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 summarize 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 resources are not presently available, nor for that matter, immediately forthcoming, studies are being conducted, surveys are being undertaken, laboratories are being developed and research efforts are contributing 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. I am 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 resources 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 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 Commission 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 represent 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 Commission 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 Geographic 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. 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 effectuation 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 reporting 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 Development Commission to carry out a program of exploration and development 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 situation. Through their regular programs the agencies are already intensively 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 concentrating oceanography within one focal spot within the executive branch and in presentation of the needs for oceanography before the Con 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 continue 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, pollution 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 carrying 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. Although 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 oceanographic 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 considering 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 investigations 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. CASEY. 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 DRILLING PROJECT 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 Observatory, and was completed on May 17. The entire operation was under the supervision of JOIDES (Joint Oceanographic Institutions' Deep Earth Sam 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 JOIDES 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 available. 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 offshore. 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 nearshore 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 Continental 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 drilling equipment, successful drilling can be accomplished in water of 6,000 feet or more. It is also evident from these preliminary results that basic 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 WORZEL, 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 characteristics 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 |