; fine. Mr. Srmman. In my prepared statement I indicated we had a problem with timing, and this might be met in the bill; in other words, we ought to see whatever comes out of this other group before moving into another study. We are not seeking an indefinite postponement, since the report of the PSAC panel is due on April 1. Mr. Rogrrs. I would hope we would not be delayed in getting this other Commission. They can make their finding in this other Com- mission whatever they may come up with, but we need to get going on a comprehensive study particularly if it is going to take a year and a half or 2 years. Mr. Srmpman. As you know, even when you have legislation, it takes time to make the appointments. There are delays and it takes a long time, even way aiter legislation is enacted before you find the people you want to serve as Commission members. Mr, Rocerrs. That is why I think we should not delay any more; that is the point I was making. Further, I was concerned about Assistant Secretary Hollomon’s statement where he says he disagrees with you that we are spending more money. Here is his statement: But what has been happening over the last few years is that the costs of operating oceanographic ships have been rising and claiming a continually larger share of each year’s expenditures for oceanography, which means that the money being spent on oceanographic research has in reality declined. Now, would you comment on that? Mr. Seman. I would want again to look at the figures—— ow NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 485 Mr. Rocrrs. He is saying because of the added expense and the cost, we are not getting as much for the money that we have been spending. Mr. Seripman. I know we are spending less on capital construction. A good part of our expenditures for oceanography were going into the construction of ships. This is one of the difliculties—oceanog- raphy is expensive, it takes time to get the ships to be used to con- duct surveys and for research and to obtain the people and train them. Maybe Dr. Berg can respond to this. Mr. Roczrs. Yes. Mr. Bere. I think Dr. Hollomon has put his finger on a real problem here; as you get more ships and gather more data, you have a greater problem of analysis with respect to those studies. These moneys do compete—the research moneys do compete with the ship operating costs, which, of course, are high. It is a prob- lem. Mr. Rogers. I think this has been helpful for us to see that you are willing to have an open mind on getting this commission going and getting something going, and I cannot stress, I think, too strong- ly to you the concern of the Members of Congress that we are not really moving in the field of oceanography as we should. There is great ‘concern of this. This is what, our third week of hearings, Mr. Chairman ? Mr. Lennon. Yes. Mr. Rocsrs. The third week of hearings now and the interest has been extremely high, and the Congress wants something done and I am glad to see that the Bureau of the Budget is coming in with an open mind and let us get something moving. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Casey, before I yield to you—who, Doctor, of the Bureau of the Budget is on the Federal Council for Science and Technology ? Mr. Seman. The Deputy Director, Elmer Staats, is the Bureau’s representative on the council. Mr. Lennon. Does he attend, according to your best information, all of the sessions of the Federal Council on Science and Tech- nology ? Mr. Sempman. I think he has been very conscientious in attending meetings and where he has been wnable to do so he has sent Mr. Carey, who is the Executive Assistant Director. Mr. Staats has a very deep and personal interest in the whole field of science and technology. Mr. Lennon. Doctor, who from the Bureau of the Budget is on the Interagency Committee on Oceanography ? Mr. Seripman. Mr. Dillon of the Military Division. Mr. Lennon. Is Mr. Dillon here this morning? Mr. Serpman. No, he is not. Mr. Lennon. Does he attend the regular sessions of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography ? Mr. Sempman. Yes, he does. Mr. Bere. As well as some of the subcommittees of that interagency committee also. 486 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION _ Mr. Lennon. Do you happen to know, sir, how many meetings he has attended of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography in the past 12 months? , _ Mr. Brre. No, sir; I do not know how many. We could get. that information for you, sir. ; . Mr. Lennon. If you will furnish it for the record—his attendance at the Interagency Committee on Oceanography and the panels of that Interagency Committee on Oceanography. (The document follows:) ATTENDANCE AT ICO MEETINGS From August 1, 1964, to August 1, 1965, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography held nine meetings. Bureau of the Budget personnel were rep- resented at seven of those meetings with Mr. Dillon in attendance at five of the meetings. No records have been kept of attendance at meetings of the sub- committee of ICO, but such attendance by Bureau staff has been infrequent. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Casey. Mr. Casry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, I have one question I want to explore. Since the Bureau of the Budget is an arm of the President and also the Office of Science and Technology is an arm of the President, I presume that in pre- paring the budget for the President on the scientific end, why, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology is very helpful to you in this preparation ? Mr. Srmman. He has a very direct role in this, Mr. Casey. The various components of the Executive Office of the President in recent years pretty much work as a single organization. I personally happen to sit on the Directors’ Review Committee on the Budget, and when matters relating to science programs are before us, Dr. Hornig sits with the Directors’ Review Committee and mem- bers of his staff are present and participate in the discussions. There is close day-to-day coordination between the staffs of the Bureau of the Budget and staffs of the Office of Science and Technology. Mr. Casry. I am trying to get the idea of the mechanics of it. Singling out oceanography specifically, do you inquire of Dr. Hornig on, say, the Department of Navy’s budget as to the soundness of their requests for oceanography, or do you just rely on the Navy to con- vince your particular department ? Mr. Sremman. In all of the programs, the science programs, the Bureau relies very heavily on the Office of Science and Technology, both for its evaluation of the scientific merit and soundness of the program and also on priority. Very often in the budget process you are faced with a choice among many worthy programs and it be- comes a question then of making a choice among programs that. are fully justified. Mr. Casrty. Now, Doctor, does the Bureau of the Budget take the position that you prepare a budget within the estimated income of the country and try to keep the deficit as low as possible, or do you shoot for a figure, and if so, does it put your department in the posi- tion of seeing what is the most expendable rather than in a position of saying whether something should have been added? Mr. Serpman. We have done both. There have been occasions where the President, through the Budget Bureau, has recommended NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 487 that items be added. Budget policy is established by the President. The general guidance on budget policy is given to the Budget Bureau and the agencies prior to the time the budget estimates are received, and the agencies have this guidance which they are to apply in the development of their proposals for expenditures which are sent to the Budget Bureau. The President has made very clear, and this has been no secret, it has been a matter of public record—in fact, he announced last week he is going to divide the budget this year in consideration to two things: One, sessions devoted to new programs; and another one to what can be done about on-going programs. And I think he made very clear to the agencies that there are priority requirements in the (sovernment which we need to meet, and he does not want these met merely by adding increases to the budget and the numbers of people in on-going programs; that we have to find the resources to meet our new requirements by cutting out things of less priority or things which are no longer required, and there is a good deal of emphasis on that today. Mr. Casry. Now, back to specifically oceanography, what I was in- terested in was in this ICO document with reference to the underseas research vehicles which the document seems to stress would be quite desirable and most needed at this time. They state that the member agencies of the ICO are eager—I pre- sume they mean all of them—would be eager to operate these under- seas research vehicles on research and engineering projects, but they are, however, reluctant in fiscal year 1966 to embark upon a costly program of development, especially with the state of the art in its present pioneering stage. Now, of course, there is more to it; I just picked out that one specific statement, but they go on to say that the development of such a vehicle is furnished to technology as well as to give them experience in the capabilities, and so forth. Mr. Srmman. On this very point, something has happened sub- sequent to the report of the ICO, and on April 18, 1965, the President announced that the Department of the Navy and the Atomic Energy Commission are jointly developing a nuclear deep ocean engineering vehicle, and so on. Mr. Casry. I was wondering, Doctor, if they all felt that was great but they were all afraid to put that particular thing or some other item or some other object that they all thought was very commendable and desirable at this time in the budget. Who gets their nerve up or would you, as the Bureau of the Budget, say, this is something that should be done, and consulting with the Office of Science and Tech- nology decide who should do it and put the money in their budget on your own. Mr. Semman. This has been done in certain areas; I would be, again, less than frank if I said this implied that this happened very often—it does not. Mr. Casry. I am sure it does not; you have more requests than you know what to do with. Mr. Seman. That is right, but, on the other hand, I think one of the functions of the Office of Science and Technology is to identify gaps in our scientific programs. Necessary work sometimes falls be- tween the cracks, because the agencies have varying interests in terms 488 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION of their particular mission requirements. Something that may be of priority importance for the Government as a whole or something that ties the various parts together may not receive adequate emphasis. In such cases the Office of Science and Technology would make pro- posals to the Bureau to assure that an appropriate program balance is maintained. Mr. Casny. If they were not in accord as to who should do the par- ticular project, would the Office of Science and Technology probably be the deciding factor as to where would be the best place to put it? Mr. Srerpman. This would be a matter of consultation between the Office of Science and Technology and the Budget Bureau. It might ultimately go to the President for decision. Mr. Casry. Thank you, Doctor. JI appreciate you contribution here. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Drewry, please. Mr. Drewry. Dr. Seidman, for the past 6 years this committee has been struggling with this problem and we have gotten down to cer- tain essentials which are set forth in H.R. 2218, such as the insertion of a general policy to support oceanography and strengthen the co- ‘ordination between agencies, assign responsibility to someone by statute who will be responsive to the President and to the Congress. We favored but you did not, the provision of some form of permanent staff that would be free of diversion to other assignments. We wanted to have an annual long-range program for submissions to Congress and provision for a body representing diversity of interest in the oceans, not limited to scientists and not limited to Government. Your endorsement of H.R. 2218 would be, I would say, substantial endorsement of those particular objectives, with the exception, to some extent, of the permanent staff. The booklet Congressman Casey mentioned gratifyingly is, even though there is not ‘yet legislation, substantially in line in its format with where we have been seeking to go. Yet, throughout these hear- ings for the past several weeks, ‘the main burden of the testimony, at least. from. non-Government sources, and to some important, extent. from Government sources, has been that we are not doing enough and. the coordination is not working as well as it should. . One man put it, “Industrial technology at the present time has de- veloped faster than the Government programs and objectives have.” The Bureau of the Budget seems to be; very much in the middle of these things. I would like to ask you a few questions as to the details of the Bureau of the Budget’s participation. : I understand you have a representative present at all Federal ees cil meetings, or substantially all, and likewise at all ICO meetings, or substantially all. Mr. Seman. That is correct. Mr. Drewry. And I believe they have a proceeding starting off in the spring; there is an early preparation, and then a little later on they get down a little more to brass tacks and finally the program is worked into the budget request material for submission by the separate agencies. What type of fiscal guidelines do you lay down as the program is planned and developed ? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION ASQ Mr. Szrpman. There are instructions given to the agencies each year which provide the general guidance in terms of budget preparation ; the guidance is not in terms of specific monetary ceilings, but calls for restraint and keeping down expenditures. The President has indi- cated, I think quite explicitly, that agencies wherever feasible will provide the resources to meet new requirements by either cutting out programs which have outlived their usefulness or are of lower priority or through savings. So agencies are all under the general instruction with respect to the budget that they are to try to finance to the maximum extent possible. the priority programs, the new programs with resources which are de- rived from savings out of the old programs. Mr. Drewry. And these are directed to the departments and then in turn to the participants in the ICO, for instance ? Mr. Seman. This goes to the department heads and these are in- structions to all of the Government. I might say that you mentioned briefly that in the spring there is always what we call the budget preview which gives some guidance to. the agency, where they come in generally and discuss programs. This year we tried something new; we told them not to come in with figures, but to discuss program objectives. One of our problems in budget preparation frankly, is that very often programs are justified in: terms of the things you do as an incident toward accomplishing the objective and not in terms of accomplishing the objective. In other words, you process so many pieces of paper; the agency is not in busi- ness to process paper; its objective is to promote the Nation’s health or improve transportation, or some other purpose. What we endeavored to do in the preview this year was to put the whole emphasis on the outputs—what is the program, what are you trying to accomplish—rather than on the inputs and the various things you doin attempting to achieve the goal. Mr. Drewry. Then this process is a continuing one. We start off with a beginning and as the ICO, for example, meets, then any new ideas you have or as things develop generally, you Mr. Seman. This would come down through the agencies that are- members of the ICO rather than the ICO as a whole. JI mean each one of the agencies who is a participant in the ICO would have this instruction and would discuss oceanography as well as their other agency programs with the Budget Bureau. i Mr. Drewry. On this guideline question you mentioned in your statement the difficulty of Mr. Srmpman. I might add, Mr. Drewry, because I think it might be of interest to the committee here, of course, the budget is presented by agency in the appropriation structure, so many of them necessarily have to be considered agency by agency. Again, because of this problem we have in the science area, in the Director’s review where. the Director decides what he is going to recommend to the President, we do have across-the-board review sessions, not by agency, in the field of science, including oceanography and other science programs such as high energy physics. In other words, we have a cross-cutting: science directors’ review to try again to look at the science. programs: of all of the agencies as a whole. 53-367—65—— 32 490 NATIONAL, OCEANOGRAPHIC , PROGRAM. LEGISLATION Mr. Drewry. This is one of the points that have been giving me some concern; just. to take oceanography, for instance, who would be the advocate for oceanography as a concept before the Bureau of the Budget and who would take initiative to justify the oceanographic budget before the Congress? Mr. Srerpman. There is not an oceanographic budget. As in other fields of science each of the agencies supports.its own program. This has usually been more effective in obtaining funds from the Congress, I might add, than where an agency has to justify the budget request as necessary to support another agency’s mission. Our central agencies often have difficulty obtaining necessary funds when they have to explain their needs in terms of some other agency’s requirements. What I am saying here is that if the Navy comes in and explains what it needs in terms of its mission, it is much more likely to get a sympathetic hearing from the Appropriations Commit- tee, than another agency is in justifying its program in terms of Navy requirements. Mr. Drewry. This is one thing that worries us; oceanography comes up in the budgets of all the various agencies, and the defense of the budget request before the Appropriations Committee is, as I under- stand it, made by someone, an official of the separate agency, Is there any provision for Dr. Hornig, for example, to come up and justify the oceanographic part of a particular agency’s budget, to say “This portion of this budget item was developed as a part of a broad. program of oceanography and not, solely as a mission of a particular agency; it has been well coordinated; we think it is essential to the overall program ?” Mr. Srmman. You put your finger on a very good point, Mr. Drewry, it applies not only to oceanography but to other programs. The agencies have to go in and justify their budgets in terms of their own requirements; I think this is the sound way of doing it. However, one element of a program may be of low priority to them in terms of their own mission, but if you dropped it, it might affect your total pro- gram quite seriously, in terms phy ohce a balance among the various elements of the program. And, again, this is one of the unsolved problems in the present appropriation process. When an agency is asked by its subcommittee chairman which of its budgetary items it would be willing to delete or reduce, it is likely to give up something which might be rather urgently required in terms of the total program, but which has a lower order of priority for the specific mission of that agency. Mr. Drewry. We have heard statements to that effect and it would seem to me to be something that could be correctable perhaps by the Director of the OST himself being the person: Mr. Seman. It might well be that it would be useful for the Di- rector of the OST and the Director of the Budget to come before the full Appropriations Committee and explain the part of the budget dealing with science as a whole, so the committee will have an un- derstanding of how the parts interrelate. Mr. Drewry. You mentioned in stating your reasons for being opposed to pulling together oceanographic items into a single agency or council, the question of where, for example, the oceanography NATIONAL. OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 49Q] aspect of ocean station vessels begin and end. I am still taking in the guideline area. Do you lay down any guidelines as to what constitutes an ocean- ographic item as contrasted with something that is purely in the mis- sion of the agency—the normal mission ? Mr. Semman. Well, it is our view that the oceanographic programs as a whole which are now being carried out do serve the missions of the agencies—the work that the Bureau of Fisheries does in terms of oceanography, which is the development of fisheries resources of the country Mr. Drewry. It relates to its mission, but when do you call it ocean- ography and when do you call it a mission, or somebody might call a survey—what one person would call survey would be called research by another, for instance. Mr. SrmMan. This gets into problems of terminology. I think gen- erally speaking we have defined everything which relates to the oceans as to falling within the broad field of oceanography. As I think I indicated in my statement, oceanography not only includes a wide variety of diverse activities, but many different scientific dis- ciplines. It is not a single discrete area susceptible to precise definition. Mr. Drewry. I agree with you and yet it seems to me important that the terminology be sufficiently understood that when one agency refers to something as being research, that another agency in the comparable field will also call that research, as against the applied use of the in- formation just so we can understand what we are being reported on. Mr. Semman. I think Dr. Berg can answer this better. Mr. Brre. This does pose some difficulties. Every once in a while, for example, you might be working in the area of air-sea interaction. The question is whether you are talking about atmospheric research or ocean research, and there are different committees of the Federal Council involved. We do think one advantage of handing these things to the Federal Council are that decisions can be made to assign a matter to either the Committee on Atmospheric Sciences or to the Interagency Committee on Oceanography. In fact they both might look at it at the same time. These decisions are quite arbitrary at times. Mr. Drewry. Just one more question. So far we have not gotten the statutory base for an oceanographic program that we are looking for, but, when we do get it, would you consider that the handling of the problem from this end might be improved by having authoriza- ‘tion legislation, such as we now do with regard to the Coast Guard, for instance, in certain of its work; that is, have some area in which ‘there would have to be authorization before appropriation. I would like to get your reaction from your end of the street as to whether or not that would help hold the program together—if we are ‘going to have coordination rather than the single-agency approach. Mr. Srmman. First, I should emphasize that we regard this as a matter for Congress since it involves congressional procedure. I have been concerned with the increasing trend to provide annual authorizations for many types of programs. This trend started in “quite recent years. Formerly, legislation generally provided a perma- ‘nent authorization. Annual authorizations have created some prob- 492 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION lems in terms of timing of appropriations, the amount of time in- volved in going before four committees, et. cetera. There are also—and this is a personal view—some committees which have to give priority to authorization bills. This may mean that other important work in the legislative area has to be delayed until the authorizing bills are acted on. Now, it is true you get a different point of view from the legislative committee. The authorizing committee is likely to have a more in- tense interest in the total program than the Appropriations Com- mittee. But it has created certain problems. The requirement for authorizing legislation sometimes has resulted in delays both in the program itself and in action on other legislation which may be before the committee. I do not think this has necessarily occurred across the board in all areas, but it certainly has occurred in some. Mr. Drewry. Then in some respects it is similar to what you were discussing earlier about the flexibility which the Executive desires to have to review programs, and eliminate those which have outlived their usefulness. Acting under broad legislation, the authorizing committee can lose track of what is going on in things they have provided for under the enabling authority. I wanted to get your re- action. Mr. Srrpman. I might say there is another side to the coin. At least the authorizing bill does have the virtue of bringing together a total program so it can be looked at as a whole; otherwise it is looked at in pieces. It goes back to your earlier question that the Congress does not look at the whole program; it looks at each piece in terms of an individual agency’s budget. Mr. Drewry. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Doctor, when a department or agency is asked to give its opinion on a certain bill, a report I think we ask for, are those reports always submitted to the Bureau of the Budget for its approval or disapproval before the return to the several committees that make the requests for them ? Mr. Semman. I do not think it works exactly as described. Each agency is required, on instruction of the President, to submit a pro- posed report on legislation to the Bureau of the Budget for the Bureau of the Budget’s advice as to the relationship of the report to the President’s program. ; On bills mtroduced in Congress, where reports are required, any agency is authorized to send forward its views as long as it includes in its report the advice it has received from the Bureau of the Budget. There have been a few cases in my own recollection where reports have gone forward from agencies where they have indicated this is their view but they have been advised it is not in accord with the pro- gram of the administration. Mr. Lennon. I was interested in your summary in which you stated the Bureau of the Budget’s opposition to 5884 and 6009 by Mr. Keith of Massachusetts, and Mr. Rivers of Alaska, which leads me to the letter or report the committee received from the Department of State on its opinion of those two bills dated July 30, 1965; that is about a month and a half ago now. I quote: NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 493 The Department would interpose no objection to the enactment of the bills from the standpoint of foreign relations. In fact, the Department believes that the bills might prove most useful in the development of oceanic capability and use which would not only provide a source of raw material for our economy, as the bills contemplate, but forestall domination of the ocean by forces inimical to our welfare. Then they go on to make certain suggestions with respect to amend- ments. ‘Then they conclude the report by saying: The Bureau of the Budget advises from the standpoint of the administration’s program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Now, the Bureau of the Budget opposed those bills, but the Depart- ment of State, as I read the language of their report, approves them and it says there is no objection to them from the point of view of the administration. Clear me up on that a little bit. Mr. Semman. The Department of State was addressing itself to one area which properly falls within their responsibility in terms of the international relations and foreign policy of the United States. And the Bureau certainly did not see any grounds for objecting to or indicating that the Department’s view as it related to foreign policy was in conflict with the administration’s objectives. No objection does not necessarily represent endorsement. A lot of the reports are cleared with no objection; in some ways it is equivalent to no comment. Mr. Lennon. They did comment. They said in their judgment it could prove most useful. Mr. Semman. No; I meant the Bureau of the Budget’s advice, where we say there is no objection. Mr. Lennon. To that type of report. They go on in this letter—which I know you have a copy of it in your file—make out a pretty good case for that legislation, the Depart- ment of State does, regarding the national interest. Thank you very much, Doctor. Any further questions, gentlemen ? We do appreciate it, and I know you have been very helpful to the committee in trying to reach an area of agreement on the bill H.R. 2218. Thank you very much, and I would appreciate it if you would just step up here for a minute; I would like to chat with you off the record for a minute. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. Back on the record. We are delighted to have our old friend this morning and apologize for keeping him here so many days, Mr. Donald L. McKernan, Direc- tor of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries of the Department of Interior. I might say we always welcome your appearance before this com- mittee; since you are not involved with ducks this morning I know why you are not before the other committee. You will have a seat and you understand if we get a quorum which is likely this morning after 12 noon, so we will get started anyhow. Thank you, sir. 494 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION STATEMENT OF DONALD L. McKERNAN, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; ACCOM- PANIED BY DR. JOHN LYMAN, OCEANOGRAPHIC COORDINATOR Mr. McKernan. With your permission I have asked Dr. John Lyman, our oceanographic coordinator, to accompany me to the stand. Mr. Lennon. Weare delighted. ie Mr. McKernan. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time I will not read my whole statement but would ask your permission to insert it in the record as if read and comment on some aspects which I feel have not been considered here in your hearings, at least. in those parts. of it I have had the opportunity to listen to. Mr. Lennon. Without objection, your complete statement will be included in the record. (Statement referred to follows:) ‘STATEMENT OF Donatp L. McKeErnan, Director, BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL FISHERIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the important position that scientific research and development occupies in the affairs of the Nation is a phenomenon of recent development. The oceanographic sciences provide an excellent illustration of the complexity of management of science and its coordi- nation in the Federal Establishment. The various bills which you are con- sidering here today, and the many other pieces of legislation relating to oceanog- raphy which have been introduced in the Congress during the last 3 years or more attest to the concern that you feel about the need for adequate control and planning of this important activity. Before World War II the word ‘‘oceanography” was familiar to only a few specialists, and it is doubtful whether many laymen would have recognized the term if they had seen it. The importance of oceanography for defense was recog-- nized during the war, and the few oceanographers in existence at that time were: pressed into service to aid in various aspects of naval warware, including the prediction of the state of the surface of the sea for amphibious landings. Fol- lowing the war, the science of oceanography began the development which has: led to its present importance and concurrent problems associated. with its growth. The term “oceanography” is a misnomer, for it means different things to dif- ferent people. Modern usage most often uses the term “oceanography” to mean the physical description of the ocean. A much more appropriate term for the broad science would be ‘‘oceanology.” Oceanology includes such things as air-sea interaction and the relation of physical and chemical phenomena to the natural resources of the ocean, living and mineral. The natural resourees of the world ocean are of special interest to the Department of the Interior. However, the term “oceanography” as it is used in the United States covers all aspects of ocean science and engineering. This definition has been described briefly as the: study of the ocean, its boundaries, and its contents. The definition should be: broadened to include the dynamic interactions between. these things. When the Federal Council for Science and Technology was established in 1959, one of the first aspects of Federal science to which it gave attention was oceanog- raphy. It found that this important activity was a conglomeration of all the sciences. It was stressed very early that oceanography is not a branch of sci- ence, but rather is an application of all branches of science and engineering to the study of the sea. The Council found that many Departments and specialized agencies in the Federal Government had a deep interest in oceanography. The Executive and the Congress became concerned about coordination of the rapidly developing programs. In the Department of the Interior we have at least four Bureaus with a deep interest in oceanography. The Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines are concerned with the composition and structure of the ocean floor and margins and with the geological resources, including minerals and the methods of min- ing them. ‘The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Bureau of Sports Fish- eries and Wildlife have an interest in the living resources and their environ- ment. Certain other bureaus and offices in Interior, such as the Office of ee —. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 495 Saline Water, have an interest in the ocean. Even within our own Department we find it difficult to coordinate these interests to the satisfaction of everyone. The problem is considerably more difficult when the diverse missions of several departments and specialized agencies are involved. Oceanographic research is an important activity of the Federal Government which accounts for an annual budget of more than $140 million, not including certain oceanographic programs of the Navy. Many Government departments and agencies are interested in oceanography, and the present budget includes sizable programs in the Departments of Defense; Commerce; Interior ; Health, Education, and Welfare; Treasury; and State; and in the National Science Foundation, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Smithsonian Institution. To coordinate this complex series of programs, which cuts across the normal lines of governmental organizations, the Federal Council for Science and Tech- nology established the Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO) which was formed to help coordinate the diverse functions of these 6 departments and 8 independent agencies, which include the activities of 22 operating bureaus and offices. Although it is composed of competent people, and utilizes the services of expert panels drawn from the participating agencies, ICO faces many difficulties. None of the members of the ICO is the policy head of the department which he represents. Decisions of ICO are subject to separate policy review by several department heads. Within the departments having interests in oceanography, decisions may be subject to review by several bureau or office heads. In some of these bureaus or offices, oceanography may be a minor part of the total respon- sibility, as it may be also within most departments. ICO members do not devote the major part of their time to ICO responsibilities. They meet at infrequent intervals, and devote only a few hours each months to this coordinating function. The staff of ICO is loaned and receives budget support from various agencies. It, therefore, has difficulty in establishing priorities, or in making reviews in depth of programs and planning. The ICO budget is a conglomeration of the budgets of the departments, inde- pendent agencies, bureaus, and offices listed above. Although these budgets are considered as a unit within ICO, they pass through normal channels within the executive and legislative branches of Government, as parts of the budgets of the individual departments and agencies. These individual requests are reviewed by different examiners in the Bureau of the Budget, and by many substantive and appropriation committees of the Congress. The ICO, imperfect though it has been, has so improved communication and coordination within the Federal Government, between the Federal Government and university researchers, and even internationally, that I am sure none of us would want to go back to the pre-ICO days. We applaud Congress in its serious attempts to bring about improvements, however. In our opinion all of the bills which have been introduced have merit, in that they propose to correct certain of the difficulties described above. On the other hand, most of these bills also would create new problems equally as dif- ficult. It may be that there is no perfect solution to these very difficult problems. However, if the present method of coordination is to be discarded in favor of another method, we should be reasonably confident that the new method is clearly superior to the old. The decision requires deeper and more detailed re- view than ICO or any other group has been able to provide to date. It would take time to make such a review, but the results should well justify the time and expense involved. This would not create undue delay in the progress of the national oceanographic program, for, as I mentioned before, the present sys- tem of coordination under ICO and the Federal Council for Science and Tech- nology, although admittedly imperfect, is by no means ineffecetive. The progress of the work would suffer far more if by hasty action one imperfect system were to be substituted for another. It should be remembered also that the ICO mechanism was one of the first such attempts by the Federal Government to deal with the rapidly growing prob- lem of a responsibility for scientific research and development which cut across all existing lines of administration and communication. It is generally agreed that the national oceanographic program has been the most successful example to date of coordination of Science in Government. This successful technique should not be cast off lightly without very careful study. The results of such a study, made by qualified people whose only task would be to concentrate on recommending the best possible arrangement for conducting and coordinating oceanographic and atmospheric research and development, 496 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION would have important implications not only for these important national respon- Sibilities, but also for the development and coordinatin of all scientific activities and responsibilities of the Federal Establishment.. This should provide maxi- mum assurance that the objectives of the legislation you are considering here today would be met in the most effective manner. . The position of the executive branch of the Government is that H.R. 2218 might be enacted, but that enactment of any of the other bills would be premature at this time. This position is based on the premise that the President’s Science Advisory Committee has set up a special Panel on Oceanography which is now making a study of the kind contemplated in H.R. 9064.. When this Panel com- pletes its study and submits a report, the Congress can decide whether additional legislation is necessary ; and, if so, what legislation would be appropriate. It is possible that additional studies similar to those proposed in H.R. 9064 would then be deemed advisabie. We understand that during the present hearings before your committee a pro- posal has been made to provide standby auhority for the establishment, in the discertion of the President, of a self-liquidaing commission, such as proposed by S. 944. We think that this proposal merits serious consideration. If your com- mittee adopts this approach, we would like the opportunity to offer suggestions on the provisions of the legislation. Mr. McKernan. In the Department of the Interior we have at least four bureaus with a deep interest in oceanography. The Geo- logical Survey and the Bureau of Mines are concerned with the composition and structure of the ocean floor and margins and with the geological resources, including minerals and the methods of mining them. ° , The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife have an interest in the living resources and their environment. Certain other bureaus and offices in Interior, such as the Office of Saline Water, have an interest in the ocean. Even within our own Department we find it difficult to coordinate these interests: to the satisfaction of everyone. The problem is considerably more difficult when the diverse mis- sions of several departments and specialized agencies are involved. Of course, you are personally very much aware that in order to coordinate this complex series of programs the Federal Council for Science and Technology established the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, which was formed to help coordinate the diverse func- tions of these 6 departments and 3 independent agencies, which in- clude the activities of 22 operating bureaus and offices. I have been a member of the ICO, Mr. Chairman, since its first formation, so I am quite familiar with its general operation. None of the members of the ICO is a policy head of the department which he represents. Decisions of ICO are subject to separate policy review by several department. heads. Within the departments having interest in oceanography, decisions may be subject to review by several bureaus or office heads. In some of these bureaus or offices, oceanography may be a minor part of the total responsibility, as it may be also within most departments. ICO members do not devote the major part of their time to ICO responsibilities; they meet at infrequent intervals and they devote only a few hours each month to this coordinating function. The staff of ICO, as the chairman has pointed out, is loaned and receives budget support from various agencies; it therefore has diffi- ee NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 497 culty in establishing priorities or making reviews in depth of pro- grams and planning. The ICO budget is a conglomeration, as has been pointed out by several people testifying before this committee, of budgets of depart- ments, independent agencies, bureaus, and offices which are listed in my statement. Although these budgets are considered as a unit within ICO they ass through normal channels within the executive and legislative ranches of Government as part of the budgets of individual depart- ments and agencies. These individual requests are reviewed by different examiners in the Bureau of the Budget and by many appropriations committees of the Congress. It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that the ICO, imperfect though it has been, has so improved communications and coordination within the Federal Government, between the Federal Government and university researchers, and internationally, that J am ‘sure none of us would want to go back to the pre-ICO days. We applaud Congress in its serious attempts to bring about improve- ments, however. ~ In our opinion, all of the bills which have been introduced have merit in that they propose to correct certain of the difficulties that I have described above. On the other hand, most of these bills also would create new problems equally as difficult. It may be that there is no perfect solution to these very difficult problems. However, if the present method of coordination is to be discarded in favor of another method, we should be reasonably confident that the new method is clearly superior to the old; the decision requires deeper and more detailed review than ICO or any other group has been able to provide to date. It would take time to make such a review, but its results would well justify the time and expense involved. This would not create undue delay in the progress of a national oceanographic program for, as I mentioned before, the present system of coordination under ICO and the Federal Council for Science and Technology, although admittedly imperfect, is by no means ineffective. The progress of the work would suffer far more if by hasty action one imperfect system were to be substituted for another. It should be remembered also that the ICO mechanism was one of the first such attempts by the Federal Government, to deal with the rapidly growing problem of the responsibility for scientific research and development which cuts across all existing lines of administration and communi- cation. It is generally agreed that the national oceanographic program has been the most successful example to date of coordination of science in Government. This successful technique should not be cast off lightly without very careful study. The results of such a study made by qualified people whose only task is to concentrate on recommending the best possible arrangement for conducting and coordinating oceanographic and at- mospheric research and development would have important implica- tions not only for these important national responsibilities but also for 498 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION the development and coordination of all scientific activities and respon- sibilities of Federal establishment. tisk) They should provide maximum assurance that the objectives of the legislation you are considering here today would be met in the most effective manner. The position of the executive branch of the Government is that H.R: 2218 might be enacted but that enactment of any of these other bills would be premature at this time. ) This position is based on the premise that the President’s Science Advisory Committee has set up a special panel on oceanography which is now making a study of the kind contemplated in H.R. 9064. When this panel completes its study and submits a report, the Con- gress can decide whether additional legislation is necessary and, if so, what legislation would be appropriate. It is possible that additional studies similar to those proposed by H.R. 9064 would then be deemed advisable. Mr. Chairman, we understand that during the present hearings before your committee a proposal has been made to provide standby authority for the establishment in the discretion of the President of a self-liquidating commission, such as proposed by S. 944. We think that this proposal merits serious consideration. If your committee adopts this approach we would like the opportunity to offer suggestions on the provisions of the legislation. Mr. Chairman, that summarizes our point. of view and perhaps leaves a little time for questions. Mr. Lennon. Thank you. Mr. Casey ? Mr. Casry. No questions at the moment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. It seems to me, sir, that having been a member of ICO since its formation, and you have been a member of the ICO since that time, that you are in an ideal position to equate and place a judg- ment on its accomplishments and its difficulties, too, and in my judg- ment you do that very well on page 5. ; { You make out a complete case for it and a good case against it, it seems to me. With the continuation of the ICO, what legislative action can be done to speed up and to eliminate some of the problems that are in- volved, that you describe on page 5 of your statement, with respect to the function of the ICO ? Mr. McKurrnan. Well, Mr. Chairman, the administration, of course, takes the view that Mr. Lennon. I am talking about you now as an operating member of the ICO for 5 years. 1 Mr. McKernan. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is my personal view, aside from my position as a member of the ICO and representing the Inte- rior Department, that there is a need for beefing this up, as the Con- gress has recognized. A number of excellent suggestions have been made in anumber of bills that have been put forth. I must confess that my own personal view leans toward the conclu- sion that I would like to see considerably more debate than has been possible . Mr. Lennon. Would you repeat that ? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 499 Mr. McKernan. Considerably more debate than has been possible even in these rather extensive and, in my opinion, excellent hearings that this committee has carried out, by the people in industry, people in universities, and in government itself. Now, the modified S. 944, as was pointed out this morning, and IT have heard comments about it by the chairman in the course of these hearings; also the so-called Rogers bill, does Mr. Lennon. Right at that. point, before I forget it, suppose you submit to the counsel of this committee suggestions on the provision of the legislation 944 if the committee, whether the committee did or did not take overt action in that respect. You made a suggestion that you said if we adopt the approach with respect to a self-liquidating commission, either 944, 2218, or any other bills, that you would like to offer suggestions as to the provisions of this legislation. Whether the committee does or does not, I would like for you to furnish to this committee, through its counsel, your views with respect to that legislation. Will you do that? Mr. McKernan. Yes; Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. Thank you. (The information requested follows :) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington D.C., August 26, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. BONNER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representa- tives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. BonneER: On August 17, 1965, during the course of the hearings on the several oceanography bills by the Subcommittee on Oceanography, Mr. Don- ald L. McKernan, testifying on behalf of this Department, was asked to furnish our views with respect to legislative provisions for the creation of a self-liquidat- ing commission such as that provided for in 8. 944. We are advised that the Bureau of the Budget has now furnished to the com- mittee suggested legislative language providing for such a commission which represents the position of the administration on this subject. Sincerely yours, CLARENCE FE’. PAUTZKE, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Mr. Lennon. Go ahead. Mr. McKernan. It seems to me that the ICO has provided quite good coordination, although as I mentioned imperfect Mr. Lennon. You said that. Now, what legislativewise can we do to help ICO? Mr. McKernan. I was just saying that we have accumulated a great deal of oceanographic knowledge in just the past few years, but it seems to me now that there is a ‘lag im the continued accumulation ot this knowledge and perhaps even a greater lag in the application of it toward using ; the resources of the ocean and applying this research 1 in a practical way and in a way which would benefit our Nation in many ways particularly the economic way. Mr. Lennon. Now let. me interrupt you. I hate to do this but I am afraid we are going to get a quorum. How much time does Bob Abel, Executive Secretary of the ICO give toICO? Mr. McKernan. A hundred percent of his time. 500 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Lennon. How much staff does he have? How many secre- taries? How many assistants ? Mr. McKernan. Mr. Seidman this morning said five professionals. Mr. Lennon. Full-time professionals that devote their time to the staff of ICO ? Mr. McKurnan. There are five, yes. Mr. Lennon. All right, sir, furnish for the record, too, the names— these are full-time people, five. Mr. McKernan. Yes. Mr. Lennon. The names and their professional titles, identification, a little professional résumé, biographical, please. Mr. McKernan. I will be very happy to. (Information to be furnished follows :) SUMMARY OF ICO PROFESSIONAL STAFF PERSONNEL From August 1960 to September 1960: Gordon Lill, Executive Secretary. October 1960 to present : Robert B. Abel,? Executive Secretary. From 1962 to July 1963 : Hai Visick, assistant to the Executive Secretary. From September 1963 to September 1964: John Padan, scientific staff assistant. March 1964 to present: Dr. Edwin B. Shykind, ‘Associate Staff Beta May 1964 to present : Lynn L. Moore,’ information specialist. February 1965 to present: William W. Windom, administrative officer. February 1965 to present : Gerard E. Sullivan,* legal assistant. PROFESSIONAL RESUME OF ROBERT B. ABEL Date of birth: July 21, 1926. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Brown University, B.S. in chemistry, 1947. Johns Hopkins University, oceanography, 1954. George Washington University, engineering administration (MEA 1961), 1961. American University (Ph. D. expected 1966—public administration). SUMMARY OF EMPLOYMENT 1961—Present: Executive Secretary, Interagency Committee on Oceanography, Assistant Research Coordinator, Office of Naval Research. 1956-60: Hydrographic Office—assistant to Director. 1950-55: Hydrographic Office—Chief Scientist U.S.S. San Pablo—wv.§$.8. Re- hoboth. 1947-50: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution—chemical oceanographer. MEMBERSHIP American Chemical Society (membership committee). Research Society of America (chapter president, 1961). American Geophysical Union. American Society of Limnology and Oceanography. Lecturer—Joint Board on Science Education for the Washington Metropolitan Area. Marine Technology Society (member of founding board). PROFESSIONAL RESUME OF EDWIN B. SHYKIND Date of birth : October 10, 1931. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Northwestern University, B.S. in geology, 1953. University of Chicago, M.S. in geology, 1955. University of Chicago, Ph. D. in geology, 1956. 1 Professional résumé attached. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 5O1 SUMMARY OF EMPLOYMENT Associate Staff Director, ICO, March 1964 to the present; supervisory oceanog- rapher, U.S.C.G. Chief of the Earth Sciences Branch and special assistant 'to the Director, Science Information Exchange, Smithsonian Institution, July 1962 to March 1964. Assistant professor of geology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Ill., Sep- tember 1957 to July 1962. Soils engineer, Goodkind & O’Dea, Chicago, Ill., April 1956 to August 1957. MEMBERSHIP American Association for the Advancement of Science, member. American Geophysical Union, member. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, active member. American Meteorological Society, professional member. Geological Society of America, member. Marine Technology Society, foundation member. Maryland Academy of Sciences, member. The Society of the Sigma Xi, member (club president 1959-60). Washington Geological Society, member. PROFESSIONAL RESUME OF LynN LucIUS MooRE Date of birth : July 26, 1926. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 1945-48 : Middlebury College, Vit., B.A., political science. 1948-49 : University of London, London, England. 1949-50: University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo. EXPERIENCE Information ‘specialist, ICO, May 1964 to present. Head, Motion Picture Scripts Branch, Naval Photo Center, Washington, D.C., May 1959 to May 1964; M.P. Advisor, Special Projects Office (1959-63). Editorial associate, Scripts by Oeveste Graducci, Inc., Washington, D.C., June 1954 to May 1959. U.S. Navy, August 1950 to June 1954. U.S. Marine 'Corps: July 1945 to October 1946. MEMBERSHIP Writers Guild of America (Hast). PROFESSIONAL RESUME OF WILLIAM W. WINDOM Date of birth : February 6, 1927. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 1949-50: Rollins Park College, Winter Park, Ma., no degree. 1952-55 : Georgetown School of Foreign Service, Washington, D.C., B.S. in Foreign Service. EXPERIENCE Administrative Officer, ICO, February 1965 to present. Motion Picture Script Branch, Naval Photo Center, Washington, D.C., August 1957 ito February 1965. Stone’s Mercantile Agency, Washington, D.C., January 1956 to August 1957. Pan American Airways, Los Angeles, Calif., 1951 to 1952. U:S. Air Force : 1945-48 and 1950-51. PROFESSIONAL RESUME OF GERALD HW. SULLIVAN Date of birth: October 16, 1937. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND Villanova University, A.B. in general liberal arts, 1959. Washington and Lee University, LL. B., 1965. 502 NATIONAL’ OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION ~ SUMMARY ‘OF EMPLOYMENT — ICO staff, February 1965 to present, staff officer, ‘(@) international programs* (6) manpower and training. m7 Navy officer, 1959-1962. MEMBERSHIP Phi Delta Phi. National Legal Fraternity. SUMMARY OF ICO CLERICAL PERSONNEL May 1961: Evelyn T. Martin, clerk-typist. September 1963: Sammy D. Sisson, clerk-steno. July 1964: Joan M. Hoffman, clerk-steno. November 1964: Maxine EH. Crowley, clerk-typist. March 1965: Robert H. Warsing, physical science aid. Mr. Lennon. Where are they funded from ? Mr. McKernan. They are funded primarily from the Navy, but our own Department provides a small amount of money for the operation of this office and so does SLAB Lh What is the total budget of this office we are talking about ? Mr. McKernan. Dr. Lyman informs me it is about $115,000. Mr. Lennon. $115,000 on an annual basis and that comes from the various agencies who have a representative on ICO? Mr. McKernan. Yes; primarily from Navy, but the other agencies. do contribute, and this goes into— Mr. Lennon. Why could we not get that information the other day when Mr. Abel was testifying or sitting there next to Dr. Morse? Mr. McKernan. I cannot. help you in that regard. Of course, I think Mr. Lyman Mr. Lennon. What about the suggestion that has been made that they needed money to maintain the continuous operation of an ICO staff ? Mr. McKernan. Well, there is no question about it, that the every day operation of the ICO and its many subcommittees is underfunded at the present time. I believe this is true. And that additional strengthening of this staff is necessary. It is cumbersome under the present arrangement; I am sure the chairman realizes this. Navy gets a little tired of carrying the load for all of the agencies of Government Mr. Lennon. Let me interrupt you right there. Has the Executive Secretary of ICO been a Navy representative during the 5-year period of ICO? Mr. McKernan. Yes. Mr. Lennon. Is there any requirement that that be so? Mr. McKernan. No, none at all. The Navy’s budget in ocean- ography has been the major budget, the largest one, and the Chair- man of the ICO has come from Navy. Dr. Wekelin was the first one and now Dr. Morse. Mr. Lennon. He is designated, though, by Dr. Hornig? Mr. McKernan. By the Federal Council and Dr. Hornig, who is the Chairman of it. Mr. Lennon. He is designated by the Chairman of FCST in every instance ? