Page images

developing and using the resources of the ocean. These are new things, part of which can be done through existing agencies and programs, but I am of the opinion that needed actions cannot be done entirely through the organizational structure of programs that now exist.

I think a new action group is needed. I see four categories of needs: First, planning for a national program; second, coordination of existing Federal activities; third, expanded mission assignments to fulfill the total purposes for ocean development; and fourth, procedures for resources, management and conservation.

Present Federal planning takes place through the Interagency Committee on Oceanography with assists from other executive agencies and from groups outside the Government such as the National Academy of Sciences. The present planning is essentially the summation of the programs of individual agencies. It suffers from this very characteristic, namely, that it is an attempt to add the parts rather than to view the whole.

It lacks more fundamentally, however, because it approaches oceanography as a technological program rather than as a resource development program. The total planning for a national program in line with the kind of resources development policy I have portrayed cannot be done, in my opinion, by an interagency group. I believe a new focus for planning responsibility is needed, with funds to support a planning staff, such as is in S. 944.

Coordination of the existing Federal activities in oceanography is quite good, in my opinion. The less effective coordination seems to be at the decisionmaking level, because coordinated programs come in second best to single agency programs when decisions are required with respect to priorities and budgets. The coordination that will be needed, however, to embark upon total ocean resource development is of another order of magnitude, and will require more comprehensive operating-level coordination.

Special facilities, special instruments, and the performing functions that are concerned with orbit and engineering, the allocation of developmental rates in the ocean, the effective use of high-cost shore bases and special ships, all of these will demand a very exacting coordinating activity.

In fact, I think the effectiveness of this coordination will parallel whatever effectiveness we achieve in developing an engineering and operating capability for performing within the ocean environment.

There are several ways also in which mission assignments should be expanded when one considers a total ocean-resource management. Overall, these expansions that we need add up to the fact that no one existing agency today really has the mission of exploring and developing the ocean for whatever peaceful purposes may cogent. One of these gaps is in the field of basic research. Present basic research done in the ocean is largely that which stems from a particular defense or existing development mission.

The National Science Foundation is the only agency in position to fund ocean basic research as such. This basic research relies essentially on proposals that are based upon capabilities that educational institutions have and not upon a programed national effort for the specific purpose of exploring the environment completely.



The universities find this a problem, incidentally, because they find that in order to gain support for a program, they have to go to numerous Federal agencies with pieces of whatever they want to do rather than with the total package. Developmental missions for the ocean, of course, are largely historical. There is no existing mission to také advantage of unique ocean characteristics which may give rise to particular new opportunities that have no counterpart on land.

For example, there is no established mission for advancing the possibility of the generation of power by using ocean thermal gradients, but the greatest existing mission gain I think is in the area as stated this morning and has come to be known as ocean engineering.

This is the area of operating or performing capability, of instruments to measure and do jobs, of structures and similar support facilities. Our present situation is almost like having a desire to develop land without knowing how to build bridges, automobiles, houses, and roads.

Present ocean-operating capabilities are tied to development or research missions, and the primary one is the defense mission. One argues support for ocean-operating capabilities on the basis of requirements for each mission separately. In my opinion it would be desirable to approach ocean operations as a separate mission by itself.

This follows naturally from a national total policy which states that we will do whatever is possible to make effective use of ocean

Now, most of these needs I have enumerated are covered in some way by either S. 944 or S. 1091 or both. I feel that there is a fourth need which I stated, which is not covered specifically in either of these proposed bills, although it is inferred. And this is the need for procedures dealing with resource management and conservation. It was mentioned by Professor Spilhaus this morning in his reference to sea laws.

So far as title is concerned, there is now a procedure for handling the problems of resource control. With the new Convention on the Continental Shelf, it not only becomes important to be able to develop and control the resources of the shelf technologically speaking, it also becomes important to be able to develop the mechanisms and procedures for managing these resources in a legal and a social sense. We need also mechanisms by which private activity can be fostered, by which developmental rights can be given, and by which resources can be conserved in context with all of our other resource conservation principles.

In the Federal structure, it seems to me we do have agencies for this purpose so far as lands are concerned. For instance, I am familiar with the Bureau of Land Management and there is the Forest Service.

I think if we embark upon a program to develop resources of the ocean and to perform capably there we must face the question on developing legal procedures and ethics for management and conservation of these resources.

Now, there is really nothing new to these concepts. You have heard some of the same ones discussed this morning. In discussions with knowledgeable oceanographers, I find general agreement. Differences, if you have any at all, arise when one talks about the mechanisms for achieving all of these goals.

[blocks in formation]

Ocean resources development is in a somewhat different position than was the situation either with respect to nuclear development or space development when national policies were stated.

There are many Federal agencies and programs already engaged in one or more aspects of ocean resource development, oceanographic exploration or ocean science. Consequently, I don't think it is logical to do a surgical operation to separate existing programs or to excise all interest in ocean development from existing programs and place them in a superagency. Many of the things that need to be done can be done in my opinion by expanding existing programs.

On the other hand, the principal new job that needs to be done will have to be done, I think, by a new agency. This job is stated one way in section 201, paragraph 5 of S. 944 as “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."