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 503 Mr: McKrrnan. Yes. Mr. Lennon. And does the Chairman designate the full-time Executive Secretary of ICO? Mr. McKernan. Yes, but he has done this with the general con- currence of the members of ICO. Mr. Lennon. Do you know of any better arrangement you could have than that ? Mr. McKrrnan. No, the office itself is simply not adequately financed. It is very difficult for the separate agencies to get adequate financing for a line item of this amount, and Navy has carried the burden here. I know this has been a difficult thing for Navy to fi- nance adequately. Most of us in ICO believe that perhaps double the present financing might be required for an adequate staff working asthe ICO secretariat. The reason for this Mr. Lennon. You are talking in terms of how much money on an annual basis. Mr. McKernan. Maybe in the neighborhood of $300,000 or $400,000. And thisisa guess, Mr. Chairman, I have not Mr. Lennon. Out of a budget of $141 million you cannot get $400,000 or $350,000 or $500,000 from the various agencies to staff an ICO council ? . Mr. McKernan. We have not yet, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. That is because agencies will not give up any part of their appropriations, is it not ? Mr. McKernan. It could be characterized as that. Mr. Lennon. How much does the Department of Interior put in? Mr. McKernan. $9,000. Mr. Lennon. Out of about what, $14 million ? Mr. McKurnan. Yes. Mr. Lennon. $9,000 out of $14 million? And just for curiosity, what does the Department of Commerce put in ? Mr. McKernan. I cannot tell you that. About the same, I under- stand. Mr. Lennon. The Navy, of course, puts up the lump sum ? Mr. McKernan. Yes. Mr. Lennon. I do not know just what kind of legislation that this mae could pass that would provide for the funding of the ICO office. Certainly if this committee authorizes in its bill and the Appropria- tions Committee appropriated it, then you would be in sort of a position of an oversight committee. I can see you feel this is the best that can be done, and you are unwilling to substitute something else that might create more prob- lems, but you are not enthusiastic about, at this pomnt—maybe you have been in the past—I do not want to misinterpret what you are saying but I get the feeling that more could be done and more ought to be done and if that is so, I want you to tell us how we can help you to do that. Mr. McKernan. That is so. I do feel that more needs to be done and that better coordination is required. Part of this is simply because of the maturity of the program. The present coordinating mechanism was very successful and a huge step forward. 504 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Lennon. You said they met at infrequent intervals, but that averages at least once a month, does it not ? Mr. McKernan. About once a month. I think in the last year there were about 11 meetings in 12 months. Mr. Lennon. Are they 5 o’clock meetings ? Mr. McKernan. No. they are long meetings and they usually are from 2 to 4 hours, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lennon. And you say that they do not devote a major part of their time, meet at infrequent intervals to devote only a few hours each month to this important function. It therefore has difficulty in establishing priorities or making reviews in depth of programs and plans. The staff of ICO is loaned and receives budget support from the various agencies. If it has difficuity establishing priorities and making these reviews in depth of programs and planning, then it is not functioning as it should, is it ? Mr. McKernan. That is right, and Mr. Chairman, essentially I think it does well Mr. Lennon. I know something of institutional restraint of wit- nesses who come before the committees and I am appreciative of it but people ought to be permitted to testify as to their personal observa- tions and knowledge rather than through institutional restraint and I appreciate your candor and frankness. Now, how can Congress make some contribution to alleviate this situation which you say prohibits the establishing of priorities and does not permit making reviews in depth of programs and planning. Mr. McKernan. Mr. Chairman, you have asked me personally what I think should be done. I think what should be done must be taken in steps. I first would like to see a discussion in depth with varying segments of our society who operate and use knowledge on ocean science. Therefore, my personal opinion is that the measures that are be- fore you which call for very careful consideration of ocean science and ocean use form a practical step to be taken. This, it seems to me, would lead to an improved mechanism for deal- ing with this so-called science which has grown beyond the present somewhat limited mechanism that now is operating in the Federal Establishment. I think that this will lead to legislation, perhaps a consolidation, and perhaps different budgeting, even perhaps maybe to consideration of lead agencies such as Dr. Hollomon mentioned. On the other hand, it seems to me it is a little premature to make that decision. I should like to see representatives of the interest of industry, the interest of the academic institutions, as well as of those of some of the States who are occupied in ocean science and the applica- tion of ocean science, and of the Federal Government look at this problem over a period of time. I was impressed by Dr. Seidman’s mention that he felt. Mr. Lennon. I wish he could have heard your testimony. Mr. McKernon (continuing). That a couple of years would be re- quired in order to adequately consider such an important and com- plicated matter. I feel the same way. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 505 Mr. Lennon. Now, Mr. McKernan, let us assume that what you say it is necessary to do—in the interval, while we are waiting for the President’s Special Advisory Panel on Oceanography to report what can be done to alleviate and to improve conditions with respect to the problems that are faced by ICO ? You say the Congress cannot do that, that has to be done by the Federal Science Council ? Mr. McKernan. I think that under the present constitution of the Federal Council and the ICO itself can improve its present opera- tion and, in fact, it is doing a good deal of soul searching right at the present time attempting to improve its mechanisms. Now, I am not sure whether I have overstated the problems in my statement, Mr. Chairman, because I am tremendously impressed with what has been accomplished. Incidentally, I have heard other members of the committees say the same thing. My intent really is to indicate that with the present state of the art we need something more in the way of Government policy, but, in the meantime, we can improve the institutional barriers that make the function of the present organization in effective in some areas—we can improve this some. In my view the present ICO-Federal council arrangement will not be adequate in the future. Mr. Lennon. Now, I am impressed with your enthusiasm to im- prove this. What about your counterparts on ICO and also those who represent the agencies on the Federal Council ? Are they likewise enthused in a desire to improve it? Mr. McKernan. Yes, there is no hesitation in saying that every member of the ICO wants to make the organization work effectively, and the general cooperation, general feeling of respect among members of the ICO, is very high; perhaps has never been higher than it is at the present time. And, in fact, recently, during the last few weeks while these hearings have been going on, the Council has been meeting and discussing whether the structure of the ICO could be improved within the limita- tions in which we operate. Mr. Lennon. Mr. Drewry ? Mr. Drewry. No questions at the moment. “Mr. Lennon. Mr. Casey, I am sorry, I thought you had passed. Mr. Casry. Reserved. Mr. Lennon. I am sorry, you go right ahead. Mr. Casry. I want to compliment you on your statement. You are the first one that has come up here and has not taken the position that everything was real rosy. You have been very frank in pointing out what you feel has been the accomplishments as well as the major weak- nesses of the operation of the ICO. Now, Dr. Hornig, I believe, said the other day, I think he was the one that said there was consideration for getting a permanent staff for ICO which would eliminate departmental affiliations or loyalty or, I think he said, competition. Mr. Lennon. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. Casey. Yes. Mr. Lnnnon. That is the reason I am amazed to hear them say they have five people full time. We got the impression that the people they 538-367—65——33 506 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION used were borrowed from other departments, subject to recall, and subject to other activities. Now you say positively and unequivocably that you have a budget of about $108,000 or $109,000, and that you have five full-time staff mem- wre gecetne the executive secretary, the full-time executive secretary of ICO. Now, we just do not have all the facts. Mr. McKernan. Mr. Chairman, then I have caused this confusion, and I want to correct it. These men, who are working full time for the ICO, are seconded from various agencies. They can be pulled back to their agencies at any time. But they area full-time staff in a sense of putting 100 percent of their time on ICO work. I am sorry for that misunderstanding. Mr. Lennon. That is all right. I appreciate that explanation, but are they on salaries of the agencies they represent ? On the payrolls? Mr. McKernan. Would you help me here because I am not exactly certain about that; I do not want to answer incorrectly. Dr. Lyman. It is fairly complicated, but several of them are Navy Department employees and they are working in and for the Navy. Others are on billets from one agency, and the money that pays for them is reimbursed from other agencies. For example, the $9,000 that Interior, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, puts m, pays less than the salary of one man, and he is on the personnel ceiling of some other agency, perhaps the Coast Guard. But he is not subject to recall by the Coast Guard because his salary is not being paid by the Coast Guard. Mr. Lennon. Those employees that are full time, but the agencies they are requisitioned from and who pays the salaries—let us get the whole story—excuse me, Mr. Casey. Mr. McKernan. We will try and prepare a detailed explanation of this factor, Mr. Chairman. (The information requested follows :) Estimated fiscal year 1966 ICO staff budget* Agency Item Cost Navy (Naval Research Laboratory)-_..-------------------- Staff salaries: Abel. 26 s2 52). eee $19, 590 Windom. 5.822 s-eeene eee 8, 945 Martin. 220° > eee 6, 060 Sisson: - its2972 2: 3 eee 5, 000 ‘Wiarsing =~ = 2. =. 6 bas 4,630 IN AVOCEAN Ones ere een eter eke ee eens ae ee ee ee eee Moores late 222 ee 2 15, 640 Sullivan. tu. 436-22 h ene 6, 050 Crowley2 2 Fe ee 5, 830 Bofiman ss. ee 4 Sere 4,140 STH Res BL ee ee eee ees ese oh k eB e 75, 885 Coast and Geodetic Survey (Coast Guard) ---------------- Shykisd 2-2-8 -_ ee 17, 030 Sivbtotallcee eee © ee Se eee ee eee | SS ee ee ee ee ee 92, 915 Navy (Office of Naval Research) ---.---------------------- Wravellie Js ye ee eee 7 Administrative services_-.---- 9, 200 Printing? “2 eee eee eee 4, Reserves. 2-122. 22et a eres 7,810 Subtotal 3 eee ee ee a eh a ees Soe Se eee eee 27, 010 U BY SV | ak apie Ps I ae ee RS 119, 925 1 Kstimated figure for fiscal year 1965 is $95,000. __ 2 $9,000 supplied by Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 507 Mr. Lennon. Mr. Casey ? Mr. Casey. Does the ICO work up a budget, and then decide who is going to pay what portion of it? Mr. McKernan. You are talking with regard to the staff? Mr. Casry. Do you have any other expenses besides staff ? Mr. McKernan. Travel expenses and sometimes expenses of the subcommittees to visit certain places, certain laboratories, for example, for review purposes, but the Mr. Casny. Is this set up in an ICO account with the various agen- cies contributing to it? Is that how it is done? Mr. McKernan. This is set up in the Navy, I believe, is it not, Dr. Lyman ? Mr. Casey. You set up the expenses on travel or any expenses ICO has, and then the other agencies reimburse Navy ? Mr. McKernan. Yes, essentially Navy handles the bookkeeping as- pects of this, we turn the funds over to Navy and they do the disburs- ing and paying the salaries and so forth. Mr. Casry. As I gather from your statement, the prime principal gain that has been made by the inauguration of the ICO has been co- ordination, which is a broad word, but I presume that means the keep- ing of any duplication of effort and also a better assignment of respon- sibilities. Is that it? Mr. McKernan. Yes, I think both of those descriptive phrases that you have used are correct. Before, in the pre-[CO days, in our own small bureau, we had no way of really knowing, very well anyway, until after the fact what the ship schedules of the Coast and Geodetic Survey were, or those of some of the other agencies. Mr. Casey. The way that would work, I presume, you, representing the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, when you attend your meeting and you say you come there instructed by the head of your Bureau and possibly the Secretary of the Interior, and you say, “This is what we propose to do and propose in our next budget” ? Mr. McKernan. That is correct. Mr. Casry. And someone else says, “Well, we had that in mind but you can do it better,” or something, then as you say, you might report back and say, so and so is going to take on something else and is going to conflict with us a bit, I did not have the authority to say, you take it, as you recited in here you have to go back sometimes to one or more department heads; is that correct ? Mr. McKernan. That is correct. Mr. Casey. To finally get an answer as to what the position of your particular department is—now, after the ICO, as I see one of the biggest weaknesses which counsel followed up a while ago, was that after you all make decisions and see that there is better coordination, there is no unified effort of the ICO to help any of these agencies get the cu eeseygualeiatae for the programs that you have endorsed, is that not correct $ Mr. McKernan. Not quite. What happens is that the ICO budget goes from the ICO to the Federal Council, and it is reviewed by the Federal Council. Quite often the Chairman and some of the senior members of the ICO go before the Federal Council, which is composed, of course, of policymaking members of various departments, and we review, then, the budget and the program of the TCO. 508 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Now, the Federal Council has an input back through the Bureau of the Budget, and as these departmental budgets come through there is an effort made to coordinate the review within the executive and come out with some semblance of a reasonable program. Now, it is difficult, and it is imperfect at the present time; but it is a great deal better than it was, and there is an input from the Federal Council and the office of the President’s science adviser into this Mr. Cassy. That is with the Bureau of the Budget? Mr. McKernan. Yes, sir. Mr. Casey. I am talking about up here—before congressional com- mittees. Mr. McKernan. Before congressional committees the matter gets more complicated and we do not have a good mechanism worked out. Mr. Casey. As far as the executive is concerned, they think it is working great because the Chairman of the Federal Council is also the Director of the Office of Science and Technology who in turn tells the Bureau of the Budget after the various committees, he works very closely with them, and tells them this is in keeping with the executive department’s oceanography program. But you completely ignore—I say you—the system that presently exists completely ignores that the Congress does not hear whether you want it OK’d or we do not have the money. The Congress is also in my opinion supposed to serve as initiating some of these things and insisting on some of them being done, but under the present system we do not have that opportunity. Mr. McKernan. That is correct. As was pointed out before this committee by Dr. Wakelin, I think about a year ago, there are some 32 or so committees before which various segments of the ICO budget go here in Congress. | Mr. Casey. There are an awful lot of us in Congress that do not be- lieve what the Department tells us is as it should be, on oceanography and other things. We also feel that the Congress itself should not wait necessarily for the executive department to get an idea and throw it to us. We ought to have sense enough to get an idea of our own sometimes and have the opportunity to promote it and see that it is done. So, I deeply appreciate your frankness and the benefit of your ex- perience as a member since the inauguration of the ICO and I can see very well from the Bureau of the Budget’s standpoint this is called an arm of the executive that they can see that it works fine as far as any ideas they get. But by the same token I can see also I have borne down on this new project that they all wanted to do but none of them had nerve enough to put it in. The Congress might want to do it, specifically a committee such as ours, that is interested in oceanography, but we do not have any op- portunity to do it. Mr. McKernan. There is no focal point here in Congress, you are absolutely correct. Mr. Casey. If the ICO would decide this is a thing that the Navy ought to do, when the Navy goes up for its departmental budget, you state in here that each agency—but if they get up there before Mr. Rivers’ committee or Mr. Roo: Committee on Appropriations, and NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 509 they want to start attacking something they are not lable to put up a strong fight. Whereas if you had somebody like ICO to say, “We are here to back up this program for the Navy,” and point up how urgent and how important it is—I thank you very much for your contribution. Mr. Lennon. It is interesting to observe in line with your question- ing, Mr. Casey, that in the Department of Commerce as far as the ESSA is concerned, there is no legislative committee of the Congress that they can go to, they have to go directly to the Appropriations Committee on the recommendation of the President, who submits the so-called ICO budget for the Federal Council. You take your own Department of Interior, you get some of the authorizations for your Department from this committee, but you have to go to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee for other authorizations, but the Department of Commerce, so far as its spec- trum in Congress, there is no such legislative committee. So when they go before the Appropriations Committee, based on the recommendations of the ICO, the Federal Council, and then the President, then there is no history or legislative history made of its needs, and they have to start from scratch. If we can go off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. Lennon. Back on the record. Thank you very much, sir, this will conclude the hearings of the subcommittee this morning. Tomorrow we will reconvene at 10 o’clock and look forward to having other distinguished witnesses. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, August 18, 1965.) We Howth toa? Manpous Sian" snot i ntak Rein i : ges us a1 ag oiost qrER: xi eek O} O5r silt {Hols tite ‘io lesthhy Dee jtagns wed qi Tate oxy, Hae The. ache or afk! Bade: JHO9, BCE 1Ot Moray. 7184 a (Bob ea po UON sili ott ea stead oF Lirthe “odd 28 Liles his LO) to tes rtiaetyoC au Ft eaerea ie) ais Le HH PLO ‘evi istatdor ort'e ‘ase Pons Treat fama od ot Seer OR OF ov sa, yasls 3. veticodia odw Jtisbiestt eat To nocsbhetninoter Bm i! Mfias 3 eer Jiongot) | ay ep 9 yt ais tot joabud ODOR gift to. ete Jay UO% fornatcel Rare were} atGact: FO hi LOY. see SSSTECUTIOD “auctt gore Jc Leqact Th Fig 0 eet 1OF Soc CLIO. )exiateA ili pu 8 soir Pex Se roe, ait as AGE Ge SOMO: si oP Chitas TRH pal seaiios ayia) Hue ost per ie fo awed ealitertiio gitolintt dowsid oF Hioted GS ort) goilt bara Lidittign) Leta! cis ‘atl OOOT sith 20 Pa fii to sbant viotett visslatgolo trodaiit Ost 8 : isdetoe fi ort ete Say: Pi she Yo ie gf i oe et ata fort Bit 8 ry wunfitiadiod'y ae, ae Oe (.broses St Nptbsas Sih tro ie : oi, to Paaiaeed | wilt ‘shin luttos > Tae’ Bit” ie ° Homie ol Diswict Sool. fis As6lo‘o OL is “atv aot tt ’ ee erik iy fea anaritooay OF hese! ew uditeet ace eft ay Oc 7 ’ f € t x NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1965 Houss or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE ComMitrEr on MercH ant Marini AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Bob Casey presiding. Mr. Casry. The committee will come to order. Our colleague, William D. Hathaway of Maine is our first witness this morning. STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, A REPRESENTA- TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE Mr. Harsaway. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, though you are not at present considering H.R. 10106 which I recently introduced into the House of Representatives, I feel that this bill has special importance to this important matter of marine and atmospheric affairs and I therefore wish to comment on it. There is a variety of bills before both Houses of Congress to enhance and encourage the Federal role in the management of our marine affairs. These bills encompass ideas for the improvement of our mer- chant marine fleet, review of our interests in the law of the sea, explora- tion of the Continental Shelf, enhancement of our anadromous fish- eries management efforts, import restrictions on fisheries products from those nations practicing poor conservation techniques in our adjacent waters, advisory council proposals for the coordination of our ocean- ographic effort, the establishment of a massive NASA-like organiza- tion for the conquest of the oceans—our “inner space”—and many others. In addition, President Johnson has now proposed Reorganization Plan No. 2, consolidation of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Weather Bureau, and the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory to form a new agency in the Department of Commerce to be known as the Environmental Science Services Administration. All of these ideas have merit and are rooted in the national concern and future direction of our marine and atmospheric activities. They are symptomatic of: (1) The recognition of the tremendous impor- tance of the oceanic and atmospheric environs to our daily lives and economy, and (2) the fragmentary attention we give these matters in government policymaking and administration. H.R. 10106 is designed to crystallize our attention on the need to coordinate our work in the interrelated areas of marine and atmos- 511 512 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION pheric environments which so vitally affect our economy, trade, inter- national relations, strategic posture, natural resource programs, and our basic continental climate and weather patterns. It is my hope that this bill and my remarks may serve as a catalyst for the Congress in considering the far-reaching implications of our activities—or lack of them—in exploring, understanding, and using the resources of the atmosphere and the ocean. It is essential for us to turn our eyes to the sea around us. We are at present seriously neglecting this important area on our earth. This neglect can only be harmful to us. We must develop a “national will” to combat the inadequacy in this area. It is my hope that H.R. 10106 will contribute to the development of a national will to move forward in a strong, coordinated marine and atmospheric program. For only with a well-coordinated and aggressive program can we hope to conquer this unknown field. In reviewing the problems and potentials inherent in our status and purposes in marine and atmospheric use and technology, my thoughts focus on several matters. First, let me put into perspective the status and present direction of our efforts to conquer the mysteries of the marine environment. The words of Mr. James H. Wakeline, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research and Development, are appropriate: For centuries man has looked to the sea as a surface on which to sail to distant lands for exploration and trade, as an area for naval battles, as a sup- plementary source of food—but always as a region of mystery with unpredict- able and awsome displays of strength. While the world’s oceans do, in fact, eover almost three-quarters of the surface of the earth, our real interest lies as much in the volume beneath the surface as in the surface itself. The extent to which we can use this deep domain depends critically upon our knowledge of its boundaries, its properties, and its contents. To obtain this knowledge, we have been working on a concentrated program in oceanography to study the dynamics of ocean behavior on and beneath the surface, to map the depths and shorelines with greater accuracy, and to access the vast storehouse of food, minerals, and chemicals for future exploitation by mankind. From this pro- gram, and others related to it, we will learn much about how to alter and control the tremendous energy developed through the interaction of the air and the sea and released as hurricanes, typhoons, and other storms of great destructiveness. It remains for us now to put this knowledge to work and to find out how we can economically extract the resources from the sea for our use. Before we can fully apply this knowledge, however, we must learn how to live, work, and operate in the ocean depths. Without this capability we cannot effectively use the ocean space for our country’s defense or make available its vital materials that we will require for future generations on the earth. In our national assault upon the marine environment, I see a tre- mendous historic parallel with that of our country a century and a half ago as we began to unlock the frontiers and rich resources of the Western North American Continent. In this earlier day, Jefferson and a few others who advocated the opening of our West stood alone. Powerful political and industrial forces sought to divert our energies from westward expansion toward Europe and the seagoing trade. John Adams, then Senator from Massachusetts, sided with Jefferson in a display of political courage and wisdom which brought about his ouster from \the Senate and what he then believed to be his political. demise. A few years later, Daniel Webster spoke in questioning terms of our great West saying, “What do we want with this vast worthless area? What use have we for ‘this country?” Although I do not hear specifie voices in this day against our national marine program effort, there is a counterpart reflected in apathy, lack of concern, and absence of a national will to forge ahead in this area. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 513 The role of the Federal Government in opening our West was to explore, to muap and to provide capital and land incentive for the private development of the area. This role was a unique experiment a century and a half ago which staggered the Buropean mind with its audacity. Yet, the Federal Government did not shirk its duty and responsibility and we are benefiting today because of those previous policies. Are we any less audacious today? I think not. The frontiers of the sea, great lakes, and tthe atmosphere between earth and space are before us. We need to use their resources and powers. Government can again lead the way through exploration, scientific inquiry, and capital incentive for business and private capital to follow. We need only to channel our energies and coordinate our efforts to lift the curtain of uncertainty from the realm of the little known. The lifting of this curtain requires recognition of a little realized fact. The fact is that we now possess the technical knowledge and industrial capacity to live, work, explore, and exploit the resources of the marine world. Heretofore, the main thrust of governmental concern with marine and atmospheric affairs has been in the realm of basic scientific inquiry. For a long time, scientific knowledge has been ahead of the engineering technology required to accelerate exploration and resource development in marine environments. This is no longer the case. We now realize that technology has caught up and even surpassed basic science. We already are able to pursue a vigorous course of marine resource utilization which will enhance our economy and greatly con- tribute to our general welfare. We have the technology, we have but to use it. Apparently, this basic fact did not influence the administration in its prepara- tion of the Reorganization Plan No. 2 proposal. This plan is directed essentially toward the coordination of basie scientific inquiry within the interrelated fields of marine and atmospheric affairs. This is a sound proposal as far as it goes— but now is ‘tthe time for governmental action to go further. True, our programs must continue scientific research and inquiry—but this must be in partnership with the technologies of use and development. We must use basic scientific research plus technology as a workable combination to master and use these still unutilized areas of earth for the benefit of man. We shall require as much effort and as complicated equipment to conquer the marine environs as we now use to conquer outer space. The equipment necessary includes: vehicles to come and go from work sites and in which to map and explore, together with navigational and propulsion systems for these vehicles, underwater construction techniques, unique construction materials, communication systems, power and distribution systems, and a wide variety of new techniques to work in an aquatic environment. We have the technical knowledge to develop these systems. In fact, many now exist. We need only to de- fine and coordinate our national efforts and provide the incentive to attract the interest of those technological industries with the capacity to do the job. So much for perspective. I would like to draw attention now to some of the effects and problems evident in our present national effort : First, despite unused fisheries resources in our own waters, we do not catch the fish we eat, expending about $600 million annually abroad for the importation of fisheries products. This represents a substan- tial part of our dollar drain. While our own fishing industry is dying, the foreign fishing industries are rapidly growing. Because our resources are unsued, an increasing volume of Asiatic and European fishermen are attracted by our default to use our waters and catch our resources. All too frequently these foreign fishermen utilize exploitive practices in our own waters, seriously undermining our resource conservation efforts. All this evades the law of the sea and the Continental Shelf doctrine and causes extreme embarrassment to our State Department and much international tension. Accenting this international problem is the relatively low status of our representatives in the Department of State, Interior, or Commerce 514 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM. LEGISLATION who meet with the ministerial level representatives of other nations relative to U.S. interests in international marine affairs. Other nations, very logically, believe that our Government does not care enough about these matters to give them high official attention, and justly so. Second, much of our international commitment is concerned with underdeveloped countries and dietary lack of protein in 60 percent of the world’s population. We ship our surplus grain to nations but do little to attack the basic problem of protein inadequacy. We know that sustained fisheries resources exceed the world’s protein require- ments—and further, that great unused resources are available just off the shores of many an underdeveloped country. The undeveloped nations need to be taught how to utilize the unused resources. Other countries, particularly Russia, capitalize on this knowledge by building up the fisheries capacities of underdeveloped nations and by direct landings of fisheries products by their home fleets. In this way the Russian fisheries and merchant marine make a profit of their activities, and at the same time use their vessels as an adjunct of their defense posture throughout the world in recognition of the strategic importance of the world ocean areas—70 percent of the earth’s surface. Our sick fisheries industry and declining merchant marine do not compete— nor do they add the important strategic element of U.S. occupation throughout the world ocean area. Third, we are constantly reminded that our continental reserves of strategic fossil fuels and minerals are dwindling—that indeed we are living today on the savings required for future generations. Were we to mine more from the sea and the Continental Shelf we would be, in effect, living on our income rather than exclusively on our savings. For every river, every stream, every rain brings dissolved minerals and chemicals from the land to the sea—enriching and replenishing the sea. By this I do not suggest any abandonment of our interior resources or that we need depend upon the minerals, oil, and gas resources of the sea today and/or even tomorrow. I do maintain, however, that we must accelerate our effort, now, to explore, to chart and locate, and to use the resources of the marine environment. If we do not, others will and we will suffer for our negligence. Through use and industrial incentive our technology will rapidly improve. Fourth, recent studies have brought to light some serious problems in the aging and deterioration of the Great Lakes, estuarian, and harbor areas. The speed of the aging process in such bodies of water is normally measured in millenia. We now have reason to believe that large quantities of nutrients entering our Great Lakes and coastal bays in waste discharges are speeding up this process significantly. Also, we find that even with the overnight elimination of pollutants from these waters—if such were possible—the reversal of the aging process, or even its slowing down, appears to be next to impossible under the limitations of present knowledge. To those from our Nation’s heartland, I need not overemphasize the economic impact of water level drops or vegetative concentrations in the Great Lakes. We need to learn more about the currents, tempera- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 515 tures, and other factors influencing this aging process of the Great Lakes. This requires an intensive exploratory and research effort which must be undertaken now before it is too late and economic disaster strikes the heartland of our Nation. In addition we should note that the Great Lakes comprise the largest fresh water sea in the world. What we learn in such a microcosm can be of infinite value in our pursuit of knowledge within the world oceans. Fifth, although the scientific community has recognized the inter- actions of the air-sea interface in the creation of both broad clima- tological and local weather patterns, we have as yet scarcely scratched the surface in learning how to modify these phenomena for man’s benefit. The area of weather control and manipulation may seem to be unreachable now, but so did the moon 50 years ago. The difficulties to overcome are numerous, but just envision the day when controlled buildup in the snowpack above a western reservoir can help regulate streamflows for power, irrigation, pollution, abatement, et cetera, or when controlled weather modification can replenish de- pleted underground aquifers or transport water in rain over barrier mountains to arid but fertile soils. A dream today? Maybe so—but it can be reality tomorrow. We but need a will and a program to make it so. The work going forward toward more adequate weather warning systems for tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods is fairly well known. But also the Navy and Weather Bureau, in Project Stormfury, seek to find means to modify, bend, or ameliorate these furious storms of tremendous human and economic impact. The day when we can modify the hands of nature for man’s benefit—when such recent dis- asters as the Northwest and Mississippi Valley floods are things of the past—is not too far distant—if we accelerate and enforce our national will to better understand the interacting marine and atmospheric phenomena which cause them. The costs of such accelerated effort are insignificant in comparison with the potential benefits. Sixth, the need for power to produce the wonders of our industrial and technological age are apparent to us all. We are all familiar with the disparity of power available to various parts of our country. The potentials for the generation of such power by nuclear energy and by the prospects of obtaining vast oil reserves on the Continental Shelf or from the oil shale deposits of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah are known. Equal, if not greater, power-generating potential exists through the harnessing of tidal power at Passamaquoddy between Maine and Canada. Similar opportunities exist in Alaska, lower California, and many other places in the world. The French have just completed the Rance River project on the coast of Brittany making tidal power a reality. Possibly of even greater importance as a source of oceanic power, since it is not tied to a specific location, is the use of the ocean thermal- cline asa source of power. In this system electric turbines are powered by steam obtained from water at surface temperature at reduced pres- sure. Experiments in this area are underway and the technology of the near future should produce a workable powerplant of perhaps 4,500 kilowatts per unit with byproducts of fresh water, fish and plankton, and mineral production. 516 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Another significant source of ocean power is wave action. It is be- lieved that wave action rather than nuclear or solar power would best and most economically provide the power source for the thousands of buoys envisaged in the future exploration and development of the oceans. Ocean currents, of which as yet we know little, may provide still another source of power generation. These then are some of the problems we face today and a few of the potentials we can enjoy tomorrow. Let me turn now to how our Government is meeting this great chal- lenge in the marine and atmospheric program area. Our main effort is entitled the national oceanographic program. It is one of several Government-wide programs planned and coordinated by the Presi- dent, with the advice and assistance of the Office of Science and Tech- nology. In the field of oceanography the Director of the Office of Science and Technology, who also serves as Chairman of the Federal Council for Science and Technology, looks to the Council’s Inter- agency Committee on Oceanography to carry out the program. As a committee in Government this group has been quite successful in their efforts to coordinate the diverse functions of 5 departments, 3 independent agencies and 22 operating bureaus and offices. Despite their competent work and continual improvement the Interagency Committee on Oceanography suffers from a number of circumstances with which it is powerless to deal. These are: 1. None of its members is the policy head of the department in which he works, nor is departmental oceanographic policy dele- gated to him. Whenever ICO makes a decision that decision is subject to the independent and individual policy review of several department heads. Within the concerned departments, marine and atmospheric affairs are relatively minor parts of overall responsibilities. 2. Kach ICO member has his own full-time job. They meet from time to time and give the ICO program a few hours of at- tention, but their prime attention is devoted to their own daily responsibilties. 3. The staff of ICO is loaned from other agencies. It receives budgetary support from other agencies. These two situations make it difficult for the most dedicated operation to establish rela- tive program priorities. Even the most objective public servant finds it difficult to judge a project favored by a Bureau Chief who may soon again be his boss. 4. A program is not a program unless it has a budget with which it may be implemented. The ICO budget for a national oceanographic program is a conglomeration of budgets for marine and atmospheric affairs within 22 bureaus and offices. The ICO considers the budget as a whole but each budget request is con- tained within the several departments, bureaus and agencies. Thus each appropriation request is reviewed by a variety of bureaus of the budget examiners. Each must compete with other agency functions at the bureau and departmental level for “pieces of the appropriation pie” due such agencies. By the time the Presi- dent’s budget is sent to the Congress it is at once unidentifiable NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION . 517 as a national effort and bears little resemblance to the thoughtful design of ICO. 5. The many segments of the President’s program bearing on marine or atmospheric affairs is presented to at least 32 substan- tive and appropriation committees of the Congress. Among these committees there is little communication. The consequence of all this—despite ICO’s best efforts—is lack of a well-balanced national program of marine and interrelated atmos- pheric affairs or a budget for it. Accordingly, this country does not have a truly national well-directed effort in this vital area of concern. It is for this reason, I submitted H.R. 10106. H.R. 10106 proposes: First, the enunciation of the broad national purposes, concepts, and objectives required for a coordinated balanced program in marine and atmospheric affairs. In this, it places emphasis on an acceleration and expansion of marine exploration, technology, and scientific en- deavor. It outlines a Federal role of full partnership and coordina- tion with State, local government, industrial and academic activity in the marine and atmospheric resources and environmental uses. Second, it authorizes a marine exploration fund providing for an accelerated exploration program at the Federal level with cost-sharing incentives for the States, academic, and industrial communities. Loans and grants are authorized for purposes of developing, improving and testing the instrumentation, vessels, vehicles, equipment or facilities so vitally needed to implement a progressive program for marine ex- ploration and discovery. Third, it authorized a marine and atmospheric research and develop- ment fund for the acceleration of basic research in the component areas of necessary scientific inquiry. This includes: the advance of ocean- ographic engineering, advancement of knowledge pertinent to the geomorpholoty and geology of the Continental Shelf, Great Lakes, and deep ocean floors and, similarly, for the biological life, chemical and physical characteristics of such environs. It also provides for re- search and development related to climatological and meteorological phenomena at the air-sea interface and atmosphere as well as the trans- mission and generation of electrical energy in such environs. Fourth, it recognizes that the coordination of our major civilian agencies concerned with marine and atmospheric affairs is essential. Coordination and leadership in this area are indispensable. It recog- nizes three basic areas of Government focus or influence within the framework of our national efforts. ‘These are: (1) Within the De- partment of the Navy representing the marine and related military and security interests of the United States; (2) Within the National Science Foundation and Smithsonian Institution representing the aca- demic interests in such matters; and (3) Within a new Department of Marine and Atmospheric Affairs representing the civilian marine and atmospheric interests and industry. In creating this new Department, I believe a moderate, sensible posi- tion is taken between the present fragmented operation which we now pursue and the creation of a massive new NASA-like agency for these environs. 518 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Essentially, the new Department would carry the President’s Re- organization Plan No. 2 to a logical conclusion. Included in this new Department would be the U.S. Maritime Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, U.S. Weather Bureau, the National Oceanographic Data Center, the Coastal Engineering Re- search Center, the Sea-Air Interaction Laboratory, the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory—all existing agencies—and a new Bureau of Marine Fisheries formed by the Environmental Division of the Fisheries, responsibilities of the present Fish and Wildlife Service. A new Coordinating Office of Marine Geology and Mineral Resources would also be established. These are the major agencies concerned with marine and atmospheric affairs. ‘There are many other agencies such as the Geological Survey, Bureau of Mines, Public Health Service, etc., concerned with missions in the marine environment, but it is thought to be unwise to separate the marine functions from these present agencies at the time. In addition, this bill does one other thing: it provides for the establishment of a joint committee of the Congress to be the forum for — the consideration of the future direction and role of Government in marine and atmospheric affairs. This I believe necessary if this vital area of national program need is to be properly communicated to the people. The parameters of discussion, the range and scope of the problems, and the scientific, resources, and social areas of inquiry are too broad for consideration within the frameweork of existing committee structures in either the House or the Senate. Mr. Chairman, this then is the direction of the legislation I propose. In closing, let me emphasize again my intentions. These are to help focus national attention on the problems and opportunities before this Nation in the marine world and lower atmosphere around us. I hope that the strength and imagination traditionally inherent im our people will fuse with our renewed efforts in this field to conquer our last frontier on this earth. In closing, may I remind my colleagues of the words of our late President John F. Kennedy as he said, “Knowledge of the oceans is more than a matter of curiosity. Our very survival may hinge upon it.” Now may I add that knowledge alone is not enough, our survival may well hinge on our occupation and use of the vast marine world around us. Mr. Cassy. Thank you very much for a very interesting and in- formative statement. Mr. Harnaway. Thank you for allowing me to present my state- ment. Mr. Casry. We are pleased this morning to have Dr. Leland Haworth, who is Director of the National Science Foundation, as our next witness, and he will be accompanied, I understand, by Dr. Richard G. Bader, who is Program Director for the oceanography program, and Dr. William Benson, Head of the Earth Sciences Section. Both of those are in the Division of Mathematics and Physical Science. Doctor, if you would like for them to join you at the table there we will be delighted to have them. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 519 STATEMENT OF LELAND J. HAWORTH, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD G. BADER, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, OCEANOGRAPHY PROGRAM, DIVISION OF MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE; WILLIAM BENSON, HEAD, EARTH SCIENCES SECTION, DIVISION OF MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICAL SCIENCE; AND HARVE CARLSON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL SCIENCES Mr. Haworrn. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also have Dr. Harve Carlson, Director of the Division of Biological and Medical Sciences, alsocomeup. Dr. Carlson is our representative on ICO. Mr. Casry. We are delighted to have you this morning, Doctor, and your colleagues, and we will look forward to your contribution to this hearing in which we are trying to give a little impetus and attention to—oceanography—and, of course, we have lots of proposals as you know, before us; any views that you have will be most welcome; whether we agree with them or not, they will be welcome because we know they will be of a constructive nature. Mr. Hawortn. Thank you. I believe you have my prepared state- ment before you. Mr. Casry. You can read it or we will be pleased if you would like to just summarize it and place the whole thing in the record; anyway you want to present it. Mr. Haworrn. I think unless you feel pressed for time, I would pre- fer to read it. Mr. Casry. You have all the time you need. Mr. Haworru. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may I express my appreciation for this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Commit- tee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to discuss the state of ocean- ography and the ways to strengthen our Nation’s efforts in the study and exploration of the oceans and the exploitation of their resources. That oceanography and the results that grow from oceanography are important has been increasingly recognized in recent years. In particular, the Members of Congress have demonstrated that they are vitally concerned with the future of oceanography and all its implications. Even a cursory study of the chronology of legislative events from 1958 to now indicates that you have attempted to insure that the United States has a strong, viable oceanographic program, one not limited merely to further development of those areas in which steady progress has occurred, but one that will encompass and im- prove the areas of endeavor that have not received the attention they rightfully deserve. It should be a program directed toward objectives which will not only be beneficial to the national interests, but to man- kind asa whole. Let me discuss briefly what I believe to be the principal substantive aspects of such a program. Broadly speaking, they are of three over- lapping kinds. All are necessary to accomplish our ends. First, there is the science of the oceans—the understanding of the processes that oc- cur, the applications of and the relationships between the laws of na- ture that bring about the countless, incredibly complex, phenomena within the waters and between those waters and the atmosphere above, 520 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION the solid earth below and at the borders—yes; even the radiation from the sun which has an enormous effect. To understand these things requires research—research that entails most of the basic sciences, in all their various ramifications. In a very complex way the laws of these fundamental sciences act as they have acted through the ages to determine the structure of the oceans’ bot- toms, the composition of its waters, the currents that flow within it, the life with which it teems and, indeed, all of the characteristics and actions of the ocean systems. These things must be studied from the minute to the grand scale, usually in many places, from the Equator to the polar regions, from the shoreline to the deepest oceans. Countless experiments must be done, countless measurements must be made, every advantage must be taken of modern techniques not only in the experimental sense but also in the use of modern computers and other methods of analysis. Only through such methods can we understand how the ocean and its bottoms are structured ; how the water reacts with its surroundings, and under what conditions; how the living beings exist and propagate in short, how the entire system behaves and why it behaves that way. Within the Federal Government, this area has been supported pri- marily by the Office of Naval Research and the National Science Foundation, but it is also true that agencies such as the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, the Geological Survey, the Environmental Sciences Administration, the Public Health Service, the Atomic En- ergy Commission and others are, and should be active in research in order to carry out their own missions relating to the sea. Second, the field of exploration and survey. In contrast to re- search which attempts to understand the various parameters and proc- esses in typical situations, exploration and surveying is directed at developing a description of the situation at each and every place of interest. It ranges from charting the bottom, its topography and its composition, through identifying the various water masses and cur- rent and determining their chemical, geological, and biological param- evens and to the behavior of the atmosphere over the various parts of the sea. Such activities have, of course, existed since man first had his contact with the sea, especially in costal waters and other areas of interest to shipping. In recent times, activities have increased in intensity and have been placed on a much more systematic basis. But much more needs to be done. Clearly, there is a close interaction between research and explora- tion. Research scientists depend upon surveys to know where to go to find the situations that they wish to study. Sometimes, of course, they must make surveys themselves. Conversely those who explore and survey must understand the underlying science in order to do their job effectively and to optimize their ability to infer the situation from a minimum of measurements. Indeed, the activities overlap and no sharp line can be drawn between them. Most of the surveying is in the province of such agencies as the Naval Oceanographic Office, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Geo- logical Survey and, in the realm of food, of the Bureau of Fisheries. Increasingly the Public Health Service and the Atomic Energy Com- mission have had an interest, concerned as they are with problems of | NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 521 contamination. Some survey work is done by the oceanographic in- stitutions in connection with their research program and a great deal is done by industry, especially in the shallower waters of the Con- tinental Shelf. Finally, there is the area of utilizing the sea, exploiting its mineral and biological resources, minimizing its dangers to shipping and coastal installations and using it is an environment for both military and civilian maritime activities and for recreation. Both the surveying and research activities contribute knowledge that is essential for the utilization of the ocean. Those who would exploit it must also know and understand the underlying science and where to go to find con- ditions favorable to the exploitation that they seek. In turn, the re- search scientists and the explorers must have a knowledge of the ex- ploitation possibilities so that in deciding which to choose among the innumerable tasks they could perform they can be guided by potential uses, on both the civilian and the military side. The agencies that are legitimately concerned with utilization range through many of the departments and agencies of the Federal Gov- ernment, but the primary interest in exploitation of resources is, of course, in the Department of the Interior—the Bureau of Com- mercial Fisheries, the Bureau of Mines, and the Geological Survey. Primary interest in using the sea as an environment is in the De- partment of Defense—the Navy and U.S. Engineers— and in the De- partment of Commerce—Environmental Science Services Admin- istration. As I said earlier, the activities of the National Science Foundation come logically under the first category—that of research. Oceanog- raphy has been supported by the Foundation from the start, but its major growth has been since 1958. In that year we supported ap- proximately 60 research grants in the physical and biological as- pects of oceanography as well as in marine biology. Today, we sponsor well over 200 such research programs in universities and other scientific institutions studying the oceans and the Great Lakes. During this same period, our support of senior research personnel has risen from approximately 50 to more than 200, and our support of graduate students through research grants, fellowships and trainee- ships has gone from less than 40 to over 160. These figures do not, of course, tell the whole story, for much of oceanographic work is carried out by individuals who had their train- ing in one of the basic sciences. Included in the above totals is the support of research aboard the Eltanin, the research vessel attached to our Antarctic program. In addition, along with other agencies of the Government, we have sup- ported the International Indian Ocean Expendition, which, when all the data are analyzed, will prove to be a major accomplishment in oceanographic research and survey. Also, just recently, we supported the initial phase of an ocean- bottom coring program. ‘This first endeavor off the east coast of Florida started on April 17, and was completed in 30 days. It was not only scientifically successful, but also demonstrated the economic value of drilling in the oceans. Our budget for marine research and education over this same period—that is, from 1958 to 1965—has increased from about $1.5 53-367— 6534 522 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION to over $17 million a year, not counting the construction of ships and other research facilities. I might say, Mr. Chairman, although our plans for the current year are not quite completely crystallized as our appropriation bill has just been passed, that this figure will rise to over $20 million in 1966. Finally, realizing that the exploration and comprehension of the seas had been hampered by the lack of good research vessels and ade- quate shore facilities, we have joined other agencies in an attempt to improve the situation. Since 1958, we have supported the conversion or the building of 12 major research vessels, plus numerous small boats, and the construction or remodeling of some 37 shore facilities. In 7 years, we have devoted more than $31 million to this cause. The Foundation is one of the original members of, and has actively participated in, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, which has been very successful in coordinating and developing the Federal oceanographic research program. The accomplishments of this com- mittee have been remarkable, especially considering the short period which has elapsed since the initiation of concentrated oceanographic efforts. Our interest in the collection, storage, and dissemination of oceanographic data follows yours, as is demonstrated by our strong support of the National Oceanographic Data Center, which is oper- ated and funded under an interagency agreement signed on December 93, 1960. | So far I have talked mostly about the National Science Foundation to indicate that our interest and concern parallels that of the Con- gress. Of course, that interest is equally strong in other agencies. Be- cause of the combined, coordinated, and cooperative determination of the members of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, we now have a strong and healthy scientific program in oceanographic re- search. Oceanographic research has shown good progress over the past few years; I think it is well coordinated and strong. I am also convinced that under the present structure it will continue to develop m accordance with the funds available. I would now like to turn to the potential resources of the sea and their exploitation, a matter that can be vital to the well-being of this Nation. We know of the petroleum resources on the Continental Shelf, and that millions of dollars per year are expended by private industry not only for its immediate extraction for fuel and usable byproducts, but also for obtaining information on the reserves which can be tapped in the future. Likewise, we are well aware of the fact that chemical companies extract magnesium from the sea water on the Continental Shelf. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries is continuing its efforts to locate and find effective means for utilizing the fishery resources of the oceans. The Corps of Engineers is searching the Continental Shelf for sand deposits which can be used to replenish that lost by the erosion of our beaches. The Navy is conducting an extensive program in ocean engineering; the results of this will not only be of value to the military but also for civilian undersea technology. And, as mentioned earlier, results of potential economic value were recently obtained as a byproduct of a scientific drilling project con- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 523 ducted off the east coast of Florida. Two aquifers and evidence of a phosphorite bed were discovered. If you wish, Mr. Chairman, I can submit for the record a brief statement and two letters which sum- marize the preliminary results of this drilling program. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that we do not know the full extent of the ocean resources, including those on the Continental Shelf. This is not because we are not trying; rather it is because this is an area that is relatively new to us. I would say it is quite analogous to the awakening, well over a century ago, that the West had the potential for economic development. The realization is here, and thus the tempo must be, and, as funds permit, is being increased. Since we are aware that the answers to many of the problems associated with the exploitation of ocean re- sources are not presently available, nor for that matter, immediately forthcoming, studies are being conducted, surveys are being under- taken, laboratories are being developed and research efforts are con- tributing the essential information. Also, industry is expanding its interests. Possibly after studies are completed, after all considerations are evaluated, Government concessions, similar to those made during the development of the West, may prove appropriate. Quite understandably, industry and others, including the various agencies of the executive department and Members of Congress, are concerned with utilizing, for the benefit of the people of this country, any natural resource that exists on and in the oceans, especially the Continental Shelf. We must not only take from the sea that which which we can use now, but also consider resource management and the contemplated needs for the future. We are not as well organized for exploitation as for research and exploration. Iam sure this fact is the basis for much of your concern and your desire to improve the organizational structure. However, sweeping organizational changes and the pronouncement of new programs must be supported by more than a desire to exploit the ocean resources. It is essential that we first understand the problems, the character and extent of whatever resources may exist, and that this information be compared on an economic basis with those re- sources present on the continent. Oceanography is an intricate subject. Its complexity and its wide utilization by many agencies of the Government require that we carefully consider each successive step. Now let me turn my attention to the contents of the specific bills that lie before you. They range from proposals for intensive studies preceding any steps toward reorganization to the other extreme of proposing a Department of Oceanography. First, there is the concept of general review and coordination. Here I should like to endorse H.R. 2218 introduced by the chairman of this subcommittee, Mr. Lennon, and identical bills, H.R. 3310 by Mr. Pelly and H.R. 3352 by Mr. Bonner. These bills put first things first and lay out reasonable and considered courses of action. Briefly, they declare a vigorous and comprehensive oceanographic program to be a matter of national policy. They call for a statement of national goals consistent with that policy and for the establishment of plans and programs to pursue those goals. They authorize an 524. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Advisory Committee for Oceanography and finally and importantly provide for an annual report to Congress of progress in the program. As stated in my letter of July 28 to Chairman Bonner, I believe that such legislation would be useful in establishing the guidelines for carrying out our oceanographic program. Second, certain bills propose establishment of a National Commis- sion on Oceanography to review all aspects of the field—research, surveying, exploitation, and the development of personnel—and to recommend an overall plan for a national program, including its organizational and budgetary aspects. H.R. 9064 by Mrs. Rogers, H.R. 9483 by Mr. Reinecke, H.R. 9617 by Mr. Hanna, and H.R. 9667 by Mr. Downing propose variants of this method. Studies of this sort are, of course, desirable; in fact, they are necessary. However, mechanisms for their accomplishment already exist. Indeed, as has been testified on previous occasions, such a study is already underway by a Panel of the President’s Science Advisory Committee. This is a Panel of distinguished and able men, most of whom are personally known to me, many of them well. They repre- sent not only scientific but also engineering and economic competence. They will carefully consider all aspects of the problem. In view of the existence of this Panel, to establish a National Com- mission such as that proposed would, I believe, at this time at least, be unnecessary and indeed unwise. This is not to say that at some time in the future, after the report of the PSAC Panel has been received and studied, that there might not well be reason to establish another, perhaps larger and more comprehensive body, to extend further the results of the present effort. Third, are proposals to establish, at Cabinet level, a National Geo- graphic Council to take overall cognizance of the field. H.R. 5654 by Mr. Fascell and identical bills by Mr. Fulton, Mr. Hanna, and Mr. Huot provide for such a Council, chaired by the Vice President. Although such a Council would undoubtedly give greater prominence to oceanography and would provide some high-level focus on its programs, it would have the very major difficulty that the heavy responsibilities of its members would prevent them from devoting much of their time to oceanography and they probably would not be experts in the field. Inevitably this would lead to the delegation of authority to those who are more familiar with the subject, such as the members of the present Interagency Committee on Oceanography. Thus, its constitution would be similar to that of ICO and there would ‘be the disadvantage that it would not be in the mainstream of science and technology within the Government as is ICO, being, as it is, an arm of the Federal Council of Science and Technology and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology. Furthermore, the President would lose the present advantage of having such matters come to him through a single channel, his Special Assistant for Science and Technology. I should like at this point to add a bit to what has been said about the ICO. From reading transcripts of these hearings, I have the impression that there is some belief that the impact of the committee is largely confined to its formal channels; that is, through the Federal Council for Science and Technology chaired by Dr. Hornig and from Dr. Hornig back to the agencies. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 525 Although this channel is important and concerted formal policies take this route, there is a constant interchange between ICO and the agencies, including upper echelons of those agencies. For example, in the case of the Foundation, most of our thinking and our planning for oceanography is heavily influenced by the reports and more informal information we receive directly from our representative on ICO. For example, although the first formal information to ICO concerning our budgetary plans is nominally at our own initiative, in the making of those plans we take into serious account the discussions held in ICO and the needs as they have been revealed in those discussions. Although, until our budget has been submitted to the Congress and appropriations have been made, we cannot guarantee complete effectua- tion of those plans, we make every effort, even in the face of budgetary cuts, to fulfill them as completely as we can. Thus, the interaction of an agency with ICO involves not only the circle from the agency’s management through its staff to ICO, in turn to the Federal Council and to the OST and back to the agency, there is a constant interchange on a more informal, but nevertheless intensive and effective basis, between ICO and the agencies to the great benefit of the program. H.R. 6457 by Mr. Ashley proposes a Council within the Office of Science and Technology, also composed of Cabinet-level officers. Again, the actual work would inevitably be by delegation so that, in effect, the Council would be a replica of ICO. In addition, this would be an unorthodox organizational arrangement in which officials report- ing directly to the President would in this task be working within a single office. I do not believe that in either form a statutory council composed of Cabinet officials would improve upon this process. Rather, it would complicate the existing situation. Therefore, I recommend that these bills not be enacted. Fourth, are proposals to establish a Marine Exploration and De- velopment Commission to carry out a program of exploration and de- velopment of the marine resources of the Continental Shelf and in some cases the Great Lakes and waters above the Continental Shelf. H.R. 5884 by Mr. Rivers and H.R. 6009 provide for such a Commission. The Commission would take unto itself activities that are, in my opinion, much better carried out within established agencies. Three of these agencies would be represented on the Commission. This seems to me a needless complication of an already complex situa- tion. Through their regular programs the agencies are already inten- sively engaged in studies of the Continental Shelf. Indeed, something like one-quarter of the total oceanographic effort is devoted to this problem. The funds proposed in support of such a Commission would to my mind be used much better to supplement those being devoted to the existing programs. H.R. 7849 by Mr. Teague combines a similar program with the Council proposed by H.R. 5654, and others, and, in my opinion, should not be enacted for the reasons I have given in those two cases. Five, a full-fledged oceanographic agency is proposed in H.R. 921 by Mr. Wilson. This would, of course, have the appeal of concentrat- ing oceanography within one focal spot within the executive branch and in presentation of the needs for oceanography before the Con- 526 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION gress. At first sight it would reduce problems of coordination but it would undoubtedly introduce a quite different set of similar problems of this nature. The various Government departments and agencies engaged in oceanographic activities directly related to their missions must con- tinue to discharge those missions and hence must be concerned with oceanography. For example, fisheries and other resource aspects of oceanography are undertaken by the Department of the Interior, pol- lution and other studies by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Atomic Energy Commission, defense aspects by the U.S. Navy, et cetera. If oceanography were were divorced from these departments it would seriously impair their capabilities for car- rying out their missions. In most instances, research, development, and exploration are so inextricably entwined with the responsibilities the individual agencies must discharge that their effectiveness would be seriously impaired. The need for coordination between the proposed oceanographic agency and the users of the information it developed would to my mind be even more difficult than the present problems of coordination between the agencies in the different aspects of oceanography. For these and other reasons, I recommend against the passage of H.R. 921. Finally, I should mention H.R. 5175 by Mr. Lennon which would require that a legal study be undertaken by the Coast Guard. Al- though I am poorly qualified to comment on this bill, I should like to say that I am in favor of the proposition that such a study should be undertaken. Whether the Coast Guard is the appropriate agency, I do not know. In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that the accomplishments in ocean- ographic research over the past few years have been quite gratifying; the science has shown steady progress and our facilities are markedly improved. Yet we must do more if we are to attain the desired goals. We are now censidering further expansion of our effort in exploiting the resources of the sea. This will require study, financial support and time. Given these and the opportunity to conduct realistic in- vestigations into the potentials of the sea, we will attain the answers necessary to devise and carry out an evermore meaningful program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Casry. Thank you, Doctor. The results of the tests off the Florida coast, you mentioned that you have that available to put in the record, and I believe we would like to have those, if you will furnish that for the record. (Documents referred to follow:) JOIDES Dring PrRrogect SUMMARY One of the most significant recent accomplishments in oceanography was the completion of an ocean drilling and coring program on the Continental Shelf, continental slope, and the Blake Plateau off the eastern coast of Florida. The drilling took place on six sites along a transect beginning about 22 miles off Jacksonville in 81 feet of water and extended 250 miles offshore where the ocean depth reaches 3,500 feet. The deepest hole drilled was 1,050 feet below the ocean bottom. The drilling program began on April 17, about 1 month after a grant was made by the National Science Foundation to the Lamont Geological Observa- tory, and was completed on May 17. The entire operation was under the supervision of JOIDES (Joint Oceanographic Institutions’ Deep Earth Sam- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 527 pling), an organization composed of the University of Miami (Institute of Marine Science), University of California (Scripps Institution of Oceanography), Columbia University (Lamont Geological Observatory), and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Representatives of the U.S. Geological Survey and other institutions were aboard the drilling vessel Caldrill. The Pan American Petroleum Corp. had agreed that JOIDHS could use the vessel for such drilling at no cost for the transit time as Caldrill was moved from California to the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. The ship was put to its most severe test when drilling at two sites bordering the Gulf Stream. Here currents of more than 3 knots were encountered, but they did not prevent the collection of long cores in this structurally important region. The sampling has just been completed, thus only preliminary results are avail- able. However, the success of the operation is amply demonstrated by the following : (1) Two fresh water aquifers were found at a distance of 22 miles off- shore. At drill hole depths of 500 and 700 feet, artesian water gushed up with a head of more than 30 feet above sea level. This find greatly extends the known water reserve for this part of Florida. (2) Extrapolation of structure and lithology can be made from the land outward across the Continental Shelf. (3) Gamma ray logs in holes indicate an extension of economically important phosphorite beds beneath the Continental Shelf. (4) Reflected profiles obtained by earlier seismic work were pierced during the drilling. The collection of core samples at these levels will be a great value in interpreting seismic data. A successful velocity log was obtained in the deepest hole and the results confirm seismic velocities obtained previously by other methods. (5) Abundant fossil organisms were found in the cores and will permit the correlation of near-shore and deepwater forms in the same horizons. (6) Shallow water fossils were found in the deeper portions of the near- shore drill holes. These are of significance in unfolding the history of this continental margin. (7) ‘The sedimentary beds of Tertiary age on the Blake Plateau are much thinner than those on this Continental Shelf. This could well be a key reason for the depth of the plateau. (8) The apparent continuity of the sedimentary beds across the Con- tinental Shelf and slope does not support an earlier idea of the existence of a north-south pre-Tertiary fault. (9) It is now evident that with the necessary modifications of such drill- ing equipment, successful drilling can be accomplished in water of 6,000 feet or more. It is also evident from these preliminary results that basie scientific information and data of potential economic value can be obtain by the continuation of deep ocean coring. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Jacksonville, Fla., June 21, 1965. Dr. J. LAMAR WoORZEL, Lamont Geological Observatory, Palisades, N.Y. Dear Dr. WorzEL: The recent JOIDES drilling program off the coast of northern Florida gave us a rare opportunity to examine the submarine strata that had heretofore been inaccessible to us. Our work in this area is to examine and appraise the water resources in northeastern Florida, particularly the ground water resources which are the most important source of water in this region. The aquifer which supplies most of this water is presently being studied. in detail to determine the amount of water available for present and future use and to determine the danger of salt-water intrusion into the aquifer with projected increased use of the aquifer. Up to the time of the offshore drilling operation we were only able to examine the aquifer to the coastline although we knew that the aquifer extended below the Continental ‘Shelf. This lack of information beyond the coastline limited our work so that we had only an incomplete picture of the hydrologic character- istics of the aquifer. The drilling program made it possible to learn more about the seaward extension of this important aquifer. We are now able to make a 528 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION more comprehensive appraisal of the ground water reserves in this area and to better define the dangers of salt-water contamination. The drilling program has indeed given us much needed data to further our studies on the water resources in this area. In the long run this data will benefit the hundreds of thousands of people in this area who depend on the water from this aquifer for domestic, municipal, and industrial supplies. Sincerely yours, GILBERT W. LEVE, Geologist. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Washington, D.C., June 17, 1965. Dr. WILLIAM BENSON, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. BENson: We in the U.S. Geological Survey are very pleased with the success of the recent JOIDES-Blake Plateau venture and are convinced that such enterprises will yield much new scientific information on the history of the ocean basins and potential resources that lie buried off our continental borders. By this letter I would like to congratulate those individuals who organized and participated in in the venture. I ean foresee additional projects of this type. If such are contemplated, please let me assure you of our continuing interest in participation as collaborating scientists. Do not hesitate to call on us for help or advice in planning or evalu- ation of future projects of this kind. Sincerely yours, W. T. Pecora, Chief Geologist. Mr. Casry. Mr. Dow? Mr. Dow. No comment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Casry. Mr. Pelly ? Mr. Petty. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say I think Dr. Haworth has made a clear-cut statement that will contribute much to the think- ing of the committee. It has been very helpful and I appreciate his being with us today. Mr. Hawortn. Thank you, Mr. Pelly. Mr. Casry. Doctor, it seems to me that you and your department are in a little different situation than the other agencies who have ap- peared here, because you take most of them, they are primarily—their primary responsibility is not oceanography or sciences as such while your’s is. Mr. Haworrn. That is right. Mr. Casry. Of course, you have many, many other endeavors in the scientific field other than oceanography. Since this is an era where science is coming to the forefront, I am sure that yours is a very fas- cinating and busy task. And also you have your own separate appropriation for your sicen- tific endeavors. Mr. Hawortn. Yes. Mr. Cassy. So that you are different in this respect, and one of the weaknesses of the system that I feel exists is that when the ICO decides on a particular program, if they should assign it to some agency pri- marily concerned with, say, defense or parks and wildlife, why, some- times that particular appropriation or money for that particular proj- ect does not receive the attention before a congressional committee. I would like to know whether you feel that the present setup insofar as the other agencies, have they been successful in getting the necessary funds to carry out some of these, not just the projects NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 529: that are necessary for their particular agency, but related basic re- search that should be conducted along with the primary responsibility ? Have you noticed any difficulty in sometimes getting funds for this? Hr. Haworrn. Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess to be honest, I should say that most agencies think that they do not get enough funds for any of their activities. Mr. Casry. That is right. Mr. Hawortu. And certainly oceanography shares in this without any question. There has not been as much money available for oceanography as many of us would like to see. I do not think it is peculiar in this respect. In fact, in my opinion it has done very well in the last—will, since I have been familiar, which is about 4 years. I came to Washington about four and a half years ago. And it has certainly done very well in that time because of, I think, three factors. Of course, it had been sort of brought into the spotlight back in 1958, along in there by such things as the academy study, and So on. Then there was the very great interest of the Congress which has. helped not only in the sense of appropriations, but also in the sense of spurring on the executive branch, calling attention to it, and, of course, Mr. Kennedy’s great interest was a stimulus to it. The sup- port of oceanography has grown much more rapidly than the support of most fields; indeed I cannot think of another field that has scien- tific implications or scientific basis and so on, that has grown as rapidly except space. Now, it started pretty low. It did not have the attention or the support that it deserved and perhaps it has not yet caught up. With respect to your question about the competition, say, within: the Defense Department between research and survey and so on in oceanography and other Defense activities within Commerce or what- ever department, this, of course, is always a problem. It isa problem within the Science Foundation, the competition for funds for re-. search in oceanography as compared to research, say, in the atmos- pheric sciences, or anything else. _ I think that problem would exist no matter what our organization: is. Suppose we were starting all over again and had some different kind of organization of the Government; in principle we could have: departments of oceanography and departments of this and that, with missions in a sort of horizontal way instead of a vertical way, as we now have them, then you would have the competition between, say,. those aspects of oceanography that apply to defense as compared to: those aspects of oceanography that referred to commercial exploita- tion, and you would have a similar problem, except with a different. cut. It would be sliced horizontally instead of vertically, if I can be very crude about it. I think that the solution is just to keep pushing; for everyone who is: interested to do everything we can to promote it; to improve organiza- tional arrangements; for Congress to do appropriate things; for the: executive branch to sharpen itself up as much as it can, and so on. Mr. Cassy. How is the National Oceanographic Data Center— how is it funded ? 530 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Haworrn. It is an interagency funding. Dr. Carlson could perhaps give you a more descriptive detail than I could. Mr. Cartson. The Data Center is funded by, I believe, seven of the agencies. Now, Dr. Bader is a member of the Board of Trustees. Is that right, Dr. Bader ? Mr. Baprr. Yes. Mr. Cartson. And we provide funds for their operation, which is under the management of the Navy. Mr. Cassy. Do they contribute to the funding of it, is that estab- lished by the Board of Trustees, or is it established by ICO, or who determines how much support you shall give to a study? Mr. Cartson. I would like to ask Dr. Bader to answer that because he does sit on the Board of Trustees. Mr. Baprr. The Board of the NODC receives from the staff of NODC the information concerning the requirements for the budget, the priorities for the various activities that they feel should be done and the actual dollars that are requested. The Board, in turn, evaluates this and finally decides at a specific level which can be funded by the various agencies involved. Each of the agencies every fiscal year puts a specific sum into the operation of the Oceanographic Data Center. Mr. Caszry. Now, does that Board—is that Board just composed of representatives of the various agencies ? Mr. Baprr. They are representatives of the agencies that are fund- ing the National Oceanographic Data Center, yes, sir; and users of it. Mr. Casry. That Board determines the operation, the amount of atl saints, the amount of personnel, and what have you. Is that right ¢ Mr. Bavrr. The Board actually, after receiving the information from the staff of NODC, evaluates this information to determine whether the budget and the equipment and priorities of that which they want to do can be funded, so, in this sense, yes, the Board does say, “You can have a piece of equipment.” Mr. Casry. The staff is all Navy? Mr. Baprr. The staff ison Navy billet; yes, sir. Mr. Casry. And the staff then is on the Navy’s funding and what you all do is contribute whatever the staff tells you is necessary, you determine how much each of you should take on. Is that right? The Board does that ? Mr. Baprr. The Board makes the general Mr. Casry. How many are on the Board, Doctor? Mr. Baprr. I think there are nine, sir. Mr. Casry. Nine different agencies? Mr. Baprr. Nine different agencies. It is the AEC, National Sci- ence Foundation, the Department of Commerce, Department of In- terior, the Navy, there have been a few new members to the Board re- cently. I think the number is nine. I am not positive, but I could get that for you. Mr. Cassy. The Coast Guard ? Mr. Banprr. Yes, sir. Mr. Casry. And Treasury ? Mr. Baper. Yes, sir. Mr. Casry. Do other agencies contribute to the data that goes into this Center, or is it limited to the nine that are on the Board ? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 631 Mr. Bavrr. No. Actually, the data that goes into the Center can come from all sources. The data that goes into the Center is derived from papers that have been published in technical journals, and the staff removes this information from the journals and it is included in the data that is at the NODC. They get input from the Navy, they get input from the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and so forth, so they get information from more than just the membership. Mr. Casry. We have heard approximately 22 bureaus and agencies, and so forth, that are in the oceanography field to some degree. Is there any obligation or compulsion that this data goes to the Center so that you will have everything that is available ? Mr. Bavrr. Well, there is this type of an obligation. In our con- nection with the development of oceanographic programs we attempt to compile a list of the declared national oceanographic programs. For instance, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution may be going on an expedition to a specific area. They, in turn, may be supported by the Navy, by the National Science Foundation, or by some other or- ganization. They will list this as a declared national oceanographic program and will then turn over all of the information they have to the National Oceanographic Data Center, which, in turn, will list it in the World Data Center. So, it is then essentially in both places. The World Data Center A is that Center set up during the IGY. Mr. Casry. Have you had any difficulty in financing the operation of the Center? Mr. Baprr. Pardon, sir? Mr. Caszy. Have you had any difficulty in financing the operation of the Center? Getting sufficient funds? Mr. Bavrr. No; I think that we have been able—in the Foundation, at least to finance it at the level they have requested. Mr. Cassy. I am not speaking of the Foundation. I am speaking of you as a member of the Board. Has the Board had difficulty in get- ting sufficient funds to get the operation set up satisfactorily ? Mr. Baper. I think the Board feels that the Data Center is function- ing well. Possibly the Data Center could expand more rapidly than it has, but it has shown a significant increase in the past few years as far as its number of personnel and its Mr. Casry. What has restrained its more rapid expansion? Funds, or what? Mr. Banver. Essentially funds. Mr. Casry. And you say you have not had any difficulty in getting the amount that you thought was necessary from the Science Founda- tion, it has been able to furnish what it thought was necessary. Where has the shortage been ? Mr. Baner. I think all of the agencies have funded it to the extent that they can, and as I said, we have been satisfied with the increase in the capabilities of the National Oceanographic Data Center. With more funds it probably could mcrease faster. However, we also feel that the development of something like the Data Center should not just explode, but rather it should grow slowly in an essentially smooth, realistic growth line, and it has done this over the past few years. 532 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Casey. Your personnel comes from the Navy. Do they limit you on the number of personnel you can have there, and does the Board feel that you have all the personnel you should have there? Mr. Bapvrr. Well, the fact that they do come from Navy billets does have some effect. The Navy has only a specific number of billets and if some are utilized for NODC, it obviously may have some effect on the rest of the Navy. But I do not think we have any real strong feel- ing that there is not sufficient personnel on the Data Center staff to con- duct the work that is now being done. Mr. Cassy. I know you do not want to be critical of the Navy, and you are not critical of the Navy, because you know what their other obligations are, and that is what we are getting to, is that their other obligations are so much more important to their specific assignment than furnishing personnel to the Data Center that it does have, as you say, some effect on the more rapid expansion of the Data Center, be- cause the personnel comes from the Navy and if they put too many in there it will cramp something else ? ; Mr. Bavrr. I do feel, sir, that if this type of an imposition on the Navy billets was not there, that the data center could expand faster. However, I do not think that it is necessary nor do I think that it is wise for a data center of any sort or even a research program to expand too rapidly. It has to expand on a relatively well-planned basis. Mr. Cassy. Let us pin it down, Doctor. First, you said you felt we—I presume you were speaking about the Board—felt that it could expand more rapidly than it had. Also, you felt that the fact that the personnel were Navy billeted had some effect, and I presumed it was not a salutary effect or you would not said it had some effect on the expansion of the operation, so the setup could stand some improve- ment. Now, what it will take is something else ? Mr. Baver. Correct. Mr. Casry. And the fact that we are having these hearings is that so many of these functions do come from various agencies and you do not have the opportunity. In other words, for someone to come be- fore a congressional committee or appropriations committee and say the data center needs this and this, and you have appropriations specifically for the data center. Those are some of the things that we are exploring and want to get into here. Mr. Haworrs. Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt for a minute to go back to an earlier question about whether all the agencies were - contributing their data to the data center, and you mentioned the 22 agencies and bureaus and so on. Of course, the 9 members of the Board represent more than 9 of these 22, because they are in Commerce and Interior and so on. Mr. Cassy. I understand that, and I can readily understand, too, where most likely where you make a grant or the Navy makes a grant to a private institution or an educational institution, why, you require that all of their findings go into the center. Doctor, you mentioned the shortage of vessels, that you were trying to work on that. How do you get together and try to determine who is going to ask for vessels, research vessels, oceanography vessels. and so forth ? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 533 Mr. Haworrn. This is a rather complex process. In the first: place, each agency becomes aware of the needs for vessels, not only those agen- cies that have in-house operations such as the Navy, but also those agencies that are supporting research and surveys and so on outside the Government by grants and contracts; they become aware of the needs for vessels of various laboratories, organizations of one sort and another. In the case of the Foundation, for example, we get proposals from ‘Woods Hole or Scripps or wherever it might be, and those total needs are discussed in ICO and there is a rather concerted look at the whole thing; decisions are made about how many should be asked for. In the period beginning, I guess I would say—I am having to de- pend on what I have been told in this connection—beginning about 1960 there was, of course, a very sharp increase in funding for this sort of thing. The result was, in my opinion, that in terms of our total funds we have a little bit overshot on this, and that as I believe Secretary Morse pointed out to you, we had the embarrassment this past year of having im a sense more vessels than we could use most effectively. So the need ‘at the present time, as we increase funds, is in general, though not in every instance, to fund more completely the use of the vessels we have rather than to get more vessels. I do not, mean this as absolute, but as relatively. So that that ques- tion is for the moment sort of in abeyance. Incidentally the impact is not only in that we have new vessels, but it is also that we have a lot better vessels. The newer ones are far more effective than the older ones, so that the increase in capability in terms of vessels. and also shore facili- ties is very great, indeed, and this is just coming into fruition in the jast year or so. Mr. Casry. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Rogers? Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doctor, I am sorry I was somewhat late, but, I have read your statement quickly. Who actually has the responsibility in the National Science Founda- tion for your activities on oceanography ? Mr. Hawortu. Well, next to me, the responsibility for all our re- search hes in Dr. Randal Robertson, who is the Associate Director for Research. Reporting to him are various research divisions headed by directors. Dr. Carlson, for example, is the Director of the Division of Biology and Medicine. Our oceanographic activities are in two of those divisions, the Physi- eal Sciences Division and the Biological and Medical Division, and the organization for doing oceanography is different in the two divisions. In the Physical Sciences Division there is an Earth Sciences Section, headed by Dr. Benson, and within that is the Section on Oceanography, headed by Dr. Bader. This is the group that does all aspects of what I will call “physical oceanography.” I am using the term a little differently than Dr. Hollomon is—physical oceanography as distin- guished from biological oceanography. In the biological field there -are various aspects of interest of the biologists in the oceans. 534 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION One kind of interest is an interest in the biology of the ocean, biological life in the oceans, because it is in the oceans; and the other kind is an interest in which some kind of life that is in the ocean is used to study general biological principles and the fact that it is an aquatic is incidental. Let me give an example. This does not have really much to do with oceanography. Inthe study of nerve reactions with the ultimate interest in the human nervous system, the nerve system of the squid is used to study nerve interactions, because in that case the reactions are slow as compared to a human being and one can study them much better. This might be called a kind of marine biology. I am sure this is not included in the oceanography program, but it is an example of my second point; it just happens that the squid lives in the ocean. On the other hand, there is the kind of interest that is really an interest because of the ocean. Because of the two kinds it seems better in biology—according to the biologists, and I do not know enough about it to have a personal opinion—not to separate out the oceano- graphic side of biology as distinguished from what I will call marine biology of the second kind of interest, but to divide it into the various kinds of interests of biologists. So, it is a different organization Mr. Rocers. So the real emphasis then is not on oceanography on the biological side, you are telling me ? Mr. Haworru. It is not a focal interest the same way as it is on the physical side. Mr. Rogers. I understand. How is your budget divided as for support on the biological side and on the earth sciences side ? Mr. Haworru. Well, I can speak on the latter personally and I will let Dr. Carlson tell you about the former. Mr. Rocrrs. As far as oceanography Mr. Haworts. I understand. On the physical side, where it is identifiable as a package, as we form our budget, we actually do a two-stage process in a sense—the various sections and subsections of the Foundation, which includes the Physi- cal Oceanography Subsection, get up proposals for the upcoming budget. They have been going through that, for example, for the 1967 budget in the past few months. These are then assembled up the line and they are put together in the total earth sciences, and that is put together in the total physical sciences, and soon. But the identity is kept clear up to me. Well then, inevitably it turns out the totals add up to more money than is realistic. We then work back and forth and gradually ar- rive—by negotiation, if you will, that perhaps is too strong a word— but at a final budget in which the oceanography, the physical oceanog- raphy, keeps its identity. . On the other hand, as you can tell from my description of the ocean, it is not separately identified as a package on the biological side in quite the same sense, although we are also aware and are able, for example, to tell ICO at any stage what the situation looks like, and how we have reacted to what they think should be done, and so on, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 535 but what that process is inside the Biology Division, I think Dr. Carl- son could tell you better than I. Mr. Rocrrs. Thank you. Dr. Cartson. In the Biology Division, as the Director has stated, we do not have a specific area that is designated as biological ocean- ography, or marine biology. However, the primary source of sup- port for this area of science is in the environmental sciences and in systematic biology, with a smaller amount coming from regulatory biology, and from metabolic biology, and then we also have our facilities program separated rather than having it as an integral part, as they do in the physical biology, and there is a special line item for facilities in oceanography, both ship and shore facilities. ah Rocrrs. How many marine biologists do you have on your staff ¢ Dr. Cartson. Dr. John S. Rankin, Jr., Program Director, Environ- mental Biology, is the marine biologist in the Biological and Medical Sciences Division. However, the National Science Foundation uses a number—between 35 and 50—of consultants from colleges and uni- versities to provide scientific judgment on specific projects and pro- rams. Mr. Haworrn. I should say, and I failed to, Mr. Rogers, that the facilities should not, perhaps, be dignified as line items as they are discussed by Congress, although they are shown in our detailed budget as separate items for facilities, both ship and shore, in both the physical and the biological areas. Bie, Rocers. Now, what is your comparable budgets in the two areas ? Mr. Haworrn. I am afraid I could not say the breakdown. Our total budget, as I said, is about half and half. Incidentally, I should have also mentioned, of course, that the Antaractic program has a component of oceanography, and we arrive at that by a different method. There the totality of the Antarctic program is in one office in the Foundation. The head of that is parallel to Dr. Carlson, and there, because we have the total re- sponsibility for the whole Government for that program, we treat that as a unit and although it is very easy to separate the ocean- ography from the rest, because obviously one is on land and one is on sea, but the process is, of course, a little different there, but very easily identified. ue Rogers. This puts about $7 million to each activity, would you say ! le Haworrn. I would say there is probably about $7 million, roughly in the physical side in Dr. Bader’s shop, about that in Dr. Carlson’s shop, and perhaps three or so in the Antarctic program. The Indian Ocean Expedition, incidentally, although it was treated as a national program, was contributed to by both Dr. Bader and Dr. Carlson. Mr. Rocrrs. How many ships are you building this coming year? Mr. Haworrn. We are not starting any new ones this coming year. Mr. Rogzrs. Or any planes? Mr. Hawortu. Not this coming fiscal year. Mr. Rogers. What about the next fiscal year ? Mr. Haworrn. There are some that are building: 536 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Rocers. I understand that some have not been completed that have already been contracted for. But you have no plans for con- struction ? apes Haworrn. For this current year, I am speaking now of large ships. Mr. Rocrrs. I understand. Are you aware of the capability of the U.S.S.R. and the number of ships they use? Mr. Haworru. I do not know. I do not know whether any of the staff does or not. Mr. Caruson. I think Dr. Bader might have the answer to that. Mr. Bavrr. I do not know the number of the oceanographic fleet, but their oceanographic fleet is larger than ours, primarily because they do not necessarily distinguish between what 1s an oceanographic research vessel and what might be a fishing trawler. They do oceanographic work aboard their normal fishing trawlers. So I do not think that a comparison of actual numbers would be a realistic one, though their overall] fleet might be considered larger. Mr. Rogers. What would you say our fleet is? What would be the number of our oceanographic fleet, that you would classify as ocean- ographic ships? Mr. Baver. We have built since 1958, 39 major ships. Now, this does not include, of course, the ships that were already in existence prior to 1958—ships such as the Vema at Columbia. It does not in- clude some of the ships that were in operation before 1958 by the Government agencies. I could get you the number and total, but I do not have the total at the present time. Mr. Rocrrs. This might be helpful. (The information requested follows:) Inventory of research/survey vessels in the U.S. Oceanographic Fleet (National Oceanographic program only) U.S. NAVY SURVEY/RESEARCH SHIPS Name Age | Name Age ETRE A AT, Tes gi Ec aa A 1944 | Mizar (Agor—11)_______._--_-_-_ 1964 GIVER UTS yee a a a (pepe 1943 | Archerfish (submarine) ._________ 1943 SPAN OUjo/l Sea OCG Spgs cas LA pale il 1942" |\Gilligg hele 2 625 2p A eee 1963 Rehoboth. 293 lhc Lee e IOI DaViC7 24 2 Ni RRs Be a eae 1963 Ow diitGl 20s 2 ak wae Vea ae 1944 | Sands_._._..L____- aad se 1964, ESB Coo A ig as es (yNCh 2. 2k ea ee 1965 Michelson. 8 Seen 220 oS fe AOR. 222 2 ee ee ea 1967 LO Wie Ce erred Head 20s erase 1941 | Kellar _ io 2 Lt eee 1965 Sheldmakeico Sima m fir ees 28 Silas *Bentuns. eee 1965 SOLT Amos 04s Wcwreal ys toa Ne le Ee 1043 (A g9-27 2 on el oe eee 1966 littlehales) 2). ee ee 1945 |:2 Agor. 2. 2) | gs ne See se109 vog-doeq jo Wsyouseuos[eg FY a PilER oe 8 ae ee IOOT T UVIO 94} YSNOIyT, MOLT oF 74 ~-----£doosoiqoedg yystjeoedg-youvesoy SodO dIs0[o1pA TFT eee eee gs wee SIOIVAA [VINJVN Ul WIN, JO UOleUTUIIB10qd 0: —-_- iii BS IOONVY SULATC Aq SOIPNAY [eolso[oey oUTIV TAL (Al, § Me | PERE SST eae = setae ieee seipmyg uoAueD ouleUIqng ‘74 —“SJUSMITIPYS OIOZOUSH Ul BlIBjoIpey jo Apnyg olydeis1ye149 Vig ee eG ee a Se SPL PUB SEABAA SUO'T “S}UoUT}UOH et} UITM ¥ peredm0D 100,47 vag 94} JO eINjonNg pue Asojoydio/y “SuBv9dO OU} UITM 7/4 esueyoxy Si] pue osoydsom4y oy} Ul splxoiq uUoqiep Bsuhacjesadhatsion § ZL pus sopsIyoeA selq Bog-deeq sAIsusdx9uUy jo JUeUIdOTOANC: Pie gt Ale a SUOTINIOS Jo AJIATONpUOH UO siMsserg Jo 09 Fa. ls |r ey: Aystueyoo0ey puv Aydeisouesd¢O 01doj0sT "B89 OY} Ul SCAG AA ZI jeulejuy polled suoT jo uoesedoig pues uUoljeI0UEy) $e “MOTH ISOdUIOD 107e8M WR8dO UO S[BIOUTP 99BOTIG Jo SOOM (| ee ad ap rs sek ee pee DUOIY AY 9} Jo J10ddng (syjmoun) TON BITL ohL eee aa ag gee a a ae fA ‘Arve Retneeie Rieke.) oe ens HO ‘Aon Bassa oe ae @ ‘TOTAL SO ‘Aajyuey et ese Tomes ere TT *£ ‘[OZ10 AA a te TT “£ “[OZI0M\ pecaray Tq ‘toqantyy, {9 “MA ‘Iexo001g ~-----~------------------ qq ‘uosoliay saRSTSo @ “IA ‘sqoovr Sg “AA ‘1oyooo1g SoSsuson ‘L ‘tyseyeyey {So “iM ‘10x00 sescmossemne V SAQUTO "HM V “OD See ee See ee Tae ee ae ‘A ‘iotIndoe A Fic ie a ek pin cage aces a aed Wf ‘1eTA, Ee eas ES ERE ER Ee WH ‘ssong eo eae eee a OP EEE ES N ‘uf ‘ssordg Seen oe ST ee d ‘Wf ‘paedeyg Se ere eon YW “AA ‘Oporey a Eee eee RTE LL HM ONT Brat gs te aig arora aa a M “EH ‘preuey Bee ae seas a SUL[OO IOJVESISOAT [VdIOUlAg Eee ac ly ara ah ie Soe Gan eae CISION) JO AJISIOATT A) AYVISIOAIU LY) ONNC (nvOINgG 19y}C9 AA) 9d1OTIMIOD Jo J UetM4Iedocq APSIOATU) 34219 Opv10joD === =5-5===-=-- ---- (0801) WRG) BITIONITeO Jo ApIsi9ATU Sas OUT ‘YoIosoYy IOJ UOTWVIG [volso[org wpnusogd oo == 555 = 52555 === 5-2-5 - === BYSeLY JO AVISIOATIL) WOIyN}T4SUT fhydv.sbounavo fo syoadsp norshyd up younasay NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 044 008 “22 000 ‘e1r 000 ‘002 008 ‘2 00€ ‘0s 009 ‘ez 007 ‘SF 006 ‘2s 000 ‘002 009 ‘9% 00F ‘68 OOL ‘221 OT ‘ez 008 ‘TZ 000 ‘09T 009 ‘02 002 ‘98 00T ‘6T 008 ‘6g OOT ‘se OOL ‘OT 00S ‘Te 009 ‘cg 002 ‘68 000 ‘OF 008 ‘er 002 ‘2g 00T ‘zg 000 ‘06 008 ‘Zr 009 ‘89 00¢ ‘eg 000 ‘09¢ qunoULy “BUBISINOT YING Jo joys [ejueU c74 -ju0D JeuUy ‘AZ0[00q [eIOJTUyUIEIO Pue AdojoyuoUMITpEg | WY ‘proyyuey j---- 7 “4ueI1IMoIejUNOD deeq Aispunog ¥ 1104804 OU PUB UIBEI}S JIN OU} Ul SJUSMMOINSBOTY YUOIIND |~~- = a ee ET re) amas eae Gg = a | ere Be es el SS quapisy, AW Jo Joddng [eyqeg | V ¢ ssneuyt | “AQTUICA ITU SeeIpuYy UES rat pesiemiqns 904} UL ZUNINe, pus BOWe}yMEUMTpOg JUSDOY | foe) ‘19 A408 ees 7. _—_—« che eeSE Dare 1918M 299 JO Soljtodolg [eorMleyO-[BoIsAy |---- “yd ‘TA0M [777777 Clee ee ates a JOYS [8}USU}UOH 94 UO SJUSTIND [VPLL PUB TeWUOIA | 9) “f formed Ses G16 “s[zronyyT ABO Aq 109e@M BOS MOAT AMUI[eHTY JO [eAOUIOY | Vo seeped Ree Alem Se sess as se IOO[ A WV900 OT} 3B CINJONI}SOIOYA CINJeIOAUIET, |-- ~~~ Ieoesey| ‘WOssieApog ‘B1eg |-~~--~ Ql — a ant Sse est Be oSee soIpnig dydeisoMuved@ WOSEIQ |-~—- 7 ODesat 5: ee ne Seg |e ae aay tee Se oe -asuevyoxm ASIOUG VOG-ILY Ul YoIeosay | ODF |s5 = Ot. — = ||Sesapiie sere Ape rssae5 SaIpnyg oJydeisomeedO WOSeIQ |~-~--- AM “4a0q@ [777777 16 ---MONe[NoNIO s[eog-[[2Us UO spe Alepunog vog-pueyT | -- TOTAL |= 16s So5 al) De TeGIne2 36 UVSIQOPL OYeT Ul WOye[NOND UeATIG-PUIM | pleyuoitg | iG Se | eae ee Arepunog 8eg IV ou} 18 JaysuvI], UINYMOUIO, ~~ UCMILSY |777 777 - ‘sjuneyD Jueoelpy pue BplioL iz4 JO S1T8199 94} UI Q10dsue1], JO JuUeMIOMSeETy JOTI OL | AM ‘wospreqorny |-----~ HNL aL TeINVN UIIM SOIpNyg yeorsojompAH] pues otqdeidomvedg | ~~ 4 ‘punyso |----—~ Wes ASS Tee eee moskg Buyyo[g odey, oeuseyy 10} Aye | Opaaiasl= eee te enn S10]BM UPEqqiieD Ul WoqreooOIpey pus wINIpey | --- a‘ W ‘Az00y 7-777 “‘syrens ol Spo], pue semmVye_ oy} JO Soypmyg WOMOeMey OlmIsleg | fy ‘Aopmy |-- Ra Bolas oars tesatssreae DAE SOTPNIY Joowy [eIOD VPWoO,A jo ¢ ‘1e4sleuyoH | --—~ 9¢ ---"svoly Jucoelpy pue uveqqueD ou} Ul AsO[OOH OUTIVIAL | 9 ‘taentorg |----—~ OC) = | Ssees Getarsrct Viae SReIOT SUOOBVT [BISVOD Ul SQ]PNYG | - d‘® ‘seeg 777777 Ae ee Se args DE = oT SoIsSAyd OJUvedg Ul YoIBosey |--~- 7-7 W ‘8 ‘ewu1079 | - i264 -“MIONe[d SpNuIeg 94} JO WOJHUeTT OY} JO ATsyUIOMOOIH) [~~ Opesees | ‘S}UOMIUONAUT SULIe], OJVUOgIeD-uON pus oJeuoqieD ¥ Ul UOYEUSMIpSS o7BU0gGIeD Jo WoslIeduMIOD [eoTMIEyDOa_) |~~- Wy ‘eAeqgO | “m1e000, G74 age ey} jo sjuomemsvayyE wn[Npued jo wosteduiog | ~~ ODegesa|koa se ‘SpUB|S] YOICVUISIG PU UOMIOTOS ou} 174 4noqe seeg ey} Jo AjourAU}eg pure ‘sojoudey “APIACI) | O Digan |e Clee Se See ee ec a quomdinby prvoqdiyg |~- Opis = ral ““"JOSseA YOIvesey o1dvisouveGO jo yoddng jeuoneredO |~~~ ODeesz |= — = Ce. Sa RS ee oes ees | wmeis01g o1ydeisouved@ Jo Jloddng |--~ d ‘“) ‘PIeT[OOM |77 PG... 222) | Siags Uvdd0O IBV 04} Ul SeAeM odBJIng AoUeNDeIA-MOT | M ‘XD ‘SOA0TH [7777 ‘ueder ‘nysuoy [e1}U0y ISeq ‘SUoATBD ¥G SULIVUIQNY Ul UOTNGISIC JUeIIND u10;}j0g PUB IUeMMIpPsg |~--— ML ‘WMiepequieyD |---- 7 $C —- — ||P eSraae SS TS TE FaART SOMMBUAC OJUBEDO Ul YoIvesey |----- yy ‘uosuIqoy |--- (syyumou) uoneing onhL 107e3I4SOAUI [edIould a ik pee eee = RE ee oe od Bees Sats ee oy eee eee od OF ee ieee eee IMICLI, JO AVISIOATA ODOT OP VUIOMOINY [VMOMVNy PepisIeaAluy mee AZopOuNIe,, JO 9}NjSUT sjjesmyoBsseyAy a a eget ar ag ee od Sages = Se ae ae inh aae ey eee AjsIoAITQ YSyO'T Sa a eae oe ee II@MeY Jo APISIOATU() Sei eae a ee meee = pee AjISIOAIU) PIeAIVAL Or} N}ysSUy ponurnu0g—fydvubounas0 fo soadsp yooishyd ur yolvasagy 545 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 000 ‘ST Pe SSS ST Star paces OSB[BIVO JO WOIOUNT [BOISO[OISAY |-~~------ >> 75 a ‘usmoddy Fees Fo Rae pee Oe ae Ee a a od 00z ‘83 ral ~~~ -sumisluesiQ veg-deeq jo Aljsiumeyoorg pus ASoOjOISAYg |-~------------7->----- "STAT “MOpl04) Be Se CREF ne a ee a od OOL ‘er Tor oalSnv eens SI}SADOIOVTA, ATOM JWI OY} UT WOTVBIOTSMRAT, |---- 7-7 - >> >> oo 0 'a ‘Oye ae ae Hone (So[OsY SOT) CIUAIOJITBOH JO ATISIOATULE, 002 ‘IT ¥% ~--—"-“9PPSNAT PO}VlIZG 9} BIqoJIOAUT JO sorytodoig [woIsAy_ |----~------ 77> > 7 >> >= == Pe RSES Rw 96; (SES 1G eerie ES (SIABC) PIULOJITBH JO AjISIOATU *YSly Wouvsiqoumsepy 006 ‘ze 9g pues ysoajey, Ul Weyshg [BNSTA 94} JO WOlWezIUeSIQ OU, |----~~ O ‘Hi ‘aueulssemyog {7 ‘ros IY Fe SS SS eS og OOF ‘8s ST ~--—"= = -s1souesOAIQUEY Ul SISOYJUAY Ul9}O1g JO UOIyeINSey |-----~------~--------- === == Ee TWANG Ba area a sao = (Aopoxlog) eIUIOJITBH JO APISIOAIT. EA. *(SeYSY JO OATSNJOXe) WeMBTT Jo vunew, 009 ‘IT ral 81OYS PU JooY poslacdy BJO UOeIedolg pu IO} YOIeOSOY |~~~~-- nnn nnn SIQUIUG Cle |osieng = toe Se gee ears ulnesny, doystg *q “gq *S}SO9[o] PUB SUBIQIYdUIY UI SUD, OY4 JO WOTeIQUS 008 ‘LE #Z -JoyIpP PUB VONONPU! UT plow olepoNnuUOq IY jo SoIpmyg OIL, |- ~~~ 77-77 Wee ‘rourjoyueddo [ear SSS EE eso[0D AMBIT UAIG 00z ‘201 08 Je" SRS eehees Ss WIST[OgVy, oyVIpAYOqIVH JO SABMYYE [~~ nnn WAC SAGMO) |\F- = = - -——— raegs gs ee AYIsIOATUL) ee een 089 ‘6T ie > ||| capitate SOUSA JSOe[a,T, Ul ssadoIg poYe[nsey oulIoopuM |--~~~~-------------- d ‘W PWBUICLONUO Silicon ise 2 Seer aces Sa ae eer eae 00z “2 js | cao SUNY oUlIVy, VATIIUNLIG Jo Aso[ooW eyuouIedXy |----~--------- WW Adseg sGSUeIsplOm iE: ee as9[[0D Steere OST‘ a — hon USI Ul suIstuByoey, SUIONpoIg-punog Jo AsojoyudIopy |~-~ rn AGUNINO ME aaa ce aa esc ee AJISIOATU) W0JSOg 00F ‘se (¢ U Seirratan | ee cecymcle aae Bag OSSedIBG OY} JO SeIPN}g [eolsojolg pepuedxg |--~~~~~-~-~----- EAA O Ty OS ie) | ea oe So = nm a Se eee od “sdtysuolyelor OOF ‘ez 9g -I9JUT JUST PIg-WIsIUeSIO UO UIBIZOIg YOIBESeY JOUIUIMG |~~~~~> 7mm Sonera |P- Sea u0lye19 [BoIsojOlg BpnuLieg *seuo 002 ‘FL $2 -“WeUY Ul IOIABYIG peuie}jeg JO SoyelelloD [eolsojoamaNy |~~ ~~~ >>> . deSlosotds |b... a a ee BUOZIIY JO AjsIOATUE 000 ‘T9 Ue Se Ss ean Saas BIOIUIWICIO YT OUOJYUVT JO ABojOIg |~~~~~~~~ >>> 77 Gd ‘H ‘(eujuepnerg |----~---------- AIOISI{ [RINJeN JO WMosnyy Weoteury 00F ‘zo$ 5 ne | a oy 89g 94 Ul BOAO UdSOIJIN 94} JO SolueUAG |~~~~~~-~~ CY “OSD ane sl: sR VSUNOO) Po > onan nnccee exHSeLV JO A}ISIOATUL.) (syyuout) gunouy | uoljeimad aL.L IOJVESISOAUL [edIOUlIg WO19N4I}SUT fBo07019 aurwow pun fiydnubounas0 1091601019 ur youpasart QUGRG2Ri yale ce: 5 |S oma ean Wemopied aie canrieiate ge Starr ts tien pacar [foo Sons cary vee nea Des? Cm eS EER | Poca SERS ee UBS e See anES eee Tae 1210.1 000 ‘OF ks || SSS SUB9IO [VOY 9} Ul Sophy, JO WOTIeUTUTIOJOd:, TTT a Ee Viet) © (>: 2) Kgl | a DUBIN JO 94NIYSUT UUCUIZIOM 006 ‘16 Ue 6 OW as Ese a Setar aa WOTJOVIOJUT BOQ-IVY ora SUG ee ee ae, od ‘orueiyy YON 008 ‘Iz 9 oy} Ul suliIq desq 0} pozejey soipmyg jeoisAydoey |---~77-- 77-7 t TT monn q@ ‘f¢ ‘Aesropxy [7-7 UOTNIYSUT OIydvisouvIddgO V[OH SPOOM 000 ‘ST “a. - .°. | oa Use g d1J01V 9} JO MOIeSISOAUT AYIARID) |~~77 77 aVieg Nik OSULOTS (a | | incee Sosa a Cane cas ce UISMODSIAA JO ATISIOATU A), “IaAV'T VdejJING d1eydsoumyy 943 Jo Apnyg 94 09 00S ‘9T ¥ uorjeolddy sijy pue A1jomoueuy ofu0g Jo yuetIdOTeAeq |~-~~~~~-~~--7-- 777-77 >> Vi ifs JOSUISIG? [poo qiar sas ae oe oe ee a a ee ee ee eee od 00F ‘Le 6 we ee SJMOMIPYG IOAIY VIQUIN[OD JO UOT}ISOduIOD [BIOTA |~~ 7777 AL RLS OTIOUIAAG | Gas ree ca ee eae aaeaame ep etiears aoe Sam o”d 008 ‘29 Ch | RRR Sess Sac SormVuApoOIpAH ouliey] Ul SOIpMyg |~~- rm INE ACIP OR [FO oa “OUIOeT JSBVoyyION ou} 000 ‘ST ras Uy SJONpPOIg UWOY810}[V ISU, pue soluvojOA ouTIeUIgng |~~~~~~7-7- 7-777 TT TTT RT otek: STUD TURBINE | pono nen apa ean SE ESS Sees esa seeee aI od *sBog 002 ‘6 iA sulleg PU TYOYNYO ey} jo eIOJIUyUIeIO,, pPue s}ueUTIpeg |-------- V ‘Co ‘snus ‘9 “¢ ‘teBe0TD [ore 10}ZUIYSBM JO APISIOAIT “SOUT FT 000 ‘ZF ZI JPsseA YoIvesay oy} JO suoviedg jo yaoddng [eyqeg |~-~~-- 77m Wt Cf femeryood [00 nn APSIOATU “WW 2 “Y SexeT, NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 046 006 ‘se 007 6 008 ‘Fz 008 ‘21 000 ‘OF 000 ‘92 008 ‘61 000 ‘oz 000 ‘8T 007 ZE 002 ‘ee 008 ‘Ze 008 ‘92 009 ‘768 008 ‘92 008 ‘82 000 “OTT 009 ‘86 000 ‘62 008 ‘EF 006 ‘IT$ unouLy (syjuou) HOnemq *‘SuLiop “INP TEL JO uoMNoAM pue AMMoUOXey, JO JUOTUISSESsvOy ‘euneyoAy {yoy ueluetuene g Ul SUISIUBYOO] SUIZeLOS]T sATJONpoIdsy *SO1I07 -e10qe'y Yorvesey 4svoH jiny oj Je Yorvosey sIsUIUINYG ‘sisoues0AIqULY JUL JO ArjstmMeyoorg [ej UeUL -dojeAeqd pue suoTjOveyY JUSDSOUTUIN[OIG JO WstueyDOT, oon ona 2 = 522 552 25 = === === == =~ mOyyULT I JO Wislpoqeqeyy TRRSTURAE SdTSOSOUTUUIN OT Jo AsojoulAzu pus ArjstuMeyO ee oro SOUS JO 1OTABYE” sutpooyog “sIsoydi10ur -B1OJ. UIGIYdMYy Ul suoTMIO_, ploIAy, 949 Jo 907 APIATOV [CIGQIOOTAL uO UoOtoedm0H pues sisouNsvIq] JUEUIIPeg Jo sJoeyA TSGRR Sloe escent soide Nn jo Aeg 9} JO SpoovsysO eu,L, “89084 -SnhiO 9ulIenisy Jo sodAjoom Jo uOMN[OAyY pues Asolooy aco) aychaquley Np 934000 0} SjuenjIysu0D YyduIAjomMA_ Jo wOMNQIIWW0D ‘Iddyigg 801d VUl10jj17 Ut WOLeM10 4 Tous pue gueurdojoaed [eA] uo sjooy [Ve USMUOITAUA “AydeisouvedO [Bolso[org, Ul WIRISOIg SULUICL], YoIvesey Pus YoIvosey oATZeINd00H *suvooeIsnIC, IMUIVI\L UlS}10D Ul UOT}VOIUNTMAUIOD [eoT]snody pus [enstA Bese tae ee See Fa $0} [[oseHOurd JO so1ywureysAg “OU [ROTSOTOOH YSNoIyL sje [eulay Jo ueju0p WNC euL as eee HOTOUNn,T UIGO[soAT pu JIOdSuRIy, WAaSAXO ae SUISIUBSIO-O1DTIP SULIVT, JO AULOUOX®, J, [eoTIETAN Ny ON te Se Sateen oe a eg ogi aT eben SOUS Vos psy WO SeIpnyg RIGGS Ee IE SOUSIA UBOTY OJON JO sojisereg pool_ ‘spodoimj1y I9qIO PUB SUBIdIEISNIO JO UIeISAG SNOAION oY} WO SeIpNaS So abn ee eee er RE eS SOIPN}S AITIGIsvoT Oey AA paper Saee en 77> UlVYO poog oulzey, OY WI S10} yULl[do07 peer ~ Uo, yUR[adooZ dyloed JO Asopolg puv WOLNGLysIqG *‘soIpnyg 10AeT SUTIN}] VIG IOF SJMOUINIYSUT OI YdVisouvedO JO JUeULdO;eAeq ~ (ONY SUIATG, NVISNOD oY} SUIZITITM SeIpnyg [vorso;org Beanie Bie RES Sne “YOIVIS9Y VULVA, OJ 1o}1VYO [essoA Beers iE; SOPUNUIMIOD [Vs[y ole, TepHqng Jo serpnyg eThL Peete eee eee T= Sa MS Oe Eire ICAI eee ep anaemia meter mrs eee sO (i! eee ES FESS ARS TE J BOUL mmm nna a == Ka SIOAI) PABAIGH ne ee we eee ER EE M ‘440QQY |--~77>->------"====== joyelogey yorwesey 4SvoO JINH SATIS 9-7 ‘omg + SIPS TINE s LO RUT 6) iS Sanna S Aaa re mese sae OG ene HG Eee PASE) OOH ELD (Oy Dees (9 4 Lato LUT 2 || ae ea SAY sete nae ee ee ee ee WN “AOTUNIOQ, 000900 =— = = BT BIONH JO APISIOATA, Re Oe ERE TE SE. UM ‘Uyor |------ >>> - "=== -===-9801 [00 Teusiey pue ues Repeal ne ee i SUB POldp Sanaa nates Saree = ae nS Sagess So SSeS OCp age Sa Se Hi ‘Od ‘Temmeyued dQ |> 7959555799 = === = KAISIOATU 01819 BpIIOLA Se EER ee oe ee ah ee PIN [0000 == KOAING [BOISOTOOH) VPIIOL AT SE ee op a ea GM SYOWUVG ATI GE [rarer san masa=a-=-"KasaAtuy) AIOULA mess sapere ea ae Se (9 YASUI (0) 5 1 eee ee eeordi RS Epa SE aS ee Ge CUM O [SO Oil estas siesta score See earns ae eae aas 0 (Gi SSSR ESS “SSSR esas Fs LU ‘SOIZUOTAL [rrr nnn mmm === = Kas gAtuy) yn SS Se eer WN ‘WOU[Rg [5999 m mmm === KATSIOAIT) [Ned 9 FS ST amar tanly ie: Te JISCTT A PLOMCAN Nao soe ae oo oe 12 co oS SRE EERIE Sess ce OGL eee oe eee Wii OUP IB OOUN al | m= nema are enw rey oe cee ar ae ee aay vies q ‘s10qu0zIIT A ‘¢ “B10 09741 A Sera G PEO LG 2) <> Ee ee aT ee peer O Oli umeeage 3 be Ges Fn 101SUd -JoplouxIN 55 ttd eR Re Deena eae A SIOATIR RB CLG LILO) Pee aN ee Mei SBIO | FAIS loi 7 7 SeRaskies ae me Se OL Gai ae Oe ei OTH SIOPUMNVG |~~-7> 777 - >= === --="====-- Kio VIOgV'y] SULIVI, 9ZBT VdeVO erp eee eae SAO) “BUISIOL AA ¢ | SSeres ere ore es ABoTouyIeT, JO o3N41}SUT ee apete nes neose rene le! BEY OWE ORIG | BESS aE Seo Ga a eee ee od Rae Sa) TUBMON OIA, Hr nUOUUIdG) Wooos= =" sa aS sono ooo aaa ao ono ae ears LOGE SS ee aes of” Boi | li Ginn WO WO. Gia = Ss sas aa eo ee ea ee OE Be ng ag eS eae aa sqqnH +1088] |~-------------"--" (OST UBY) PIUIOJI[VH JO AjyIsToATU pune eie ec pray ~ bee os GiygOdUeAe Gf «| Sa 2 =e a a ao reo Seas a Ol Bea eran oe a ee a ke ee W ‘[nysnen |---------—— (e1eqieg ejUeg) SIUAIOJITeO JO AJISIOAIT IOJVSISOATI [edoulIg TOM NjYSUy penultyju0g—f6oj02q auunm pun iydvsbouvaes0 109160)019 us Yyounasayy 547 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 006 ‘E6 000 ‘881 OOF ‘ST 00s ‘og oor ‘g OOF ‘ST 0&4 ‘c0z 000 ‘9¢ 006 ‘62 00S ‘sz 002 ‘92 006 ‘¢ 006 ‘cz 000 ‘0z 003 ‘68 *So]BIQOJIOAUT OULIB TAT uy AsoposAy ojourey pues stusjuByooyY UoMezTy10q |------------ ere eee GC OMAON Wem ee eee eee pachiti “"od “OT}BZ “TII}19,7 JB TINA C Of} JO SIOJRATIOW sv somAZug o1yA[oo}o1gq |--~------ ays ran eeETs (so ‘SAOCUeY GPs eaten sareass ease Seager ees od "Sosa, UTPOIQ Beg Jo JUeUIdOTOA -9q SUIMC sulsjoIg puv setmlosoqimA[Og JO WOIeUIO |~--~-~ 777mm mar n nm TAGS ST COSMOS pa ee ee oe meee “070 PE Seaeeee Sy GOSHossAp OOM IPOAxTMUMMOMeOIOM IRR |\Ga oases so NG LSIOAOIAG |= > - > cs caries nae teaaa aca co REAP Re tie OGL ; Mapa SRTIOTL Jooy [B10D Bplo[y B jo vunejoAyy OT eS il ce RITA (SSNS agai ae aaa teeta S saa OTC “soysly proydorsy jo AqryeqIoyy pue wotpoNpoidoy ‘yYMOTH |---- 7-77 - tan al “al “BATAS C) Op! | alain ata alti rena i iGo at Sot od Baro ae Yoreasey [VOISO[OI_ 1Oy sjsoH suryerodg dig |-------- 7-7-7 -- 7-H M O “q4rans Fe rar gan ones fia metae- 270 Gl Rai ase s ASOTOLG OTOH AOU ITEINRUL SHTO|QOE NUP GeSONe |paassee=sSa>S SS — sooo o Sai OON\ bs oo nce > oon eo o cee non oo on oon paar aaa Pio Tanga eana a Me ESKENB ES) CET WO4L ISSIAO GTS | | OLS) GN i/o SOU CSA CHAD | et ATS EI VCC) OL ce ae eae alent ety “aBploeeD dULTIYV TION 10380 Jo AyYdvis008007 pue soeureyshg |--- ~~~ orn ne COS) Nes | Sai iia ln Turenl JO AqIsIOATUA F Euan EM? Tes €@ IMAEag eS OTOIV 9} JO OBS VY OULIBIA, OLYQUAG, |W nns gat Pama == can en goRsseyl JO AJISIOATU A) *SI1I9D 10N4O pues suey ‘uIAg JO WOIeIVUSIOHIG 94} UO SeIPNyg Te[Moo[OP] PUB TPMT[OD po nnn nee MMOGs |eise ~ ASofOUOAT, JO o9NjWYWsSUT s}JosntpoesseyPAL Eaatigast ao Saesbathaes ~ i SUOXY J0}SQOT JO UOISNjIOg [BUIOJUT |-~------- == —_| “Lf “AJWG FP “AN “WR UNOPY porns nnn nasa sod ‘uolsey Avg eyvodvseyD oY} JO Soysty oyg JO sumo pure ‘ovarey ‘sasqy |--- 77a ttre TIOTISURIAR Rt -8 Reem padg aecianiaigieets CoS b erty o”d “DIUIBLLA DILISOSSDLD JO SuORINdog o114ed -O][y SuouUry sploy ouluy oerlg Jo Apnyg eAyeredurog |----------- ean ee Gee USL LED |5==-=-———— iptables are RS o”d PG Esce Sake; pe eS te ISU SUITES pure SUL SHOeTL Fo cht kk REM RG Gap ek pee ULOSMONR GE aoa T= tare Soma cso en == Sane AIO TA OMA TISIO AMUN “$uvIOg OULIvIN puB ASO[OOZ 94819} IOAUT Ul SUeIsOIg Jo JIOddNg |--~-- ~~ 77-7 - =o === Seal ODGee a Wei c oe ee ae od SET S=O5 S[PMO}VIT YOIVEsaY SUIYOOT[OD Oy wo Jo UoTywIBdQ |~~————— mom mH | “g ‘BuOISUITW |--~-- ~~" ~~ --~=--------- = - AIOPRIOYV'T [BoISoTorg ouTIeN *ID]DS OULJDG POYyoo[pue'yT PIM pues porvey-Areyoyey, JO JOIABYS_ SAeIeMMMOD |--~--~~-7-- 7777-7 - 7 ARTES We 108 (OAT |S a a a ean eal (Yat Say eimai Li css SOUSA WAOSdny@ WOON FOPAUMOUOXBIONAD) |sa tata a ec can ones eSQMOQ OM |r soc ccaccaccseaaaea aaa e eae aa TT ROULGTN JO AIISAOATIN()) rete Sole, YIVYS Wepoy pojoofeg Jo sdiysuomvfeiieyuy |~~-- 7 ~~ - 7-7-7 ~~~ = --ggesetddy |-------------------------umasny, AyunoD sojesuy so'T Ra ae. eylIMy Vyeiny Ul DONeyUoIegIq, pus YYMOIH) |-~~------ "= g “gg SBIeqUEBUBAG [~~~ ~~~ 799A Wn H nom AVISIOATU, YOOY 99IVT “BOZOSOTN PIQOOUOTIIO ey} JO UOI}ISOg o1emMeIshg pus AwOUOKXE], ‘ASO[OYdIOJ, |-~~~ 777-7777 GOZO || ese a ee =--=-=-9399]1/00 YAV[O puw SIMOT picichan aia a eaice = ais EARLS moj, yUv[doo7Z dues JO SoIMIVUAC, | 7 777770 A SOIPIOYNG. [o> nnnmmm KasOATa) YSIyeT ‘soured -OUISe[W JO SUBSIO PATIONPOIdeyy oly JO SoIpnyg TeuoTOUN, |-~~~--- 777TH A Hn (CTP eBOWRING | Caso = == cco ao a0 on nemo soe ans AWSIOATU() 9OUOIMBT Bra sn a sesodimd [ej UIMIIedxq IO] PINDY JO WOTDOTJOD |~—- 77mm a Ropu, [7777-7 Ky saATU suLyYdoy suyor ‘OAICUIA WROSNTLOWT 99 JO JUemIdoeANd 94} WO xXe,I0D Ssy oY} Jo SoouonpuUy |----~--7~- 7-7 W ‘f ‘ploury |------7- ptodiniaeisipiotaai tai ite TE AQISIOATU) 93019 BAOT ero eae sere sess SHIeOIM TESTO @) OAdSO eOL LO ALC LUG | penne s eaees aaa e Loom MTOOM lta me ms mm ms oo a a mie ie i aa) (aT “HOMBSUPLT, pUe UOJAIOsUvL], 0149TEH 0} SIseuesoYd1oy, JO WOTYVTOY |~-----7 77777 = >> 77> beh Tr SUB UNOS OL ||F-— 26 ==" 8 =a sas9s =" See ene ean sea aS SIOUNIT JO AZISTOATU A), “SULIIMNUAOLOF] po}09Teg JO qny) oyy Aq soyeripAyoqseD Jo woMdsosqy pue Wosestq |~~~~--~--------~---=--- Ty ‘outer jo 7-6 noma Hn SRB SRSS Taree. WoJsnoy jo AzIs19ATay) “Ba0BISNID) OULICIAL JO IOTAvYyeg OY} BUTATIOEPUQ SUUISTUBYDOTT [BVOIsO[OISAY A |~-~~77 777777 Toto iSptg re Seis 8 te | SSC tee aor ena eis a ae SIH GY Ties 30 oy gh SP ETCI SIVA O CUFT SH OTOMOT WMO), |lisabs caubE= Gceatoes Col ae Le OUUe Wrote eee a ae ae 80 GL By rs a SIOJEM UWENBMCH Ul SoUsTT JO SOI OU leh I vsa cscs snes ae ae Se OIGMGNU |e ee no oe aeons Se EO Ol pag ape Se cy nae = weap Eberedas Fees: Se SISED KJOGSCUISIOTAROU, lms sueee sane GRE SEEEaLEmnl ntl i AOUUOGD \[S-s>5-=>— 55> ---- =e Me JO ATISZOATU (|), “‘IpieyuLoy seuomopAmelyo jo supeIg JUIN YIM yrodsuBsy, VOI OITT oyJoyJUASOJOY |-~~-~-~-~ ~~~ === === Sa meee Hinear |isese Sees SESAass poannnsan or crccergrrcr eT “0d NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 548 0CO ‘GF 00F 81 009 ‘F 001 “6r 00€ ‘TI 00T ‘26 00F Zé 006 ‘Z&E 008 ‘8z 00T ‘9T OOT € 000 ‘SF 000 ‘ST 00T ‘9 006 TI 000 “9T 009 ‘LT 00g ‘91 oor “62 002 ‘99 00L “$5 082 ‘¢9 000 ‘ST 000 ‘82 O0T ‘FT OOF ‘Tg 008 ‘eI 000 ‘Ze O0F ‘er 008 ‘sz 000 ‘ST$ qunoULy (syyu0t) wone1g pears Son ae SCUNeY 1OJVMPII, 049 JO Aso[OoOW IAeIVdULOD eine eae sern Ss xem Yoieesey [COISO[Org 10} suolyvIedO drys U0TAIH W1el, INO PUS SPURS] VAIPTVPAL ou} JO S[vI0OD SULP[INng-jooy sUlyIqeyUy, suBsORjsnID podojyeuojg pue podvoeq 1YyIO pur sqeIQ prlyjUeK pigescees SS ~oygloed 1S9M-OPUT 944 JO SGBID PIUR][VO1I0g *slie[nsnl SIjeusejS vaveUUIAT TIeUug 94) Ul WISIOGeIeD Wes0IIN Shien eal eee TE EAT oe ~ "Soysly PlOJVIULOJg JO SoIyBUTEySAG ‘spodiydury uveplieur “UB d1}0IBIWY-qng pus o1401Bj0y ou} JO SoljeuTDISAS "Sind tu Waste VaR = Gils ane > BUl[VS BIULEI1W JO Sor{ouey), a oor ar ss SOYSIY JO Sojisvivd poem], o1jeuesomoy\y ‘moz,uPldoysAY Ul dSURYO [BUINIG SUIT[OIWOD sIOJOeT [eIUOWMOMAUT Poe en nnetee So ar Arenisq Ue Ul spOAD Wes0I}IN ATIBO A Sea E PRG ass or] SUISIUBSIO dTIZeuUIUASOJOY Jo AsojoisAy pete To sas $91V1G.0}19AU] Ul WOYVXIY SpIxolq UogIeD Paty wupecelgars So Gini Sa p> a Asolooy Jue oyu, Saeie IPSN] PIG o7v1qoj19AUYT Jo Seljiedoig jeorsséAy TeGscemie eet BIoudy) pejyeloy Ajeso[O pues eluoydissjog “snevued snuexy ‘sduiligg pleweued URolleuly 949 Jo ydeis0u0;W VY “seuep SoooUl[[eO ‘qeIM euy9 JO opsny, ay Ul Wa3shG aseTAIoydsoyd Weso0dA[H) 9} Jo Selg1cdo1g “SUISIURSIOQ JULIVI\ Ul SOLIqRA UIMOIDH [VJoTOHS ory yA y ‘SIIOO Ul SUTOISAG TOTAL [eu19jUT Jo A[qumessy pue sinjgona14g ‘ATIOZVUY IeMOS[OTL Mee Boies SSA Ginnie Stk 16 Y HOMOUN YY IeTOspPONIN, “suvedeISNIO Ul IOI 0} WOMLLOY Ul UISIoqBIoy, JO [OMUCH oUTINOpucOINON "S108 AA jeqjseoD + ouUeyyy jo svooeplioydougstjoo00g jo Asojooy TF SRSA BF des[y WselhH) snoeiwo[eD JO AULOUOXe,], “UST ploluuclg Jo setocds oesu,y, Jo Aydeis0es007 pus AZsojooq ‘SOIpUyT 4SoM ‘voleuIEL Ul edoO[g 109NO 93yy UO BUTZOeIE[OY DIdAWeULIOF Jo AsoToo ~-ejeydsooyjueoVy ug Jo Aulouoxey, pues AZo[oydioyy OU,L, (ier ee eee Soyerqe,IaAUy WOI Spunoduroy pro010939 ASE SG ESPs “jqueudinby yorvesey poziyeroedg ‘Oes[TV eUulIe, [eordory, UO SeIpnyg oswOLy pue dTMoU0xXe,, es ak ORES SYSNT[OW OJ sSpoyjeyy 91Ng[NH oenssiy, pus [Teo ehL Saeko ee NG gOS UNG Rls = Segre set soe ae gS ates a Sa Sees MOGI ei a5 ea Sage nea wae Wh SSHOQMBIGG@: | SS=SIS5S5 5525552 sS5s rss ise aes te POE Sitgld nbs eee eet: aey WAGBS ‘laa son sa ccaesc asa sceasscoc so ees Sol od eT alae SEES ERT oe SIV UWIVH) |----- BIIOFITEO WASYINOY Jo AZIsTOATA A See See ee Ee @ WW ‘[pelt |--~-~---- ~~~ ------=—— -eploy yynog yo AqIsIeata [Sas eeaereSe es esa SIMRO TOMA SEGRS) [555555 5SIS5> STILT IIIT TI IIIT Lewmar ee SO eae Sa ea a SERGE > SS paeuieg, [995 === OI INYSUT WelmosyyTUTg Beretta Seni ~\L '§ ‘uemog |--~-~-~--------------— = = -asayopD 07819 cosHOUBIA ues SS ge ~~ OUSZ1AL. J 88 0TT0D 09819 OJTOUTBIDeS PER ee eee reo ae ee @ “Buel, | AISTOATI) SIOSINY An Fos Tn eee ve ep pe ee @ ff ‘puemd | AVIsIIATH A S1089NYy Se hare meas rE 3S MA ‘oBtuystA |7~ 77777777777 777 Lejseqooy jo AqtsreaTaQ, rier asym eae RE GUO AUSUIUIR EL 2-25 2-55 SS Ll SSSI DSi 2 2so 2s aS SS OG Si See Ae Ae Ee ‘YW ‘pooM |- >>> 77 pues] epoyy jo Aqisreata Seine eons ae 1 ee oe fa ‘upyseg |--->>>>> 77> 89 sUT oluyoe,ATOg Jovlessmeyy Ecos p Sacae eae sGlaaecueE tad sIoqueT[OH |-~~~ >>> 7 7 spuelpey jo AjisroaTa Sap ee Ce AT RT STR Se Eaeamer:)02Y ) aea eaNRSNN?1K) | (01@ Jae)" 01) Oe | Rete eas Pas cei iAT «ay 5 a “eipreseg |-~--> 7777777 OOK OFTEN Jo AVIsIOATA A, ee Saale eS LOE VEROU OST dts tags see na oye ee ee a OG ape eer ee ee RS = I 77 ‘unyqoy |-->>7 77 ASIA) 10ST G i ont aaa as omen caer SM “QueoULA |7>>>7> 777777 sIngszyIq Jo AjIsIeATAA, oor. a eee (Lf ‘t90g |7> 7 = 0B IO JO AIISIOATU LA Sessa Ae ee ) HA ‘Weusrey, |>7 777 as aTT0D TOME PIO Sena ioeks eee renee mee XMCVAUIOD [7777s AGISIOATI 09899 O1TO Scns gp ‘swoydeyg |77 7770000 BBaTLOO [BIWEpIOIO Plaea coy M ‘CSIP SA WL ‘meet0yH |77>7---> 7-77 Agotoog [eors0[007 yIOX MON SS ee SS ae a IONE ras ee eee elysdue xy MON jo AqisIeAtaQ Se See “Gf ‘Agqueyo |e dsoH reuls yUNoyL SS eee TM ‘o[A0q |-----~7~~ ~ A10jB10Ge'T [eolZ0TOIg PUIST I1eseq, JUNOT ie pa EERIE EES PROSE ee TODS M: fl Sos ese ee oe Se ee ae tO TI SSS ee @ ¢ ‘yomng |7777 777 es TOIL JO AYIsIOATA 10ZeSI4SOAUI [edaoullg LoCo) UH AULET 109 | penulju0g—/boj029 au2zunm pwo fydvsbounas0 7091601029 us Yyounasaay 549 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION ele CEGRICOLG: Gis aie =" "S75 |p teeoaanikacnssiae 2 AL Sistanehtiges aimed noe Bare CHiEROOT! | 25005062 Sp a endanger |p tas Taso ete nna nee ON F 00% ‘F to. HP hear sinsossie souriojyeley Up efOAD UBIPIeD ey} JO SYUeAG |-~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ = mmm monn INN AMR DU RNP == 0-2 eee AqsIOATIQ BATYSAA “elIV[Ngejo0Vy PUB xB[NeAUOH 000 ‘ze 9g aVS[Y VULIV] Ol]} Ul SIsoyJZUASOJOY Ul wWyIAAY UGIDEOTD Pope st ee eee ae hae VANE (ay) 9 C22 YS | aia a leer yal “HO WUC] 008 ‘Fz 98 “007 JOM YS PUB oUITIeT UO serpn}g AIOISTHY oy | ---- TTT yO peAcon ee ARIsIBATUL) OTe A “qo0SURL], BPNUIeg-peey 000 ‘e* ¥ -Aep ‘spodosy o1yjueg Joe, deed Jo Apnyg ofmouoKey, |-——~7- 7777 OISSONE |For eee eae oa “spodedog uee00 006 ‘09 $G oyueyjy pue uvipuy jo uoNNqiysIq pus soyeuejshg |-----~---- ST SUS ULOS TE ETES GEE ERO O TINO ne eee ae oe od “OUCH 008 ‘9z ra UIOISAM-YION 944 JO Sosy Olsejoq JesiVvT Jo Asojorg |-~~~--~ OUSIAAL SIODOOTTIOS St MAL FIOUA BIN aa od “SOTITUNUIUMOD O19 O02 ‘EL G -usg osulIVy Jo sommeudq pure ‘omjonig ‘motyisodutog |------------ 7777-7 7-7-2 Ti SIODURS io a ee ee od 00z ‘TS (6 eee ol | (SS TS AYTUNUIUIOD WoOYyUe[dooZ eulweyA, |~- 77777777 TTT Tek eA OUOM) meas once caaners TOTIN4TSUT OIydvisouUBedO s[OH SpooM 000 ‘¢ Ge a Pasi BTOTES: JOIARUOg puv sommeudy uolye~ndodg Weaeyey) |~~- 777 Trae Uo WOWMER i no ee ee os eer ama ee od 009 ‘22 Ohh a | PR ae seseg AJOSMeg SI PUG SOUS JO UOMSIJUSTIO TeIedG |~—— nnn GIGEVSATOIS@ ile ote aio te ae eae oe eee UISMODSIM JO AJISIOATU *AIMSTULEyIOISI] pue Ades 002 ‘ZZ ¥ -dOINVOIPLRY JIM Pojesiysoauy yuswdopeaeq ojoeyoA[Og |~-~~-~---77 77777777 Al SINWUOMNE ||P in oe ee rae OSo][0D WOSTLM. *so1e1q 002 ‘Zz ¥G -OJ1VAUT OULIVI] JO Ssdq PeZI[YIeJUQ Ul stsoyguUAG UleJoIg |~~ 7-7-7777 7777 A ies eyOelGillicssusas = soos cas ee Ale PUL THITILAA JO 98eT[0D 00€ ‘SIT og ~~ Ay deisouVs) Teorso[org Ul yoIvesoy JUopNis syenpesy |---7~-~- 7777 T 7 TOT LeU |e ont to ear eee gages cage ce eaac od 008 ‘Og [Nee [bs SES Se eee eae eas eeAley plisneydngy Jo Asojoom |--~~~--------- > ICOM Se OSUC Gales ctas ao a ee ee oe oes od 002 ‘TE 9g ~-APIUMUIUAOD [eptj1e}U] ue Jo seipnyg o1pdory, pue peunegq |-~~- 7-77-7777 TqlOUlGetel sy sak sours o> cay coc eta WoO}SUIYSV MA JO APISIOATUL) 008 ‘FT VG Re Sei ieee aie aa WIM Jing oy} Ul sAVMOYA Xopoy |--- ‘OGEUOMOING |= ook nn ee eae VIUISITA JO AJISIOAIM 000 ‘OT | { nen) aeser SS a I eee VPLINSeT WO SOIPN}Y OVUIEISAG [~~~ 7-77 n nnn SSUIM a Cogn oer pee DUNG OUlIVIAT JO oINIYSUy BIUIsIT A 008 ‘Ze Ob «ss eee EF aa ite se sie Yoreosoy VUlIeA, Joy suoIyeredO yeog |~~~~ 7777 Trt MeinOe A ess ss Nees oS eae eee Sexo, Jo AjIsIoATU *“SHSNITOTAL 1978 AA UST 002 ‘6T ¥ -yovIg PUv YSoly JO VX], P9}DI[9G WO SOIPNIG OIVBUTOISAG Jorn nnn CACEDS Eli gl Seon = hos ee a pee ram POTEET AYSIOATUL) TA 7 V SBxay, OOT ‘FI Olsens ees jiodsuviy, Ul pesesuq sonssty, Jo pea ade CSV 6 | sea es cae aa OAM SUIOQULANGI as sata a ye ea eee eessoumd,y, JO AZISIOATU() “STTI9D 9[ouls 3 000 ‘2g ¥Z Ul SUISIUBMOETT SUIVUIpI0OH pus SuTIEssIII, orTpeTeord Sire anee. SaaS eee E thts toe ONO, so ane eS, sae eee ee AjfisisAtuy esnoeiAg “AYQGeL % 2 Coli -dOUB900O [SIISO[OlG Ul SUIUIvIT, OJeNpPeIH Pus yOIvosoy |-----~--~-~~~ ~~ -— ~~~ aH === = =~ Ps Wt (0) 2 Rl ces ea a ea tar AjIs1eAla) ployueyg 009 ‘9F Ges > | |EaRE Be REIS ee be Er """““mweis01g ezee1y deed jo y1oddng ;--~~--~~ Re eats oe Wc ‘seTqosyO MA Miotett kar ane PRONE RY AVsIoATU, piojueryg 160 ‘F (d eemamerees || Gog a ciara Nese eae peas ao UUDPT IO} SOTAIOY OLYAVIBOUBIDO [~~~ Ain Gime AG Gf Fase rege cessing: pees yes Cees SJUSTANI4SUT Sexe, 2 *IOVeAA BOs 008 (Se ras pus SUUSIUSIQ OUTIVT OMoLeJUW Jo MOMIsodmoH prdry | ~-- ~~ TAS AOIGOR 2 Te OUNIO ME = so epee: oo eee eae Tan Ta od 00€ 68 GL (109099 OHTOeq) SISYBMA OTJOIeJUY Jo SeIpmyg AIATONpPOIg |~~~- ZES APOC O i |Psst or 8 = og saan ® en = aan se eee age EES ae od A 000 ‘Sz GL “esessed oyxviq, Ul JUSTMeINSeOT JUNIING desq pus soBjaNg |-~-~~~"-~~~ TT formndey fq °c Steddyery jo - ~“AYISIOATU “TAL 2 “WY SCX, OS ; ‘Seog D0IeI UY ULeune,T O14 : eat Ke SESE TE O12 eT) MOVER eC UPS IMBUIIGIE (fa 25a 5 cescsccce tone. snes MMR QODIOME (Ecc caca-acoeccv<-t-cc2.c Stanes Alana ee od = TW O01 PUB OoOIEI TY JO UOTVeUTUIXY ER eeNG Ae TT eee PMOSBABS [EPS R SSS Tees so oS OTST Rene 4 apeeers paso pee od i Steg d1J010BI UY A 006 §1T 9 oy} ul AYydeisouBedg [ROISO[OIG IO} wIVIsOIg YOIvOSEryT FSET TSE SS a POINT || 2S25eeest == ioe BIUIOJVO WI9yINO, Jo Ajisi9AIUA. =| 000 12 Gl eee Ber Sa setae 1 Fa Bes SUOTJSAIOMIBA OSINID UWOP | ns (O) eC ae ee Aecraraee 5 Pere eT SOO “od 2 009 &9 gs Scie Se tee Be AUVSN WOT SMOT}DOT[OH JO SUIJIOG |= Se es ee WT WORM pe ERT ies Ree wees HONN sul Welmosyy tus ie 000 6 (a Be eee ee sojiseredopugq JOApNyYg JT SESE AG MOG iain asec caerais oe ots See eee OSLO 9yOuULOYy LLE 19 GI mejskg Je[Yorg sIu0g-o1}0e[H xopACY |----- ~~ eget ees peenpenc @ ‘SUICITIIM }7777 777 SEE SST Saha aaa rn Denencby eae Sas eee me xopAery “SOUS! a 000 ‘el (Al [emIeyj{oueIS Ul sdiysuoreyery Sr adnIoT neuen Bee ere pe eaten a MO ‘slqoyy |77 Ree “=-="- 703010 JO AjIsIOATUA 009 € (9 aterm, |S a ee eece BOG SSOY OU} JO MOIeJOSOA [eS[y OIUJMEG | ~-T “20 ip TOAOUBZ, ||P sea ean ae seep epee ese][09 UOlUIMIOC PIO (ae : “BOIJOIBILY JO S[Reg oul UOpoqoT © 000 £2 | (gs _9y} Jo Asopoyseieg pue soljsnooy ‘ASojoom oupieuqng |-~~-~~~ SHO) RET PPP AE ae yeaa AE ||P AYE100g [eo[so[00Z YIOX MON 3 000 697 1 Gh “ORR Ras Ese" See Ser ees UOT AL ent Fre SA eee S “EVE ATEOUCK) [Poco Tae Sse eerie OOTAIOS MOT} 8}10dsuBI], BOS AICITTLIAL Pu 09F ‘89 GL Wynog ‘wun SNSN BUST au sea Ul Oey euleyy |--77>7 eaier sar ania. 9) ep Vea) \\Praer Sasa Rigas ~-A(SIOATU 97819 BplOLT “epodos] eulieyy vog-deeq 91018 2 000 ‘OL gi ay JO UIsNO pue uoNNgIysIG ‘sovueIshg Jo Apmyg |--7777 aa ees Sees --y ‘solzmeyy |--7- 77 Sass Sie RS ee AyisioATan eynd is 002 TT OQ) ea | eee ona aaa eee on Ce LE I oTjoreyUy Jo AsojoisAyg |--~-~~ icine See S TSS Si SING OUUUTUIN OTN a lear seer ae tae mines AjISIOATUL) TN’ God ralh tee (oe gt "UBvdDO UIeyINOY oy} Jo AsAIMG o1ydvasouvedg o1eUIEISAG |~~~ ~~ T Tr Fee S[OMOMG| Coo ee ee ee ee ee (Yar re ee OU SO 2. Sy ap | Ole ois aes re UOJYULT TI [BJopoHS oljoreyuy jo Asojoom |~~~~~--- ~~~ Sn eee Reh ee ec VWGKSE: | eee eae oe SSR Okt Jele RareP tr em asaetaes Ve ig Oe od ae ‘uee0Q UsayNoG o) ; JO SJUIUIpes WOIg SUIOJVIG PUe IIe[OIpeYy oIOZ0UeD fo) 006 79 ¥G PUS OIOZOSOI[ 998'T JO CoULOTIUSIG oTydeIsyeIIG Jo Apngg |\~-7~- 777777 S70) Oa) Gueyeeiee |p sea ey ae ee SSS S255 Sees ae ea aoe san ee OG ‘ “eOly a QOL OFT 146 OHoIejUy-oed Ul wunyy WoT, Barotis. oe fudeeD niet atin PSEA SS IC MO[ZITIOR se ee ee SSS nama ebb otee ria rit od iS) 00g ‘8 g esessed OxvIG ou} Ul AoAIMY ASoTOrg outIep, OIeUIEJSAG |---~--------- SrSScSsceras SAT ee LPAI ea MASEIATAERELARSSIS SRSSaSSsn sry od jo) 008 T 6] ies eames 5 hramar in asereer aia me pas ~~ “eo}joIeJUW Ul SUOTIESTIISOAUT [POIso[OTg |7-~--~~-77777 Spas ATS fIOp [OUST eS AE eas ees “AYsIOATU) VIQUIN{OD ; ‘SBOG O1JOIVIUW Ul SUISIUCSIO OT =) O 9G} 008 ‘cr at “Ud Of} JO sojyetoqieD jeejexS Jo Apnyg eoruteyooesorg |----------7 Fer Seas, [Sea aETUUISTICOMG) | cannes ani an ann AZoTOUYOaT, JO 9yNIYsSUy VIUIOTeO mec 6G) BUCO FOB SUCH T 2 00s 7 (6) Seay: Fl preteen hinae tearergare a AydeisoueedO Uy Serpnyg oyenperp |-------- Sererontet spcrer Vi PISTON GIG = SS 5S8e ora aera ase apa ss BlUIOH[VO JO AjIsIoATA A fe) 00T ‘6 as eqdepy ielog jo syoodsy Jo TEMES Te in Hae & goeteee ve eed ss elses 1210.00 (G10 bs (Nai ea eerie aes are fo As/< 10112) | \(all ee en Pa ae res bape eUu0ZIIV JO AqISIOATU) E GLI “LPS Olam S/o rue eenren ae e UUnNA A JO ytoddng |--~-------=-- ammo mn am ao. neo Doane sarees nee a! “uoTWVloossYy [eolsAydooy) ourdry > = (sq3mo0ut) yunomy | wonemd ehL IOJLSTISOAT [VaIOULIg TOyANASUT yainasas a1ydv.ib0une00 91,9.07U y 550 551 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION TRY EAN 8 Sia PR Re Eo a pe ey Rae oa jh PRI as ae LET ee a | eae veh CR ACER Rae aneees all orf acme eae rpeamT cs Soe Po akckan Wed paca a [230 “mOlIpedxy mRA00 008 ‘eZ iMG UBIPUL [VUOLVUI}UT OY} UWlOIf SUOTIOI[[OO JO BUIYIOG [~~~ EL UUM oly | Feo tt aE Gea anyY4suy Wermosyyrurg 000 “0zE Clg, Sacpin| Gece ent peaceeee acy OIL OU} 10y ABo[org UI WieISoIg “9°, |----7 77 T anna El p ‘aoyqdyy |----7 77a een od “mOTIpodx a, OOT ‘62 LT UBIO ULIPUT [VUOTJUIOJUT Of} IOJ UOTJIVIOJUT BVOQ-IDY pon WOMUMGE Geese po ee ee ee od ‘S]UOTUIPIG PUB S10}V AA UBIO UI sJUEMIMSsUOH 006 ‘Zor (a dUvsIO Ioley 944 JO SoIpnyg Teormmeyoey oAeIedUIOD |~-~~ 77am TALC SQUMET lfc, aon ea eS Oe eee a eae od 000 ‘O0T ‘T Ghisy > > 6 BS See ss Sain & See WO UBIPUT olf} UT SoIpNyg [oT Wacdujoswialt sess ajnjI{SUy DIYdvisouBe0dO s[O_{ Spoo *“dVJING S,1IIVA 00s ‘z8z ¥G ey} IweN Josuery, Asroug jo Apnyg aATSUOT{aId WOO saa geno wi mais ts OL SHEIE) (UE ANG 5 OEY S To | Tat es aa nig ee a UBSIQOITA JO AqISIOAIT 008 ‘Fz Bo = OR eee eypudyIOULY UBIO ULIPUy Jo ApNyg oMeUlaysAg W |= SUISS IW |$5 4; a a eee adaOO ISol0| OFC M 006 ‘Fz Tiree wtted|Le os Se “ce Re Ues00 UCIPUT CUA JO VPOOVTISO |~ TOSWO Gis looks ei eee See eee tore eee ae ueImosyyULg “REMY sae ; OOF ‘ez SI ey} IeeN Joysuviy, Asiouq Jo Apnyg sAIsmetyomduMIOD |--~7 77777 CS) AEE) AY ACSZANG) (0292 a pa a aa UBBINOIIAL JO AJISIOATU, “WOMIpsdxy uweeO ULIpuy OOT ‘62a LT [euorjeuIaUy 9 Joy JooloIq wUoeMIMO oleydsouyy |~— ~~~ nnn OdBUIBU Nee: 52 oS a ts eee TeMey jo AjIsIOATA A, 000 ‘008 (cll basen" oes Seely eR TS is ee SE Ren giger to Rear Beto en ATT: OO 2 all Sip haenoe terete aban mEn = eons COST. | Rea ane eee aT Ares pe aes ie SS Wat 000 ‘00z Clee | Bree ea ee RB ee DUWAA TOSSPA YOIVOsoy JO WIOMUMG |e OD mmr Wr sos Sees es Re RE 7 ee eee es od OOF ‘eee Oe - - |Dxae Selienest) wkbiincs Sine -ablaaiacst. sh OPE ll seein te ce IN SULA Gelgs eee AVSIOATAQ BIQUIN[OD “mol 000 ‘Oct 21 -Ipedxgy Ue20O ULIPUY [CUOTIVUIOUT 99 Ul WOedIoMaeg |------77- 77> N ‘a@ ‘ssordg {7 “37 ‘TOUSLT Saale 6 202 car at Se ca ae BlUIOJI[VO Jo AiIsIOATA A, 9TL “6S Git -- "Sas ghtigwescniaat) ae is, UNNIT WOJUP A JO AToddMg |e 0) AR BYENYO). | PR ee ou “WoTZeIOOssY [eoIshydooy) ould,y ‘HOTJIpedxy WeI0O 000 ‘oss ral UIPUL [VUOTJVUIOJUT IY} JOJ SJSISO[OIOOJZOPAL WYOTBeSoy |------ 7 T sien mre QUOT GR rasa are ee a 10,1 Iby 944 Jo yuou41edeq qunouly SquOTL oLL 10je314S9AuI [edroulIg suorynyysuy uoutpad any UDIIQ) UDIPUT JOU0IIDULIIUT gpOsarOse 5c; ~~" 7 | cee RR) es 8 Prats GRA IaIOIORE SHEE |S Smita toc Sennen seo mannnane 12101, ‘OIOIRIWY oY} UO siseydury peroedyg ITM . 0ce ‘61 ral seyolg olurveao Ul UNYyU0Ig pue uMDlegQ ‘ume |~-------- eg ernag Se pe SS SSCL ISTQTENTS |e eras APISIOATT OTe OOF ‘E elt (Aes || Spas incn aa a Spgs eS S[Bag JO SOIPNIG PlelW OWSNodVOTg |~~~~7 77 M ‘oU[TAeyog [7-7-7777 iets moynyysuy orydeasouees6 9[0E{ SPOOM. "90] I[Og JO episiepuy) 000 ‘6 ZI UO UOTeINNY PUe UONLvIQy sIMsesy, 0} BdTAOC OIUOg [7-77 ~~~ 77> m Won H mn a INMTouTeTsIoIUE Ira == MOJSUTYSeM JO AjsIOATU- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION aa OF, ‘L4P ‘S 000 ‘ge 00F “998 000 ‘se 000 ‘00s 002 ‘8 000 ‘¢2 000 ‘ez PL9 “CI 000 ‘ez 982 ‘81 000 ‘09T 000 ‘Te 000 ‘008 O04 ‘8TT 000 ‘029 000 ‘OF OSt ‘FE 006 ‘229 009 ‘ST 000 ‘zt 006 “€9 000 ‘0zz 006 ‘E61 009 ‘69 000 ‘TZT 000 ‘29T 99 76 PLL ‘C$ yUnOULy (sqjtmout) monemaq Serene aes wroa oom == “Sari T[10e. YOO Jo uolyonIjsu0D Sahiot se Niner SE SOT}T[lo8,T SUISeIS [esse JO uOIsuedXT ; _ *&doos -O1DIJ, WO1}09[H IOJ SOI[loeA Yoeosoy Jo wuoyons4su0H “pURIs] Vul[ejeD BURG UO AIOJeIOGL’T [eoIsO[OIg SUTIeTAL V pi ra ee eee UOMeAousy AIOJeIOGeT yoIeesey AsOjOey Pitas 2 os cee ne SOdMSING |[[B 10} 103U9H sdUEING VW Sree ape ese digs yoreesoy BMsulueg 91401ej}NY 10} UsISEq pate Ere a= Tess Ayyloe_T yorVeesey weeny v Jo WOLjonNAsuOH "qe soouelog euLIe]y 10} SUIP[ ING sd1AIeg pues JuoMIdINbD|” [eoIso[OIg 9UTIey *SUIp[INg Yyoreesery SULIVVUISUY [COI pue soiskygq @ Jo TOHORASEAO “Ayde1 -s0Uvd0O SUTIeNIsSy| pue Asojooq sulIep, 10} Ar0je10qeT Rees Sa Se ee Se TIeM B29 8 JO UOTONWSuHOD “fing Sid HOA Wor AY OF sjusuMeACIduTT pues sMOT}eI0q,y “Aydeisoues0¢9 [eoIsAyq IO} A1OxeIOGeT yoivosoy ojenpeiyH ve dmby oy, aie qey Asoforg je}ueutIedxy only, B JO MOMONYSu0D “Jesse Worves -OY IGdvisouvedDg Ue JO UWOISIOAUOD puUe TOMISMboy *TEssaA. YoIvesey S,eINIYSUT oulrepy BISI08H Jo AJISIEATUA ou} sujerodQ Ayenseg pue ‘suiddmba ‘sursjpoy Cea ee ~~“SUILIIUISMY JO osa][0H 94 JO uOIsuedx | *youvesey OULIVI, Ul SUOTIVIOdO Poly 10J AqlOBA pozlpeloodg Vv pier eas “SuoljVIodO V9g SUIQUNOPL 10j AQIOe A IOIG 7 Se neee AqyoeT edoosor1o1 PY WOM9eTH WOTyNpOsey YSsIAR V “SO0aING [eoIsAydoey JO JuemmjIedeq oY} esnOH 0} suUIp—Ing ev Jo MOWONYsSUOH “Weis0lg yoreosoy AYdeisouvsd oO JO TOMNIYSUT Sddtuog 04} Jtoddng 09 serifioey sueiedoO diyg Jo woonmMsu0H | ee eee " SoljT[loey O10YG pojejoy pure diyg qevy “A109V10G2'7 OULIVI, SSOPO| OY} 10] soijiploe, yoIvosoy JO WorjoN.14SU0H ‘Salql[loeq yolees “OY oJeNpeIyH pue A1oj{e1ogeyT popuedxy pues poAoiduy Fag Sern eee Pave G-SSH) 1OJOWIACISVIG VINV MSV “INQMeYyH WO14eA.1esq O adJ-Qng Jo MO140n.4SuOD pues USISEq ehL Te30.L SSE Sea gs eee W ‘d ‘0Aq |7---~~--7-7- >" mony YSU] OTydeIS0uvEDO BTOF{ SpooM eo 2 Rede Seas aes Y¥ ‘O ‘soureg T7575 >>>" 9" ="="—-TOISUTGSeM JO AISIOATUA eas So gee ean aa OL SUPPORT aS IOATT “IAL P “VW SeXaL, aa ae a eee Ty ‘stoquieyQ |-7~-~7"777------ =" -ermIoj[eO WAETYNoY Jo AyIsI9ATa_), ar Se Ee a a eS H ‘moyUnIg, as eee ee cae a ERO LOL) qWgnog jo AVISIOATT Beka ae Oa 4) “BOURTSTTA porn rr nn mn nnm==="=—=989T100 TITUS oe ee Se eS § ‘40}}0g 7077 egTTD pus nyIyoTA, ‘10}40g Fe Eee aS area 8 (tO Jr 0 41). |e ae par i cra EC Sm ar eric IL 0Y(T/ Feige s eg eee aria AM ‘YANG, [000000000 oma" "=" KaTSIOATA) 97819 TOSe19 eae erg ea eras UW “4QOOG [oor m mmm = == KaISIOATU) TIOISBeqION, Ii ssa SSA AT @ VW ‘QMuyseyO [7777577777777 =" BUTOIVO ION Jo Aqis1eataQ ise sta wii a ONT AR 0S te el tee G Tie ny ae ine el es WW SAZOOM [--9 001 ITAL JO AVISTIOATI SR eg wre ee nr SM ‘XIV WOA |---------------KZ0Tougde,T, JO ojNITYsUT s}Josnqoesse pL eater BESSS ATE ae ae MNO) ale sas oes a oe cis ee eee 40 (CT ies See eee ee dD ‘PICTOOM, 00000 =- == Te Me JO AUISIOATT A ie se ET IGSS ea ee es LA ‘AmmeRy [07055000000 =--==- BIZ I09H Jo APISIOAIT.A SEopare cane SES Al UU ONAL A G2 eee ee ge ee eee Spll0, q JO AJISIOAIT BS Se a eae ~~ ¢ ‘deumeymeddg |----------=--=--------=------ AqisioAluy) 098419 BploOpa iat da ais aaaleairasp lay Le DREN DiS CS COI NN eI a I eee f “y ‘orAquy “OW ‘qd ‘doppouying 6 “BULA |---- oso rar roar rots AyISIOAIM) eIqUIN;OD SS a 5 EEE HW ‘urerysuy |-------------------------------- 08¢o1yo jo APIsIsAIa Bal See oe a ee Ee IN| qi SSSOIG Gs ESSSSS5SSSSaSSs ere Saae se ee Sees ores ses 7 0G SG ao Bee Wd ‘OpUR[OYDG |q-F> 7-H (OS9Iq] WEY) BIMALOFI[VH JO AJISIOATU_) Boge on Ope en ee ar as og ar 70) sDUGHE| s=taea ean ess =e (Agpoyleg) BIUIO;ITeO Jo AjIsIoAIU Sa ae ae ena a a= aS Soe M ‘8YMOING |--> 97 ---- === === ===-=—-— -TO1VeIG [BOISO[OIg epNULIOg Biipinaccke uk une a eae (RESON ENING | I Repeater elas serene ak Sane eRe OY19 M-BIUBYSV Fae emai dU] “WOMeIN0ssy [BoIskydoey ould, y 107eS1{SeAUIL [edOUlIg TOI9N}4SuT a a a et ee eT sazjupiovf a1ydoiboune0¢ NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION OZGNGOR oli oo a al ae ee a ie eS SE EC 2. SEAR REEY AOGIS PARGORSUNE SOTERA MEVIAPIOSCDND, Conc [hs eS a ee as es eee ns 1?40.L WHheoiae lee ee ae IojUIH BIVC MIYAeASOUBIDO [BUOTYVN Ol} JO WOMANG [~~~ WH 0) al aaa a a od (0 neeete a5 oo ee Aydeis0urdO—yYV 10j}UsD BV PTOM Jo yoddng |--~~~ 7-7 TANGA SQ O08 [05 |= aaa ata eMO IydeisouBI0O [BABN “S°0 OUGsc rae co eee SddTAJOg SUTJOVIISY WY PUB SUTYIPH—ASO[OIPAF] JOLAOG Jon nnn nee “HOM eIISIUIUIpPY SedtAIeg souetog [eJUSUIUOITAUY *g* 000 ‘eg ----AYARIZOUBIH 0} POPVOY [VLIOIVTAT JO UOTZVOT[GN PUC UOTV[SUBIT, [nnn = WeRIZOId UOSUIOJUT GdUETOS ADUEIIND USIo10} [eloodg OO.s Si Ne SoS es ee ey wee ATO[OLOOIOTNGUL SUNG SOU ET OM UO GO [OAC Gia ||E=c nancnnnn sry lu mill > Glunaee DeMeS DP Enna $n ao 15a [pa ame celle AYSTOATU 97819 91) ‘Ss1939NyT O80a2i = = lee Seen ean d= bart ham’ cactus (SOR TDEXODUM SULOOULSU Ese Ca a en ee ae ea | eae a en ae ee yIOX MON ‘xopul SUlIsoUIs UA Q0GS Geant alga eet cere eae ACMI) COV CUZEOH (0) ATG E TTAH OE SOY ORGSE NO) Aud) o Moll aw aa sia eaten Sian Se ae SPI ee TleMey ‘tamesnyy doysig “gq "gq O0GKZens © Esse aan eis tos sins ai ee atk eelak coc: AU ETON CUR U Ob Wes |ieas nes Tage So eo eee aati os Re eolIOULY UJION JO 04Nq4SuUy o401V OGae Pe Gllaecet or ane yovog PUB C1OYY 0} XOPUT OATJV[MUIND IVOA-E [on n= UOMVOOSsy UOevAIeselg yoveg 7 91049 UvolIeuLy ONR0Gh= So goo sere eS (QUB IS OGws SC va GolsSAUGONIS VCO Ham Ut (GoldO;OlONS SIA || len us mun inten Sumin Ni iat) ite umm nmeeng| (nin Gumat a= Meu innat cmt ernie aeaT od O0oktis = elie es ee (FOG) ISIOVIISU WA TROISATEO ISOS Kae TBOIGOLOIOOIONAT Wit = a GE SSS Ea er eRe Ror Seren ene od Ochttaeee lg ose oe ee ee S[PUINO (eorsANdooh)sudis1OM TOMUOMBU Ath |fc=> 900g 50s su ln a) 1 aun uee a0) i fomen Bun ylcnann: co A4o00g [BdISOTOIOOJOTT UeOLIOULY 000 ‘8a F Soha SOISAU A GIIe Pus Solos) OlisI0() PUG AMO CSOUIIVeGATISOAZT. | G09 598 599 ROSSER GRE Seek eee setts aa ts cn LD Pann Se ae od OUGSOFr |] danse oawbaveod sch Sasitl 5 SIode ar Palng eG Aco Olp AEP GTAOGa p= 0 See R enero Raa nE EP aS Gee eld SE cao ef eae bc be od CORNGC > “lh seorse GesR RRS ABL2: ae ss ANU rs OWEG Oa EGUNO eURIBSEN Wingaan 7 esac ae core ee tere e area eens a BRE oe ee ete aa ae oe Se ee gen “od GUT Tate tein nee a are or cle Ne ge SS aa eee AUGBISOMSSD GO) TOTAQG) Wao a ae Sa ao ap or ey “-“MOIUy [eoIsAydosyH UedIEULy OHOK0ZS eet |Eaceeeee counts > pr ns a ee a eee aaa SIIBTISHAV OOMOIOROO Malis: Gack ek a Ie Bea eS ee ao ae OjN{4SUT [eoTsO[Oe*_) UeolIeULy qunowy OL IOJEZIYSOAUT [edoulsig TOM NgIYSsUy Uo1yjnMILofur a9uar08 I1ydv.1b0UDaIQ Cig eclbesie gpmie ose 2 Repeater) ar rea | Sp ne a Se es eee ee ee eae ee Past ee eae 1e10.L *sa0Ud10g JO AUMOPBOV [CUOry 000 ‘0z rat “EN 94} Jo AydeisouvsdQ UO 90},1UIUI0D 94} JO JIOddNg |-~~-~ ~~ monn nnn ST NAR SLOG [hee ee ae eee a ee yorvesey [CAGN JO s0IgJO 000 ‘€ ZL “yo1eesay O1UvIIO WO 994} UIULOD IQIJWSIDG oy} JO JIOddNG |-~~ ~~~ AH rn GOR OT ON ites ae nt ces ees ee S9OT9IDG JO AULOpBoY [eUOIeN, *(seplor) suljdmeg yjIeq-deeq ‘suo1yn9 009 ‘Zz %% -14su] d1ydeisoueaO JUIOL 8Y} JO SUTUULTA 94} JO WLOdANG |~— oro nnn OD Seat sages t= DiS ness enw aeee ies Sea EES? Be ar 000 ‘Tz ral ------ £ydvis0uVv9d QO [eoIdO1]J, WO sdUa1IJUODH [PUOIZVUIOJUT [~~ ~~~ ~~ rrr FOR ZOOMM Rte es ee ee spate pier na Pi TUIPITAT JO AQISIOATT 000 ‘% 9 ~~ ~sassod01g [BjSeOQ pues SoIUIeUAPOIPAH PABM JO APNYG |q-7 ttt tren LW ‘mweddy |--7-7- 7777-7 >> AZOlOUYIAT, JO 94NjI4sUT Ss}JEsSNYIesseIy 006 ‘Z re} Varn coned ae | Tg ae ~--eag-desq ul Aydvisiyei3g sus004SIe[q WO SUTJOOTA, |~~~ ~~ 7 CEG OMOOOL ye lassen eae te ee te eee ~-AYSIOAIN A) VIQUIN[OD “SOUst 009 ‘z$ ral jo AZopOIsAy_ VAONpoAdey WO soUeIeyUOH *B JO yIOddNg |------------- Se eae Sat Ty ee fe p> LA A) ol eas wea ie En A10jeIOGeyT oulIey\y oze yy odeD yUNOULy SqJUOTT SLL Iojes1jsoAuI [edioulIg mOryNnjsuy saupnjs pup saouasafuos a1ydviboun29¢) 53—367—65—— 36 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 504 QGOk We? Sac See eee ee WOMedlo1e J Yorvesey Sau tatcp (0\a] | Sa any Saas Utes (Gl ieg ELT ©.0] TED 100 6) | eee SUl[OIeD YINog Jo Ajis19ATUA “AGOLOTE 3 is aa £ ; Ul WeIs0Ilg “S°—UOlIpedxy UesO ULIPUL [vUOIyvVUIEIUT 91N401g 029 ‘8 UOMO 8} JO VATJVSON IO[OHD PU SJULIG VSeoToY IO[OD JO oseyoINg | GMO ede ies == era ee ae ee ouy ‘suo]yequeserg me9810g AT ‘G FAI SOUL CTT OVO PL) aa a ae SR ee serena ea od GOSisTaee eee pe as See ee WIeIsOIg eAe1edooD pues JUBPNAS |~~ 99 Mh ROSEG) ql iafoea one pet ate a Pope Ee eee Ny Seeaeesee sa ree og OShetpe {|p Gas oo oe eee eg CHATS OT YE GL MME OBIS): GHG WH GLOKOOD) pues] epouy jo Aqis1eATT A OBC) Agee as a eras SIOYOVO,], OSOT[OD OJ SOOMOTOJUOD) |>~ 9 Ae esOoN Gl ale as os eo aa8 Hes ee pe pe OOTY OJFEN g JO AjtsIoATT A) CCeole . aleve Ss Se ee SIOYOVO,T, [OOYOS USF TOF WOIWedioi4aeq Yoreesey | -~-7 SEM feo TOCG POIs ee so ae se oe nee weg eee dyloeg oy} Jo AqsIoATU, OUeaChes «ible 22 a Too ce ee ee eS re ees Bay eee CUIUSCOULGA OT BED Cia wal 9h = iS 8 eee eS eee Nia S S an PO oS S e aen ee ee ae od OO0SRGee- > Nags SS es ee ee ES i GUSIM OA HCO eM Demi \al mec = ta a ag ogee es een sy ne a ee hn ai e Rie ae AVISIOATU:) 97819 TOZ0IO (0) 2 So ae | aS see te a oe ee ee ee cee SS Uoyedioyieg yoressey oases (O65 Faeyr mer areas | 9 “¢ ‘pjeAeuez |--~-- ~~~ ~~ DGS SO TIES VARS Rg as0][0D UOIUIMIOG PIO *(Aydeis0 -uv900 ‘ASO[OEH [BOIIOISIFT ‘AMMOUOMSY [elouey ‘ASOTO9) [eoIsAyg) GGG ‘ET SIOTOVAT, [OY ATepUoddY OJ SoOUSTOG YJIVY OU} Ul OYNIMSUT IOUMUIMG Jo 70 “"9 *d ‘WOSTIM |77 7 B{UOSUO 48 eseT[0D AjIsIOATU 97819 YIOX MON OG OR () mares | amet > cs Pern ese, ett seo or eared SATU SOOULCU OMe TUBS) a ea ee a AS ose gi seal Se ota ee pe eae AVISIOATUY) YIOX MON “(Holyesedoig ASIOUG PUS UOTIOWT 9ABAA ‘ScISAY ‘soMserg ‘someutoy_eyA, ‘AI4ST my O jeoIsdAyg “Asturyo “Asojcow cyenby ‘Asojorg). s1eyoee,], = : : FPP EL jooyag Arepuodeg IOJ SOMeIOY IN | We VdUEIOG UL O9NITISUT JOUTUIMG |~>7 UT Wtf SIOSUANCeeern a eT See aS9[0D 07%19 9eSSoUUA,T, SIPPIVL QU is C cea ean eet ge ar se see md ee ae ie ae EEE CUTSSS UTE TONG MBI) Fleece oa oan bos icons bee Le ae || SE ee ieee Sp Bee eS dua) UeSIUOIPL JO AJIsIOATU, QC GR (eee ote we > ep eer ee ce es eter oes SCUSSOUIGIT OVEN PBL S| ss Soe s Sosy ccna a ccc en Ean ol | epi Sawer gene TUIVIP, JO AJIsIOATU LA OO TRG RENEE > a ligaee ee ee CIYSMO][OM: e1VNpPCIE) OAT VIOMOOMN| ss i jurerea ileal lle MGDaEELED ol) 00) 5 uue|SnElamEEEans lan ASoOuYoa,T, JO 99N4IMYSuT siyesnyoesse py COVA Oligsaten seers a a aS Sn WeIs0OIg oATeIedoog PUB yUePNIG Jo 9919018 Gia Hee ee ee eae: AjISIOATU 99849 eUeIsInoT OFT FS > sieToVay, [OoYOS Arepuodeg 10J ASOTOT| oulIv]AL Ul oYNITSUT JoUNUING |= 7 TAL FMC OTOY UCI Saas a a aes Sees es9][0D 09279 JPloq uM _L “(Ayderisoues.9 ‘Asolooz “Auvjog ‘A14ST = 028 ‘% “Mey ‘soIskyd) s1eyovay, [OOUDS YSt_V IO} UOTYedIoOMIeG Youwosey | --777 7 Fi sUIPOZs| resem ses ee ee TleMey_ Jo AjyIsIOATU A “(AydeisourIG9 ‘AB0jT09y ‘AUIOMONSY) si1oyovey, [OOS CTP ‘CT AIePUWOIIG IO} sdUeING voedg pue DUIS IIB Ul oNASUT TOWING | eS ZINNCSE SSAA UR GU matic AysIoATM T[eu10H OOF

& | Sabine aac ee Sein Sac aes at Bs a SCTUSAOUTE IN MOON Dee |gas ts ce er Se ee ean ge athe te ce he ier eee aie eee pean aera 0G (OIE) clon cae a ene ey dea eae SS ae ee POMS ONCE NEIOTOO DISOCN IT Fo Gan ce ook oa) tg y PEt eR ee | see no = Se ean gene a Sek 0G OC6S a Fla ee ae get a See ATU SMOTTOMoL GN PCr) zo Mle To OOS) lines 90 Gases to a nts ae ee gee eer pan ne eee eres nee ee eee re an 0o”g OSes. Ml gene 2 S° Ses Se ee ere ge eae ia Boas SHUTS MONON AOTEN UD) elisa ars sais erent = Tess 2 el ye = ees | oes Gennes eee eee atte Pees epee o ree s od OO ieee ae | apo ee SIOYOVO,], VSoT[OH IO} UoTyedIoyseg yOIVosoy fo ap SIOMSBM | essen ee Gee ae VIUIOI[eO Jo AyIsisATAA 080 ‘cP > “sieyovey, [OOYOY Arepuooss 10; ABO[OLG oulIV yl Ul o9NAISUT FOUN |~ ~~ yA LOST CIS sae ea ee ee as0[[0D UlOpMOg “ASO[OLG Ul WieIs0Ig “S°Q—uo0T} G29 ‘6 -Ipodxy UV9O UCIPU] [PUOTIeUIOJUT oINIOIG WOO JO WOTYe[MOMD |~~~~~ ~~ Sa U “qnoyourl dy aie SER Peery eee aS Be OUT ‘SUITE, peyeossy OU PaO Gee Gh eres ce or eee ee rn aes oe (SOSOTIOD) SISTIWSIOG BUTJISLA | WM “UgTUg |= 77577 (Aydeisoues90Q) orm [eoIshydoey ueolmoury JUNOULy 84LL Joyest{soauy [ediouyig TOTIN AL SUT, jloddns uo1nonpa a1ydviboune9G— 599 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION SURGES eee lhe eel ae Se eee ee eee rene See le Sr Se i ke ee ee i Ee a Le ae re “~~ [e401 COGb.Gat laees 2. ee a oS PInta [eo1sAYdooy Ul WIeIsOIg JOU, |>>> 55 TAM ‘SMATCIL PO HON4YsSuy O1ydeisouve0O 9[OH SpooM *(Aydeisoues09 ‘Asoloroajayy ‘ASo[Oey ‘AumouOISYy) 0S2 ‘F Sieqovey, [OOYOg Arepuodeg IO} sdUBIOS YJIeY Ul oynqysuy cout Sie et eee ae fest SULUOTOy ice (eae a> 5, aes eee ee ee AjisioAIUQ WeAS[SOM "(ATO -uolsy ‘aoueIds qyieq ‘AYdevis0uvedQ) srsyoea,y, [oOoyoS Arepuooeg 99 ‘IZ Io} eloydsoulyy sj} pu’ Y4leq oy ‘suveDGO OY} Ul OINIMsuUT JoUTUIMNG [~~ ~~ >>> TT ER Ue BULULOT. \een a= oa SSF Ll ae ee TO}SUIYSeM JO AJISIOATIY) Clie = lear neeet SS CYS MOTO HeATMOR ROOUCII Gao nas Gah Ge Gas es So an ae bees ee oe bette St See OAYOT, PUS TOJSUIYSe AA JO SOLJISIOATU OOCR6O eS ee a ee oe ee SOjN4ISUT IWOX OIUMOPVOVW | - “El “Ye ‘SULUOL |e TST ee eS UO}SUIYSE M JO APISIOATA *99-GO6I IOJ SIByOVA,T, [OOYIS Arepuodeg 10; AYdvisouvsd0 pus 982 ‘9 ‘souel0g Yyieq ‘soisAyg ‘ArjstmeyD ‘ASo[OIg Ul 943N4ISUT VdTAIOg-Uy |>~ >>> 777 “ae SM ROO Oules 1 Lees. o> See way VIUISITA JO AYISIOATA A OPs6l=-- |. ates eee. SIeYOvI,, OS9T[0H 10; MOTyedtoyaeg YoIVosoy | ~- SDT AOC Gila ae ce eee ee eee at eee eee Spee od OOP MS S i> Fee ce oe SS ae WIBIdOIg VAVIOdOOD pUB YUOPNYG | gy ‘Aowreg [7777-7 -- ea aa ge a QOUOIOS SULIVIAT JO O9NIYSUT VIUIsITA *(Aydeisoues09 ‘ASojoyupAsg ‘sormosj00T a ‘SoryeuL 086 ‘2 -auyeyy ‘SoisAyd) sioyovay, [OoYOS YSI_{ Joy MoMedriomIwg Youwesoy j---~7 77 IMWstT ga UNO! Xe Ilene = es caer ean > iene. A1ozyeIoge'T sorm01j00[q AABN “S° *(S[eIOUTPL pus syooy ‘AZOTOIOD{OIT ‘Amouojsy ‘Agemouos1p-eiqesty ‘Asojooy ‘Aydevisowee0Q) G10 ‘oI siaqoveay, [ooyIg ArTepuoosg OJ soUSINS YAIV Ul oyNnzWsuUy JoWUIMG | ~~ >>> TTT “OLINGTOPOOM OS) Sar - = == 2° Sass 8 Feeae “AYISIOATU) “WL 7 VY SPXO,L, 556 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION (The following letter was received for insertion in the record :) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, Washington, D.C., September 9, 1965. Mr. JoHw M. DrRewry, Chief Counsel, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. Drewy : This is in reply to your telephone request of August 20, 1965, tor further information on the Foundation’s plans for providing funds for the analysis of data and publication of the results of the U.S. participation in the International Indian Ocean Expedition. As Dr. Bader pointed out in his testimony on August 18, it is the Foundation’s normal practice in making research grants to provide sufficient funds to carry a given project through publication. In the ‘case of the Indian Ocean Expedition, however, the funding has been on an annual basis, and this has appeared as a line item in our budget request. For a number of reasons it was decided not to continue this line item in our budget beyond the period of field operations in the Indian Ocean. ‘Therefore, although some preliminary analysis and publica- tion has been accomplished, the bulk of that work remains to be done, and funds for it must come from our general research budget. As shown in the table we submitted for the record, the total U.S. expenditure for the IIOE to date approximates $21 million, of which the Foundation has pro- vided about $16 million. Asa result of these expenditures, the various investiga- tors have amassed a great deal of valuable material that awaits study and analy- sis. We estimate the total cost of analysis and publication at about $5 million, of which $2.5 million would be for physical oceanography (including geological and geochemical work), $2 million for biology, and $0.5 million for atmospheric studies. Except for some of the biological studies, most of this work could probably be done in 2 to 8 years if sufficient funds are available. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM BH. BENSON, Head, Earth Sciences Section, Mathematical and Physical Sciences Division. Mr. Casry. Our next witness is Mr. David H. Frantz, Jr., president of Ocean Research Equipment, Inc., Falmouth, Mass. Dr. Frantz, we welcome you here this morning. I understand that you are a friend of our colleague, Congressman Keith. He is in an- other committee in an executive session but we will let him know you are before us, so if he can get loose I know he wants to be here if he possibly can. T think in that regard I imagine he has seen your statement so we will let you go ahead and give your statement while we are waiting to see whether Congressman Keith can be in attendance. STATEMENT OF DAVID H. FRANTZ, JR., PRESIDENT, OCEAN RESEARCH EQUIPMENT, INC. Mr. Frantz. All right, sir. For the record, Mr. Chairman, it is “mister,” not “doctor.” Mr. Casry. All right. Mr. Frantz. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being invited to comment on the oceanographic bills being discussed by this committee. My in- terest in a strong Federal oceanographic program is that of an engi- neer, a small businessman, and of an alumnus of a scientific institution, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, where I functioned not as a scientist but as an engineer attempting to provide the tools of the trade to the oceanographer. T see, in a number of the bills being considered, and in a number of statements that have been made before this committee, a failure to rec- ognize a pitfall, a pitfall which is causing controversy where no con- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 557 troversy need exist, fear where no fear need be, and which can, if not recognized in whatever legislation is enacted, cause administrative friction within the Government and inefficiencies in the utilization of the talents of industry and of the private institutions. This pitfall is the failure to recognize that it is impossible to de- fine rigorously the differences between oceanography, the pure science ; oceanography, the applied science; oceanographic survey; and oceano- graphic engineering. Neither is it possible to so categorize the peo- ple engaged in these fields, nor the money they may spend in pursuit of their professional goals. Neither is it possible to draw rigorously defined lines between oceanography in the broader sense, meterology, geophysics, mineral prospecting, or any other activity which might be carried on, at, or through a boundary of the water mass, which is fundamentally what we are studying when we study oceanography. Most of the bills I have seen implicitly or explicitly recognize the need for greater coordination of existing efforts in the ocean, for greater Federal support of the effort, and for Government encourage- ment of private effort in the field. These objectives are desirable; in terms of return in the investment to our society, few programs which are properly the object of Government spending look more promising economically. However, both in and out of Government, many activities which are now being associated very closely with “oceanography” have been carried on very effectively for years within existing organizations. In general, what duplication there has been has not been pernicious and much of the activity has been conducted by dedicated people not at all jealous of the parallel roles taken by others; more of it has been dictated by purely economic considerations—the offshore activities of the oil companies, for example—this beg an example of non- Government activity. We need a stronger Federal program for oceanic activities, but in the interests of coordination, we must not eliminate or discourage activities which have been doing an outstanding job. When I call the “marriage” of the Coast and Geodetic Survey to the Weather Bu- reau, to form the Environmental Science Service Administration, is a most refreshing development and an example of enlightened admin- istration .seeing a true community of interest to the benefit of the Nation as a whole. Successful legislation will provide a program which discovers where such mergers are possible and desirable, while at the same time recognizing that some such mergers could be administratively disas- trous. Successful legislation will distinguish between engineering and science in budgeting for each, but it will recognize that the divi- sion is sometimes a hazy one. Many new engineering techniques in oceanography have been funded by bootlegging from budgets nomi- nally for research. Development funds should not and need not be labeled as “scientific” funds. I believe that a witness before this committee has stated that prospecting is not a proper role of Government; I believe that in cer- tain cases it may well be a proper role, but funds for prospecting should be labeled as such, not as funds for science. I consider H.R. 6009 an example of legislation which recognizes the distinction between science, exploration, and engmeering. It is 558 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION frankly labeled a “Marine Exploration and Development Act,” its geographical limits are quite rigorously defined and its promise of economic return more immediate than other areas of endeavor. It is not mutually exclusive with other bills which consider other prob- lems, and it does not threaten any of these existing agencies which are now doing an outstanding job. Iam personally involved with a type of small business which, quite frankly, would benefit from such a program, but I also feel that such small businesses, most of which are now making their technical con- tributions in oceanography out of proportion to their gross sales when compared to big industry, will more than pull their weight in a pro- gram of Continental Shelf exploration. I wish to thank the subcommittee for giving me this opportunity to present these opinions. | Mr. Casny. Thank you very much, Mr. Frantz. Mr. Keith, we will give you the honor of opening this questioning. Mr. Kerra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to make note of the fact that Mr. Frantz is one of my constituents, and that his firm is located in my district very close to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. His comments, of course, are significant. Jam particularly pleased that he singled out my bill for favorable comment. It is one of the few nice things that has happened to me during these hearings. Most o ae previous witnesses have been a little more critical of H.R. 6009 than he. But my bill, as he says, gives an opportunity for the private sector to participate in the national oceanographic program more actively, and I believe more profitably to the public good. We have in my district and throughout the country literally hun- dreds of small oceanographic research companies and engineering companies who are contributing greatly to our progress in the field of oceanography, and contributing in the long run to the strength of our country. Mr. Frantz’ firm is typical of these and I think it is very helpful of him to come down here as a representative of small in- dustry and be, in fact, the onlv such representative of small industry to testify on these hearings. I am proud to have him as a constitu- ent and I join with you in welcoming him here to the committee. I do not have any questions to ask of him. I would prefer, instead, to have other members of the committee do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Casey. Mr. Rogers? Mr. Rocers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Frantz, I think you have pointed out some of the problems we have, there is no question about it. I think it is going to be neces- sarv for the Conoress, as you say, to get into the field very actively and pass legislation to help center our goals on what needs to be done, and I, too, want to join my colleague in saying we do appreciate your coming here and giving us the benefit of your thoughts, par- tienlarly from a different viewpoint, from a man that has to deal with all of this in business; and I might say, too, I am sure you are aware the contribution your Congressman has made to this entire field has been very sionificant. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 559 Mr. Casrny. Mr. Pelly ? Mr. Petiy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with our colleague, Mr. Rogers of Florida, and point up the contribution that your Con- gressman has made toward oceanography as a member of this com- mittee, and I think I can say without any equivocation at all that he has shown probably as much or more interest in this subject than anyone. He is very proud of your great institution, Woods Hole, and is trying to do everything he can for oceanography, and I think we are very lucky to have him. To me it is significant as an alumnus of Woods Hole that you have come down here as a businessman. This points up what a wonderful system of government we really have when a citizen can come before a, committee of Congress and express his views. Certainly, as I say, it points up that this is a great country and I for one want to join Mr. Keith in welcoming you here, because I think oceanography would be advanced if more people similar to yourself would come before our committees and express their views. I happen to represent a different coast, the State of Washington, where we have, we think, a very fine college of fisheries, and it is a long ways to come, but I wish some of my “constituents that were as interested as you are would come and appear before this committee. I welcome you here today and hope that you will feel that the effort that you made in coming down here was worthwhile; I think it was. Mr. Frantz. Thank you, Mr. Pelly. Mr. Casry. Mr. Dow? Mr. Dow. Yes, I would like to compliment Mr. Frantz on a very thoughtful and well-expressed presentation. I have one question, Mr. Frantz, and that 18, Under this general head of “Marine Exploration and Development” which is covered in the bill offered by Representative Keith, could you give us a typical example of some project that might be undertaken within the scope of this act? In other words, what would be the objective of a project ? What would the results be, and what would be the means of attacking it? Mr. Frantz. I am not a geologist; T am an engineer who manufac- tures equipment, but I would say that a very proper activity under such legislation would be an assessment of the mineral resources on the Continental Shelf. Now, how far the Federal Government wants to go in that kind of exploration I am not prepared to say. I think there comes a point when the knowledge so gained is public knowledge and if it has eco- nomic value it will then be used by those non-Government activities— mining companies, for example—who will then derive economic benefit from the resources that have been proven. Mr. Dow. Of course, you know that all over the world there are big mining and petroleum companies that are exploring on dry land, on all the continents Mr. Franrz. And they are getting their feet wet, too. Mr. Dow. They are developing new deposits of nickel, for mstance, im Canada, and oil in various places. Now, I would judge in your opinion, then, that these private or- ganizations are not exploiting the possibilities i in the sea as much as they should, and something needs to be done about that. 560 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Frantz. I think that is correct. Where the economic stakes are high enough and the odds look good enough, they certainly do. The oil companies are not seeking Federal help as far as I know in financing offshore prospecting; in fact, undoubtedly they would not welcome it. But I am sure there are other cases where, well, man- ganese nodules is one resource that has been mentioned often. There is certainly considerable doubt at just which point the ex- ploitation of this resource becomes economically feasible, but I think the determination of this point can be made based on federally financed exploraiton, prospecting, and gathering of knowledge. Mr. Dow. We do not have a bill or a Federal authority that au- thorizes exploration and development of this sort on dry land, but ap- parently in the sea the private entrepreneurs are not applying them- selves as eagerly as they are on land and therefore you think that there should be, that the exploration should be taken up by the Gov- ernment through the means of incentives like you have here in this act introduced by Mr. Keith? Mr. Frantz. I do, sir. Mr. Dow. In other words, the Government needs to take a greater proportion of the effort on its shoulders than you might say it does normally on the land ? Mr. Frantz. I do, sir, simply because there may be a mile of water between the operator and what he is looking for, and this encompasses a whole technology which is relatively new, and the techniques of which are developing. Mr. Dow. Thank you, sir. Mr. Casey. Thank you, Mr. Dow. Of course, I too, want to welcome you, Mr. Frantz, because, after all, if we just hear the big industries and the big operators, why, some- times we might lose our perspective. As I understand it, you are now primarily in the design and manu- facturing of equipment; is that correct ? Mr. Frantz. That is correct, sir. Mr. Casry. And I presume your experience at Woods Hole led you to realize that there needed to be someone in that field and so you struck out on your own; isthat right ? Mr. Frantz. That is correct, sir. Mr. Casry. Well, I admire you for it and that is what makes this country tick. I know you have made your statement very brief, which we appreci- ate, and I think that possibly I want to follow up a little more on de- fining your ideas as you expressed to Mr. Dow as to the Government’s proper role in prospecting, as you put it. Now, from your response to his questions I gather that you think the Government might prospect to the extent of determining whether they had enough deposits of a particular mineral to encourage private industry to then bid for the rights or something of that nature; is that correct ? Mr. Franrz. The mechanism by which the private industry ex- ploits this knowledge I am not prepared to make a statement on, but T do believe, in fact, that up to the point where the knowledge be- comes available the financing of this is, indeed, a proper role of Government. — NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 561 Mr. Casny. Of course, oil exploration, that started on dry land and just went on out in the water as they found that the oil-bearing sands or stratas projected out kind of in a shelf, and as you say, in fact, they charge them a bonus and an annual lease for the right to prospect out there, but they think it is worth a gamble. As I understand it, you would not favor the Government going into the production business; is that right, as such ? Mr. Frantz. That is my opinion, yes. Actually the expression of that opinion goes further than I intended to go. Mr. Casry. I felt from your response to Mr. Dow that you took the position that what you considered prospecting was just determining whether something was there and then making it known to the pub- lic so that they would be induced to go after it on their own. Mr. Frantz. That is correct, sir. Mr. Casry. Because I felt that being a man who struck out on his own here and having gone into a new business, felt like the Govern- ment should not be getting into any fields that were not properly its sphere, and I wanted to develop that a little further. Also it is in conflict with the previous statements we had here in which the oil industries had made the broad statement by one representative who said he was not speaking for all of the oil industry but was speak- ing for the American petroleum industry, they were a little afraid of this, Government getting into the business, so to speak, of ex- ploration and development of resources. I certainly appreciate your appearing here also and taking your time from your business and making this journey to Washington to give us the benefit of your views as a small businessman and we certainly welcome you at any time because you can be most helpful to us. Mr. Frantz. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Cassy. Mr. Keith, did you have anything else? After all, this is a real friendly witness and you want to develop him all you can. Mr. Kerrs. I would just like to tell him that I did not prear- range the performance of my colleagues on this committee. They have been more than generous with their comments concerning me and just modest in their expressions of gratitude concerning your visit here today. Mr. Casry. He should have made you put in the record what you told me before you left. It was very complimentary to you, Mr. Frantz, and it shows that you both have equal admiration and respect for each other. Thank you very much. Mr. Franrz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Casry. We have now Prof. Charles Stephan. Professor Ste- phan is chairman of the Department of Ocean Engineering, Flor- ida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Fla. Have you ever heard of that, Mr. Rogers? Mr. Rocerrs. Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman, and I want to say I am delighted to see the professor here; and some of our members had the opportunity to visit Florida Atlantic University, which is a new State university in Florida, to see what they are doing in this field. It is a very exciting program that they are developing there 562 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION and I think it is going to make a great contribution to this whole Held and Professor Stephan is chairman of this department as it egins. Tam delighted to see you here. Mr. StepHan. Thank you, sir. Mr. Casry. Before he took the bit away from me, here, I too, want to welcome the professor and without any further delay we will let you proceed. STATEMENT OF CHARLES R. STEPHAN, CHAIRMAN, OCEAN ENGI- NEERING DEPARTMENT, FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY, BOCA RATON, FLA. Mr. SrepHan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a relatively short statement I would appreciate the opportunity to read. Mr. Casry. Go right ahead. Mr. Stepan. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the com- mittee, it is a great honor to be permitted to testify before this com- mittee. Based not only upon my present position as professor and chairman of the department of ocean engineering at the newest State university in Florida, Florida Atlantic University, but also upon lone participation in the U.S. Navy’s antisubmarine warfare, research and development, training and oceanographic programs, I am most inter- ested and concerned with our future national programs in oceanog- raphy, ocean engineering, and education. In the Navy, I was privi- leged to chair the working group that prepared the Navy’s first 10- year plan for oceanography, TENOC 1961, participated in Admiral Stepnhan’s—incidentally not a relative—deep submereence systems re- view group in 1963 and have maintained close association with Dr. Wakelin and Mr. Abel of the Interagency Committee on Oceanog- raphy to the present day. Increasing interest in oceanography is evident, not only i our own country, but also among our friends and enemies, whose latter ef- fort in many instances has exceeded ours. Interest in ocean engineer- ing, which may be briefly described as “the application of oceano- eraphic science and engineering technology to the performance of useful work in the oceans,” is increasing rapidly, not only in defense applications but also in all phases of the development of ocean resources. This is evidenced by the tremendous interest of industry in the pres- entation and reception of ocean-engineering papers at the recent ASLO/Marine Technolooy Society’s Oceanooraphv and Ocean En- gineering Conference in Washington, D.C., this past June. The interest of Congress is clearly shown in the “Chronology of Events Related to Federal Legislation for Oceanography From 1956 to 1965.” The number of bills presented and their scope shows full appreciation of the imnortance of the nreblem. While some bills have been passed, most were held up pending resolution of the many divergent interests, opinions, and agency policy conflicts. However, our national oceanographic, and to a lesser extent, ocean-engineering programs have progressed through many excellent programs in the various departments and agencies of the Government and the co- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 563 ordinating efforts of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. Each department and agency of the Government has its oceano- graphic program designed to meet its needs, to answer its questions, and to research for advantages to its future. These are good, I should say excellent, programs designed by dedicated, intelligent men to meet their department’s specific needs. The ICO has done, and is doing, a magnificent job defining and co- relating the individual programs into a national program which shows where we are going in oceanographic science and _ technology. Through its panels it analyzes the various programs, recommends and suggests means to strengthen the overall program through normal agency channels. These agencies— retain responsibility for accepting or rejecting specific projects and for finally developing and conducting their own annual programs. These words are taken from the “National Oceanographic Program 1966,” ICO Pamphlet No. 17. In other words, the agencies must be willing and able to absorb recommendations made by the ICO within their own budgets and re- sources if they involve projects that are not included in their original annual programs. No one can expect a department or agency to put much of its limited resources into projects that will not bring a direct return to their program; and they do not. This, then, is a basic prob- lem that must be solved in our national oceanographic program. To solve this problem, certain bills now before you recommend the establishment of a National Oceanographic Council patterned after the National Aeronautics and Space Council which would, in effect, take all of the oceanographic programs and their support out of the various departments and agencies and place them under one new Government agency. Such a drastic step would, I personally believe, cripple the many outstanding programs now existent that meet the needs of their sponsors, drain the country’s inadequate supply of oceanographers and ocean engineers and add another level of planners, managers, and operators between the producer and consumer. This, I feel, would be bad. However, the current feeling that the national oceanographic pro- eram is too splintered, that it lacks central direction and that it is inadequate, is real and must be faced and the problems corrected. In- dustry also continually asks, as I have found in numerous consulting sessions: “Just what does the exploration and development of ocean resources mean to us in terms of future revenue to my company ?” These are questions that must be faced and solved for our national wel- fare, defense, and industrial progress. Generalized statements on the “oreat resources available from the sea,” the “needs to meet the in- creased demands of the expanding populations for food and ma- terials,” are not specific enough to spur great industrial participation. What I feel are needed include: (1) Specific and detailed surveys of our Continental Shelf to de- termine what is available, where, and what are the means to gather and process the resources. (2) A similar survey of the Great Lakes. | 564 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION (3) Detailed surveys of deep ocean areas where oceanographic knowledge indicates a probability of valuable resources that are obtainable. (4) Studies to really determine what use and importance these re- sources can be for today, tomorrow, and the more distant future. (5) Development programs to devise new ocean-engineering tech- niques, equipment, and systems to exploit ocean resources at the depths ut which they exist. (6) The study, development, and prosecution of new international law and/or treaties to protect claims, rights of nations, and individuals engaged in deep ocean projects. (7) Development of a coordinated national education support pro- vram, not only for graduate oceanographers, but also for undergradu- ate and technical students in ocean engineering and oceanographic science and technology to meet the expanding needs of the future. Many bills now before you cover certain details of the above items. But the very fact that there are so many bills before you makes it apparent that a thorough study of the problem as a whole is neces- sary by a highly qualified group of experts from Government, indus- try, and the scientific and engineering communities who can and will look at the problems from an overall, national viewpoint. Accordingly, I strongly recommend the establishment of a self- liquidating commission as set forth in Congressman Rogers’ bill, H.R. 9064, at the earliest possible time, to review the current oceanographic and ocean-engineering programs both in Government and industry; determine the true and actual needs of these same activities, and de- termine the important areas that are not covered by existing programs and for which there is no support now. For these unsupported items, and for these alone, I feel the Commission should recommend the designation or, if necessary, the establishment of an organization, to- gether with appropriate financial support, to accomplish them. This, I feel, is urgently needed to cover those oceanographic and ocean-engineering national requirements which are beyond the scope, responsibility, or capacity of existing governmental or industrial pro- grams to meet. The seven items mentioned above, I feel, are examples. Commission study would undoubtedly find more or possibly delete some of those I mentioned. I believe that the work of such a commission would not only be ac- cepted but would be welcomed by Government agencies and industry and further, it would not interfere with the vital programs now in prog- ress. Working in close cooperation with the ICO, the Commission could define a true national oceanographic program which provides not only for the essential programs now in progress but also can provide the means to plug the voids that now make our national program in- adequate. Wasteful duplication of effort, if found—and I might point out all duplications are not necessarily wasteful—would be reported im- mediately to the responsible agencies and the ICO for appropriate action. Recommendations for early action on existing bills or recom- mendations for new legislation could be made by the Commission as soon as the studies so indicate. The designation of specific national projects to Government agen- cies or industry, together with recommended financial support, could NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 565 likewise be accomplished during the life of the Commission or assigned to designated agencies thereafter. Once the survey was completed and the tasks, funding and organization established to accomplish the full program, the Commission should be terminated. This, I believe, will provide the wisest and best program with minimum disturbance of vital projects now in progress. There are many who may feel that we must do something right now and not spend more time in studies. One cannot dispute such urgency but the fact that our oceanographic program has made great progress during the 9-year period of the oceanographic debates, the fact that industry would rather be told “where to go” rather than just “let’s go,” and the fact that the overall problem has really been expanded from just “oceanography” to the all-inclusive, true problem of “ocean- ography and ocean engineering” all made it necessary not only to move quickly, but, more importantly, to move wisely and well. This, I be- heve, can be done through Congressman Rogers’ bill, H.R. 9064. I appreciate the opportunity to make this statement, sir. Mr. Rocrers. Thank you very much, Professor Stephan. Mr. Dow? Mr. Dow. Mr. Stephan, I do not know if you are familiar with H.R. 2218, which is another bill that has been Mr. Srepuan. Yes, sir; I have it here. Mr. Dow (continuing). That has been offered here. Would you care to explain the thinking in your mind for why you prefer the bill offered by Representative Rogers to the bill, H.R. 2218? And I do not say that because I have any prejudice about either bill, but I would be glad to have your opinion, sir. Mr. SterHan. For one thing, sir, I feel that H.R. 2218 pertain pri- marily to the science of oceanography and does not really extend far enough into the ocean engineering problems. That is one thing, sir. This being primarily a policy bill, as I read it right quickly, sir, without having the chance to review it again, I did not feel it gave the means for implementation that I considered were part of Congress- man Rogers’ bill. _ Mr. Dow. Thank you, Mr. Stephan, for a very thoughtful presenta- tion. Mr. StepHan. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rocrrs. Mr. Pelly? Mr. Petiy. Professor Stephan, you recommend yourself very highly to me when you indicate that you have been in touch and associated with Dr. Wakelin. We of this committee certainly learned to admire him and to respect him, and you certainly do yourself great credit with me when you indicate your association with him; and I might add, too, that in your support of our colleague, Mr. Rogers, you certainly up- grade yourself in our opinion, because we certainly have enjoyed our association with Mr. Rogers and we are going to watch the growth of your great institution down there. There has been a real need, I think, for an increase in the number of institutions of learning in connection with oceanography. On the west coast we only have two of them that I know of that are really out- standing. I have always heard from our people there was a need for more. Tam very glad you are here today. I listened to your testimony with great interest. It is obvious that you have given a lot of thought to this 566 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION subject, because you have very definite ideas, and particularly I am interested in the fact that you are very critical of the idea of putting all the various responsibilities that are now under various agencies of Government into one single agency, and the way that it might deplete the personnel that is available. Actually, in the NASA program, in the Space Agency, the Govern- ment is having to pour millions of dollars back to educational institu- tions to try to develop scientists and engineers to replace those in pri- vate industry that NASA has taken away, in order to develop its program. I take it that actually you do not favor that type of operation as far as the pursuit of oceanography is concerned ? Mr. Stepan. If I may, sir, I would like to explain perhaps a little further than I did in my paper. I feel that an agency such as NASA, or to go back to another pro- gram that is close and dear to my heart, the Polaris program in the Navy, have been very successful because they had a single product as an end product. I do not believe that this is true in our national oceanographic program, sir. I feel that here we are developing a com- petency in a broad area, not coming to the end of putting a man on the moon or to develop a particular system that will do a specific thing. In this particular (NASA) case the designation of a single agency, I feel, is not only justified but perhaps the best way, although maybe not the most economical. But when you are trying to develop a com- petency for the Nation in a broad area of sicence or engineering, I do not feel that this can be done by an agency without drawing almost everybody in the country with competence into that agency, sir. Mr. Petty. I must say that I originally started out with the thought that if we were ever going to get any place we were going to have to have one agency in order to get enough support, in order to develop the resources of the sea and explore them; but I have, over the years, come to the conclusion and can now agree with you that it is better if we proceed in another way, and this was the reasoning of the late President Kennedy. Mr. SrerHan. Yes, sir. Mr. Petry. And certainly no one had a greater interest in this. President Kennedy did not want to put this all in one agency. I certainly welcome you here today; I enjoyed your contribution very much. Mr. Rocrrs. Thank you. Mr. Keith? Mr. Kerru. Nice to see you again, sir. J noted that you in your testimony left out the word “Boca Raton” as the location of your institution. Mr. SrerpHan. I was trying to save a second of time, sir. Mr. Kerrn. I see. Well, it brought back very pleasant memories: of our visit down there, and all of us, I think, were very impressed with your efforts in the field of ocean engineering. As I look over your testimony—and I think it is an excellent ap- praisal of our problem—you list the things that you feel are needed on page 2, and the No. 1 item you have is: Specific and detailed surveys of our Continental Shelves to determine what is available, where, and what are the means to gather and process the resources?’ NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 567 And you go on to say in other subparagraphs there that other needs are the development of programs to devise new ocean-engineering tech- niques and equipments and systems to exploit ocean resources at the depths at which they exist. And, then you talk, in the next subsec- tion, 6, of: Study, development, and prosecution of new international law and/or treaties to protect claims, rights of nations, and individuals engaged in deep ocean projects. And the fourth one: Studies to really determine what use and importance these resources can be for today, tomorrow, and the more distant future. Those in essence are really the objectives of legislation which Mr. Rivers and I filed at the start of this session. Mr. StepHan. Yes, sir. Mr. Kerrs. And I had filed in earlier years a bill which has passed the Congress once and which was not signed, and which later on was passed by this committee but did not get concurrence a second time from the Senate. It is the one that is essentially the same as Mr. Lennon’s now. And sort of as a last resort I said, well, let us get into this thing, let us have some on-the-job training in a way which can give us these techniques and give us the coordination of effort to accomplish some of the major objectives that we have all been talking about. That was the reacon for the Continental Shelf expleration bill. By assigning that role and that mission to a particular commission and getting on with the show, we could, it seems to me, learn a great deal not only about oceanography but about the resources of the Continental Shelf, its potential contribution, and at the same time we could learn a lot about organization for an attack on these problems. I am delighted to see that your testimony here supports the objec- tives of that mission with very high priority, and I would hope that simultaneous with the passage of Congressman Rogers’ very thought- ful approach to this problem, we could begin to actually attack it by substantial effort which I feel would be certainly as remunerative as Operation Moho and not any more expensive, at least in the initial phases, and which probably would be much more productive in the development of our oceanographic resources. Would you care to comment ? Mr. SterpHan. I do feel, sir, as I stated here, even though these were not listed in a particular order of priority, that I did consider this survey of the Continental Shelf to be one of the top priority items. I felt this was a part, an extremely important part, of the whole problem, which I recommended the commission study, and that, as the commis- sion went to the execution of individual problems, they could properly recommend highly, the passage of a bill of the type of your bill, sir, very strongly. Mr. Kerru. Ever since I have been in the Congress we have been talking about ways and means. I think it is time that we get out and undertake the job. and that is the reason for my bill. Mr. SrerHan. Yes, sir. Mr. Kerra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rocrrs. Thank you, Mr. Keith. 568 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION As has been said, I think you have made a real contribution here; particularly I think it has been helpful to have you set out specifically goals that have to be considered as to how we are going to begin them and when. I, of course, share your feeling that the best way for us to proceed to really get something done is to have a national commission. Mr. Steruan. This is my personal feeling, sir. Mr. Rocrrs. Because I think we need to focus the attention of the whole Nation on the urgency of this problem and I do not know any better vehicle to use than this national commission and really set our goals and to pull the oceanographic community together to help solve this problem. So I think you have made a real contribution and we are very grateful to you for your appearance here today. Mr. StepHan. Thank you. Mr. Rogzrs. You have been on a recent trip to the Atlantic, Project Neptune—Atlantic, which this committee is most interested in, and at the suggestion of the counsel, he wondered if it would be possible for you to stay over tomorrow and perhaps brief the committee, al- though you have not had time, I know, to make all of your findings but give us your impressions. Mr. Steruan. If that is desirable I will be glad to do it, sir. Mr. Rocers. That would be fine. So, this completes the list of witnesses today. We will adjourn over until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning when we will hear any additional witnesses and to take up H.R. 7778, and we hope also to go into execu- tive session at that time. The committee stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, August 19, 1965.) NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1965 Howust or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY OF THE Commitrer oN Mercoant Martner AND FISHERIES, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, In room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul G. Rogers pre- siding. Mr. Rogers. The committee will now continue the hearings on oceanography. Our first witness this morning is the gentleman from Massachu- setts, the Honorable F. Bradford Morse. STATEMENT OF HON. F. BRADFORD MORSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Morsr. The past two decades have proven to be an era of pio- neering, exploration, and discovery in science—never before in history has there been a more productive period in this or in any other field. But in this era we have devoted a great deal of our energies to atomic science and space exploration, and have seemed to neglect an equally important branch of science—oceanography. The water that covers three-fourths of the earth’s surface contains countless untapped re- sources, which if harvested, could provide incalculable benefit to the people of the world. But there can be no benefit derived from these resources without research and technology in oceanography, and there can be no such research and technology without an impetus from the Federal Government, encouraging this work through extensive ocean- ographic programs. As it stands now, there are numerous departments, agencies, and private concerns which are engaged in various types of oceanographic research. This sort of work is inadequate, however, for two basic reasons. First, each concern does research only in those areas which affect it directly, thus many areas are totally neglected. Second, since information gained by one concern is virtually unavailable to others, a considerable amount of duplication of work occurs. For an efficient oceanographic program, there must be created an agency whose pur- pose it would be to formulate oceanographic programs, as well as to coordinate information gained by other concerns. The councils pro- vided for in S. 944 would fulfill these requirements effectively, and place oceanography on a par with space, aeronautics, and atomic energy. 569 53-367 —65—— 37 570 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Dr. Harold EK. Edgerton, professor of electrical measurements in the department of electrical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology and chairman of the board of Edgerton, Germeshausen & Grier, Inc., told the Senate Commerce Committee when he testified on this legislation that: . A strong national commitment to oceanography would certainly be a step down the road to effective utilization of all our resources, human and physical. Dr. Edgerton pointed out that the present high quality of work being conducted by industry and education alike promises outstand- ing cooperation and imaginative response to the programs proposed in S. 944. There are vast amounts of resources to be found in the seas from which great benefits can be derived; a national commitment to oceanography would lead to effective utilization of all these resources, plus enable us to employ more of our human labor supply. An exten- sive program of research and technology would open up new areas of human endeavor calling for new skills and manpower as yet uncom- mitted. Opportunities would be created for scientists, researchers, technicians, laborers, and clerical people. In the greater Boston area, three major universities are already proceeding with active expansion of facilities to be devoted to the fields of oceanography, in order that they may effectively train their students in this field. The abundance of natural resources in the seas is a prime reason for the development of oceanographic programs. These resources come under four major headings: biological, physical, geological, and chem- ical. Biological resources, the marine animal life, are important to man’s physical well-being. Fish are an integral part of the American’s diet, and a complete understanding of their characteristics and habits would greatly increase the yearly harvest, thus providing more food for more people. The physical characteristics of the oceans are of prime concern to people of many fields—fishing companies must learn more about marine currents since these currents directly affect the distribution of fish; the Navy Department, as well as transport companies, require an under- standing of currents in order to prepare maritime shipping routes; and the weather bureau must be concerned with currents, since they affect the transferral of energy between air and sea, affecting the climates of the seas and continents, and their weather patterns. HKven public health agencies are interested in the physical characteristics of the marine environment: they are concerned with the flow of river water into the ocean due to its impact on offshore pollution. Currents and countercurrents are just being discovered, but years of work will be required before we have a reasonably complete understanding of these phenomena. Information concerning the geological aspects of the ocean floors is also needed by many concerns. Petroleum and chemical companies must have this information in order to determine where they should begin their search for their resources, and the Navy Department must have a knowledge of the contours of the ocean floors so that they may plan their submarine expeditions. The waters and floors of the ocean abound with virtually untouched chemical resources. Industry’s need for these elements and minerals — is increasing at a fantastic rate, and as a result, the once plentiful sup- ply found in the continents is fast becoming exhausted. Industry will NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 571 soon be forced to look to the seas as a new source of materials. The seabed and subsoil of the oceans contain minerals of incalculable value; these areas are rich in petroleum, tin, sulfur, iron, and coal; the south- west African coast contains vast diamond deposits; gold is found off Alaska, and phospherite off California. The deep ocean floor harbors extensive deposits of manganese nodules, which contain such impor- tant minerals as iron, nickel, copper, lead, and zinc. The challenge for this country is to develop equipment that will enable the economic re- covery of these minerals from the ocean bed, and to do so before any other nation can claim squatters rights on the areas. Since manganese nodules form at the rate of 10 million tons a year, a rate many times that of present world consumption, the world will have an inexhaust- ible supply of these metals once technology has been developed for re- covering these nodules, and separating their basic elements. Another important natural resource is sea water itself, which con- tains a good amount of salts and minerals in solution. Here again, technology must be devised to extract these minerals, since their bene- fits to industry and society would be immeasurable. Work should also be done on the desalinization process so that sea water can be rendered fit for human consumption at small expense. The people in the Northeastern States realize now more than ever the importance of being able to extract drinking water from the sea. A national commitment to oceanography, then, would enable us to effectively use all of our resources. S. 944 is designed to stimulate the acquisition of knowledge and technology in the field of oceanog- raphy; the committees outlined in this legislation would provide a comprehensive program of ocean technology, engineering, and _ re- search, embracing the expolitation and development of the capability to do useful work with the seas. They would be groups that would put together some real objectives in the new and important field of oceanography. I strongly favor an increased national concern with peapoerephy, and therefore urge your favorable report on this legis- ation. Mr. Rocrrs. The subcommittee thanks you for a very fine statement. We have as our next witness Prof. Charles Stephan, who agreed to stay over last night and brief us on a recent project which this committee is very interested in. STATEMENT OF PROF. CHARLES STEPHAN, CHAIRMAN, DEPART- MENT OF OCEAN ENGINEERING, FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVER- SITY, BOCA RATON, FLA.—Resumed Mr. Stepan. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to discuss in a prelim- inary fashion, Project Neptune Atlantic, which was sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, Biology Branch, under Dr. Sidney Galler, and run under my direction in July 1965. As I did not expect to make this presentation until yesterday, I request your indulgence as I refer to some rather rough notes prepared without reference to project data which is still being assembled. Mr. Rogers. We appreciate that. Mr. Stepan. To start, sir, if I may I would like to give the objec- tive of this particular cruise. 5i2 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION It was to test the feastbility of the research-ship-of-opportunity concept wherein an instrumented van or module is placed on board a merchantman to take oceanographic and biological data, including the processing of living organisms gathered by the ship, during its regular cruise without interference with the ship’s operation schedule, or normal routine. The background is that the original Project Neptune, sponsored by Dr. Galler, started with a Pacific phase conducted in the Pacific Ocean on board the American Mail Line ship Java Mail during its cruise from Seattle, Wash., to Hong Kong in October-November 1964. I was privileged to participate in the short shakedown period of this cruise in September during the passage of Java Mail from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The results of Project. Neptune Pacific, which was classed as a prefeasibility test of the research-ship-of-opportunity concept, was reported in detail in the hearings before this subcommittee on Janu- ary 22, 1965—Serial 89-1. As you know, that cruise was classed as a complete success, having demonstrated the ability of a small scientific party to obtain various oceanographic data and the gathering of biological samples, utilizing a mobile science van laboratory on board ship. Dr. Clinton Maag, Acting Life Sciences Officer of NAMTC, Point Mugu, lead the project with the assistance of Dr. Aron and Mr. Ber- caw of the General Motors Defense Research Laboratory, Santa Bar- bara, Calif., and those able marimers, Mr. Jack Drewry and Capt. Paul Bauer of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. The success of that project lead to the initiation and support of Project Neptune Atlantic by Dr. Galler and the Office of Naval Re- search to do a complete and more advanced feasibility test of the research-ship-of-opportunity concept in the Atlantic. As invited by Dr. Galler, my associates and I at Florida Atlantic University pre- pared and submitted a proposal on February 15, 1965, which was accepted by the Office of Naval Research. A contract was issued to do the project in early June 1965. The intervening time between the submission of our proposal and the receipt of the contract was occupied by planning for the project, transporting a mobile van laboratory from Point Mugu to Boca Raton, Fla.; which, incidentally, was accomplished by a Marine Reserve transport aircraft on a training transcontinental flight; refurbishing and altering the van to meet our requirements; preparing requisitions for equipment and supples; and planning the cruise with Atlantic ship lines. When we received our contract in June we rushed our purchase orders through and were able to assemble all our gear, outfit the van, and get it ready for transport to the port of embarkation in less than 1 month from receipt of the contract. We would have greatly appreciated more time but we were able to do it in about 4 weeks. After a preliminary survey, the selection of ship lines and specific ships available in the limited time available within our academic calendar, resolved itself into a choice of the S.S. Mormacdraco of the Moore McCormack Lines and two ships of the American Export- Isbrandtsen Line. Contract delays, project timing, and the maritime strike finally settled our choice to the 8.8. Kxport Champion of the NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 573 American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines departing Hoboken, N.J., on July 9, for Spanish and Italian ports. We contracted to load our van on July 8 and run the project until arrival in Genoa on July 26. I may add that during this time, the assistance of Adm. Roy Gano of the Moore-McCormack Lines and Capt. G. R. Miller of the American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines were invaluable to us. The preparation, equipping and fitting out period was hectic. We had to ship the van from Boca Raton, Fla., to Hoboken, N.J., on a low bed trailer because the van towing bridle and tires were inade- quate for the 1,300 mile trip. Actually the van was never intended to be towed except for short distances and it could not be. The van was equipped, all gear stowed, tied down and the van loaded at Florida Atlantic University on July 2. It reached Hoboken, N.J., on July 6. The van was loaded on board the SS L'xport Champion on July 9 at pier A, Hoboken. After some temporary difficulties matching the electrical power of the van to that of the ship, we tested all the equip- ment and sailed that evening for Rota, Spain. The cruise, unlike the Pacific phase, had no underway shakedown period. All our equipment had to work as there were no service sta- tions or outside assistance available during the longest leg of the cruise, the first lee. Hverything did work and for this I must cite the excellent help we received from the Navy Oceanographic Office in installing its equipment and training us in its use the night before we sailed; the technical assistance of Francis Associates of Marion, Mass., whose Mr. Cate and Valm helped us tremendously during the installa- tion phase, the help and advice of Mr. Bercaw of the General Motors Defense Research Laboratory of General Motors, from Santa Barbara, Calif.; and most of all, Mr. Frank Carnaghe, senior electronics tech- nician of General Motors Defense Research Laboratory who accom- panied us and kept all equipment going well through the cruise, in- cluding that of the Oceanographic Office and the equipment of his competitor, Sippican Corp. Actually, the Sippican equipment never went out but Mr. Carnaghe helped us maintain it in a spirit of co- operation that warrants note. The cruise had its ups and down as I will explain in detail in a mo- ment. The engineering and deck departments of the SS Export Champion helped us out with repairs and rerigging whenever we needed it. At Rota, Spain; the U.S. Navy, specifically men from the U.S.S. Holland, practically rebuilt a jetnet that was damaged during the tests. They did this in less than a day. Throughout the cruise, cooperation was the order of the day and never an exception. We visited Rota, Cadiz and Cartagena, Spain; plus Naples and Genoa, Italy, where the scientific party disembarked and returned to the United States by air. The van was sealed and offloaded at Hoboken last Thursday. It is now on its way to Boca Raton, Fla. We accomplished all tests scheduled. I would now like to tell you in more detail what went on. The scientific party consisted off: Dr. Harrison Hoffmann, associate professor of microbiology, Florida Atlantic University; Mr. Frank Carnaghe, senior electronic technician, General Motors Defense Re- search Laboratory, Santa Barbara; Mr. A. F. Kellum, student as- saatant to Dr. Hoffmann; and myself as scientific officer and project leader. 574 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The following tests were scheduled: Biological sampling at ships’ speed of 19 to 1914 knots, which incidentally, is the fastest that this has ever been done; oxygen consumption and other tests on living specimens in the Van laboratory on board ship; tempertaure structure determination by expendable Bathy thermographs (BT’s) every 4 hours during the cruise, plus BT drops before and after each biologi- cal sampling; constant recording of main injection temperature ductivity and salinity; and periodic salinity checks against Cope- hagen Standard Sea Water samples; atmospheric and weather data; and data for manpower, cost and equipment analyses. With regard to our test schedules, we performed jetnet tows at least twice a day each of which was followed by a 4- to 6-hour analysis, if we had a successful tow, by Dr. Hoffmann and his associate. We made expendable BT runs every 4 hours during the whole cruise, plus BT runs before and after each jetnet tow, we made tem- perature and salinity readings continuously, and we kept a continuous weather log. Our funding in the amount of $16,700 was supplied by the Office of Naval Research. The following facilities and equipment were used: The ship from the American Export-Isbrandtsen Lines; the van supplied by the U.S. Navy; the scientific equipment from Florida Atlantic University Laboratories and Navy contract purchase for special equipment; the seamanship and towing equipment on contract purchase; the expenda- ble BT system by Packard Electric Co. and the General Motors De- fense Research Laboratory and also another expendable BT system from Francis Associates (Sippican Corp.). The jetnet was provided by the General Motors Defense Laboratory on loan. The constant reading temperature and conductivity record- ers and a portable salinometer were provided by the Oceanographic Office of the Navy. The expendable BT temperature profiles we ran across the ocean, were an outstanding success with both the Packard (General Motors) and Francis Associates (Sippican) equipment; all equipment worked very well. The Packard equipment was used for 68 runs. Sixty- six were totally successful and one was a partial success; the Sippican was used for 28 runs with 27 being totally successful. The data has yet to be analyzed and correlated to be sure of our results. We made 17 biological tows using the jetnet. Twelve gathered plankton samples but many samples were mangled; five had samples suitable for viability tests on living organisms. We performed bio- logical tests and in one case the samples were kept alive for more than 30 hours on board ship. A preliminary analysis shows that the towing configuration of the ship, which I will demonstrate on a chart in just a moment, was not satisfactory. We used three different stations in the ship and we received quite a bit of damage to our jetnets. The quantity of plankton samples received at high speed were marginal; however, we were able to get sufficient to conduct most of our tests. The oxygen consumption and viability tests desired by Dr. Galler are now under analysis by Dr. Hoffmann, but we did prove that the tests can be conducted at sea. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 575 We faced a considerable number of problems including vibration, crowded space, and other features of the van that need improvement. Dr. Hoffmann also made some bacterial cultures which may be of great interest in the future. The salinometer, temperature conductivity recordings from main injection probes were run with excellent results. We had a little trouble with some of the equipment, but Mr. Carnaghe was able to correct them. In one case, a temperature probe in the main injec- tion line carried away. We are not sure whether it was caused by something hitting it or whether vibration caused its failure. There is a very interesting development in the new BT recording equipment provided by the General Motors Corp. It is a digital taper in the expendable BT system which records the data on tape as well as on a chart record. This tape can then be placed on a high speed ratt (Radio Teletype) circuit for rapid transmission ashore. Actually we did transpose some material from our data and sent it by radio to the Navy numerical weather facility in Rota, Spain. When we got to Rota and checked with the people at the Numerical Weather Central, it was amusing to find that they wanted to know how this data ever came from a merchantman. I think, in this there is a tremendous promise for rapid data acquisition and transmission for ASWEPS or Oceanographic Projects of the future. One other item of interest before I refer to the charts, is that while we were at Cadiz, Spain, our group visited Rear Admiral Balén who is Chief of the Spanish Hydrographic Office. He was extremely interested in our project. He came out to the H'xport Champion and spent 4 hours with us on board ship. We discussed not only our project but also some of the work that he is doing in the establishment of an Oceanography program in Spain. It is my intention to contact the Navy Oceanographer and the University of Washington to see if we can give some help to Admiral Balen and the Spanish Navy in this very important work that they are doing. If I may now, I would like to refer to these charts for just a moment. Mr. Rocers. Yes. Mr. SrerpHan. These were done rather rapidly. I will try to read them because I recognize that you cannot see them too well. The objective of Project Neptune Atlantic: To test the feasibility of the research ship-of-opportunity concept wherein an instrumented van or module is placed onboard a U.S. merchantman to take ocean- ographic and biological data, including the processing of living orga- nisms at sea, during the ships regular cruise; without interfering with the ship’s operations, schedule, or normal routine. We did carry out this objective. The data we took on the cruise included: Type of run that we made, either a BT run or a jetnet sampling; the ship’s position from the ship’s actual track. I must agree with Captain Bauer that this leaves a lot to be desired in accuracy, but I do think at least that it is sufficiently accurate to within maybe 3 to 4 miles. The time and the identification of each BT record, which are now being reproduced at General Motors and at Francis Associates. We checked surface temperature using a bucket thermometer. We took the temperature at the main condenser injection which is about 576 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 10 to 12 feet below the surface and the water conductivity which, put- ting both of these together, permitted us to compute salinity. Wind force and direction, air temperature, humidity, clouds, visi- bility, sea state, and had a place for remarks where we recorded what actually was going on of special interest. In addition to that regular data, we have a digitized tape of every BT trace made by the General Motors equipment. This is now being processed at the numerical weather facility of the Navy at Monterey and I believe will be at a tremendous advance for special projects such as ASWEPS and other oceanographic programs of the future. We have continuous temperature and conductivity readings on cir- cular charts, and as I mentioned before, have bacterial cultures that are now being analyzed. We hada considerable problem in the towing of our jetnet. I would like to show rather quickly what actually occurred. The first part of Project Neptune in the Pacific was run on a ship with engines amidships. They were able to tow aft and had little difficulty towing at the speeds of about 1514 or 16 knots. The ship we were assigned had engines aft and our van was placed just forward of the afterdeck house, a distance approximately 100 feet forward of the sae oa The tow point we had was right about here [indi- cating J. Looking at the plan view, our initial towing station was right here starboard side aft [indicating]. We had no difficulty whatsoever in streaming the tow, she went back aft as far as we wanted. However, when we hauled in the tow, and the jetnet got abreast or just forward of the screw, the tremendous suction of the screw pulled it in and bashed it along the side of the ship. We immediately had damage. We never were able to make one recovery in which we did not have some sort of banging along the side of the ship at that station. Wethen moved forward toan. amidships station. This time we were unable to put a long tow aft because the suction could take charge of it immediately and we were afraid of getting the jetnet and wire into the screw. But again, on more than half of these tows, as we pulled it for- ward, the jetnet continued to hit against the side of the ship. These were the two stations that we used in the Atlantic until we got to Rota. We did have major damage on both of our jetnets, and as I said, previously the Navy repaired the jetnets at Rota. After leaving Rota we towed from a forward station on the port side. This gives a longer tow and we never had any further trouble of hitting the side of the ship with the jetnet from here. However, this is an ex- tremely awkward, crowded place, too far away from our van, and I strongly recommend if we do this project again that we use a ship where the tow point can be aft, either above or abaft the propeller itself. I thought this would be of sufficient interest for this to be brought to vour attention. Very quickly, Vd like to give a comparison of the varreus Project Nentunes. Neptune Pacific, the first: our Proiect Neptune Atlantic second. and as I understand it, now under consideration, Project Neptune Great NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 577 Lakes, where a project may take place going from the Great Lakes into the ocean. The participants: Pacific—Naval Air Missile Test Center, General Motors and your members of the House Merchant Marine and Fish- eries Committee; Atlantic—Florida Atlantic University and General Motors, assisted by the Oceanographic Office, the fleet weather facility andthe American Export Line. The objective of the Pacific, prefeasibility ; in our phase, feasibility ; and the recommendation for the Great Lakes project will probably be a total scientific experiment. The tests: Biological sampling for Pacific; temperature, by BT, and salinity measurements at medium speed ; in Atlantic, we did it at high speed, with biological sampling, working with living matter on board the ship; and, in this particular case, we used an “engines aft” ship which we found to be unsatisfactory. The equipment: The General Motors Defense Laboratory jetnet equipment was used on both tests; the Packard BT’s were used on both tests; but we also used Sippican BT’s and we had a little bit more equipment for temperature and salinity in the engineroom. The results were highly satisfactory for Project Neptune Pacific. Ours is still under analysis but I feel our objective was satisfied but we will have a lot of recommendations for improvement. As tentative conclusions, and I emphasize the word “tentative,” be- cause it is still under analysis I offer: The concept of the research ship of opportunity is feasible. The biological tests on living organisms can be done, but improvements are needed. Laboratory modules without wheels should be investi- gated. The means to dampen vibration in the laboratory is needed. The jetnet is marginal at high speeds; tows must be made aft. No “engines aft” ships should be used. The expendable BT systems were very satisfactory. The digital taper for expendable BT promises to be vitally important to rapid oceanographic data transmission and processing for future ASW and oceanographic purposes. The cooperation of the ship line, their officers and crew was out- standing. There was no interruption to the ship’s operation, schedule or routine, and the overtime costs were nominal. The last thing, the cooperation of the Oceanographic Office, NAMTC Point Mugu, General Motors, Francis Associates, the Amer- ican Export Isbrandtsen Lines, the Office of Naval Research, and the other colleges of Florida Atlantic University were outstanding. The recommendations we believe we may make are: (1) to conduct a complete scientific experiment in the next phase; (2) to consider de- sign of a new module for Research Ship of Opportunity—not a modi- fication of an existing van; (3) to explore the advantages of digitized output of an expendable Br system for ASWEPS and other ocean- ographic systems; (4) to devise a better high-speed biological sampler for high-speed research ships of opportunity; (5) to consider deck space allocations plus quarters and services for a small scientific party in new merchant marine construction or conversion; and (6) future support for the RSO concept. Mr. Rocers. Thank you very much, Professor Shephan. We are very pleased that this has been so successful because this committee is 578 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION particularly interested in this project. It sounds like you had a very sucessful trip. Mr. StepHan. A very interesting one. Mr. Rogers. Are there any questions? Mr. Downing. Mr. Downtne. A very interesting paper. Mr. SteruHan. Thank you very much. Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Professor Stephan. (The following clipping was submitted for inclusion in the record :) [From Science magazine, Apr. 16, 1965] OCEANOGRAPHY: HousE SUBCOMMITTEE ENCOURAGES USE OF MERCHANT SHIPS To GatHER DatTA ON THE HIGH SEAS The recently released record of a morning hearings before a House Oceanography subcommittee reveals an unusual example of persistence by a congressional committee in advocating a particular mode of research and a novel instance of congressional staff members serving aS observers and participants in a Scientific enterprise. Titled “Oceanography—Ships of Opportunity,” * the hearings before the Ocean- ography Subcommittee of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee dealt with a project designed to show whether the American merchant marine fleet can be used to gather oceanographic data without hindrance to normal operation of the vessels. The hearings, held January 22, were cast in the form of a seminar to discuss what Subeommittee Chairman Alton Lennon, Democrat, of North Carolina, ealled an “interesting experiment” conducted last fall. Under review was a voyage of the merechantman SS Java Mail across the North Pacific, which Lennon describes as an attempt “to determine whether or not oceanographic data could be ecol- lected for merchants ships on a truly not-to-interfere basis.” Called Project Neptune—Pacific, the effort was sponsored by the Office of Naval Research with the collaboration of the Naval Missile Center at Point Magu, Calif. (which provided a mobile lab and scientific personnel), the General Motors Research Laboratories at Santa Barbara, and the American Mail Lines, Ltd., of Seattle. The committee appears to have acted as a kind of broker in the project by helping to bring the principals together. The oceanography subcommittee was formed in 1959 at a time when the ocean- ography budget was expanding and congressional committees were vying for jurisdiction. “Our subcommittee soon became interested,” said Lennon, “in the possibility of the greater use of the merchant fleet for the collection of oceanographe data. The National Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography advised us that worldwide surveys, ocean surveys, were prime essentials to any concerted re- search program.” The subeommittee maintained its interest and looked for ways to learn whether the idea was feasible. “The use of the SS Java Mail last fall was the test,” said Lennon. “Committee staff members of our subcommittee participated to a rather large degree in an observatory capacity, and they advised our committee that this worked exceed- ingly well, and it proved the merit of this particular concept ; that it showed the way to make a greater and immediate advance in our oceanographic programs by freeing our new, specialized oceanographic research ships to do advanced work while these existing ‘ships of opportunity,’ as we refer to them, collected the basic survey data.” A strong proponent of the ships-of-opportunity idea has been Sidney Galler, head of the biology branch of the Office of Naval Research, who has been inter- ested in finding more efficient and less expensive means for obtaining bio-oceano- graphic data which the Navy needs. The use of ships of opportunity for gathering scientific data actually has a history which dates back to the earliest days of the U.S. Navy. The Navy Oceanographic Office, for example, is running a 4-year program using Military Sea Transport Service ships to make bathythermograph readings. The Bureau of 1Copies of the hearings (Serial No. 89-1) may be obtained from the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., 20515. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 579 Commercial Fisheries has been getting systematic records of seabird sightings from some commercial ships to gain information on the fisheries. Project Nep- tune was different in that an effort was made to determine whether much more extensive and sophisticated work could be done. The voyage of the Java Mail covered 17 days in October, in which the ship traveled from Seattle to Yokohama and then to Hong Kong. On board were members of a four-man scientific party which included two Ph. D.’s, and also two committee staff members. They were John M. Drewry, an attorney who is chief counsel to the full committee, and Paul M. Bauer, consultant to the committee, an engineer who teaches earth sciences as an adjunct professor at American Univer- sity in Washington. It is worth at least a footnote in the annals of Congress- science relations that the two staff members went along and then gave the com- mittee their assessment of the project. The original aim of Project Neptune-Pacific was simply to test equipment and procedures and to determine whether the activities of the oceanographers would create problems with the crew, or interfere with the operation of a merchant ship. However, Dr. Clinton H. Maag, head of the life sciences department at the Point Mugu Naval Missile Center, who was in the scientific party on the Java Mail, told the committee, “we have come back with a relatively large volume of data, especially large when one considers the actual investment in the cruise” (about $14,000). The crucial question was whether oceanographic work could be done while the Java Mail was traveling at normal cruising speeds (about 15 knots) ; oceano- graphic research vessels usually either lie to or move very slowly when collecting samples or data. The work had to be done without requiring the ship to slow or alter course and without interfering with the crew. In addition to sowing drift cards and bottles, the scientific party took salinity samples, made continuous surface-temperature measurements, and collected zoo- plankton with a ‘jet net,’ a high-speed sampler with an intake designed to minimize water turbulence. According to the scientists, they picked up samples of zooplankton and larval animals at 16 knots and found 75 percent of the sam- ples in “excellent” condition. The development of suitable instruments and rapid collection devices is a key factor in realizing the ships-of-opportunity idea. The jet net seems to point the way, and so does an “expendable bathythermometer,” which detaches itself from a float after being cast overboard and then transmits data, via a wire, as it sinks to the bottom of the sea. Advocates of the ships-of-opportunity concept admit that much needs to be done with instrumentation, and they hope that industry will be motivated to step up R. & D. in this sector by the voyage of the Java Mail and by Project Neptune-Atlantic, now in the offing under the aegis of Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Research ships of opportunity appear to have special appeal to marine bi- ologists, many of whom tend to see themselves cast in the role of stepchildren in the family of oceanography. They complain that deep-water research voyages are too often planned to suit the requirements of those who do physical and chemical oceanography at the expense of the seagoing biologists. While ships of opportunity may in fact provide splendid platforms for research in fair weather and foul, the use of such ships would seem to be only half the battle. At the hearing James M. Snograss, head of special development at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, indicated this as a mild caveat in what was otherwise a morning of unrelieved optimism. Feasibility of the ship of opportunity he viewed as demonstrated, but he noted the importance of the quality of instruments. “This, perhaps in a major way,” he said, “accounts for our slowness in being able to start, since it is only at the present time that suitable instruments have in fact been available. They are by no means perfected at the moment, but they are workable and quite practicable and usable. This in a way has opened up the basie concept of expendable or disposable instruments. It is in fact a major change in the availability of tools which the oceanographer has at his command. I think without question this new concept is so significant that it will require a great deal of rethinking of our methods of operation, and further, it changes our basis of costing out the system. “We have entirely new relationships which we must think about. All of this, of course, underscores the necessity of careful planning. It is quite obvious that a major ship-of-opportunity program, assuming it gets underway, 580 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION could, without proper direction, literally flood scientific laboratories with plank- ton samples. This is rather easily done. It would be disastrous. “We need careful planning. The ship-of-opportunity program needs to be a part of a system operation, integrated with the necessity for collecting data. We must have a need for the data, and a valid use for it. We do not wish to collect data for data’s sake.” JOHN WALSH. Mr. Rogers. We have a statement to insert in the record. Mr. Downine. Mr. Chairman, with the permission of you and the committee I would like to submit the statement of Dr. William J. Hargis, Jr., who was here to testify last week but unfortunately was not able to be accommodated. Dr. Hargis is the director of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and the dean of the School of Marine Science of the College of Wil- liam and Mary. He is one of the foremost scientists in oceanography and I hope that the members of the committee will have an oppor- tunity to read his statement, and I submit his statement for the record. Mr. Rogers. Without objection it is so ordered. I am sure the members of the committee will be pleased to have this testimony. (The document referred to follows :) STATEMENT BY Dr. WILLIAM J. HARGIS, JR., DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF Marine SCIENCE I am convinced that a strong restatement of national purpose and a thorough review of marine science activities would be useful. Recent growth of marine science has been so rapid that some reorganization and regrouping would be productive. Because of the nature and history of marine science this will not be easy to accomplish properly and effectively. In contrast to space and atomic energy activities, oceanography has a long history and many Federal agencies, State marine laboratories, private institutions, and industrial establishments have developed or been assigned missions and acquired special interests in the field. General interest in space and atomic energy developed almost de novo. As problems with the marine environment, long hidden by the vastness of the sea, itself, and obscured by society’s terrestrial difficulties, increase and as public awareness of marine science grows, and knowedge of the seas expands and stronger national interest in oceanography develops, the essential unity of marine Science emerges. With this emergence the interests and missions of the various agencies and institutions appear to, and—in some cases, do overlap and duplicate one another. This overlap and duplication have evolved quite naturally and independently of design on anyone’s part. Recent years have seen several efforts at defining a national purpose, laying out a national program and affecting coordination in marine science. The excel- lent efforts of the National Academy of Science-National Research Council, the activities of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography, and the proposals and actions of your own Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in this direction are noteworthy. As much as any other individualist, and most scientists are individualists, I am leary of coordination from outside or above. However, a definition and statement of purpose for the national oceanographic program and some coordination are probably necessary. In deciding which agencies and institutions are to be consulted and/or coordi- nated the Congress must decide whether it wishes to deal with the national oceanographic program (total national oceanographic effort) or the Federal oceanographic program, which are two different things. The former includes all marine science activities and agencies, non-Federal and Federal, and is some- what diffuse. The latter is confined to the oceanographic activities of various Federal activities, which constitutes a much neater package for coordination. Because this basic decision evidently has not been made, it may be premature to provide for a permanent council at this time without examining the matter more carefully. I know that study commissions often are delaying mechanisms and that their recommendations often go unheeded but an effective study and determination of NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 581 the problems requiring correction still seems the best place to begin. We should know the patient and his ills before prescribing treatment. Several of the bills under consideration by the committee, and those by Congressmen Downing and Rogers come immediately to mind, are pointed in this direction. Two cautionary notes should be added here. No matter what action is taken at this time, every effort should be made to protect the healthy, competitive aspects of marine science programs and ayoid overcoordination and resulting stultification. Further, should a permanent body be established, careful arrange- ments must be made to provide mechanisms for continual review by members of the various sectors of the oceanographic community, non-Federal as well as Federal. In effecting such legislation, I would respectfully urge the committee to: (1) Encourage additional and increasing financial support of marine sci- ence, and marine engineering. Both need far more support than they are receiving and additional support is easily justifiable on many grounds. (2) Make special effort to see that the biological aspects of oceanography are more adequately supported. In the broad sense, oceanography (better still—marine science) includes biological oceanography which is perhaps the most important segment to society and yet most support has gone in other directions. It seems to be very difficult to secure support for biological fa- cilities such as marine biological laboratories, biological vessels, etc., par- tially because funds for these things seem to be scarce. (3) Make sure that all sectors of the marine science community are repre- sented in all stages of the deliberations and of the Council. (4) Take great pains to point up the importance of the roles of State marine laboratories, colleges and universities, private institutions and in- dustrial organizations in the development of knowledge about the oceans and their exploitation. (Certain statistics about State efforts are already part of the record of hearings of your committee.) Especially should the States be encouraged to support of marine science. Federal funds should supplement and not supplant State investments in oceanography. I am extremely interested in the oceanographic activities of the committee and am willing to assist in its work. If I can do so, please call on me. Mr. Rocrrs. The next witness is Lt. Comdr. Don Walsh, former commander of the 7'vieste. Commander, we are delighted to have you here and let the commit- tee benefit from your experiences. I know you have had some un- usual ones and we have admired your work a great deal. We are pleased to have you give testimony today. STATEMENT OF LT. COMDR. DON WALSH, FORMER COMMANDER OF BATHYSCAPHE “TRIESTE” Commander WatsH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, it is in- deed an honor and privilege for me to appear here again. I am afraid I will have to apologize for not having a prepared statement in that my invitation was just received about this time yes- terday. hue pieces We understand ; that is perfectly all right. Commander Warsu. About half a decade ago I had the great pleas- ure of testifying in some of the pioneering hearings held under the auspices of the eat and Astronautics Committee under the spon- sorship of my Congressman, Mr. George Miller. In this past half decade I have watched with great mterest the ebb and flow of con- gressional interest in the ocean sciences and their organization. The winds of change are blowing now and it is certainly expected by the entire oceanographic community that we will have some positive pol- icy and direction from this body’s deliberations. As a, perhaps self-professed, champion of ocean sciences and tech- nology, 1 am in the somewhat ludicrous position now of being on the 5982 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION program at the time when you should be in executive session and perhaps am delaying your deliberations, but I would like to take Mr. Rogers. We probably will not go into executive session today, so feel free. Commander Wausu. Thank you, sir; I hope it is not my fault. I would like to take the position perhaps of a summarization. I have listened with interest in the last 3 weeks to your hearings. I am greatly interested in what you are doing and the great progress that you have made but am concerned about a couple of points which I thought I would like to propose at this time. One, is that I feel that the real issue here is somewhat lacking in emphasis, though certainly not in the verbiage of the many bills that have been presented. In reading through these this morning, the preamble or the first sections are very accurate, but I felt that in the testimony we have not developed the principal issue involved, and this is the projection of our national sovereignty into the world ocean. We have talked a great deal about resources, from platitudes to very specific citations of ocean resources, both food and mineral; we have alluded to the military aspects of oceanography in various areas; but I feel the real impact is: Is the United States prepared to pro- ject its national sovereignty into the world ocean ? _ Is that not the real question here today and through these hear- ings ¢ That it is, is certainly reflected by the level of activity that we are now conducting. The Navy, in ocean sciences and technology, and I am emphasizing technology also, is supporting, I would say, up to 80 percent of our national effort because we, that is the Navy, represents this projection of our national seapower into the world ocean. I think this point should be emphasized. I find no fault, of course, with the legislation which recognizes this. I am just saying that in the hearings I left that we might have been somewhat silent in this aspect, and the emphasis really is here, because without a strong seapower the considerations of the use of the sea, of the ocean and sea resources, are really meaningless. We are a traditional seapower, and I feel that this seapower of our Nation has been manifested in cycles. We had a cycle when President Theodore Roosevelt created the great white fleet and emerged on the world scene as a great seapower. Another cycle was the buildup before World War II, and now I feel perhaps your deliberations are contributing considerably to a new resurgence of seapower, because I mean seapower not only as a mili- tary projection of our national power, but also a strong merchant marine, a strong fishing industry, and a strong resources industry in- volved in the oceans; but principally it is a projection of our national power. Another point that concerns me is that we have, in these delibera- tions, heard a great deal about ocean sciences, but sciences without any application are—TI will not say “worthless,” that would be too harsh a term—but without application they are somewhat academic. I see our national program as analogous to an object sitting on a tripod. One leg of this tripod is the environmental science, ocean- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 583 ography, which we certainly have covered to a fine degree in these 3 weeks of hearings. The other two legs are human resources, trained personnel, and of course, ocean technology. / I was very pleased with Professor Stephan’s statement yesterday which emphasized ocean technology and engineering. Again, I recognize that many of the bills have cited these deficien- cles, or let me say in a different sense, the need to have greater efforts in this area, but I wonder if it has been adequately brought out in the hearings. Human resources—very important—we are only turning out and have been for several years, about 20 Ph. D’s a year in oceanography. It takes nine Ph. D’s to make up for losses of people leaving the profession. To maintain a 9-percent growth in the field of human resources, that is trained ocean scientists, and we are just talking scientists now, we need at least 45 a year. Today, two-thirds of our oceanographers are coming from outside professions. In other words, we need more schools; we need more facilities for instruction. On the technology side we have to be careful when we draw historic parallels with the space program because the space program was able to utilize the great technological base of our aviation industry which built almost half a million aircraft in 1944 alone. We do not have this technological base, this vast technological base in what I would like to cal] “inner space.” We have to build it, we have to recruit people from the other areas, and I think industry has shown an amazing good faith in the future of this business. Great segments of the aircraft industry are vitally interested in ocean sciences and technology. This is a very important area, but remember, without human resources the other two areas, science and technology, just will not go. A very real manifestation of our need to have a very highly devel- oped ocean technology is very current in the news. The loss of this jetliner over the lake near Chicago—now, here is a type of aircraft that represents a huge capital investment on the part of the airlines and the aircraft industry. We are unable really to—we have not the technology, the good tech- nology to go out and work in just a couple of hundred feet of water to recover this aircraft to find out what the causes were. And this is a tremendous problem to our aircraft accident investigators— being able to work in the water. We have a good historical example of the importance of this. This is not just a remote case, but the British Comet Airliner. As I recall, the real solution came from the one that was recovered from the sea floor off Italy where they discovered the fatigue cracks in the pres- surized cabin were the cause. In other words, metal fatigue causing the cabin to crack and blow apart after it was pressurized after a certain number of cycles, and this was based on wreckage recovered from the water. Here is a very real and timely requirement for ocean technology. There are legions of employments, both civilian and military that 584 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION are important, but we must have a vigorous ocean technology pro- gram, and this must be considered not as a separate bill or separate area but as an integral part of any national plan, and we have talked, I feel, too much, about oceanography here as an entity unto itself. We must relate it to our national goals, we must relate it to the apphi- cation of this knowledge, technology, and finally, we must consider human resources, because education in this country 1s receiving a great deal of interest. Currently I am in graduate school myself in oceanography at Texas A. & M. University, and I sense the interest of these young people but I also feel that we must develop more facilities. The final area I would like to present to you is that there has been, I feel, something of a critical tone, and I may be wrong, just a thread through these hearings that we are somewhat critical of what has been done to date. I would take the other tack and say that we should be very grateful to this very small band of dedicated scientists, administrators, and technologists who have carried the great load since, say, 1958, when oceanography and ocean technology really began to move in this country. Through their own inertia they have worked in the dark- ness doing what they thought was best for the Nation. From this we have seen our national programs triple or quadruple in these 7 years. Despite lack of formal organization we have done well. I think it is amazing that we do not have to take our hat off to any nation as far as our progress in inner space is concerned. We are not involved in me-tooism, we are not trying to catch up with a sputnik clamor; we evolved, and our program is competitive with any program in the world. Granted, we have finished I would say, the first generation of growth, and now it is time to organize, it is now time to define our goals, it is now time to provide an essential framework, a skeleton upon which to really take off. I do feel that the commendation from this committee would be in the best interests of all of these dedicated men who have tried to play it the way they saw it. Of course we have had proliferation of pro- grams as we grew up in the dark. It would be a very fine thing, I think, if this committee went on record as acknowledging and thanking the efforts of these unsung heroes who work in the clamor of the space age, because we certainly are in the space age today, who felt that our real future lies in the ocean. I doubt that much wheat or food resources will come from space; and I wonder what the cost of mineral resources from the moon might be by the time they are shipped back to earth. I believe that the United States should be engaged in two world- important programs—one, our space effort, and the other, our “inner space” effort. On this note I would like to complete my testimony and I thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. Mr. Rocers. Thank you very much, Commander Walsh, that is an excellent statement and I think you have pretty well summarized for us here a lot of the testimony that has been given. I think there has been a critical note, I would agree with you, come forth in the hearing throughout the questioning, not so much as criti- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 585 cizing what has been done—we have made great progress and this committee recognizes that, but a critical note that we are not really ready to move, people have not grasped the vision of what can be done yet. You see, in looking at the background, you may not be aware of it, but this committee 2 years ago passed a bill that we are still considering now. Commander Watsu. Yes, sir. Mr. Rocrrs. The Senate passed it, and then because of some who were in the field in Government, asked the President not to sign it, and he vetoed it. Commander Watsu. Yes, sir. Mr. Rocmrs. So, we have some reason for some criticism, not that we are trying to underplay the great efforts that have been done, and I would agree with you, we owe a great debt of gratitude to those who have devoted their lives to this field and are doing a magnificent job, but we want to do more and urge them and try to be helpful, and the Congress has felt the Congress must step into this field very firmly in order to help give some direction and that is the purpose of these hearings and we intend to accomplish that. Commander Wats. Yes, sir; and I see that the great bulk of these people, these dedicated workers, have long shared your frustrations and I think that the great bulk of them are completely sympathetic to the purpose of this legislation. Mr. Rogers. I think this has developed, we were pleased, particu- larly when we got them to give their personal views. Commander Watsu. Yes, sir, I think that is very important. Mr. Rocrrs. Mr. Casey ? Mr. Casey. I, too, want to compliment Commander Walsh on his statement in helping us get a good perspective. Having observed these hearings as you have, of course, you are in a position to kind of help us analyze this from a more objective point, I think, than we have ourselves, However, with reference to this attitude that seems to be predomi- nant about the kind of argumentative or critical—of course, I have not been up here as long as some of them, but unfortunately I notice that some of the ones that get the most done are the meanest members, which I think is poor psychology. I really do, and every once in a while I will tell some agency that I have been working with them, telling them I want to work with them to accomplish something, and along comes some member who gets on the floor and just chews them out and begins to ride them hard and the next thing you know he gets it accomplished. He gets all the credit and they appreciated my cooperativeness, but nevertheless they let him take the credit for having pushed them into doing something. It is a sorry system. Frankly, I think things should be accom- plished by sitting down and discussing them in a gentlemanly manner, but you always have the conflict in our system between the legislative branch and the executive branch, and I do not think it will ever end as far as that is concerned. As the chairman here pointed out, the bill we passed that was vetoed was in my opinion very mild compared to most of these we have now. 538-367— 65 38 586 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Now, if we generate enough interest they may get something stronger and it may not be to the best interest. _ Now, what we are trying to find out is what would be the best interest. You will notice the bill that passed the Senate, Mr. Magnuson’s bill, he is a very influential gentleman in that body being chairman of the committee that he controls, and when I say controls, I mean controls. And he passed it with a voice vote. . Now, he may be in a position to say, this is going to be it. And if we should pass his bill, and, there has been not a word of support for his bill before this committee, but I dare say that if he is sufficiently strong in his support for his particular measure, it will not be vetoed, because again, it is “who holds, the meanest situation.” [Laughter. | Commander WausH. Right. Many excellent studies have been done; this was brought out in the hearings. I think most of the basic pick and shovel work has been done in developing an important and viable program though there have been certain disagreements and frictions. No program has emerged as the victor, and I think this is a most useful function you are serving here, because I see in most of your legislation a study of existing efforts; in other words, we should have a “study of the studies.” Why go back to the fundamentals? This has been done by many agencies—industry right now, the National Security Industrial As- sociation, is involved in a study of ocean sciences and technology from an industrial-based point of view. Excellent work has been done, but we need somebody now to take all of the products of these essentially good efforts and develop a via- ble, workable, national program in the best interests of our country, and I think that the point was well brought out earlier in these hear- ings that if the legislation had passed—had passed 2 years ago—we would have had a 2-year-old yardstick by which to measure your cur- rent deliberations. You do not have this yardstock so I feel the recommended approach to this legislation is very wise, and that is to survey the situation at various degrees and levels, but not to leap right into an omniscient Federal agency or new department. Mr. Casry. (presiding). I do not want to belittle the fact and the observation you know, that we do owe a great deal of credit to accomplishments of this small group and I think it is even more mag- nified when you look, you sat here and listened to the mechanics of the very fouled-up methods of accomplishing something. They have fine methods as far as determining in the executive de- partment, but after they determine something the push is gone; they gotheir separate ways. Thatisthe main fault, I think. Commander Watsu. These human resources, we must husband these resources because you cannot legislate scientists into existence, it is impossible. Therefore, these limited resources we have we must use to the best effectiveness within our power, and this is one of the strongest argu- ments for your deliberations. At best we have 3,000 oceanographic scientists in the United States, at least, depending on whose count you take, 1,500, and this in- NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 587 cludes graduate students working in the field. There are 3,000 peo- ne in our country charged with exploration of 71 percent of our anet. "i Now, if that is not an imbalance, I have never heard one, and if that is not the opportunity for young people to get into a field, I have never heard of an opportunity. Mr. Casey. I certainly appreciate your observations and I think they will be most helpful in generating more interest, and I just hope that we cam accomplish some of the things you pointed out here to stimulate development of some, particularly the human resources that you referred to, because when you fall short of human resources you may have all the material to work on, but if you do not have the people to develop it, you are in poor shape. Thank you, very much. Commander WatsH. That is right. Mr. Casry. Mr. Tupper? Mr. Turrer. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank Commander Walsh for an excellent extemporaneous statement, I think it shows considerable expertise in this field and when printed it will be very interesting reading for all members of the committee and hopefully the Congress. Commander WatsH. Thank you, Mr. Tupper. Mr. Casey. Mr. Downing? Mr. Downine. Mr. Chairman, I share the views in his statement. Several of us on this committee had the privilege of going down in an experimental submarine 150 feet this year. How far down did you go down in the 7'rieste? ; Commander Watsu. Approximately 7 miles. I would like to say that this is a good example of, shall we say, non-me-tooism in that in 1958 we purchased the bathyscath 7’ rieste, in 1958 the Trieste Group at the Navy Electronics Laboratory in San Diego, Calif—proposed a program to the Navy Department that we take it to the island of Guam and have a try at conquering, I suppose in exploration jargon, conquering the deepest known place in the ocean. Mr. Downine. Why did you stop at 7 miles? Commander WatsH. That is all there is. That is the deepest place in the ocean. Mr. Downtne. In other words, you hit bottom ? Commander WatusH. There are finite limits as far as depth ex- ploration goes in the ocean. In the best tradition of exploration, by the way, we planted the U.S. flag in the deepest place in the world ocean, much as Sir Edmund Hillary put his country’s flag on top of Mount Everest. This record was set by the U.S. Navy in the name of the United States and we placed our flag there at that time. Mr. Downine. How far did you go off Guam ? Commander Watsu. About 200 miles, this is the Marianas Trench. The low points in the Marianas Trench, the two principal ones are the Nero Deep and the Challenger Deep. The deeps usually are named after the survey ships that discovered them, and this Challenger Deep is named after the British survey ship H.M.S. Challenger, which found this point in the early 1950’s; it was later checked out by the ae and then by our own Scripps Institution of Oceanog- raphy. 588 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION They all agreed it was the deepest place. I think that none would have agreed that we would have been along a few years later to go down in it. Mr. Downtne. How deep is that ? Commander Watsu. 35,800 feet, approximately. This was over 5 years ago, so you will have to forgive me Mr. Downine. Well, that is still, what, 7 miles, 8 miles? Commander Watsu. It is roughly 7 miles—closer to 614, I suppose. Mr. Downine. And the Z'rieste is physically capable of going to that depth ? Commander Watsu. Yes, sir; if we could find a deeper hole, and I doubt it, we could go with that craft to some 40,000 or 50,000 feet with some degree of safety. Mr. Downtine. Are you able to—I do not mean to take the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, but it is interesting. Were you able to do anything at that depth? By doing, I mean were you mobile or could you Commander Watsu. Yes, sir; the craft enjoys some mobility but let me preface this statement by saying that the venerable Trieste I has been retired after 10 years of active service. In late 1963 she was retired and is now laid up at San Diego, Calif., having been replaced by the 7’rieste JT, which is entirely U.S. built. Now, the Trieste I did have limited mobility, and we are talking in the order of yards. However, when we landed on the sea floor at this depth the bottom sediment was so fine that it went up in a cloud before the window and we were essentially blind for our whole stay on the bottom of 20 minutes. Just before we landed we did seea small shrimp form, and a flat fish, something like a halibut. Mr. Downine. What would be the pressure at that depth? Commander WatsuH. Close to 8 tons per square inch. Thetotal pres- sure on the cabin was about 200,000 tons. The cabin being a small sphere similar to the cabin of a stratosphere balloon. There was a two-man crew; myself and Jacques Piccard, the son of the inventor of the bathyscaphe. Mr. Downtne. And you saw sea life at that depth ? Commander Watsu. Yes, sir; this probably was the most significant scientific payoff of that dive. Mr. Downtnc. Were these unusual forms of sea life ? Commander WatusH. No, sir; rather conventional. I might add that neither Mr. Piccard nor myself are qualified ocean scientists, and although having done much of this work we are a little short in that particular area. This is why Iam going to school now, to get some “calibration.” Mr. Downtne. That is interesting. How long did it take to get down ? Commander Watsx. It took about 514 hours to get down and about 3 hours to get up. But I have been told by my engineer friends that if you took a Civil War cannonball and dropped it in the water, it would take about an hour to reach bottom, so I suppose we were doing fairly well. Mr. Downine. Where could you store 7 miles of cable which would permit you to get to that depth ? NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 589 Commander Watsu. Now the 7 rieste, the bathyscaphe is an under- water free balloon, it is entirely free of the surface, this was the thing that the inventor of the bathyscaphe, Auguste Piccard developed. We all recall Dr. Beebe’s famous descents in the bathysphere near Bermuda in the 1930’s, in a craft that was cable tethered to the surface ship. Of course, it was somewhat linked to the fortunes of the surface ship. If there were 8-foot waves at the surface that cabin went up and down 8 feet. As you can imagine this is somewhat difficult for a biologist to ob- serve the life forms if he is moving up and down 8 feet. But the bathyscaphe type of undersea research vehicle is independent of the surface and therefore only limited in depth as to the strength of your cabin and not by any surface considerations. The real importance of such a device among many devices in ocean sciences and technology is that these little machines, these deep re- search submersibles, can take the trained mind and trained eyes into the environment. Here you have the strange situation in the world ocean where scien- tists are not able to directly observe that which they wish to study. For many years they have had to stay on oceanographic ships, at the surface interface, and lower artificial “eyes” and “hands” into the ocean in the form of cameras and dredges. Now we can take that man directly into the environment and let him see firsthand that which he wishes to study. Mr. Downine. We used the 7'rieste in the Thresher disaster but not with much success. Commander WatsH. We used both 7riestes here; the Trieste I went in 1963 immediately after the submarine was lost. The follow- ing year when the 7’rieste JJ was doing some survey work in that area they did come across other remnants of the submarine. Unfortunately, I was not attached to the program during this time, and I know very little about it. Mr. Downtne. Thank you very much, Commander. Commander WatsH. Yes, sir. Mr. Casey. Thank you very much, Commander. Mr. Dow? Mr. Dow. Yes; I would like to commend you, Commander, on a very splendid statement. You Inow technical men often have the reputation of being a little narrow in their sights, in their vision of the broad picture, but I would say in your case you certainly display not only a great technical competence but also a vision of the whole picture and statesmanship involved in this oceanography program. I would like to compliment you on that, and I would hike to predict a great future for you in this work. Commander WatsH. Thank you, sir. You are very kind. T will have to admit as to a certain penchant for a field of oceanog- raphy I like to call political oceanography, because this is exactly what we are involved in right now. We have the five basic fields of oceanography : Geology, biology, and so on; but I feel this is one more to be added to the list. Political oceanography, which concerns itself with the administration of oceanography and the national and inter- national legal problems involved in the utilization of the world oceans, is the area that I consider my field. 590 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Mr. Dow. You are certainly right. Thank you. Mr. Turrer. Mr. Chairman, if I may, if Commander Walsh has no objections, I would like to make a part of the record the biographical information on Commander Walsh. He is a very modest man, and I think that the record should show he has had the Legion of Merit Award by President Eisenhower and a great many significant awards. I think this might be very helpful as part of our record. Mr. Casry. It also shows that he chose Texas A. & M. to further his studies. Mr. Turrer. I think so. Commander WatsH. It also shows I am an admiral in the Texas Navy, Mr. Casey. [ Laughter. | Mr. Casry. There is certainly no objection to putting that into the record. (Information referred to follows :) BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION: LT. CoMpR. DoN WALSH, U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander Walsh was born in Berkeley, Calif., and attended schools in the San Francisco Bay area until his graduation from Alameda High School in 1949. In 1950 he entered the Naval Academy from which he graduated in 1954. His naval career began in January 1949, when he enlisted in the Naval Air Reserve at Naval Air Station, Oakland, Calif. He received his appointment to the U.S. Naval Academy through the Naval Reserve in 1950. After gradua- tion from U.S. Naval Academy with the class of 1954 he participated in the Bermuda yacht race on board a Navy sailboat before reporting to Coronado, Calif., for Naval Amphibious Warfare School. After 2 months at this school he reported to his first ship, the U.S.S. Mathews (AKA-96), an attack cargo ship. During 2 years in the Mathews, Lieutenant Commander Walsh held many jobs on board, ending his tour as the ship’s navigator. In 1956 he was ordered to the U.S. Naval Submarine School at New London, Conn., for the 6-month course of instruction for submarine duty. In January 1957 he reported aboard the submarine Rasher (SSR-269) at San Diego, Calif., where he served until September 1958. During this time he qualified in submarines and was promoted to lieutenant. In September 1958, he was ordered to duty on the staff of Commander Submarine Flotilla One in San Diego where he served until March 1959 when he was ordered to duty as officer in charge bathyscaphe Trieste at the Navy Electronics Laboratory, San Diego, Calif. After a 34-year tour with the Trieste, Lieutenant Commander Walsh was ordered to the sub- marine Sea For (SS-402) at San Diego in the summer of 1962. During 9 months aboard the Sea Fox he served as the operations officer and navigator. In March 1963 he attended Prospective Commanding Officer School for submarines and in April qualified for command of submarines. April also brought another change of duty when he was ordered to report to the submarine Bugara (SS-331) for duty as executive officer. He was detached from this San Diego based ship in November 1964 in order to accept a scholarship in oceanography at Texas A. & M. University in College Station, Tex. He reported to Texas A. & M. in mid-January 1965. Lieutenant Commander Walsh is married to the former Joan Betzmer of Carlsbad, Calif., and they now live at 405 Fairway Drive, Bryan, Tex., 77803. One of the high points of his career was his tour as the officer in charge of the bathyscaphe Trieste. As pilot of the Navy’s first deep submersible he helped pioneer deep ocean research in the United States. Though many important diving operations were conducted during his 31% years with this program the best known of these was the nearly 7-mile-deep dive made into the deepest known part of the ocean. This dive took place in January 1960, in the Challenger Deep located in the Marianas Trench some 200 miles southwest of the island of Guam in the western Pacific. This dive was the final dive in a 6-month series of deep dives known as Project Nekton. The four principal pilots of the Trieste during NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 591 this series were Lieutenant Commander Walsh; Lt. Comdr. Larry Shumaker, U.S. Navy, the assistant officer in charge; Dr. Andreas B. Rechnitzer, the chief scientist ; and Jacques Piccard, the son of the J'rieste’s inventor. The deepest dive was made after a series of dives to 18,000 and 24,000 feet. On the 23d of January 1960, Lieutenant Commander Walsh and Jacques Piccard completed the 9-hour dive to 35,800 feet, and this marked the end of Project Nekton I. In the summer of 1960 the project team, less Mr. Piccard, returned to Guam to carry out Project Nekton II which involved deep ocean scientific studies to depths of 18,000 fet. This 5-month project terminated in the late fall and the Trieste was returned to its home base at Navy Hlectronics Laboratory at San Diego, Calif. From this time until his detachment in July 1962, Lieutenant Commander Walsh engaged in local diving operations with the bathyscaphe for Navy Bureau of Ships scientific requirements. In recognition of this pioneering work in “inner space” the principal members of the first Trieste team were awarded many different awards and citations. These were not for individual accomplishment but for recognition of a U.S. “first” and of the whole team who had worked hard to make the initial program a success. For his part as the military head of this project Lieutenant Com- mander Walsh was awarded : The Legion of Merit by President Hisenhower. A letter of commendation from the President. Gold Medal of the City of Trieste, Italy. Distinguished Service Medal from the Theodore Roosevelt Association. Richard Hopper Day Memorial Medal from the Philadelphia Academy of Nat- ural Science. Chicago Geographic Society Gold Medal. The Golden Plate Award from the American Academy of Achievement. One of the Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Year (1960) by U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce. In addition to the foregoing, there have been many awards in the form of citations, keys to cities, and honorary appointments to various societies and offices. Lieutenant Commander Walsh has utilized his unique background as the basis for speaking and writing on the importance of oceanography and the oceans. He has given over 700 speeches, radio, and TV programs on this subject and its variations; in addition he has authored nearly 30 articles and papers on this area. His principal interest is in developing greater public interest in the importance of inner space and encouraging young people to enter the field of ocean science and technology as a career. Believeing in the importance of continuing education, Lieutenant Commander Walsh is completing postgraduate work in the field of political science. He is currently in graduate school on a scholarship sponsored by Texas A. & M. Uni- versity in the Department of Oceanography and Meteorology. In addition he is studying American law through work with a correspondence institution. His interest in these seemingly varied areas is the application of scientific technology, law, and political science to the 71 percent of our planet that is covered by water. Lieutenant Commander Walsh has membership in several professional societies which are listed below: The Naval Institute. The Explorer’s Club. The Internation Oceanographic Foundation. The Marine Technology Society. The American Aviation Historical Society. The Air Force Historical Association. The Nava! Historical Foundation. The American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. Honorary life member of the National Geographic Society. For free time activities he is interested in flying, boating, photography, skin- diving, and travel. He has had his own airplane and a 30-foot ketch; however, travel is the principal leisure interest. He has made five trips to Europe, five to the Far East, visited the Arctic and South America. Since his marriage 2 years ago he and his wife have driven and camped up into the interior of Alaska to within 50 miles of the Arctic Circle, and this past December they spent 2 months camping in Mexico, visiting 25 of the 29 States in that country. As an outgrowth of this hobby he also lectures on his travels using colored slides that he has taken during the various trips. 992 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION More biographical information on Lieutenant Commander Walsh can be found in the current International Who’s Who and in the junior chamber of commerce publication “‘Outstanding Young Men of America.” Mr. Casey. Commander, again, I want to express my appreciation, of course, you could tell you were interested in the political aspects when you were talking about the sovereignty of the ocean; I hope sometime you will have an opportunity to observe as I did, one session and see that you really get into politics when you try to get all these countries to agree on territorial waters, fishing waters, and what have you. The fact that we have had one agreement so far which as I under- stand it gives the minerals to anyone who has the capacity to recover them, but we are still in doubt as to what is above the actual laws or— there is no agreement, from the floor of the ocean on up. It is a fascinating study and the more you get into it the more inter- ested you are going to be. Commander Watsu. Yes, sir; I would like to interject at this time, I think perhaps the American people are not aware of the fact that as of June 1964, when the convention on the Continental Shelf came into force, as a force of international law, that the United States gained sovereignty over an area of the Continental Shelf about equivalent to three times the size of France. A major territorial acquisition for our country, and of course, this is why it is so important that we now assess its value and worth. Mr. Casry. The man on the street thinks that 3 miles of the terri- torial waters is all. They have to realize that territorial waters is whatever that particular country thinks it can get away with. Commander Watsn. That is the situation today ; yes. Mr. Casey. Peru is trying to claim 200 miles. Commander Wats. There are 4 nations claiming 200 miles. Mr. Casny. Thank you ever so much. If we have no further wit- nesses this morning, we do not have a quorum so we cannot go into executive Session. (The following material was submitted for inclusion in the record :) STATEMENT OF 8S. DILLON RIPLEY, SECRETARY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION During late 1961 Drs. Remington Kellogg and A. C. Smith, then Directors of the U.S. National Museum and of the Museum of Natural History, agreed with a suggestion of the Interagency Committee on Oceanography to increase the activity and expenditures of the Museum of Natural History in oceanog- raphy. Oceanography was defined in the Museum as marine natural history, to include all of the activities of the Division of Mollusks, Fishes, and Marine Invertebrates, as then constituted. Provision was made for appropriate in- creases in staff in order to permit the Institution to more actively participate in the national oceanography program. It occurred to Dr. Smith in early 1962 through frequent discussions with the curators of the Marine Divisions (Drs. Harald Rehder in mollusks, Leonard Schultz in fishes, and Fenner Chace in marine invertebrates) and with the newly employed chairman. of the Department cf Zoology, Dr. Horton H. Hobbs, Jr., that the oceanography program should not only revitalize the existing systematics efforts in the museum but also examine the Smithsonian Institu- tion’s capability to provide leadership in related areas not adequately covered in the then existing organization of the Museum of Natural History. Two new tradition breaking organizational concepts were approved in the first 2 months of 1962. First, an advisory and coordinating position of Assistant Director for Oceanography was established in the Museum of Natural History to (1) aid museum staff members in their marine research, (2) maintain liaison NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 593 with oceangoing vessels and scientists to collect biological materials, (3) help with recruitment of outstanding marine sediment and taxonomic scientists, (4) represent the Smithsonian Institution on various committees and councils concerned with oceanography, (5) bring the Smithsonian’s oceanographic plans and needs to the attention of scientists and administrators elsewhere, (6) act for the Director in his absence, and (7) plan, develop, and operate for the In- stitution a sorting center for marine biological and geological materials. The second new concept is embodied in item (7) to establish a sorting center for marine collections. Traditionally the Institution had avoided most of the efforts to orient itself toward services. The original charter called for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men, loosely defined as to do research and publish it. This new activity was a deliberate response to a felt need; to coordinate the collecting of natural history specimens from the ocean and to provide service in several ways, thus insuring that the collections were proc- essed for their intrinsic scientific value. The Institution has developed its modern oceanography program generally around the concept of exploratory oceanography. It is concerned with the kinds, distributions, and populations of organisms and sediments in the world ocean. It has an active program to learn all about the organisms and sediments encountered in the ocean and to insure that the maximum scientific information jis made available concerning these objects. Thus the activities of the Institu- tion generally revolve around the collecting of specimens. Scientists in the Institution participate in collecting expeditions to all oceans. They engaged in collecting efforts on the National Science Foundation’s vessels Anton Bruun and Te Vega during the international Indian Ocean expedition. They collected specimens on the Woods Hole oceanographic vessel, Chain, and on the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries vessel, Geronimo, during the international cooperative investigations of the tropical Atlantic. They continue to collect on the National Science Foundation’s Antarctic program vessel Hltanin in the Antarctic. They have participated in a South Atlantic cruise of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. They have collected on ships of the Scripps Institution for Oceanography, the University of Miami Institute of Marine Sciences, the Johns Hopkins University Oceanography Department, the Columbia University’s Lamont Geological Observatory, and the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. The Institution’s level of effort for oceanography in fiscal year 1966 will be about $1,400,000 ($800,000 appropriation and $600,000 estimated from grants and contracts). As the legal repository for collections made with Federal funds the Institution receives collections from the Coast Guard, the Geological Survey, the Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, the Navy Department, the Army Coastal Engi- neering Research Center, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Public Health Service, the Department of State, and other agencies as well as from those listed in earlier paragraphs. Tn its new role the Institution not only actively collects specimens and passively receives and stores them, but plays a part in the planning and staffing of expeditions. Although this role is new in this century and in oceanography, the Institution provided such expeditionary services as equipment and instructions for collecting and staff participation in most of the expeditions opening up the Western United States in the 1850’s and for some years thereafter. The recent development in oceanography is thus a new application of the traditional activities of the Institution. The Institution plans and supplies labels for expeditions; sends instructions for special collecting procedures ; suggests and supplies preservatives, containers, packaging, and shipping procedures; subsidizes the shipping costs and provides a distribution center for subshipment in the United States; and, sends junior staff members on collecting expeditions with senior staff members of this and other agencies and institutions to provide the maximum return of specimens for the money invested. The concern of the Institution with collections extends to the equipment used. In order to study the populations of organisms of the ocean, it is necessary to use quantitative measures of abundance. Acute awareness exists of the primitive state of instrumentation for marine population evaluations. Wherever and whenever possible the Institution encourages the activities of any public or private agency to engage in the improvement of equipment for collecting use. It utilizes experimental equipment and participates in evaluations of its effec- tiveness. It offers counting and other srevices for instrument testing. It consults 594 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION with the developers of devices and tools for collection and assists research in such developments. Recently it has become feasible to consider the use of undersea vehicles for evaluation of subsurface populations of organisms and sediments. Scientists from the Institution have participated in familiarization and research dives of Electric Boat’s vehicle Asherah (Star II) and of Cousteau’s Diving Saucer. Requests have been made for experience with Alvin, Aluminaut, Trieste II, and other existing vehicles as well as for the opportunity to use Seabed I and Seabed II facilities of the Navy as diving bases for marine biological research. It has been reasonably well established that utilization of such facilities for research is most helpful to biologists and geologists and geophysicists; all are within the direct interest and responsibilities of the Institution. The use of these vehicles and similar new devices is restricted only by funding limits. Although the above responsibilities are important, the strength of the Institu- tion lies in its unique competence to gain scientific information from mixed, multiple collections of miscellaneous specimens from the environment. The Institution makes a necessary and basic contribution to any program concerned with the biology and geology of the oceans by establishing the identity of the Specimen collected. It provides unique opportunities for the establishment of a program of environmental forecasting by focusing attention of mathematicians on the collections. This function, of course, is not restricted to the marine field. The collections of the Institution are the largest body of reference materials in the world. Some- thing in the order of 30 millions of names have been given to biological specimens. The tedious but essential job of applying the proper name to an unknown speci- men is a major effort of the Museum of Natural History. Specimens collected are named and arranged for the convenient reference of scientists and laymen. New objects are described and named, compared with older ones and grouped for convenience and accessibility. Basic premises are developed concerning the relationships of superficially different organisms. Evolutionary trends are described and predicted. Scientists in the Institution produce field guides and monographs of the marine organisms for use in related biological research. Organisms and sedi- ments are studied as they provide information on the abundance of resources for the Bureaus of Commercial Fisheries, Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Mines, Geological Survey, Parks, and Recreation of the Department of the Interior. The organismal and sedimentary information produced in the Institution is basic to the mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in its search for and predictions of life and conditions on other planets and of Survival of life and conditions on other planets and of survival of life support systems on interplanetary missions. Studies of pollution of the seas by the Public Health Service and the National Institutes of Health rest on knowledge of species being obtained by Institution scientists. The Institution studies and stores the pre- and post-Bikini collec- tions of the Navy and the Atomic Hnergy Commission and it must provide spe- cies information for critical tests of environmental pollution by fallout, nuclear explosions, and the operations of nuclear stations, and vehicles. Sound propagation studies of the Navy’s Bureau of Ships, Oceanographic Office and Office of Naval Research depend on knowledge of biological species taken from the reference collections, and monographs of the Institution. Foul- ing and bioluminescence studies basic to the Office of Naval Research, the Mari- time Administration, the Coast Guard, the Coast and Geodetic Survey require support and identifications by the Institution. Basic biological and geological research of all agencies of the Federal Govern- ment as well as of universities and all private agencies depend to a great degree on the adequacy of reference collections in the Institution and the ability to provide fundamental statements of the relative abundances of organisms in all parts of the world ocean. Only in the National Museum and its State, munici- pal, and private equivalents is provision made for the long-term maintenance of eollections accessible for comparative and cooperative research. This obvious function requires a continuing viable collection-oriented research effort. In organizing the Institution for expanded modern marine research full con- sideration was given to the support needs of other agencies, and the overall status of biological programing in the Interagency Committee on Oceanography in which the Institution maintains membership. Through its membership in the ICO and chairmanship of the ICO research panel, the Institution has been able to anticipate the needs and become aware of NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 595 the plans of other agencies in biological and geological research and to direct its own growth to areas consistent with or complementary to the missions of other agencies. The total effort of the Institution has been included in the ICO’s national oceanography program, beginning in fiscal year 1963 and is subject to review by the ICO and its panels, as well as by the Federal Council for Science and Technology and the Bureau of the Budget. The unique situation of the Smithsonian constituted by statute as an estab- lishment which administers both Federal appropriations and private funds from endowments, grants, and contracts, has enabled it to maintain the flexibility necessary to accommodate varied public and private interests in its marine program. Funds have been received from the Atomic Energy Commission and the Navy for curating and study of collections made prior to the Bikini experi- ments. Funds have been received from the Link Foundation for production of a brochure, “Opportunities in Oceanography.’ With moneys from the U.S. Antarctic research program of the National Science Foundation, the Institution has sent scientists and collections personnel to the Antarctic and processes and records Antarctic collections. A National Science Foundation grant and an ONR contract provide assistance for the sorting and distribution of specimens as a part of the International Indian Ocean Hxpedition. Assistance from the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Office of Naval Research have helped with sorting and study of collections of the International Cooperative Investigations of the Tropical Atlantic. The Naval Oceanographic Office has helped fund sorting of specimens within its interest. Private individuals have donated sums of money to the Institution for special projects such as fieldwork in marine paleobiology, trips to dive on undersea vehicles, collection of mollusks in the mid-Pacific and collecting in the Caribbean. When called upon by appropriate Federal agencies the Institution has engaged in essential classified marine research supported by the Department of Defense; however, this type of research has never been a substantial percentage of the Institution’s program. From the beginning, the Institution has been dedicated to research and involved in educational activities in cooperation with universities and other institutions of higher learning. In the marine sciences a number of the Institution’s staff members have participated in educational programs of U.S. universities and have served as experts in foreign educational efforts. Recently, in recognition of the acute shortage of students of taxonomy and of trained systematists, and recog- nizing the danger of separating scientists from graduate students, the Institu- tion has arranged cooperative programs with several universities, including Duke, Johns Hopkins, Kansas, and George Washington, and contemplates a relationship with many others, to enable the Institution’s scientists to train their successors. Although the man-year investment of any one scientist in such activities may be slight, the sum of the activities of the marine scientists will be a significant con- tribution to graduate education of new systematists and real “insurance” that the national collections are studied. Recruitment of new scientists into the Institution’s marine program has been reasonably successful. An outside advisory committee was convened in late 1962 to recommend an appropriate Federal level of effort in the Institution. The committee believed, and that belief is shared in the Institution, that about 100 scientists are required to provide the necessary competence to serve the Nation’s oceanography efforts through 1970. Only about 12 of these scientists were em- ployed in fiscal year 1962 and in fiscal year 1966, 46 scientists are utilized in the program. As mentioned previously, the Institution in fiscal year 1962 had research com- petence in marine invertebrates, mollusks, and fishes. Scientists have now been employed with competence in various fields so that divisions of the museum hay- ing marine scientists include crustacea, mollusks, worms, echinoderms, fishes, birds, invertebrate paleontology, paleobotany, sedimentology, petrology, and eryptogams. Additional scientists are located in the Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting Center and a category of “senior scientist” has been established as an award for merit, with full-time research assignment of a few persons within the museum’s departmental structure. The facilities for marine research in the Institution include headquarters in the Museum of Natural History. A substantial portion of the approximately 17 acres of floor space in this museum are available for marine collections and lab- oratories. The laboratories contain research microscopes, dissecting equipment, microtomes, special viewing devices, electron microscopes, an electron probe 596 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION microanalyzer, X-ray equipment including diffractometers, histological equip- ment, freezers and freeze-drying equipment, and special processing devices and materials of great variety. In the navy yard annex 45,000 square feet of space is allotted to the Smith- sonian Ocenagraphic Sorting Center. This will be described in more detail in a later section. The Smithsonian Laboratory of Radiation Biology has the latest in equipment to measure the radiation impinging on the ocean’s surface and to study the effi- ciency of transformation of physical energy to the potential energy in green marine and land plants. The Canal Zone biological area has recently acquired facilities for running sea water on the Pacific and on the Atlantie sides of the Panamanian Isthmus in the zone. In fiscal year 1965, as excess property to the Navy Reserve Fleet, the Institu- tion obtained custody of YF 868, a covered freight lighter with a welded steel hull. This vessel has been reactivated and is presently engaged in research on coralline algae of the North Atlantic. Rechristened the Phykos (or sea plant), the vessel is 133 feet 9 inches long with a beam of 30 feet and a draft of 8 feet. The full load displacement is 650 tons. Phykos has twin screws and two 600-horsepower Eairbanks-Morse diesel en- gines. Power comes from two diesel generators, 30 and 60 kilowatts in size. The diesel fuel capacity is 16,000 gallons and the water capacity is 3,000 gallons. The vessel provides accommodations for 11 persons. A cargo boom on the main deck, rated at 11,200 pounds at 30 feet from the center line, has provided for on and off loading an undersea research vessel, Asherah, both on the dock and at sea for research. A gasoline winch was installed to work with a stern A frame for operation of dredges. As indicated above, the principal new facility in the oceanography program is the Smithsonian Oceanographic Sorting Center, established in January 1963. The Center was conceptualized to receive bulk, mixed, marine samples from governmental and private sources, including the U.S. National Museum ; separate them into appropriate taxonomic groups for identification and study by special- ists; obtain and coordinate the data taken at the original collection station at sea to provide maximum environmental information; experiment with preserva- tion, labeling, accessioning, shipping, and storage of specimens; train technicians for all aspects of specimen handling; and provide information and forms to oceanic expeditions to assure the collection of appropriate field data. Of special note is project support for strong involvement of the Sorting Center in the U.S. Antarctic Research Program of the National Science Foundation (NSF). With NSF support the Center is listing specimens taken from all past U.S. efforts in the Antarctic, and both sorts and maintains records of specimens now being taken from the Antarctic. In addition, the photographs of the ocean bottom taken from the research vessel Hitanin are duplicated and distributed to scientists. Also noteworthy are collections made available for study by the National Science Foundation through the International Indian Ocean Expedition by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and through the Intergovernmental Oceano- graphic Commission’s International Cooperative Investigations of the Tropical Atlantic. Other collections have come to the Sorting Center from the Pacific Halibut Commission, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, the Guinean Trawling Survey, the Geological Survey, the Coast Guard, the Naval Oceano- graphic Office, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the Coastal Engineering Research Center, the Laboratory of Radiation Biology of the University of Washington, the University of Michigan, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Government of Chile. As of May 15, 1965, when the last total was compiled, the Center had sorted 4,332,660 specimens and 2,589,886 had been shipped to 110 scientists for study and identification. The results of these studies speak to the success of the Center and of the significance of the Institution’s new efforts. The Sorting Center has served as a unifying influence in the systematics of marine organisms by providing specimens and information concerning the stages of their processing, together with information on the commitments of specialists scattered throughout the world. Visiting scientists may find working space in the Center. An increasing number of the individual specimens from multiple bulk collections are being processed for their research value and the results may be fitted together more effectively. It is anticipated that this flourishing activity will go on from its healthy beginning to do much to meet the challenge of man’s expansion into the ocean. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 597 Support of the Congress is, of course, vital to the Institution’s oceanography program. Hstablished for ‘‘the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men,” the Institution’s charter is quite broad, permitting it to do research in the areas where there are opportunities for progress. It reports to a Board of Regents which includes members of both Houses of Congress and maintains close liaison with the legislative as well as the executive branches of Government. Generally, the Institution favors any scientific organization or study which leads to broader interest and support of marine research. We must reserve comments on proposed legislation until our Board of Regents has had a chance to study it. The Institution stands prepared to participate in any effort to aug- ment the national effort in the field of oceanography. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, GOVERNOR’S OFFICE, Sacramento, August 19, 1965. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Oceanography Subcommittee, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. My DrEAR CONGRESSMAN: I have reviewed the proposed Nationai Oceanographic Act of 1965, S. 944, and I am most favorably impressed with the proposal. The provisions for expanded research in the oceans and Great Lakes and the estab- lishment of a National Oceanographic Council are greatly needed steps toward asserting the Federal Government’s leadership in the Nation’s oceanographic ef- fort. The primary legislative objectives of the act, to set forth a policy and pur- pose for our national oceanographic program, and to provide high level guidance and coordination to Government activities under the program, are entirely con- sistent with California’s interests in moving forward with its oceanographic program. The passage of S. 944 will provide both the basis for Federal leadership in oceanography and the focus through which the oceanographic efforts of Cali- fornia’s government, educational and research institutions, and industry may contribute to the national goals set forth in the bill. I therefore urge your support in seeing that S. 944 is given favorable consider- ation by Congress. Sincerely, EpMuND G. Brown, Governor. Woops HoLe OcEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, Woods Hole, Mass., August 3, 1965. Hon. HAstines KEITH, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sir: I am gratified to see the interest and concern for the Nation’s ocean program which has been evidenced by you and your colleagues. The number of bills now pending in the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries gives clear testimony to the fact that the Members of Congress recognize the need to strengthen the Nation’s ocean program and intend to do something about it. The national oceanographic program has greatly increased in size in recent years and we are beginning to learn many things about the oceans which were previously unknown. There is a great difference, however, between our present excellent national oceanographic program which is producing basic knowledge about the oceans, and the necessary comprehensive program of the future which will lead to a utilization of this knowledge for the benefit of mankind. TI think the time has come when this country should push forward with an ocean engineer- ing program. In some ways it will complement the present oceanographic re- search 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 598 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION why this country should embark on an ocean engineering program, and I shali not reiterate 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. I have often been asked why it is necessary for the Federal Government to sponsor engineering development in the oceans when private industry is capable of doing it. The answer, I think, is simply that the initial cost of undertaking engineering projects in the oceans is large, while the rewards may be long de- layed in realization or so diffuse as to be unexploitable by a single industrial enterprise. We cannot expect an industrial enterprise, unaided by the Govern- ment, to undertake the necessary research and engineering studies, to fund construction of a system, and to underwrite its operation when private industry cannot expect a satisfactory financial return on its 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 return- ing of nutrients to the surface waters. No single company can be expected to undertake this important project. Some projects in the oceans will undoubtedly prove to be of such a nature that industrial enterprises will gladly undertake them. There is no doubt in my mind that once the Government has led the way into the ocean deeps, industry will not be far behind. This is good and healthy and I think it should be encouraged in every way possible. The present national oceanographic program includes some ocean engineering projects, but the goal of all of them is to improve the capability for carrying out basic research programs. An example close at hand is the Navy-sponsored development of our deep research vehicle, Alvin. This project has necessarily entailed a great deal of ocean engineering, but the objective has been to pro- vide a vehicle for oceanographers to use in their basic research projects. Al- though the several departments and agencies involved in the national oceano- graphic program undertake ocean engineering projects in order to fulfill their mission in the oceans, there are gaps between their present missions that pre- clude the development of a comprehensive ocean engineering capability. These gaps must be filled if we are to develop the capability of conquering the ocean depths for peaceful purposes and exploiting the vast resource potential of the oceans. There are many ways in which these gaps in present ocean engineering pro- jects 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. There are numerous ways in which the new organization might be formulated.. It could be a new department in the executive branch as recently proposed by Senator Muskie, or it could be similar to the old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Hach of these possibilities has many pros and cons. You and your colleagues are far more knowledgeable than I in the matter of Govyern- ment organizations and the legislation necessary to produce the desired results. I, therefore, hesitate to suggest any one approach as being more appropriate than another. I do think we need to have a great deal of thought about the long-range objec- tives of a new organization, much along the lines of the study proposed by Dr. James Wakelin in his address at the Marine Technology Society Conference. We need further thought about the most effective form for the new organiza- tion to take; we need to identify more exactly the public stake in the oceans; and we need to consider and define more explicitly our international responsi- bilities in this area. I also think that there are many ocean engineering projects of some urgency that should be undertaken without waiting for the results of a comprehensive study. Last summer at the Navy’s seabed study in Monterey, several of these ocean engineering products were identified and discussed. The final report of the conference discusses not only the defense systems which will require an increased ocean engineering capability, but also systems that will be utilized for basic research projects in the oceans. Undersea laboratories, deep research vehicles, flip ships, and tethered research vehicles are but a few of the systems which were identified. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 599 In conclusion, I would respectfully suggest that Congress take appropriate action to accomplish the following : (a) Expand the present national oceanographic program so as to further en- rich our increasing knowledge about the oceans. (0) Initiate action which will permit the starting of a number of ocean en- gineering projects immediately. (c) Establish a study group to define our national goals in the oceans and to work out a well-conceived ocean strategy that will assure our continued pre- eminence in this portion of the earth. (d@) Establish an appropriate Government agency which will have a well- defined mission in ocean engineering. Respectfully yours, © Pavut M, Fyre. OcEAN RESOURCES, INC., La Jolla, Calif., August 18, 1965. Hon. Atton LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LENNON: Enclosed is a statement I prepared in support of H.R. 6009, the Marine Exploration and Development Act. I support this bill wholeheartedly. It is'‘a good and very necessary piece of legislation. On the practical side, I believe its wording is sufficiently broad to allow the Commission that this bill will establish the necessary latitude to ac- complish the goals set forth. The only change I would suggest is on page 1, line 10, between the words, Shelf and under, might be added, ‘and the sea floor to a depth which admits of economic mineral exploitation.” The Geneva Conven- tion also makes this statement. I am sorry that I was unable to testify in person before your subcommittee, however, I would be happy to do so at any time in the future should you think my testimony would be pertinent. Also I would be delighted to help you in any other way by supplying information or other aid concerning the mineral resources of the sea. There are several copies of the book, ‘‘The Mineral Resources of the Sea,” around Congress. Representative Bob Wilson of California has a copy as do Senators Bartlett, Magnuson, and T. Kennedy. If you think it would be of help to you or your subcommittee to have a copy, let me know and I will send one on to you. Sincerely yours, JOHN L. Mero, President. STATEMENT OF JOHN L. MERO, PRESIDENT, OCEAN RESOURCES, INC. My name is John L. Mero. I am president of Ocean Resources, Inc., of San Diego, Calif. In rendering this statement, however, I am testifying in my per- sonal capacity as an interested citizen. I have been asked to deliver this state- ment as an expert on the subject of the “‘“Mineral Resources of the Sea.” Such expertise as I might possess on the subject arises from my experience of the past 15 years which I have spent almost totally engaged in marine mineral resource studies as a student, postdoctoral fellow, research engineer at the University of California, consultant to numerous large corporations and Government agencies, and now as a manager of a company engaged in research and development of the mineral resources of the sea. JI have also authored ‘a book entitled, ‘““The Mineral Resources of the Sea.” MINERAL RESOURCES OF THE SEA The benefits which the United States could derive by a major program of well- coordinated oceanographic research already have been discussed in considerable detail by many other persons. Consequently, I will limit my comments in this statement to the mineral resources of the sea. While it is a well-known fact that the sea can serve as a source of all mankind’s protein requirements, it is a much less known fact that the sea can also provide the earth’s population with its total consumption of many industrially important mineral commodities. What is even more remarkable is the observation that the sea can provide these mineral commodities at a cost of human labor and resources that is a fraction of that required to win these materials from land sources. 600 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION As a source of minerals, 'the sea has been little exploited relative to its poten- tial. The major reasons for this default are, I believe, a lack of dissemination ot the limited knowledge concerning what is in the ocean in the way of mineral deposits and the absence of a proven technology to exploit the deposits on an economic basis. Whereas we have at our disposal all the equipments and tech- nologies necessary ‘to gather adequate information concerning the deposits and their environments, very little has been done in this regard. In fact, the Bureau of Mines’ marine mineral program has been directed away from this very goal. As you are aware, the Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations has stated that it sees no need for the Bureau to engage in marine mineral resource evaluations. No publicly sponsored U.S. oceanographic expedition has ever devoted any of its time to the search for economic mineral deposits in the sea. The meager information that we do possess has been gleaned as a byproduct of scientific studies concerning the sediments of the ocean floor. From these gleanings, how- ever, we have obtained samples of what seem to be extremely rich mineral de- posits which apparently cover great areas of the ocean floor. Based on these sparse data, considering the sea’s vast extent, it is possible to say that the pres- ently available mineral deposits of the sea could easily supply the population of the earth with its total consumption of manganese, nickel, cobalt, copper, phos- phorus, limestone, common salt, magnesium, bromine, fluorine, potassium, boron, sulfur, aluminum, and various other less important minerals as well as supplying substantial portions of its consumption of iron ore, lead, zine, titanium, molyb- denum, uranium, zirconium, and So on. Many of these materials are strategic for the United States, while others are obtainable only at exorbitant prices from limited conitinental sources. Because the sea is the utlimate repository for most of the continent’s wastes, human as well as natural, it is continuously receiving a tremendous influx of material. The rivers of the world alone dump some 4 billion tons of mineral material into the sea annually. Rather than depositing these materials in the indiscriminate form in which they are received, the sea acts as a great chemical retort, working on a truly grand scale to separate and concentrate those elements it receives from the continents. Many of the resulting mineral deposits would be considered extraordinarily high-grade if on land. We find in the ocean, deposits of manganese nodules, measured in the billions of tons, which grade as high as 2.5 percent of copper, 2 percent of nickel, 0.3 percent of cobalit, 35 percent of manganese, as well as containing economically significant quantities of lead, zinc, molybdenum, etc., all in the same deposit. On land such a deposit normally would be considered ore-grade if it contained like amounts of any one of these elements. Other deposits of the nodules grade as high as 2.1 percent of cobalt or 51 percent of manganese. The reserves of metals in the nodules now speculated to be lying at the surface of the sediments of the ocean, and, economically minable, are measured in terms of thousands of years at our present rates of consumption. More interesting is the observation that many of these metals are annually agglomerating in the nodules at rates that greatly exceed our annual consumption of these materials. And this renewable feature, we have found, is a very common attribute of many of the mineral deposits of the sea, whereas, on land, the mineral deposits are generally considered wasting assets and totally nonrenewable. . Although our studies are not backed up with operating experience, save for the mining of near shore submerged placer deposits, these studies indicate that we could produce many important industrial minerals from the sea at fractions of the cost of winning these metals from continental deposits. Also we would experience a tremendous increase in our capital utilization efficiency for a deep sea mining system that could produce annually $250 million worth of copper, nickel, cobalt, manganese, etc., would involve a capital investment of only about $100 million, whereas, on land, a mine to produce about $100 million worth of products annually would normally involve a capital investment of about $250 million. Then, too, many of the materials we could recover from the sea are strategie minerals for the United States not only militarily, but politically and, certainly, economically. For the United States could temper its dollar drain by at least $1.2 billion annually by extracting metals from the ocean floor deposits rather than buying them from foreign nations as we now must. Also, we could utilize many of the new technologies for processing the ocean floor minerals that have been developed at great expense by the AHC for the process- ing of domestic uranium deposits and by the Bureau of Mines for processing NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 601 domestic manganese and cobalt and nickel ores. These techniques are now largely lying fallow because it is more economic to buy these materials from for- eign nations at a great cost in dollars rather than develop our very low-grade domestic resources. Over the years the Bureau of Mines has expended tens of millions of dollars in developing techniques to mine and process our domestic reserves of low-grade manganese ores. Despite this heavy expenditure of funds we now mine hardly any manganese in the United States, but annually purchase about 2 million tons from various foreign sources. Manganese is absolutely essential in the production of steel and thus a highly strategic mineral for the United States. Also, our Government has, in the past, invested in excess of $800 million to develop the cobalt-nickel deposits of Cuba only to see these mines and process facilities fall into the hands of the Communists. Such an investment in the ocean floor mineral deposits would not only free us of many politically unstable sources of strategic minerals but would provide us with those minerals at a greatly reduced cost as well as open up essentially unlimited sources of these minerals which are politically and royalty free sources. We would also be developing technologies which are militarily significant and thereby steal a page from the Russian mode of operating its great fishing fleet. While we presently have no direct evidence that the Russians are building equipment to exploit the mineral resources of the sea, we do know that much of the significant exploration of these deposits is being done by Russian oceanog- raphers and that pronouncements in the Russian literature are constantly char- acterizing these deposits as, ‘great new resources for the peoples of the world.” Much of the best information we have concerning ocean floor deposits of minerals off our own coasts comes from the Russian literature which they are generous enough to send us. I often wonder about the information they have gathered which we do not see. And what a tragedy it will be for us to one day find the Russians, perfectly legally, mining Strategic minerals off our own coasts the way they presently catch many of their fish. While we, by our niggardly expenditure of research funds for oceanography, and total absence of funds for mineral resource development, fall, again, by the wayside, and, then, must resort to a crash program to catch up. For in failing to develop the resources of the sea, we are not only losing the propaganda battle with the Russians, but infinitely more important, we are failing to develop a resource which can provide a great deal of real wealth for the people of the United States. If propaganda is the object of spending money for research, and in the space program, it surely is the motivation for much of the money spent, then the development of the resources of the sea can be considered one of the great propaganda victories of all time. For in developing the technology of winning minerals from the sea we will present to every nation of the earth the where- withal to obtain many of the essential basic raw materials necessary for an industrial society. Coupled with the development of the food resources of the sea, essentially all materials necessary for an acceptable and adequate standard of living in an industrial society can be gained by all nations from the sea. Because of the unbelievably vast extent of the resources of the sea, there would be sufficient material for all peoples of the earth for the foreseeable future, assuming the simple guidelines of conservation are observed. Thus, one of the historic causes of war, that of the need for raw materials and food for an expanding population and economy will be removed. There will be suffi- cient food and minerals for everyone that might wish to secure them. By giving the technology to secure these materials to the rest of the nations of the world, the United States could gain a propaganda victory over the Communists which would overshadow all others. For in doing so, we would make ayailable to these undernourished nations materials of real value, materials that they desperately need, and materials that we desperately need. The development of such a technology should not markedly affect production from present land sources of such commodities, in fact it would exert a sta- bilizing influence in the production of such commodities. For any nation that realizes that the commodities we now buy from them are equally as available from other sources, tends not to be so truculent in expropriation pro- cedures or in charging exorbitant royalties and taxes on materials mined from deposits within their jurisdiction. But the technical and economic advantages of exploiting the mineral re- sources of the sea are even more important than the political. For, in the sea, we find materials that are available without removing any overburden, 53—367—65—— 389 602 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION without the use of explosives, and without expensive drilling operations for sampling or ore breakage. There will be no drifts to drive, shafts to sink, or town sites to construct in developing a deap sea mine. An ocean-mining operation, because it would be an entirely new concept in mining, can be designed for automation from the beginning. The equipment would be very flexible to move from one area to another for the various types of ore as the market demands. Sea transportation can be used to carry the mined material to most of the world’s markets with no other form of transportation involved. About 75 percent of the material, and more in some cases, being mined and handled is salable in contrast to the 2 percent or so of today’s copper and niekel ores. The unlimited amount of the sea floor minerals should establish a base price and supply for nodule contained metals which certain of these commodities need. But most important, the sea floor minerals should prove to be a less expensive source of many materials than are our present land sources. Whereas we might think, that in the face of the studies and data that has been developed, private corporations in the United States would be anxious to develop many of the ocean mineral deposits, the fact is that they are not. The minerals industry in the United States, tends to be quite conservative in its policies of approaching completely new technologies which cannot be developed efficiently on a small scale. Also, the legal cornerstone of the minerals industry, that of one group or company being able to secure complete control of a deposit so that it may develop it as it sees fit, is absent in many of the ocean floor deposits. For these and other good and valid reasons industry needs the help and encourage- ment of its Government in developing these deposits. Ironically, our Govern- ment, by charging incredible high bonus bids, rentals, and royalties on those offshore mineral deposits within its jurisdiction is actually discouraging industry from developing these truly great and important mineral deposits. This con- dition should be immediately rectified and Congress could easily do so by direct- ing the Department of the Interior to charge only nominal bonus bids, rentals, and royalties until industry can see its way to paying such costs from a developed technology from which the high risk has been removed. The Federal Govern- ment will gain its share of the wealth produced through the income tax, regard- less. Charging initial high fees simply for granting companies the right to develop the technologies for offshore mining, while saddling industry with the very considerable risks inherent in developing such a technology, is incredibly shortsighted on the part of our Government. More important is the fundamental research that our Government could finance such as explorations and sampling of the deposits, studies of the environmental conditions of the deposits, studies and development of the methods of mining and processing the minerals, as well as studies concerning the social, economic, and political overtones of developing such a technology. While a start has been made in this regard by the Bureau of Mines and the Geologic Survey, the funds thus far appropriated for ocean minerals research are vastly inadequate. Con- sidering the economic benefits to be gained from such research, I strongly urge Congress to carefully consider support of such activities. House bill 6009, en- titled the “Marine Exploration and Development Act,” if passed, would do much to rectify our neglect of this important area of oceanographic research. The scope of the activities described in this bill is sufficiently broad to enable the agency controlling the expenditure of the funds provided by the bill to function in an appropriate and adequate manner to accomplish goals of substantial and meaningful forth. The level at which the commission’s activities is pegged in the bill are certainly adequate for the initiation of this program, however, pos- sibly a better level would be that which is commensurate with the funds the Treasury now receives as bonus bids, rentals, and royalties from all offshore non- living resource exploitation. The reinvestment of these funds in the develop- ment of the additional resources of the sea would pay huge dividends to our Government in the form of income taxes realized from the profits of companies operating in the offshore areas. Implementation of this bill would also allow the United States, under the Geneva Convention to appropriate vast areas of the deep ocean floor, off the geologic Continental Shelf, for minerals exploitation, and, incidentally, for correlary military purposes. I most strongly urge passage of H.R. 6009, as a necessary measure to assure not only future generations, but our present generation, of an adequate participation in the benefits of utilizing the resources of the sea. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 603 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, Washington, D.C., August 26, 1965. Tion. ALTon Lennon, Chairman, Oceanography Subcommittee, Committce on Merchant Marine and Pisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. LENNON: Private and public oceanography effort is vital to the economic welfare and security of the Nation. Effective coordination of present and future scientific and technical programs is therefore essential. 'The estab- lishment of priorities for various oceanography programs and ‘their attendant funding is of utmost importance. However, the approach contained in S. 944, H.R. 7849, H.R. 921, and other similar proposals would unduly centralize gov- ernmental control and support of oceanography effort. This may create more problems than it solves by disrupting current activities. A logical approach would be a study, such as proposed by H.R. 9064, of the extent of the nature and direction of future oceanographic efforts. This study should be conducted by an independent ad hoc group composed of professionals appropriate to the subject, and drawn from Government, industry, and the academic community. The findings of this group would permit the Congress to effectively evaluate the type of legislative action needed in the field of oceanography. Noteworthy progress and advancement have been clearly demonstrated under the present Federal Interagency Committee on Oceanography of the Federal Council for Science and Technology. A hasty decision on changing the current organizational pattern of coordination of oceanography activities could unduly disrupt the statutory missions and relationships of existing private and gov- ernmental activities. The diversity of interest and the complexity of the legal, technical, and economic obstacles confronting an accelerated development of the ocean’s re- sources require the most prudent study and evaluation of how best to proceed. It is our suggestion that the committee delay consideration of any new Fed- eral organizational plans on oceanography until such time as a qualified study and report can be presented to the Congress. Sincerely, Don A. GOoDALL, Legislative Director. STATEMENT OF EF. G. WALTON SMITH, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, AND PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC FOUNDATION I appreciate the opportunity of submitting a statement with regard to the bills concerning the organization of oceanography now under consideration by your committee. My opinions are based upon 35 years of experience in full-time oceanographic research and teaching and, more recently, in the organization and administra- tion of a graduate curriculum in oceanographic engineering. The continental shelves, which are merely the fringes of the ocean, occupy an area greater than that of the entire moon. The depth of water is less than 1,000 feet over the shelf and men have already begun to reside and work in depths which are a substantial fraction of this. It seems reasonable, then, that increased efforts to conquer the potentially rewarding ocean environment should be undertaken with at least some reasonable fraction of the support that is given to invading the relatively inhospitable moon. It is therefore heartening to see a greatly increased interest directed toward our hitherto neglected frontier, the world ocean. In recent years, in fact, there has been a pronounced tendency for Government agencies to expand in the direction of oceanography, so that there are now about 20 agencies involved. This has been equally true of industry and the universities. There is a distinct danger, however, in too rapid a proliferation of this effort, beyond the capacity of the existing qualified and experienced scientists and engineers to train increasing numbers of recruits to the field. Any legislation enacted must therefore recognize the important role of qualified educational insti- tutions in meeting the demand for capable and well-trained personnel. It must also recognize the importance of continued and increased support of basic re- search at universities, since scientists cannot be properly trained without the opportunity to engage in original research. 604 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION The growth of interest in oceanography has brought with it a need for coordi- nation, in order to avoid misdirected efforts. The enthusiasm with which Goy- ernment agencies and a large number of major engineering corporations have plunged into oceanography, frequently with inadequately trained personnel, is matched by that of many universities, hitherto lacking in interest in the oceans, which have recently hastened to open new departments of oceanography, not all of which are well manned or suitably located. In fact, some of the more enthusiastic newcomers are in inland locations. It is therefore clearly desirable that steps be taken to prevent unnecessary duplication of effort among Government agencies, between Government and industry, and between Government and the universities. The universities have two functions to perform, those of education and of basic research. Government agencies have specific missions in which the knowledge developed from basic research may be applied to the exercise of a useful function in government. The Government agencies, in general, should be restricted to such specific missions. Hngineering industry is primarily con- cerned with the development and manufacture of systems and equipment to earry out the missions both of Government and of private enterprise. ‘There obviously are no clear lines of separation between these missions, but there is certainly a very real need of some coordinating body with the knowledge, the responsibility, and the authority to prevent flagrant deviations from them, and to minimize the danger of unhealthy competition. The establishment of a National Oceanographic Council, as provided for by H.R. 5654 appears to be a logical and orderly way of insuring coordination, controlling duplication of effort and presenting a unified program to Congress. The diversity of objectives in the oceanographic activities of the various agencies is such that the reorganization of all such agencies into a single operating agency is not practical. On the other hand, the possibility of trans- ferring certain agencies into one department in order to unify their admin- istration and to insure closer adherence to their logical functions, may be worthy of consideration. Possibly this study could be accomplished under the terms of H.R. 5654. Should it be decided, however, that a commission such as pro- posed in H.R. 9064, H.R. 9483, and H.R. 9667 is necessary to consider this, I do not believe that a period of 2 years is necessary to formulate recommenda- tions, but that 6 to 12 months should be adequate, in view of the lengthy and eareful study already made by Members of Congress. Although there may be grounds for continuing the separate existence of some or even most of the 20 or so agencies engaged in oceanoghaphic operations, there appears no good reason for adding new ones, or for extending the work of still more agencies in this direction. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. NEBLETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SHRIMP CONGRESS, INC. The interest of the National Shrimp Congress in the several bills now pending before your subcommittee is a very compelling interest, as the domestic shrimp fishery of the United States feels that several aspects of a comprehensive oceanographic program, including fisheries’ biology, chartings and soundings, estuarine surveys, and other matters vitally affect our fishery. As an example of this interest the National Shrimp Congress has recently published a pamphlet entitled “An Oceanographic Program for the Gulf of Mexico,” copies of which are attached hereto. The domestic shrimp fishery is centered primarily in the south Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, from North Carolina to Texas; with an additional cold water fishery of which the chief producing State is Alaska and in which there is some shrimp production in the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. The U.S. shrimp fishery is also one of the few remaining U.S. fisheries engaged in distant fishing so that knowledge and information concerning the oceans bordering some other nations is also important to this fishery. It should also be pointed out that in dollar income the U.S. shrimp fishery is the No. 1 fishery of the United States. The fact that the domestic shrimp fishery is not dominated or controlled by a few large corporations or enterprises, but is widely scattered and affords employment and income to a large number of individual vessel owners, small businessmen, makes it somewhat difficult for this industry to hold meetings and NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 605 to express its views in Washington. Nevertheless, it has been possible in recent years through the National Shrimp Congress to coordinate and analyze the problems of the domestic shrimp fishery and to present them appropriately to the Congress or to the bureaus and agencies of Government concerned. ‘The nature of this industry is such that its principal administrative problems have been mostly concentrated in the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Department of the Interior, and, because of the high seas fishery, in the appropriate section of the Department of State. Our scattered industry is not well equipped or organized, nor could it become so without a tremendous expense, to deal with a number of Federal agencies in addition to the State agencies now involved. Therefore, the domestic shrimp industry regards with a high favor the cen- tralization of oceanographic programs (which will most certainly affect this industry) in an agency of the Federal Government to which a direct approach could be made by industry. In reviewing the several bills which have been introduced and are before the subcommittee we find considerable merit in each of the approaches because it is obvious that the need for centralization and organization of an oceanographic program is recognized, thus: (a), H.R. 2218 has merit because it recognizes the scientific aspects of oceanog- raphy and provides for an advisory committee to be consulted by the President, as the result of which the President would report to Congress and ask for appro- priations and legislation. This would, however, have the effect of scattering the various oceanographic programs among the many department and agencies of Government, each with its particular interest in one limited phase of oceanog- raphy. ‘The bill does not provide for a separate agency to handle oceanographic programs and it would be difficult to fix responsibility in the event of failure of coordination. (b) H.R. 5654 is identical to S. 944 which has already received favorable action in the Senate and which has excellent possibilities. Certainly the National Oceanographic Council proposed therein is a high-level organization composed of the Vice President, Cabinet members and other high officials of Government. The impetus of having a program recognized at such a high level of Government is undoubtedly beneficial. This bill also provides a Council with a working staff so that with proper staffing it is envisaged that this Council would be in an excellent position to advance oceanographic interests. It is noted that the Council would appear to be more of a coordinating agency between the various departments and agencies of the United States than the type of agency which would in itself have the position and power to establish and execute oceanographic programs. It would appear that the strength of this approach lies in top-level representation of the membership and the weakness would lie in the coordination between various Government agencies. If a major coordi- nated program were launched it is conceivable that the failure of the one particular agency to cooperate or to obtain a sufficient allocation of funds, ete. eould result in some confusion and delay. Nevertheless, the National Shrimp Congress would heartily endorse H.R. 5654 and hope that the top-level mem- bers would impose on their respective departments a priority on oceanographic programs agreed to by the Council. (c) H.R. 9064. This bill goes a step further organizationally by the estab- lishment of a National Commission on Oceanography which to us in industry appears more adequately to effect a partnership between Government, industry, and scientists. It would appear that the individuals comprising this Commis- sion would have primary interest in the subject matter and enthusiasm in the earrying out of the program. However, it would not be a permanent commis- sion but it would undoubtedly, after envisaging comprehensive programs, recommend the type of permanent body considered most desirable for carrying out future objectives. Whether such an interim commission is necessary or whether there is now available sufficient knowledge of the problems to enter immediately upon the solution of them is beyond the knowledge of the writer. This principle is, however, a sensible and systematic approach to a major problem. (d) H.R. 921. This bill would immediately establish a permanent agency of the Federal Government with the sole and primary purpose and plan of develop- ing programs for oceanography and related sciences. The domestic shrimp industry would certainly favor such an agency on the basis that it could take 606 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION its oceanographic problems directly to a body specifically charged with the solution of those problems and able, we presume, to provide study and solution. It may be argued that a separate agency with its own staff may prove to be somewhat more expensive than. a coordinating agency which used available facilities in various departments; however, if the programs envisaged are as urgent as we believe theme to be, then the direct approach is the recommended one. The foregoing four bills have been used as examples of four different types of approaches to the resolution of a very important matter. Your attention is also respectfully invited to the provisions of S. 2251 introduced by Senator Muskie and others on July 7, 1965. We presume that a companion bill will be introduced in the House of Representatives and that this will eventually reach your com- mittee if it has not already done so. This proposed legislation would establish the very highest level of responsibility for marine and atmospheric affairs of the Federal Government by providing a Department of Marine and Atmospheric Affairs with a Secretary. The particular agencies which would become com- ponents of the proposed Department comprise the very agencies which would, under other proposed legislation, require coordination between them. Cer- tainly the purposes of long-range oceanography and related programs would be best served by such a grouping of present agencies into one department. A fishery organization is compelled to view this type of a government organization as the one most favorable to a continued development of fisheries and a proper utilization of ocean life and resources. The domestic shrimp industry, through the National Shrimp Congress, is pleased that so much energy and attention is being given to this major prob- lem and is ready upon call from your committee, to answer such questions and present such further views or recommendations as you may require. STATEMENT BY STUDENT DoNALD H. THOMAS, JR., AGED 14 My name is Donald EH. Thomas, Jr., son of Dr. and Mrs. Donald E. Thomas. I live in Mount Lebanon, Pittsburgh, Pa., and my father is a scientist at Westing- house Atomic Power Laboratories. I am now in the ninth grade at Andrew W. Mellon Junior High School. During the eighth grade I took a science course - consisting of oceanography which interests me very much. My teacher in eighth grade was Miss Hogan and in the seventh grade Mr. Herbert New. I intend to be a scientist so I read books on the subject and want to make this statement in my own behalf. Because of my interest in oceanography, Representative Fulton asked me to write a statement on the usefulness of oceanography study to my generation. So I am presenting my views for the congressional Committee on Oceanography. I think Congress should listen to young people, too. We can’t vote, but I have to pay taxes, so I should have some say. The supplies of minerals in our world mines are running out slowly and a new set of mines is needed. For centuries our rivers have been carrying minerals in their waters into the ocean where they remain as sediment. These minerals are found on the floor of the oceans in deep layers. Oil has been found under the Gulf of Mexico. This means there was dry land during the age of prehistoric animals. Oil, with the possibility of other minerals of all kinds, is probably under the ocean floor. Some of these minerals could be in sea plants, but the problem is to extract these minerals. Scientists will certainly learn to mine these minerals during my generation. In the less distant future, there could be vast fish farms for all kinds of sea- foods in the oceans. On these farms, as the Japanese do today, we could grow a vast quantity of food for the underfed people of the world. Military bases could be built on the ocean floor which would be free of air raids. Let’s stop ignoring 70 percent of the world’s surface. I hope this committee tells Congress and the U.S. people really to get busy on the oceans. I’m all for it, and I'll pay my share. Ocean research will really amount to big advances for science and will surely pay big returns. Truly the ocean contains the past and the future. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 607 REYNOLDS SUB-MARINE SERVICES CorRP., Washington, D.C., August 24, 1965. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: Reynolds Sub-Marine Services Corp. is pleased to com- ment on H.R. 10482, a bill which provides expanded research and development in the marine environment by establishing a National Council on Marine Resources and Hngineering Development and an associated Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. The portion of the subject bill dealing with the encouragement of private in- vestment enterprise in exploration and technological development is of particu- lar interest to any industry seriously involved in the oceans. Reynolds Inter- national, Inc., in connection with Reynolds Metals Co., has devoted 5 years and several millions of dollars to producing the advanced deep research submersible Alwminaut, now ready for charter operations to Government agencies, institu- tions, and industry. The appointment by the President of persons with a competency in the areas of science, engineering, and resources from industry, institutions, and the Govy- ernment would permit a comprehensive evaluation of the oceanographic and en- gineering tools offered by industry. We sincerely believe that a commission of this composition will not only permit the saving of Government funds through the elimination of duplicate efforts but will also provide a coordinated ocean exploration and exploitation program that will be unsurpassed in the world. Your consideration of these comments will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, ARTHUR LL. MARKEL, Vice President and General Manager. Attachment. Aveust 9, 1965. “ALUMINAUT”’ OPERATIONS BRIEF The all-aluminum submarine Aluminaut set a new endurance record for deep Submergence submarines by transiting the Straits of Florida last Wednesday. The Aluminaut stayed submerged for 32 hours while traveling at an average depth of 1,250 feet. The transit took place after several dives to the bottom of the Gulf Stream, 2,750 feet deep. A five-man crew took the silver-zine battery-powered 51-foot craft across the Straits of Florida from the Bahamas to Miami in 10.5 hours at 1,200-foot depths, J. Louis Reynolds, chairman of Reynolds International, Inc., the Alwminaut’s owner and developer disclosed. The submarine normally carries a crew of two. The craft covered a distance of approximately 70 miles at speeds up to 3.5 knots. During the descent to 2,700 feet, the deep research submersible was approx- imately 180 feet above the bottom, thus allowing her high resolution sonar to map the bottom contours. All submergences deeper than 500 feet limited visi- bility from the four viewing portholes and the underwater television to 40 feet. Arthur L. Markel, vice president and general manager of Reynolds Sub-Marine Services Corp., the subsidiary handling Aluminaut operations, stated that the abundance of plankton below the 300-foot level produced a backscatter of Alumi- naut’s underwater lights thus preventing any greater visibility. Consequently, the submarine relied on its forward-looking high-resolution sonar to search ahead beam to beam 800 yards. Mr. Markel said the 33-hour run was highly successful indicating a substan- tial reserve of battery power and life support systems. The submarine releases oxygen and uses a carbon dioxide scrubber system to provide life support to the erew and scientific personnel. While on the dive, the latest in a series of underwater trials, stress information on the 6,.5-inch thick hull was continuously measured. The Aluminaut is destined to go continuously deeper until her design depth of 15,000 feet is reached. Deeper dives will be made step by step since Alwminaut is too large to fit into any high- pressure test tank facilities available in the world today. Hundreds of bits of data are collected to monitor her response to increasing depths and greater distances traveled. 608 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Dr. T. Robert Kendall, an oceanographer from the University of Hawaii, was aboard the tender vessel Privateer during the run to observe the capabilities of the Aluminaut for oceanographic research. Dr. Kendall, an underwater pho- tographer of some reknown, took pictures of the Aluminaut at a depth of 150 feet as She was submerging. Crew members for the Straits of Florida trip included four from Reynolds Sub-Marine Services and one from the Electric Boat Division of General Dynam- ics Corp., who built the craft. Crew captain was Robert HE. Serfass of Reynolds. In addition to Captain Serfass who comes from San Diego, Calif., crewmen were Robert H. Canary, Groton, Conn., Alfred L. Rutherford, Montville, Conn., James J. Cooney, of Philadelphia, and Horace D. Barnett, an BHlectric Boat employee from Groton. Of note during the underwater maneuvers—a British warship in the Bahamas vicinity was invited to detect Aluminaut by sonar. The destroyer attempted to acquire the Alwminaut on her sonar, but it was not clear that detection was made of the aluminium hull of the craft at deep points. A U.S. Navy patrol aircraft also attempted to detect Alwminaut using other than sonic means but was evidently unsuccessful. Communications with the British destroyer were by underwater telephone. Sea trials in mid-July demonstrated the feasibility of controlled drift for sci- entific observations when the Alwminaut took a 25-mile “free ride” in the Gulf Stream at depths in excess of 1,000 feet and currents up to 3% knots velocity. REYNOLDS SUB-MARINE SERVICES CORP. “Aluminaut”’ log brief Date Time Details August 3 1000 | Submerged; 16 miles southwest of Cat Cay, Great, Bahamas Bank. 1022 | Depth, 1,950 feet. 1040 | Depth, 2,500 feet. 1050 Dewey (0) feet; dropped 2,500 lbs. shot; completed strain gage readings; bottom 180 eet below. 1230 | Surfaced; stayed buttoned up. 1330 | Loaded 1,500 lbs. shot 1400 | Submerged. 1430 | Depth, 950 feet. 1440 | Depth, 1,200 feet. 1500 | Depth, 2,500 feet. 1530 | Depth, 2,000 feet. 1600 | Depth, 1,500 feet. 2130 | United Kingdom Frigate Tarter invited to observe Aluminaut. August 4 0100 | Yarter departs apparently after no success in detection. 0700 Commenced transit of Straits of Florida on Alwminaut course of 280° T; Aluminaut at »200 feet. 1000 | VP-26 P-2V ASW aircraft attempted detection; no results. 1715 | Depth, 550 feet. 1735 | Surfaced with 30-degree angle. Pertinent data on dive Ampere hours expended—battery_________________-_ eee 040 Ampere hours left-—battery_________________-___- eee 110 Mo bead sensy evi Deaf es a ae ERs os EO I ee 650 Maximum Es percent. tiene 2 ae ek ee ee . 08 Maximum’ ©O'. percent wes 6 oe a 2 ee ee .8 Minimum, O's) pencentiy. se eee 8 eS As TO eee 18.0 Time submerged! (hours) 2222 4— 2 eee 33. 0 Time; underway. (hours) 2652 e28 Jo oe 2 eee ee ee 31.5 Mileage, transit (nautical miles) _____________________-________________ 25 Mileague, total (nautical miles) __-_______________---__----------------- 63 Average, speed. in transit (knots) 222222020 0 2 a eT eee 2.4 Current at 1,200 feet in Gulf Stream 1.8 knots at 005° T. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 609 NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE, INC., Washington, D.C., Awgust 4, 1965. Hon. Hersert C. BonNER, Chairman, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. CuatrMan: The National Fisheries Institute, having a deep and abiding interest in oceanographic research and operations, would like to add its word to those of others supporting the establishment of a responsible organization. The commercial fishermen of the United States feel oceanography may be the answer to future fish catches and the utilization of the fisheries bordering the United States. In view of the fact that there are between 18 and 22 agencies, bureaus, depart- ments, commissions, etc., presently concerned with this highly technical subject, and because there is no central control, the National Fisheries Institute is ex- iremely interested in the establishment of a central body to plan for, direct, con- trol, and evaluate the activities in this field. This body should report to the President of the United States and the Congress of the United States. It should be charged with determining what must be done in this field, who shall do it, how it shall be done, how duplication can be avoided, and how the results can be evaluated and put to the greatest good. The myriad of bills introduced makes it difficult to support any one indi- vidual bill; therefore, we suggest that the members of the committee in their wisdom select what appears to them to be the most productive piece of legislation introduced, and shepherd it to passage. If it please the chairman, we would like to request that this letter be made a part of the permanent record. Sincerely yours, F. P. Lonceway, Executive Director. Mission Bay ResearcH FOUNDATION OF SAN DIEGO, Newport Beach, Calif., August 12, 1965. Hon. Atton LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: It was with deep regret that I found it impossible to accept Mr. Drewry’s invitation to appear personally and present my views to your committee during the hearings. Here is a brief statement of my personal recommendations arrived at after 2 years of intensive study of our national posture. I represent a private founda- tion that is currently indexing all of the literature from some 45 countries for the benefit of our subscribers. It is obvious from an overview of the international situation that currently our Nation is experiencing an “unrecognized national emergency” related to the field of marine sciences. Our leadership at the executive level has failed to exert the same interest in our problems of national security as in other matters of lesser import. In spite of our fragmented effort we do have under way many, many vital and effective programs, originated, directed, and being executed by brilliant and dedicated men in government, education, and industry. No legislation should be enacted that will interfere with these. If legislate we must, then I favor first the objectives and plan espoused by the recently enacted 8. 944. This will, if properly administered, result in a marine department at some future but practical date. The greatest single effect of the National Oceanographic Council would be to help focus public attention upon marine problems. In closing, I strongly recommend that your present subcommittee be elevated to full committee status. Marine sciences and all of its activities are entitled to have such representation. Your subcommittee is to be commended for the fine work accomplished to this date, and full stature would add to its effectiveness. Respectfully submitted. T. R. GILLENWATERS. 610 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION AMERICAN Society or Crvit ENGINEERS, New York, N.Y., July 28, 1965. Hon. HERBERT C. BONNER, Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN BONNER: It is appreciated that opportunity has been given for comment from the American Society of Civil Engineers pertaining to the several bills under study currently, intended to provide a comprehensive, long-range and coordinated national program in oceanography. (H.R. 3352, etc.) With my earlier letter, May 12, 1965, I expressed the interest of this society in such legislation. Now the hearings are scheduled, more detailed comments are offered. Such comments will be directed to three points: the need for the program; the inclusion of engineering studies in the program; the nature of coordination of the program. Oceanographic studies have lagged behind geographic studies, yet both are essential to the orderly development of resources in the service of mankind. In very recent years, the pace of studieg of the oceang has quickened. In this effort, many disciplines have been involved. ‘This interrelationship of different kinds of specialists was recognized in the policy report issued by the Federal Council for Science and Technology, in June 1963. Anticipating significant en- gineering contribution to the studies, this Council proposed increasing support by the Federal Goverment for a program “to comprehend the world ocean, its boundaries, its properties, and its processes, and to exploit this comprehension in the public interest, in enhancement of our security, our culture, our inter: national posture, and our economic growth.” Specifically, more information is required to increase safety and improve reliability of navigation on the surface of the oceans. By comparison with geo- graphic studies, the vast undersea regions remain practically unknown. Civil engineers have been immersed in studies of the coastal areas, with many ques- tions yet to be answered. It appears that there is little question regarding the need, per se, for studies. It is the extent of such studies, and the directing, co- ordinating and financing of such studies which need to be brought into focus. Legislation, such as embodied in H.R. 3352, and similar bills, would provide needed coordination. For effective coordination of studies, it appears that the legislation should have more specific reference to engineering involvement. In this effort, it is not possible to separate engineering from science, yet science has been given the emphasis in this legislation. One example of engineering involvement is in the need to know more about the interaction of sea and land. Coastal engineer- ing hag matured as a field of practice, yet the need for extended studies in this relationship is evident. Another example is the impact of pollution on resources of the ocean. Pollution abatement is a field of extensive engineering develop- ment, which needs to be extended to oceanographic studies. In another re- lationship, the services of surveyors and mappers need to be extended, so that the nature of bottom topography can be better understood. Specifically, it appears that the program of continuing systematic research must include engineering research. Also, the work of the Advisory Committee, which would be established by legislation, would be facilitated with the addition of civil engineers, knowledgeable in subject areas such as those listed briefly. Finally, the coordination of work undertaken by Federal agencies, or financed directly by Federal grants does not include all of the effort being extended, or to be extended, in the proposed program in oceanography. Extensive work is being done by industry, or by research organizations financed privately. Thus, it appears that the coordinating program should be ‘national’ in scope, to pro- vide free interchange of information between all involved, to give encourage- ment to the Federal Establishment, but at the same time make the best pos- sible use of other studies, through systematic coordination of all involved. Respectfully yours, WILLIAM H. WISELY, Haecutive Secretary. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 611 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, COMMITTEE ON OCEANOGRAPHY, Washington, D.C., August 2, 1965. Hon. ALTON LENNON, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN LENNON: On behalf of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, I wish to express our interest in the hearings you have scheduled on the various pending bills directed to strengthening the Nation’s oceanographic program, especially through providing improved means of consolidating or coordinating the activities of the numerous agencies involved in ocean research and development. Our committee has recognized the need for the national oceanographic pro- gram to be developed and funded in a more unified manner, and the importance of establishing some new machinery in the executive branch and the Congress to make this possible. Although individual members, in their personal capacities, have commented in favor of some of the bill, the committee feels that it does not havea basis for recommending the best solution to this problem. We sincerely hope 'that the hearings which your committee is holding will be most useful toward the formulation of appropriate legislation. Sincerely yours, M. B. ScHAEFER, Chairman, (Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.) en on mpenon TAUOR i Lok SP ANGo ARO eG wATTOMOD Ospey fi) ‘Tanya Big ai me wt ns J \ he = D £Oe ay t ik . : pease. hay eh? Pa AS5C ‘ip SaTiin iGhaebemnt ws 409 TUR vane ont Be Berks Ot atetwe dL; HossoD anda eras Beary hie i witht atid iay atroit tH) dct ean a) abet TOE jinertsh A Be ob WTBOURGIO ate th Hea fF owate ho sere ARO Le ry paboyy hasingove: ah ff? theory mb hed rt i ottiwe APPEND UTX Abridged Chronology of Events Related To FEDERAL LEGISLATION FOR OCEANOGRAPHY 1956-65 Prepared by THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE JULY 21, 1965 613 - ‘ : y i _— bateledl ateoe 10 ygolonondd E YHTAADOWAMIO 10T MOITATAIDE Ee COHORT es pete oer | “da hotsqexd oo i= pa = ne S a, ras = = a = a ht ae pus MOLVANE SOVGLOIT SVITATEI aaer we YIU (bon nl pee ems i sen eer ephlkel fon Aen mtn a AN a & 18 oe Yeni hw mel Aen 4 ney mei ers eabdubeniadiccecn nanan ENS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Tue Lisrary or CONGRESS, LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE, Washington, D.C., July 15, 1965. Hon. Auton LENNoN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Oceanography, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Lennon: I am pleased to forward an “Abridged Chro- nology of Events Related to Federal Legislation for Oceanography, 1956-65” in response to your request. This chronology was first prepared in January 1965 on the initiative of the Science Policy Research Division, when intensified activity in the 89th Congress in the field of ocean sciences and engineering was reflected in frequent requests for information and legislative research. The chronology has been periodically updated, and the enclosed material reflects congressional actions through July 15, 1965. The study is in five parts. Part I is a chronology, beginning with landmark events in 1956, that highlights legislatively significant action by both the President and the Congress; Part II contains explanatory notes which elucidate contents of the earlier list; Part III is a brief summary of Federal funding in oceanography, by agency and functional area; Part IV contains a summary of congressional action by the 86th, 87th, 88th, and 89th Congresses related to oceano- graphic legislation, and Part V is a selected bibliography of those papers and articles bearing on elements of oceanography of legisla- tive rather than scientific interest. This chronology was prepared under the guidance of Dr. Edward Wenk, Jr., Chief of the Science Policy Research Division, with major assistance by Miss Florence Broussard, research assistant. Sincerely, Hues L. Eussreez, Director. 615 gaivenigng boe aeonsick a4090- to. Dioit oly of beet “enloiaeo ii dae" | jpeorenioD 9 bas toohbieerd ods: dé D.C solgailan' th gontinteestae. Yo saasoF eared “v6 pout? baghindA” se brswiol oi beeselq ms 1 2 -. wadqsthomsdO) tol soitele fgak Leiobe'l--ot batals, ATTIMEMART * IO AOTTaA ena , Tha ay Go: scree re at : hee : ie eaarono0d | 0: yannant ant \S0Ivane aoneaaraa. orvir areal SOVL TOL hil, oe AY efrolgatiten' H roderosh 0-883 shensniels AMqarposnss® so sabteareton | feoupsT OY, ovilaiting odd fo BORt wresrita ly ee Pa jeri aw ysivitos beitianeini madw jdotetvil doses St _woule ; eviddlergel baw noid parrolai tat alzespar inespett orlt baw i ylaniboiseg Sait ead ygolane Boer 8 i ylut A dyccid? eacitoa LanozeeTgao alselte idiw acinnived . veolonetto s et I jreT eliaq. evil, sara: ndterain ylovis aletan! ane ae fads 06 agi Til jae ; teil tailtae woth to = Need: pighh yitle ds nidye pate , yore gs ad Qiigaitpomssoo of yoibant lewbel to yiem laiioleesretio? Yo tec & efigi#eas-VI jiat i888 . POLES 96 of botiales mean TAC wit 1308 box diss «Aft ‘2 ute pent to vil did. betoolee’ a et Vo dteT boa yt -plareal lo tigergedasso te ‘einomels (to: pernasd - pal: Jenstatat siitdoina brswhdt 7 to ssaubiug od} 'wabau hoteq oT BAW tol ait iit aoderv itl ddoriae yeast Pato aniiei: 1 atid Fa trad ereee eleves BS297T. bagar red. fS>E apne By Re ae a wt Hou 5 HO Yh a a Cth yak! Fey Abridged Chronology of Events Related to Federal Legislation for Oceanography 1956-65 PART I.—_CHRONOLOGY August 9, 1956. Rear Adm. Rawson Bennett, acting for Office of Naval Research and three other Federal agencies, requested President Detlev Bronk, National Academy of Sciences, to appoint a committee representing the scientific community to. provide advice and guidance on needs and opportunities of oceanographic research (Note 1). November 1957. First meeting of Committee on Oceanography, National Academy of Sciences (NASCO). April 29, 1958. Agreements formulated by U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea, Geneva, concerning sovereignty over territorial sea, contiguous zones, and Continental Shelf. December 27, 1958. White House released report by the President’s Science Advisory Committee on ‘Strengthening American Science’ that recommended establishment of a Federal Council for Science and Technology to coordinate programs involving a large number of Federal agencies. This report also mentioned oceanography as an example of several fields warranting special stimulation. January 1, 1959. Long-range planning for Navy oceanography embodied in report TENOC (Ten Years in Oceanography) endorsed by Adm. Arleigh A. Burke within budget limits con- sidering other Navy needs (Note 2). 86th Congress February 15, 1959. NASCO released its summary of 12-volume report on “Oceanography, 1960-1970,’ recommending that the Federal Government assume responsibility for accelerating a national program of research, surveys, education, and construc- tion of facilities by approximately doubling the level of effort over the next 10 years. Increases in expenditures were proposed from about $24-$30 million for the base year i958 to roughly $80 million per year for the 1960-69 decade (Note 3). February 17, 1959. House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee established Special Subcommittee on Oceanography. March 3 to June 2, 1959. Hearings convened by House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, under Special Subcommittee on Oceanography chaired by Congressman George P. Miller, on “Oceanography in the United States,” testimony invited from 42 Government, university and industry witnesses concerning NASCO goals and proposals. 53-367—65——40 617 618 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION March 13, 1959. Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST) established by Executive Order 10807, to advise and assist the President in Government-wide planning and coordination (Note 4). April 18, 1959. H.R. 6298 introduced by Congressman Overton Brooks to amend National Science Foundation Act of 1950 so as to provide explicit financial assistance for university teaching facilities and for students in oceanography (Note 5). May 1959. Subcommittee on Oceanography, later Interagency Com- mittee on Oceanography (ICO), established under FCST to coordinate programs of some 15 Federal agencies having statutory authority to engage in some phase of oceanographic research (Note 6). June 22, 1959. Senate Resolution 136, introduced by Senators Warren G. Magnuson, Clair Engle, and Henry M. Jackson, set forth national policy to strengthen the entire field of oceanography. Passed by the Senate unanimously, the resolution (1) emphasized importance of oceanography to the Nation and the existing legis- lative authority of many agencies to engage in oceanographic research, (2) commended the NASCO report, (3) concurred on NASCO recommendations for a well-balanced and coordinated expansion of the programs with increased Federal funds, (4) pro- posed interagency coordination be developed possibly through a new Oceanographic Research Board or Commission, and (5) urged increased international cooperation and data exchange subject to Presidential supervision. August 4, 1959. S. 2482 to remove geographical limitations on opera- tions of Coast and Geodetic Survey introduced by Senators Warren G. Magnuson and Clair Engle. August 11, 1959. H.R. 8611, identical to S. 2482, introduced by Congressman Herbert C. Bonner. August 19, 1959. S. 2482 passed by Senate. August 25, 1959. Hearings convened on H.R. 6298 by House Science and Astronautics Committee, Subcommittee on Earth Sciences. September 5, 1959. S. 2692, Marine Sciences and Research Act of 1960, introduced by Senator Warren G. Magnuson (with 12 other Senators), contained a specific declaration of policy to strenethen oceanography so that the United States would not be excelled by any other nation. To meet these objectives, it called for a comprehensive 10-year program of research and sur- veys explicitly following funding recommendations of NASCO, and coordinating Federal agencies through a new Division of Marine Sciences in the National Science Foundation (Note 7). January 6, 1960. H.R. 9361, identical to S. 2692, was introduced by Congressman Thomas M. Pelly. February 9,1960. Hearings convened by special subcommittee of House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee on ‘Oceanography in the United States—Part IT.” February 15, 1960. H.R. 10412, introduced by Congressman George P. Miller, to establish a public policy and Federal coordination of Federal oceanographic surveys, through a new coordinating Committee on Oceanographic Surveys representing seven agencies. April 15, 1960. S. 2482 became Public Law 86-409. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 619 April 20-22, 1960. ‘‘Marine Science” hearings on 8. 2692 convened by Senate Commerce Committee. April 28-29, 1960. General hearings on “Frontiers in Oceanic Re- search” convened by House Science and Astronautics Committee. May 2, 1960. H.R. 12018, introduced by Congressman George P. Miller, to establish within Coast and Geodetic Survey a new National Oceanographic Data Center and National Instrumenta- tion Test and Calibration Center (Note 8). May 17-25, 1960. Hearings on H.R. 9361 convened by Special Committee on Oceanography, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. June 7, 1960. Senate Commerce Committee reported out favorably Marine Sciences and. Research Act, S. 2692, as amended; Senate Report 1525 (Note 9). June 17, 1960. H.R. 12700, introduced by Congressman Overton . Brooks to amend the NSF Act of 1950 by creating, in the Na- tional Science Board, a Special Committee on Marine Sciences composed of Government officials and university scientists to develop and encourage a national program in marine sciences, to encourage cooperation, and to evaluate Government-wide pro- erams in this field. June 25, 1960. Senate passed S. 2692 unanimously. July 1, 1960. House Science and Astronautics Committee released Report 2078 detailing the importance of oceanography to the Nation, and resources necessary to achieve these goals, and con- cluding that a federally sponsored program was probably needed amounting to $160 million per year for the next 10 years (Note 10). 87th Congress February 9, 1961. S. 901, Marine Sciences and Research Act of 1961, similar to S. 2692 of 86th Congress, introduced by Senator Warren G. Magnuson. February 15, 1961, H.R. 4276, Oceanographic Act of 1961, introduced by Congressman George P. Miller, to expand and develop aquatic resources of the United States by creating a new National Oceanographic Council with representation of six agencies at Cabinet level, (1) to develop long-range plans, (2) coordinate interagency programs, (3) to establish a new data center and instrumentation center, (4) to strengthen Smithsonian Institution activity in the programs, and (5) to report annually to Congress. The proposed National Oceanographic Council, patterned after the National Aeronautics and Space Council, was established under Public Law 85-568 when NASA was established. February 15, 1961. H.R. 4340, introduced by Congressman George P. iller, ‘to expand functions of Coast Guard to include oceano- graphic research. February 15, 1961. House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee established Standing Subcommittee on Oceanography. February 23, 1961. Special message on Natural Resources trans- mitted to Congress by President John F. Kennedy, emphasizing, among other areas, need for oceanographic research. 620 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION March 2, 1961. 5S. 1189, introduced by Senator Warren G. Magnuson, to expand functions of Coast Guard to include oceanographic research. March 15, 16, 17, and May 2, 1961. ‘Marine Sciences’’ hearings on S. 901 and S. 1189 convened by Senate Commerce Committee. March 29, 1961. Executive Communication 734, transmitted to the Congress by President John F. Kennedy, supporting a sharply accelerated program of oceanography through supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1962 (Note 11). ($97.5 million requested; $104.8 million appropriated.) Apri 27, 1961. Hearings convened on H.R. 4340 by Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com- mittee, ‘Oceanography, 1961—Phase 1.” May 4, 1961. H.R. 6845, introduced by Congressman George P. Miller, similar to S. 1189. May 22, 1961. Hearings convened on ‘Project Mohole”’ by Sub- committee on Oceanography, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, ‘(Oceanography 1961—Phase 2.” June 19-28 and July 14, 1961. Hearings convened on H.R. 4276 by Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, ‘(Oceanography 1961—Phase 3.” June 20, 1961. Senate Commerce Committee favorably reported out S. 901; Senate Report 426 (Note 12). July 28, 1961. S. 901 passed unanimously by Senate. October 5, 1961. H.R. 6845 approved (Public Law 87-396). February 29 to March 2, 1962. Hearings convened by Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com- mittee, chaired by Congressman John Dingell, on effectiveness of FCST Intragency Committee on Oceanography. June 9, 1962. Office of Science and Technology established in Execu- tive Office of President under Reorganization Plan No. 2 (Note 13). July 18, 1962. H.R. 12601 introduced by Congressman John Dingell, Oceanographic Act of 1962, to establish a national policy to develop and maintain a coordinated, comprehensive and long- range national program in oceanography. ‘The bill gave the Office of Science and Technology (OST) responsibility to estab- lish a national program in oceanography, through a newly estab- lished Assistant Director, provide an annual report on programs and Government-wide budgets to the Congress, and authorized a statutory advisory committee to serve OST composed of university and industry scientists. August 14, 1962. ‘““National Oceanographic Program for fiscal year 1963,’ developed by Federal Council’s Interagency Committee on Oceanography, was released by Office of Science and Tech- nology. ($126 million requested; $124 million appropriated.) August 14, 1962. H.R. 12601, as a clean bill superseding H.R. 4276 reported out favorably by House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries; House Report 2221 (Note 14). August 20, 1962. H.R. 12601 laid on table; S. 901 amended to con- form to language of H.R. 12601 and passed by House. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 621 September 27, 1962. House and Senate conference committee on S. 901 reported out a bill similar to H.R. 12601 and urged passage by both Houses; House Report 2493. This bill was passed by both Houses prior to adjournment of 87th Congress, but then pocket vetoed by President Kennedy (Note 15). 88th Congress January 9, 1968. H.R. 13, identical to amended version S. 901, passed by the 87th Congress and vetoed, introduced by Congressman Herbert C. Bonner. (H.R. 880, H.R. 895, H.R. 1001, H.R. 3119, and H.R. 4428 identical.) January 81, 1968. S. 627, introduced by Senator EH. L. Bartlett (and 30 others), would foster research and development to promote commercial fisheries through a program of Federal-State coopera- tive research. June 12, 1963. H.R. 6997, introduced by Congressman Alton Lennon as ‘Oceanographic Act of 1963,” similar to H.R. 12601 of 87th Congress, but revised to meet White House objecticns that brought pocket veto. The bill sets forth the national policy to develop and maintain a comprehensive, coordinated long-range program in oceanography; provides for President, with OST assistance, to develop goals, coordinate programs, and fix agency responsibili- ties and report annually to the Congress, and authorized seven- man advisory committee. (H.R. 7015, H.R. 7029, H.R. 7036, H.R. 7040, H.R. 7047, and H.R. 7922 identical.) June 24, 1963. H.R. 6997 supported by Director, Office of Science and Technology, in letter to Chairman Bonner, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. July 26, 1963. FCST long-range plan, “Oceanography: The Ten Years Ahead,” and the “National Oceanographic Program for Fiscal Year 1964,’ prepared by the Interagency Committee on Oceanography and transmitted by Director, OST, to Congress (Note 16). ($156 million requested; $124 million appropriated.) July 31, 1968. H.R. 6997 reported out favorably by House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. (House Report 621; Refer- ence 17.) August , 1963. H.R. 6997 passed by House of Representatives. February 26, 1964. S. 2552, introduced by Senator Warren G. Magnu- son, to exempt ocenographic research vessels from the application of certain inspection laws and for other purposes. March 19, 1964. ‘National Oceanographic Program for Fiscal Year 1965” transmitted to Congress by President Lyndon B. Johnson. ($138 million requested; $135 million appropriated.) April 15, 1964. H.R. 10904, introduced by Congressman Bob Wilson, to establish a National Oceanographic Agency headed by Ad- ministrator appointed by President with Senate consent, with transfer of functions related to oceanography now vested in other agencies (Note 17). May 13, 1964. H.R. 11232 introduced by Congressman Richard Hanna authorizes National Science Foundation to study legal problems arising out of management, use and control of natural resources of oceans and ocean beds. May 20, 1964. S. 627 became Public Law 88-309; Senate Report 338. 622 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION May 27, 1964. H.R. 11419, introduced by Congressman Alton Lennon, similar to H.R. 11232 but authorizes study by Coast Guard. June 10, 1964. Effective date for the Continental Shelf provision of treaty concerning Law of the Sea, from agreements formulated = one April 29, 1958 (ratified by U.S. Senate May 26, 1960; ote 18). June 23-30, 1964. Hearings on ‘National Oceanographic Program, fiscal year 1965,” convened by Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. July 9, 1964. S. 2990, introduced by Senator Warren G. Magnuson, to establish National Oceanographic Council, patterned after National Aeronautics and Space Council in the Executive Office of the President, to advise and assist in (1) surveying all significant oceanographic and marine science activities, (2) developing a comprehensive Federal program of oceanographic and marine science activities, (3) designating and fixing responsibility for the direction of major oceanographic and marine science activities, (4) providing for effective cooperation among all Federal agencies engaged in oceanographic and marine science activities, (5) resolving differences arising among agencies with respect to oceanographic and marine science activities, and (6) reviewing annually the oceanographic and marine science activities conducted. Requires the Council to submit to Congress within 1 year after enactment a comprehensive program of proposed legislation in furtherance of oceanography and the marine sciences. Provides for an annual report containing the activities and accomplishments in the field of oceanography and marine sciences during the preceding year and an evaluation of such activities and accomplishments. August 1, 1964. S. 2552 passed Senate. September 19, 1964. H.R. 5159 became Public Law 88-307 (introduced by Congressman Wayne N. Aspinall March 28, 1963), establishing a temporary Public Land Review Commission with instructions to submit a final report to the President and Congress not later than December 31, 1968, concerning the disposition or retention of public lands, included among which are the mineral resources defined ‘‘as being under the control of the United States in the Outer Continental Shelf.” December, 1964. NASCO issues report on “Economic Benefits From Oceanographic Research,” recommending annual Federal support of $280 million for the next 10 years (Reference 24). 89th Congress January 4, 1965. H.R. 153, introduced by Congressman Peter W. Rodino, would provide for the establishment, under the National Science Foundation, of a National Science Academy. Section 13(a) would provide for establishment of specialized institutions including one in oceanography, as a means of advancing science and research activities of the Academy. January 4, 1965. H.R. 921, identical to H.R. 10904 of 88th Congress, introduced by Congressman Bob Wilson, to establish the National Oceanographic Agency. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 623 January 11, 1965. H.R. 2218, identical to H.R. 6997 of 88th Congress, introduced ay Congressman Alton Lennon, to provide for a com- prehensive, long-range and coordinated national program in oceanography. (H.R. 3310, introduced by Congressman Thomas M. Pelly on January 21, and H.R. 3352, introduced by Congress- man Herbert C. Bonner on January 24, are identical.) January 19, 1965. S. 627, introduced by Senator Warren G. Mag- nuson, to exempt oceanographic research vessels from the appli- cation of certain vessel-inspection laws, and for other purposes. (Identical to S. 2552, 88th Congress.) January 22, 1965. Hearings convened by Subcommittee on Ocean- ography, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries (“Oceanography—Ships of Opportunity,” Serial No. 89-1). January 24, 1965. President’s budget submitted, requesting $141.6 million for oceanography. January 25, 1965. H.R. 3419, introduced by Congressman Richard Hanna, to exempt oceanographic research vessels from the application of certain vessel inspection laws. February 1. 1965. S. 909, introduced by Senator Warren G. Magnuson, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to initiate a program for the conservation, development, and enhancement of the Nation’s anadromous fish in cooperation with the several States. February 1, 1965. S. 944, introduced by Senator Warren G. Magnuson, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. (Similar to S. 2990 of 88th Congress, but with ex- panded scope.) February 1, 1965. H.R. 3954, introduced by Congressman Thomas M. Pelly, to prohibit fishing in the territorial waters of the United States by vessels other than vessels of the United States in order to expand the definition of the term ‘‘fisheries.’’ February 10, 1965. S. 1091, introduced by Senator E. L. Bartlett, to provide a program of marine exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf to be planned and conducted by a new operating commission-type agency (Note 19). February 18, 1965. H.R. 5175, introduced by Congressman Alton Lennon, authorizes the Coast Guard to conduct a study of the legal problems of management, use, and control of the natural resources of the oceans and ocean beds. February 19, 1965. Hearings on S. 944 convened by Senate Commerce Committee. March 2, 1965. “National Oceanographic Program, fiscal year 1966,” transmitted to Congress by President Lyndon B. Johnson. March 2, 1965. H.R. 5654, introduced by Congressman Dante B. Fascell, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. (Identical to S. 944, 89th Congress.) March 5, 1965. H.R. 5884, introduced by Congressman Ralph Rivers, to provide a program of marine exploration and development of the resources of the Continental Shelf. (Identical to S. 1091, 89th Congress.) March 9, 1965. H.R. 6009, introduced by Congressman Hastings Keith, to provide a program of marine exploration and develop- ment of the resources of the Continental Shelf. (Similar to 8S. 1091, 89th Congress.) 624 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION March 16,1965. earings on 8. 944 convened by Senate Commerce Committee. March 17, 1965. House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs discharged from further consideration of H.R. 5884 and bill re- referred to House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. March 18, 1965. H.R. 6457, introdueed by Congressman Thomas L. Ashley, provides for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordi- nated national program in oceanography to be developed by a National Oceanographic Council established in the Office of Seience and Technology. Functions of the Council are similar to those in S. 944; membership of the Council is at sub-Cabinet level, with the Chairman to be designated by the President from the Council members. March 18, 1965. H.R. 6512, introduced by Congressman James G. Fulton, provides for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. (Identical to S. 944, 89th Congress.) April 6, 1965. Senator Warren G. Magnuson received resolution adopted by State of Alaska urging congressional enactment of S. 944. April 8, 1965. H.R. 7301, mtroduced by’ Congressman Richard Hanna, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. (Identical to S. 944.) April 8, 1965. H.R. 7320, introduced by Congressman Hastings Keith, to exempt oceanographic research vessels from the applica- tion of certain vessel-inspection laws, and for other purposes. April 12, 1965. Hearings on S. 944 convened by Senate Commerce Committee. April 18, 1965. S. 1778, introduced by Senator Warren G. Magnuson, to establish the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife as separate services in the Depart- nea of the Interior and to abolish the U.S. Fish and Wildlife ervice. April 18, 1965. White House releases Presidential announcement to develop small nuclear-propelled oceanographic submarine with responsibility assigned to Navy Special Projects Office (that con- currently is supporting a deep submergence search and research project in aftermath of Thresher loss). April 29, 1965. S. 627 passed Senate without amendment; Senate Report 168. May 8, 1965. H.R. 7798, introduced by Congressman J. Oliva Huot, to provide for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. (Identical to S. 944, 89th Congress.) May 8, 1965. 5S. 627 referred to House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. May 4-6, 1965. Hearings on H.R. 3419 and H.R. 5175 convened by House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. May 4, 1965. H.R. 7849, introduced by Congressman Olin E. Teague, to provide for the development of ocean resources in the oceans and the Great Lakes, to establish a National Oceanographic Council, and for other purposes. (Generally combines provisions of S. 944 and S. 1091.) NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 625 May 12, 1965. S. 1954, introduced by Senator E. L. Bartlett, to protect coastal fishery and other resources by implementing the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. May 13, 1965. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1965, transmitted by the President to the Congress, intending to consolidate the Weather Bureau, Coast and Geodetic Survey, and later the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory of the National Bureau of Standards, all in Department of Commerce, to form a new Environmental Science Services Administration. June 9, 1965. Hearings by House Committee on Government Opera- tions on Reorganization Plan No. 2. June 15, 1965. H.R. 9064, introduced by Congressman Paul G. Rogers, to establish a National Commission on Oceanography, composed of 15 members appointed by the President, to make a comprehensive investigation of oceanography and to recommend an overall plan for an adequate national oceanographic program. The bill calls for an interim report to be submitted within 1 year from enactment and a final report in no later than 2 years with the Commission terminated 30 days after the final report. June 28, 1965. H.R. 9483, introduced by Congressman Ed Reinecke to establish a National Commission on Oceanography. (Identical to H.R. 9064, 89th Congress.) June 80, 1965. S. 627 amended by House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and reported favorably to the House; House Report 599 (Note 20). July 2, 1965. H.R. 9617, introduced by Congressman Richard Hanna, to establish a National Commission on Oceanography. (Identical to H.R. 9064, 89th Congress.) July 7. 1965. S. 2251, introduced by Senator Edmund S. Muskie, to coordinate and consolidate the major civilian marine and atmos- heric functions of the Federal Government through the estab- ishment of a Department of Marine and Atmospheric Affairs, to enunciate national policies pertinent to the marine and atmos- pheric interests of the United States, to further the expanded exploration of marine environs and the use of marine resources, to encourage research and development in the marine and atmospheric sciences and technologies, and for other purposes. July 7, 1965. H.R. 9667, introduced by Congressman Thomas N Downing, to establish a National Commission on Oceanography. (Identical to H.R. 9064, 89th Congress.) July 14, 1965. S. 627 passed by the House, as amended, and referred back to Senate for concurrence. July 15, 1965. S. 944, for expanded research in the oceans and the Great Lakes, and to establish a National Oceanographic Council, was unanimously voted out favorably by Senate Committee on Commerce, with amendments (Note 21). PART II—EXPLANATORY NOTES Note 1. Matters on which the proposed Academy committee was encouraged to provide advice include (1) problems arising from the international character of the oceans; (2) disposal of atomic waste; (3) long-range planning for development of oceanic food and mineral resources; (4) planning, coordination, and direction of purely scien- tific investigations, including requirements for added funding for con- duct of research and new facilities (Reference 13, p. 23). Nott 2. The TENOC report projected growth in Navy research and development funding for oceanography from a $7.6 million base for fiscal year 1959 to $27.8 million in fiscal year 1969. Additionally, expenditures were projected over a 10-year interval of approximately $63 million for buildings, piers, and 18 new ships. An analysis of these proposals is given on page 128 of Reference 7. Norte 8. Scope of the NASCO study is reflected in titles of the re- ports amplifying proposals (Reference 3). : Basic research in oceanography during the next 10 years Ocean resources Oceanographic research for defense applications Artificial radioactivity in the marine environment New research ships Engineering needs for ocean exploration Education and manpower Oceanwide surveys International cooperation History of oceanography Marine sciences in the United States The Committee’s recommendations were intended to strengthen the marine sciences to a level consistent with both national needs and inherent limitations such as the rates at which ships and laboratories can be built and new oceanographers can be trained: “1. The U.S. Government should expand its support of the marine sciences at a rate which will result in at least a doubling of basic re- search activity during the next 10 years. “2. The increase in support of basic research should be accompanied during the next 10 years by a new program of oceanwide surveys. This will require a twofold expansion of the present surveying effort. “3. The United States should expand considerably its support of the applied marine sciences, particularly in the areas of military de- fense, marine resources and marine radioactivity. 626 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 627 “4. The Navy and the National Science Foundation should each finance about 50 percent of the new basic research activity except ship construction. The Navy should finance 50 percent of the new research ship construction with the Maritime Administration and the National Science Foundation sharing the remainder. The Navy, through the Hydrographic Office, should finance 50 percent of the deep ocean sur- veys, while the Coast and Geodetic Survey should finance the balance. The Navy should sponsor completely all military research and de- velopment operations. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries should finance the greater art of the recommended ocean resources program. The Atomic nergy Commission should finance the major part of the research dealing with problems of radioactive contamination of the oceans. The National Science Foundation and the Office of Education should sponsor jointly the proposed program for increasing scientific and technical manpower in the marine sciences. Efforts aimed at foster- ing international cooperation in the marine sciences should be spon- sored by the Department of State; the International Cooperation Administration, and the National Science Foundation. Other agen- cies should take responsibility for certain aspects of the proposed program, particularly the Public Health Service, the Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Mines. “5. Private foundations and universities, industry, and State governments should all take an active part in the recommended program of expansion.”’ NASCO recommended funding in categories of basic research, bio- logical and mineral resources, radioactivity in oceans, hydrographic surveys, ship operations, education and training, new laboratories, and research ships. Only funds over the 1958 base were recorded, and these have been added to Federal estimates for the base year of 1958 in Table 17 of Reference 7. The 10-year total amounts to $867 million, of which $347 million represents investments in new ships and facilities. After an interval of new ship construction, annual budgets would level off at about $80 to $85 million. In a more recent analysis of oceanography in terms of economic benefits (Reference 23) NASCO recommended annual Federal funding of $280 million for the 1965-74 decade. | Nort 4. The Federal Council for Science and Technology considers problems which affect more than one Federal agency or concern the overall advancement of the Nation’s science and technology. More specifically, serving in an advisory capacity to the President and to heads of member agencies concerned, the Council is directed to recommend policies and other measures— 1. To provide more effective planning and administration of Federal scientific and technological programs; 628 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 2. To identify research needs, including areas of research requiring additional emphasis; 3. To achieve more effective utilization of the scientific and technological resources and facilities of Federal agencies, includ- ing the elimination of unnecessary duplication; 4. To further international cooperation in science and tech- nology. (See Reference 18.) The Council is composed of the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, who serves as Chairman, and officials with scientific or professional background of policy rank from eight departments and agencies most heavily engaged in scientific research and development. Observers are also appointed from Bureau of the Budget, Department of State, and Federal Aviation Agency. Current membership of the Federal Council is listed below: Dr. Donald F. Hornig (Chairman), Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Dr. Nyle C. Brady, Department of Agriculture Dr. Harold Brown, Department of Defense Dr. Thomas F. Bates, Department of Interior Dr. Edward W. Dempsey, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Dr. Leland J. Haworth, National Science Foundation Dr. J. Herbert Hollomon, Department of Commerce Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Atomic Energy Commission Mr. James E. Webb, National Aeronautics and Space Ad- ministration OFFICIAL OBSERVERS Gen. William F. McKee, Federal Aviation Agency Dr. Herman Pollock (Acting), Department of State Dr. Herbert Scoville, Jr., Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Mr. Edwin S. Mills, Council of Economic Advisers Mr. Elmer B. Staats, Bureau of the Budget EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Dr. Charles Kidd, Office of Science and Technology Nore 5. The National Science Foundation is responsible for pro- moting education in the sciences but has carried out these functions by endeavoring to balance support in all fields without explicitly supporting any single one. Norte 6. Federal agencies currently participating in one or more aspects of oceanographic research and represented on the ICO in- clude— Navy Department: Office of the Oceanographer; Bureau of Ships; Bureau of Naval Weapons; Bureau of Yards and Docks; and Office of Naval Research NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 629 Army: Corps of Engineers Commerce: Coast and Geodetic Survey; Weather Bureau; Maritime Administration Interior: Bureau of Commercial Fisheries; Geological Survey; Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife; Bureau of Mines National Science Foundation Atomic Energy Commission Health, Education, and Welfare: Public Health Service Treasury: Coast Guard Smithsonian Institution State Department Soon after its formation, the Interagency Committee on Ocean- ography undertook to tabulate oceanographic activities and budgets of these Federal agencies and denoted the aggregate set of activities as the ‘‘National Oceanographic Program.”’ Subsequently, the ICO initiated Government-wide planning in oceanography such that the program of each agency reflected plans of others. Programs are now published annually by the ICO, the most recent presented as Refer- ence 27. Government-wide budgets are listed by agency and by functions of research, surveys, ships, instrumentation, and shore facilities. No division is made between basic and applied research or engineering. Analysis of ICO operations are contained in Refer- ences 7, 13, 22, and 25. Norte 7. This bill took explicit note of NASCO recommendations and 'TENOC, and provided for the construction of new ships, new facilities, and instruments, the development of manpower, the estab- lishment of a national oceanographic records center and of inter- national cooperation and emphasized application of oceanographic research to improve economic and general welfare related to living, marine resources. The proposed Planning and Coordinating Division in the National Science Foundation was authorized and directed to develop a con- tinuing national policy and program that included Navy’s TENOC; to recommend contracts and grants for education and research; to encourage cooperation of participating Federal agencies, the NAS, and universities; to foster information exchange; and to evaluate scientific aspects of programs sponsored by the Federal Government. Highly detailed authorization was included in the bill in terms of funds, sizes, and numbers of ships, etc. Nore 8. The National Oceanographic Data Center would acquire, process, and disseminate a wide variety of scientific, technological, and related environmental information. It would be guided by an advisory board representing four other Federal agencies and reporting to the Secretary of Commerce. The National Instrumentation Center would provide test and calibration services for all Federal agencies and private institutions on a cost-reimbursable basis. Nore 9. In reporting out S. 2692 (Reference 6), the Senate Inter- state and Foreign Commerce Committee noted that oceanography is 6390 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION vital to national interests, that research in this field has been neglected and that it was the purpose of this bill to strengthen U.S. capabilities through a national policy of coordinated and balanced studies, the education and training of additional scientists, construction and operation of new ships and laboratories, the coordination of various Federal agency programs and improved international and inter- departmental exchange of data. The bill emphasized the importance of oceanography for military security and reflected a view that the U.S.S.R. program surpassed that of the entire free world. The Senate report contains comments from the executive agencies, all opposing enactment of S. 2692. While supporting goals, the agencies and the Bureau of the Budget asserted that growing Federal budgets in oceanography were already responsive to the NASCO proposals, that extension of NSF authority to coordinate programs of other agencies was inappropriate, and that such coordination was being initiated under the Federal Council. There was also strong objection to the specificity of authorization. Norte 10. This 180-page analysis by the Legislative Reference Service (Reference 7) summarized arguments in support of ocean- ography by leaders of Congress and the executive branch, scientists, and others; inventoried existing U.S. capabilities in oceanography in terms of level of research, ships, laboratories, and manpower; made direct comparisons with Soviet oceanography; compared three different 10-year plans and identified issues in oceanography before the Congress concerning the degree of urgency, national goals and problems in organization to achieve these goals. The House Com- mittee on Science and Astronautics endorsed the body of the report and added a set of 20 of its own conclusions that oceanography had been neglected, that expansion in the program was warranted by a factor of 4 over then-current levels and that such expansion could be achieved without waste through proper long-range and coordinated planning. The Committee was also sympathetic to the view that future expansion of oceanography should be concentrated more heavily in the civilian agencies than in the military, that although authority already existed for individual agencies to conduct parts of the pro- gram, coordination needed to be improved to meet criteria stated in the body of the report. The Committee also concluded that a major study of Federal organization for oceanography was necessary, particularly to explore whether objectives in program planning and coordination would best be accomplished through a new agency to plan and coordinate a national program, although major sectors would continue to be undertaken by existing agencies. Three advisory and coordinating committees were visualized; one similar to the ICO, one similar to NASCO, and a third reflecting interests of American industry and commerce. Note 11. While Federal funding for oceanography was growing in fiscal years 1960 and 1961, questions were raised by congressional committees as to whether this represented increased support or whether the scope of definition of Federal activities encompassed by the National Oceanographic Program had been expanded without NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 631 actual increase in level of effort. The supplemental appropriations by President Kennedy explicitly increased funding to expand and replace the fleet that was made up almost exclusively of over-age converted ships, new shore facilities and new education and training programs. Survey and research programs were also somewhat in- creased (Reference 9, page 1). For funding trends, see Part III following these notes. Nore 12. In supporting the Marine Science and Research Act of 1961 (Reference 12), the Committee listed 15 benefits from an ex- panded program of oceanographic research in both the seas and the Great Lakes. The bill included a statement of national policy that a sustained program of scientific studies, surveys, education, and train- ing were vital to defense, to rehabilitation of commercial fisheries, and increased utilization of marine resources, living, chemical, and mineral; development of a better scientific knowledge of the world around us and to expand the Nation’s commerce and navigation. The bill also legislated a coordinating mechanism. The report includes statements by executive agencies opposing the bill on the grounds that the administration was already accelerating oceanographic research budgets, that coordination was the responsi- bility of the newly founded FCST, so that all of the objectives of the bill would be accomplished without the need for new legislation. Nore 13. According to the President’s letter of transmittal dated March 29, 1962, the Director, OST, is expected to advise and assist the President as the President may request with respect to— “1, Major policies, plans, and programs of science and tech- nology of the various agencies of the Federal Government, giving appropriate emphasis to the relationship of science and technology to national security and foreign policy, and measure for furthering science and technology in the Nation. “9. Assessment of selected scientific and technical develop- Henle and programs in relation to their impact on national policies. “3. Review, integration, and coordination of major Federal activities in science and technology, giving due consideraticn to the effects of such activities on non-Federal resources and institutions. “4. Assuring that good and close relations exist with the Nation’s scientific and engineering communities so as to further in every appropriate way their participation in strengthening science and technology in the United States and the free world. “5. Such other matters consonant with law as may be assigned by the President to the Office.” Responsibilities for Government-wide planning and coordination in basic research and education had been the responsibility of the National Science Foundation. But since such policies transcend agency lines and since the Foundation is at the same organizational level as other agencies, new arrangements were instituted that per- mitted the President to utilize his Executive Office for advice and assistance on Government-wide issues in science and technology. 632 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION With this legislative base, the Congress would have access to scientific advice at the level of the President that had previously been denied the Congress when such advisory apparatus operating both as the FCST and the President’s Science Advisory Committee was chaired by the President’s Science Adviser and thus protected by Executive privilege. Nore 14. H.R. 12601 took note of the need for a strengthened program of oceanographic research, the interagency character of Federal programs, the objections raised by the executive branch to other proposed legislation and the recent establishment of the Office of Science and Technology for the explicit purpose of developing and coordinating programs that cross agency nee ail the need for a legislative base for an annual congressional review of Government- wide program and budgets previously lacking because the FCST had no legislative base. The Committee report includes objections of the executive branch concerning H.R. 4276, and noting these objections, considered H.R. 12601 as a clean bill to supersede H.R. 4276. Detailed analysis of needs for a national policy and for coordination in oceanography are set forth in Reference 14. Norte 15. No explanation for the pocket veto of H.R. 12601 was released by the White House. From subsequent reports, hearings, etc., two major objections have been identified: First, that to give OST operating responsibility over other agencies violated the prin- ciples that it should only advise the President and not be interposed in lines of authority between the heads of other departments and the President. Second, the bill would also provide for a special staff in one field of science that could lead to a proliferation of such positions in OST for special fields of science. (See also House Report 621 accompanying H.R. 6997.) Nott 16. The report ‘Oceanography: The Ten Years Ahead”’ embodies for the first time a statement by the executive branch of a national goal in oceanography: ‘‘To comprehend the world ocean, its boundaries, its properties, and its processes, and to exploit this com- prehension in the public interest, in enhancement of our security, our culture, our international posture, and our economic growth.”’ The report also lists the coordinated plans for the decade 1963-72 of the 20 Federal agencies which conduct and sponsor oceanographic research. Included are a statement of research objectives and pro- jections of the funds, facilities, and manpower needed for their accom- plishment, categorized by agency, by function, and by subordinate goals of “strengthening basic science, improving national defense, managing resources in the world ocean, managing resources in domestic waters, protecting life and property, insuring the safety of operations at sea.” NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 633 According to the forwarding memorandum, ‘This 10-year plan represents the best judgment of the Federal Council as to size and priorities of programs consistent with national requirements. It also takes into account the compatibility between funds, manpower, and facilities. It has been carefully reviewed by a number of outside consultants serving the Office of Science and Technology. But rather than an unalterable blueprint, this plan is more an outline—a state- ment of requirements in which context annual plans can be prepared. It will be supplemented by additional reports on special topics, such as Manpower and instrumentation needs.” Norte 17. This bill is patterned after proposals of the National Security Industrial Association that also urges a sharp increase in Federal funding to approximately $900 million annually (Reference 21). Note 18. Four conventions formulated at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea: ‘Territorial Sea—Executive J,’”’ 86th Congress, ist Session. A convention on the sovereignty over territorial sea and contiguous zones; ratified May 26, 1960 (became effective September 10, 1964). “High Seas—Executive K,’”’ 86th Congress, 1st Session. A con- vention on international use of the high seas, ship registry and control, and the protection of the oceanic waters from pollution; ratified May 26, 1960 (became effective September 30, 1962). “Fishing and Conservation—Executive L,’ 86th Congress, Ist Session. A convention on fishing and conserving the living resources of the high seas; ratified May 26, 1960. (Ratification by 22 nations required before the convention becomes effective; June 1, 1964, only 14 deposits of ratification had been received. As of October 1964, no additional ratifications had been received.) “Continental Shelf—Executive M,” 86th Congress, 1st Session. A convention on the sovereignty over the waters adjacent to the territorial sea to a depth of 200 meters or (beyond that depth to wherever exploitation of natural resources is practicable) and the exploring and exploiting of the Continental Shelf; ratified May 26, 1960 (became effective June 10, 1964). Note 19. This bill would establish policy to accelerate exploration and development of physical, chemical, geological, and _ biological resources of the Continental Shelf, to encourage private investment in utilization of its resources, to determine benefits and to disseminate information on resources and to develop an engineering capability to operate on and above the Continental Shelf. Norsz 20. Amendments removed the limitation on exemptions so as to treat all vessels engaged in oceanographic research on the same basis (Reference 30). 538-367—65—_—41 634 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION Nots 21. The amendments to S. 944 (a) changed the title to “Marine Resources and Development Act of 1965”; (6) expand the definition of ‘‘marine sciences” to include engineering and tech- nology; (c) expand the definition of “‘the marine environment’ to include the oceans, Continental Shelf, Great Lakes, seabed and subsoil of the Continental Shelf provided for in the convention (Note 18); (d) a major amendment would authorize the President at his discretion to establish an ad hoc study commission which would serve under the Counel similar to that proposed under H.R. 9064, H.R. 9483, and R. 9617. PART III Federal support of oceanography, by agency and functional area, fiscal years 1960-66 [In millions of dollars] 1 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 32.0 31.6 42.1 55. 2 54.6 65.1 68.0 6.2 11,4 23. 6 24.0 23.3 19.9 13.3 6.7 8.7 14.3 16.1 16.5 20.0 16.9 7.8 7.9 17.3 18.2 19.6 19.3 30.0 Atomic Energy Commission--_.---.------ ie Dod 4,1 5.4 3.8 4.0 4.6 Health, Education, and Welfare__-__---_- .3 Sui 3.1 4.1 2.9 3.5 4.4 ALS RERESAUS Ae BE eo ee ee eee sil sal pal 25 12 1.8 pa | Smithsoniane: 262) a eee 2 eae (3) (3) 2 4 .6 9 a Bye States se. oe 3 AT a ee Se st Se (3) (3) (3) (8) ~0 .6 .6 Functional area: Reseanen eee) saci ewe he ee 26.6 31.6 41.0 51.0 62.0 72.5 85.0 NIN VON IS) ance toe La ae Ne a 13.4 14.9 17.4 18.5 24.1 Pik 30.6 PrsiralmentaniOn. . Ss ee ee ee ee ee ne | .9 3.0 6.6 6.4 8.8 8.2 Sh piconstruchions 22) 2ek 2! Se eee 13.5 14.0 34.0 38.1 25.5 20.7 13.4 New shore facilities 1.4 4 8.9 9.2 5.1 6.0 4.4 Mata centers a7 ees ee ee ee 5al 3. 5 .6 .9 (8) (3) IRD RN Se Se ede se, ee = ee 55.0 62.1 |5104.8 | 124.0] 123.1 | 135.1 141.6 1 Excludes classified applied oceanography programs of Navy, and Navy ocean engineering research on deep submergence search and rescue systems initiated after loss of the Thresher in April 1963; also some pro- grams such as Mohole, categorized under earth science. Years 1960-64, obligations; 1965, estimated obliga- Gees 1005; obligational authority requested in President’s budget. Detail may not add to totals because of rounding. 2 Defense: Navy and Army Coastal Engineering; Commerce: Coast and Geodetic Survey, Weather Bu- reau; Interior: Bureaus of Mines, of Commercial Fisheries, and of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, and Geo- logical Survey; Health, Education, and Welfare: Public Health Service; Treasury: U.S. Coast Guard. 3 Not explicitly identified. 4 Includes International Indian Ocean Expedition and ship operation costs. 5 Jump in funding from fiscal year 1961 largely due to supplemental budget request of President Kennedy in special message of Mar. 29, 1961. Sources: 1960-63, ‘“‘Oceanography—The Ten Years Ahead,’’ Federal Council for Science and Technology, 1963; 1964-66, ““The Budget of the United States Government,”’ fiscal year ending June 30, 1966. 635 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 636 SS ee Sie ieee eri ie sule[qoid [ede] Jo Apnys paenyy ysvoy sozioyynY |~~~~--"""-""61PTT WH ge ane err on te ae SedINOseI UBIDO UO sue[qoid [eZeq Jo Apnys FON sezlmoyjnY |~~~~-"-""~""ZeZIl ‘WH *wBiIs01d OpIM-jusUl -UJOAOY) JOsuUOdsS puB dojeAep 0} AdUEsYy oIydeisOUBIDG [BUOTYeN YSI[quysy |~~~~ 7777777 F0601 MH ‘20UBYSISSV [IO WIA "e961 ‘G ‘Shy 9Ssnoy posseg | Juepisorg Aq UOT}eUIpI000 Y{IM AYdeisouBes0 ut Adtjod [euoryeu soysi[qeysy |~~~~ ~~ 777777 1669 ‘WH TAB ala) EPeSS fo) Costes Seaes tS 2 TO9SL “UH 0} FBG OO et “YA ssalbuo) 4188 *po0j0A Jox00d Inq ‘TOG “ASOTOUYIET, PUB BDUITNG Jo BDO 04 Aydeiso "¢ SB oJBUEg puB 9SNOF] possvg | -UB900 UI WBIs0Id SUTyeUIPIO0D pue SuUIdOJeAep IO} AzTIGQIsuodseil sUSISSY |~~~~~~~~~~77~ 10921 ‘WH “Cr89 “UH “O6E-L8 MBT OgQng | 777 Aydeisouevs00 opnpoul 09 piwny 4svoy jo suomounjy pusdxy | pus GRIT ‘S ‘OFSh WH “Aydeisouvs00 Ul wieiso0id [BUOIYeU 9}eUIP1000 “HINEL ‘Ssutsvoyy | puwe dojaaop 037 [lounog o1rydeisouvs0Gg [BUOT}eN JoAoT-JouIqeDg YsITquysy |~~7~~~~77 777 O1GF UH SiCGieee: OOLZZ1 ‘WH ~~ AVAING d1}epo0o4) PUB 4SBOFD UI Sio}UeD UOIVe}UsWINAYSUT puB Byeq YSqeysy |} ~~~ ~~ 7-7 S10Zl ‘WH *sAOAING dydvisouvesQ, UO 99},TWIUIOD SuIywUIpI0ODg pus Aodrjod oqnd ysitqeysm |~~~~~~~~7--~ ZIFOL “MH “OOSVN Aq pepucomui0oes sjoAoy, Surpuny 9e Ayder “TINH ‘SsuliweyyT + “oyeueg pesseg | -souvs00 ur WIBIs01d I0j UOIYYZII0YANe Iv94-QT pus AoIjod Jeuoryeu YsI[qeysy |-“19E6 “W'H Pue Z69z 'S ‘O96T ‘ct ‘ady ‘60F-98 MB oqng |777777777 777 AVAING O1JOpO9t) PUB 4SBOD UO SUOT}ByIWIT] [eOLyYdeis00s BAOWIOY |~-1198 “WH PUe Z8FZ 'S “WISIUBY DOW SUIYBUIP.IO -09 [B19pey Mou YJIM ‘SoouUeIDG Jo AUIepwoy [vUOTyeNY Aq popusUIUIODeI ‘ayeuog Aq poesseg | s[eAe] Sulpuny ye Aydvasouves0 jo y10ddns ur Aoijod jeuoreu ! ysijquysq |-~~~~~7~-~~ 77 Q&T ‘Sey ‘“s SVIGUEIE SOURIS ian =e aera SyUSpNys pus Sarz[IoBy OIYdvisouBaI0 10} yIOddNS FON OplAOIg |7~77 7777 8629 WH - $saibUo) 4198 1 WOlOW esodimg Tal sassaibuo) yI68 pun ‘yI9g ‘YIZ8 “YIGS ‘81129 91ydvLB0UDII0 0} pajD}a1 su0rz9D JDUOISSaLBU09 fo iunuUNng AI LUVd 637 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION “TINH 99 poitojoy “HINA 0} portojoy ‘OS 0} pamtoyoy “TINH 0} poxzejoxy "d9}IWIWIOD Bd1ISTITIOD 238g WOIJ SJUSMIpPUSUB YIM poz10dexy ‘OS 0} pettejoy ‘syUSWIpUeWIe ssnoy yA 0z A[ng 9yeueg passed ‘FT Apne SJUOUIPUSWIG YIM YsNoy posseg es ae sie ‘AINE 0} porreyoy “VSH 04 perrojoy ‘P96I ‘T “Bny oyeueg pessvg “689 (‘ssolsu0Z 4168 ‘FFE “S 9} [BONUEpPT) “JlouUNoD orydeisouvsdg [eUONeN B YsI[qeyso 0} ‘SoyBT JvoIH oY} PUB SUBIDO OY} UI YOIvaset popuBsdxo IOJ soplaAoig ‘spoq UB900 PUB SUBODO OY} JO SadINOSOI [VIN}BU 94 JO [O13U09 pus ‘esn “QUOTESeUBUL JO sue,qord [ese] oY} Jo Apnys B 10j SopIAoIg ‘Aouose od £4-uOIssiuiu10) Surye1edo Mou & AQ pojyonpuod puv pouuUYd oq 0} FUG [eJUDUTJUOD 94 JO sodINOS -o1 oY} Jo yUsemIdOjPASp pusB UOTvIO[dxo ouULlIvM JO WieIsOId B IOJ SOpIAOIg (SOY Sy,, Ul104 9} jo uoTyIUgEp oY} puBdxe 03 JOPIO UI SoyvIg poqIUA 9Y} JO Ss[ossoA uUBYY I90T40 sjesseA AQ so4B{G poyU OY} JO S19j¥VM [BIIOJIII0, OY} UL SuIYSy szIqryoIg ‘S}UNUIPUUIB yyia ‘ct Ajng Og jo gyno poyrodey ‘(edoos popuvdxe yyIM ynq ‘ssid -U0D 988 JO 066% ‘ OF ARIUS) soyBT YvorH PUB SUBIDO OY} UL YOIBOSOI pepuvdxe 10J sopraoid pue [lounoyD so1ydeisouvs0Gg [BVUOIeN B soYsI[qeysq “$91 B1Q [BIDAOS YIM WOTL -viedood Ul YsSy snowloipeuR s,uUOeN JO JUOWIODUBYUS puB yYUSUIdOTeAZp ‘UOI}BAIOSUOD JO} WIBISOId O4BIVIUT 0} JOIIOJUT Jo AByeINeg sozZztIOYINY “S]UOWIPUSTIG YIM ‘Og UNL JIA H JO Jno peyiod “OY “G96T “6% Tidy ojeueg possed ‘(ssorsu0 4188) TEES *§ OF [BOIyUEp] “SMBI WOTJOOd SUI [eSSOA uIevj100 JO uoTyeoI[dde 9Y} UlOIJ s[ossoA YOIveser o1ydevisouve00 sidux endl bas seid? iniscintoD lo. (ssou3U0 4368) 8IZZ “UH 0} [eor}uEpT es eae ere (ssor3u0) 4168) 81ZZ “HH OF TRON UEpT ‘ol sadad Serw) od Tine eiano oe (ssor3u0) 4388) 2669 “MH 09 Teoryuepy T caenere agtig sat pita isiboO 2 (sse1sU0D 988) FOGOT “W'H 0} [eouSpT *AULOPBIY OY} JO SOTJIAIIO’ YOIVOSEL PUB JDUOLNS SULDUBAPB Jo suBOTI e se ‘Aydevisouvs00 Ul ouO SuUIpNTOUT ‘suOTyN{MysSUl pozITeIoods jo yuo -Yst[qeyjso IOJ eprAoid plnom (¥)ET UOTJOVg ‘AWOpBOY 9dDUZIDG [eUOIZeN B jo ‘UOIWBVpuNnog sdU2IDg [VUOTeN SY} Jopun “UsWIYSI[Geyse IO} sepranig ssaibuog YIGS ‘uBisoid AdU0SB10,UI 94 BUIPI000 pus dojeaep 07 [lOuNo0D o1yduisouvedg [BUOTIeN JeAd-JOUIGeD YSITGQVIsT "SMB] WOTJOOdSUT JESSeA UIB{I00 JO UOTJvOT[dde WIOIj s[ossoA YOIBOSeI oIYdvISOUBIDO s}duIOxG d ‘9[q84 JO pus 48 9400400) 90g WEE Ca eae =, ORE 99S “YH p ykae ee ees s GZI¢S “YH RE Mae Be T60T °S SSP age poe 768 “WH ‘ODH ODS 9} peqoejoy "OG 07 port9joy ‘od “HIN 9F Pettezoy ‘OS 0F Peltejoy oq “od ‘od “AINE, 0} pettejoy : “HIN 0} poilejel-o1 SWITH 0} persejoy ; “HIN 0} pollejal-ol {VITT{ 0} poerejoyy 1 UOT}OV NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 638 *90.10UL. -UI0D jo JUSUTJIed9q UI UOT}eISIUIWIPY SedTAIOg sdUNTIDG [ve UeUIUOMIAUT Mou B OJUL ADAING o1Jepooy pueB 4svOD YIM nvoIng JeYyyVeA\ SOVepI[osuO_D ‘9u07, snonsiu0y oy} PUB BOD [BIIOJIIIOT, OY} UO MOTUSAUOD OY} SuUIyUSME[dWII IO} soplaoig ‘sosodind seyj}0 10j puw ‘{Iounoy dIYydeisOUvID_H [VUOBN B YSI]qvyse 09 ‘soyBT] yvory of} puvw SUBIDO OY} UL yo1vesel popuvdxe 10j oprAoid 0} ‘Jjoyg [eyUeUTyUOD 9} Jo yueUIdoOToAOp dIWIOUODD IOJ 9pIAOId 0} ‘sodINOSAI UvIDO JO YUoWIdOJPAZp JOZ SOpIAOIg (‘SSo1SUOD 4968 ‘PH6 “S OF [vOQUEpT) ‘sosodind J0yjO 10} pu ‘flouUNoD oTYdeisoUveDg [eVUOeN vB YsI[qeyso 0} ‘soyVT yeoIDH 9Y} PUB SUBDDO OY} UI YO1vosel popuvdxe 10, SoplAolg “Q0TALOG OITTPIIM PUB SoLIOYSTYT y10dg jo NvIINg PUB SOLIOYS] [BIOIOWIUIOD JO NvoINgG JO JUEUTYST[GeISO IO} SoplAoIg SMB] UOTQOOASUI [OSSOA UTBI109 JO uoljvol[dde wor, SjossoA YOIvosed OIYdvisoUvI00 JO UOMdUIOXe OJ SOPIAOIg (FFE “S 0} [eoOIUOpyT) ‘JlouNoOD o1rydeisouvodg [VUOTeN & YST]qQey -Sso 03 ‘SoyVT] YBvoTH OY} PUB SUBIDO OT} UL YOIvosal popuBdxe IO} SOpIAoIg (‘sso1su0y 1968 ‘FPG “S OF [woIQUepy) ‘plOUNOD orTYydeisouBeDg [wUOTeN B YSITqQey -So 0} ‘soyBT BOTH) OY} PUB SUBDDO oY} UI YOIBISeI popuBdxo 10} SOplAoIg “Aydvisouvsoo UL WiBvisOId [VUOVU poJeUIPIOOD pu ‘osUBI-SUO] ‘OAISUDYOIdUIOD OZ SOpIAoIg (SsoIsuoD 49168 “T6OL “§ 9} 1vONUepy) “Feyg [eyUSUMUOD sY4 Jo seomnos -O1 oY} JO yuUotIdOTOADP puUv UOT}eIOTdxO oULIVUL JO WivIsOId B IO} SOPIAOIg (‘Sso1suUoD 4968 ‘TE6OT “SG 0} [VOIUSPT) “FoUg [eJUeUTZUOD 9Y} JO SooMos -o1 oY} jo yUoWIdOJoANp puv UOT}eIO[dxo oUTIVUI JO WIvISOId B 1OF SOPIAOIg penunuogj—ssaibuo) YI6s esoding “GO6T JO Z% Uv UWOlyezIUBS.100y] "| ais oeneera: ENGI) “tal Tel [| Seapets L979 “UH |} Siete aca e 6009 “dH Rie care, 22 22VS8Ss Gai Wea penunu0g—sassaubuoy yI6GS pun “yISs ‘YIZS “YI98 ‘s112.q 21ydDsboWHNa90 0} pazn]a4 SUuOrID JOUOISSa.buUOD fo hunwmung 639 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 20} TUIWIOD SIVIW IB[NSUT, pu IOTIOJUT 9SNOTT : WITH ‘Q9}TWIMIOD SUOT}BIDdG JUOUTTIBAOY) OSNOFT 7OD H ‘O9}TWIWIOD SUOT}BINdO YUOUIUIOAOY oYBIOG :ODNI9 D9} IWIULOD VDIOUIUIOD 9}BU9G :OG ‘OO}JIWIUIOD SOLIOYSIY PUB OUTIVI\, JUBYOIOJA, OSNOFT : FINE ‘DOVJIWIVIOD SOINBVUOISW PUB BDTIOING OSNO}FT : WOT > AY 1 (‘SSeISUOD 4968 F906 “WH 0} [eoruepT) “HINA 04 peltofoy -Aydeis0uBs0GQ uo UWOTSSTUIUUO/) [BUOTIS Ny B jo JUIDULYSTTG B1S9 IOF SOPlAol 5 ae a ee 1996 “WH “ODS 04 petro jfoy a a SILC TV dLIeydsouyy pue OUTIB IAT Jo quouyredeq roleur B IOF SOpIAol pane ee Be ets 1923 Sg (‘sseIsu0D 4168 F906 “WH 0} [eoMuepT) ‘Od -Aydeis0uvs0¢9 uo UOTSSIUIMUO/) [BUOTIS NT GB jo {UVULYSI[qQeqso OF SOPlAOIg OL As ee 1196 ‘WH (sseIsuoD 1968 ‘F906 “MH 0} [Bor uepT) ‘0d “Aydvisouvs0¢ uo TOTSSTUTULO/) [BUOTIG NT B jo JUIUITYST[ GBI so IOF SOplAOLT TL a ee E876 ‘WH “AINE 09 potsojoy |--~~Aydevasouvoo_ uo UoIssiMIUIOD [BUOTYBN B JO YUOUIYSITGBIso 10} SoplAorg |7~~~77 7777777 £906 “WH 10. 11. 12% 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. PART V—SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY (Arranged Chronologically) . “Oceanography in the United States,’’ hearings before the Special Subcom- mittee on Oceanography, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 86th Congress, Ist session, March 3, 10, 12, 17, April 21, 23, 24, June 1, 2, 23, July 13 and 14, 1959. . “Education in the Field of Oceanography,” hearing before the Subcommittee on Earth Sciences, House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 86th Congress, 1st session (on H.R. 6298), August 25, 1959. . “Oceanography, 1960-1970,’ National Academy of Sciences; 1958-59, 12 volumes. . “Oceanography in the United States,’’ hearing before the Special Subcom- mittee on Oceanography, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Com- mittee, 86th Congress, 2d session, Part II, February 9, 1960. . “Marine Science,” hearings before the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 86th Congress, 2d session (on 8. 2692), April 20, 21, and 22, 1960. . “Marine Sciences and Research Act,’ Senate Report 1525, June 7, 1960 (to accompany S. 2692). . “Ocean Sciences and National Security,” report of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 86th Congress, 2d session; House Report 2078, July 1, 1960. . “Marine Science,” hearings before the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 86th Congress, Ist session (on S. 901 and 8. 1189), March 15, 16, 17, and May 2, 1961. “Oceanography 1961—Phase 1,” hearing before the Subcommittee on Ocean- ography, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 87th Congress, 1st session (on H.R. 4340), April 27, 1961. “Oceanography 1961—Phase 2,” hearing before the Subcommittee on Ocean- ography, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 87th Congress, 1st session (on Project Mohole), May 22, 1961. “Oceanography 1961—Phase 3,” hearings before the Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 87th Congress, Ist session (on H.R. 4276), June 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and July 14, 1961. “Advancement of Marine Sciences—Marine Sciences and Research Act of 1961,’’ Senate Report 426, June 20, 1961 (to accompany S. 901). “Study of the Effectiveness of the Committee on Oceanography of the Fed- eral Council for Science and Technology,” hearings before the Subcom- mittee on Oceanography, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 87th Congress, 2d session, February 28, March 1 and 2, 1962. “Providing for a Comprehensive, Long-Range, and Coordinated National Program in Oceanography,’ House Report 2221, August 14, 1962 (tc accompany H.R. 12601). “Oceanographic Act of 1962,’’ House Report 2493, September 27, 1962 (to accompany S. 901). “Oceanography—The Ten Years Ahead,’’ Federal Council for Science and Technology; Interagency Committee on Oceanography Report 10, June 1963. “Providing for a Comprehensive, Long-Range, and Coordinated National Program in Oceanography, and for other Purposes,’’ House Report 621, July 21, 1963 (to accompany H.R. 6997). “Statement of Dr. Edward Wenk, Jr., Executive Secretary, Federal Council for Science and Technology, Before the Select Committee on Government Research, U.S. House of Representatives,’”’ November 19, 1963. “California and the World Ocean,’”’ symposium convened by the California Governor, January 1964. 640 20. 21. 22. 23. 24, 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 641 “National Oceanographic Program, Fiscal Year 1965,” FCST/ICO Report 15, March 1964. “A National Ocean Program,” report of the National Security Industrial Association, Ad Hoc Committee on Ocean Science and Technology, March 1964. “National Oceanographic Program, 1965,” hearings before the Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 88th Congress, 2d session, June 23, 24, 25, and 30, 1964 (Serial No. 88-23). “Engineering for Maritime Exploration and Development,” by Edward Wenk, Jr., an address before the American Society of Civil Engineers, October 22, 1964. “Heonomic Benefits From Oceanographic Research,” National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council Report 1228, 1964. “Interagency Coordination in Research and Development,” report of the House Select Committee on Government Research, 88th Congress, 2d session, House Report 1939, December 28, 1964. “Ocean Sciences,’”’ edited by Edward John Long, published by U.S. Naval Institute, Annapolis, Md., 1964. “National Oceanographic Program, Fiscal Year 1966,” FCST/ICO Report 17, January 1965. “Oceanography—Ships of Opportunity,” hearings before the Subcommittee on Oceanography, House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, 89th Congress, Ist session, January 22, 1965 (Serial No. 89-1). Report to accompany S. 627 on “Exempting Oceanographic Research Ves- sels,” Senate Committee on Commerce Report 168, April 29, 1965. Report to accompany S. 627 on “Exempting Oceanographic Research Ves- sels,” House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee Report 599, July 7, 1965. O \ s rvce paid ‘Ocentnges me poe ad et dnt 8 saontie sire? akc ioh Ebon h sping Cat LOB tel ay: Noe rh Bases 4 <1ghs ative gav vf yigsae i el ae Oisaisagrest* #Si nA: OB AGE pa dosyepa dh piel, Heages 826° Jaa qa Sealer Acro ) f - 2 F' - +i $ vi > . 4527 ) «= i ; . eh ~~ we ’ ‘ : . r bi ty e yen ui 7M ye Ort n . ae } é 9 » taaoitatt ‘ef do dx t ‘bee ontse 0800 rg ts wee i * A hal y Good ie enghend \ae the rhe neg? “itd toy Ha a eooual , BR dete aoe Aggie : ryt om Les ‘8 | gertaddow, gaol. tigol, eet bageriats % yeh a: iy sees aot. Pet dogs pe eal. “$509 oy : = ‘wahnl eetialeke ee. ae " ESLER Se TK PAT SNC basal Fi aj Kanssiroder ‘bas safe? tear ray ot i+ pT agent at. saa) aioe i joqal “conteon geek 19, ta eee bok yihubé “dowel (waoloada: - baddionatoodsa ody arulod ag ai -poltoifalt boa Dike fieddtettl (ES~88 .0Vi fabs) e00E: OG ‘bea os frigwba ed: . , Fadoto0! ‘ersonigal livit iy nee a aah ads he j Hy . Hoi poised: : es TM | us 0. ‘yet DOG cemblisce sé atts pet oe % 3 TAites ay aX as. tegen ‘ae beat TS: pe HIRES LOGO nRIORE RABGTDE bi dee mive mi LEB. Seintol : ii Molt ezity ca) SAN aT Ene “it VOL whens 4é i Peon a Pix t ee a mes get aK WSs Seats Ne a = a art F Pi a whi ate ‘eran anda. Pere EABEE. pelsobh xy ‘ . Bary i= ~~ re tive SREOOD Sey yal poe sr AS ng we