Section 5, paragraph 3, of S. 1091 states this same need in a slightly different way:

Because of the large number of Federal agencies now engaged in oceanographic programs and because of the varied spectrum of views necessary for consideration of specific national goals, I think it is appropriate for this subject to have the deliberation of a council at the highest government level. And in a sense, I support the council idea of S. 944.

Because of the need to carry on new operations and effectively coordinate existing operational programs, it is desirable also to have a new action type of unit. Therefore, I see merit in both S. 944 and S. 1091, and I believe their intents and proposed procedures are complementary

I want to suggest that this committee consider combining them into a single legislative package.

The proposed national council on oceanography would provide a policy-deliberating group to advise the President and Congress, to give priority to specific national goals, to see that balance is maintained among all participating agencies, to advise on procedures for carrying out new goals, and to give full executive support to budgets for meeting the national purpose.

On the other hand, the proposed Marine Exploration and Development Commission would provide the new action agency to carry out and coordinate activities necessary to implement the policy.

This would occur in three ways: First, through expansions of any existing agency programs capable of meeting a need; second, through contracts and other arrangements within industry and educational institutions, and third, through new programs initiated by the Commission.

This, I understand, is inherent in S. 1091. This last category would result in operating units of the Commission being established both for sea operations and shore operations.

I visualize, for example, something similar to Professor Spilhaus' idea of sea colleges, but not quite the same thing. I think that the realization of our national policy of ocean and resource development could lead to the establishment of centers to focus upon specific ocean


A center for the Gulf of Mexico has already been proposed. I think we need at least one recognized center, each for the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, the tropics, the Alaska area, the Hawaiian area, and the Great Lakes.

In combining these bills, the responsibility for developing procedures, to manage and conserve the developed resources should also be specified. Perhaps this could be spelled out as a function of the Commission in more detail

. Perhaps it should be considered on the basis of an extension of tidelands policy.

The resources involved are, generally, under the purview of the Department of the Interior, so perhaps that Department should be assigned the task of establishing procedures applicable to ocean situations, but consonant with other general resource development policies.

I have no specific suggestions but I do think this needs to be considered.

In summary, I applaud the efforts of this committee in seeking a national commitment for an oceanographic program. There appear to me to be significant values in both s. 944 and S. 1091 and, furthermore, they appear to be complementary.

The Council is needed for setting broad policy goals, priorities, planning and for gainful participation. The Commission is needed to coordinate and to carry out activities beyond existing programs.

Industry and universities are anxious to participate and are ready to do so as soon as an effective organization, procedures and funding are established. I see no problems to the enactment of either of these bills, and I believe the enactment of either would be a step forward.

But with a few minor changes, however, such as a stipuation for a single executive director to serve both a Council and the Commission, and with changes in wording to achieve uniformity between the two bills, I believe that the bills could be combined into a single ocean and resource development act that would be a landmark in our legislative history.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator BARTLETT. Thank you, Dr. Calhoun. Do you have any questions, Mr. Markel?

Senator BARTLETT. Thank

'hank you very much. (Dr. Calhoun's prepared statement submitted at the hearing appears in the appendix.)

Senator BARTLETT. Dr. Smith, we are very glad to have you here.



Dr. SMITH. Sir, I have already introduced a prepared statement, and I will avoid going over too much of this and try to summarize my point of view.

Senator BARTLETT. As you please, Doctor.

Dr. SMITH. My name is Frederick George Walton Smith and I hold a degree of Ph. D. from the University of London. I don't hold a degree in oceanography because at that time, about 35 years ago, there was no such thing. In fact, there were very few oceanographers at that time.


I am now a professor of oceanography at the University of Miami and have served as director of the University's Institute of Marine Science since it was founded in 1943.

I am also president of the International Oceanographic Foundation, a nonprofit organization devoted to the encouragement of scientific research and education in oceanography.

I would like to endorse the statements made by Dr. Spilhaus this morning, and particularly the idea that such objectives as elucidation of the laws of the sea, the economics of oceanography, basic science and engineering technology should be brought together in colleges, sea grant colleges which might be developed in existing institutes.

This is especially desirable, I think, in view of the necessary and undoubtedly building increase in engineering and technology as applied to the ocean.

I don't feel particularly qualified to discuss methods of administration, but I certainly strongly endorse Dr. Schaefer's statements in support of S. 944. Rather, I will confine myself to the necessity of maintaining an orderly and coordinated growth of oceanography in order to insure that we take full advantage of our share in the world

In particular, I am concerned with the training of graduate students to supply the demands of oceanography and with the necessity of co. ordination and cooperation between government agencies and research organizations so that these demands can be met in an efficient and orderly manner.

In addition to conducting a broad research program in oceanography, the Institute of Marine Science has over 100 graduate students enrolled for courses leading to the M.S. or Ph. D. in oceanography.

We estimate that this represents about one quarter of the total number of graduate students enrolled for such courses in the United States. For this reason my colleagues and myself have a very special interest in the maintenance of a balance between the number of students being trained by the universities on the one hand and the present and future demands likely to be made upon them by the growth of oceanography in the various government and private agencies on the other.

The growth called for by the ICO long-range plan for development of oceanography requires a 9 to 10 percent annual increase in manpower during 1963–72, compared with a 7 to 8 percent annual growth average for all fields of science and technology. This is only a slight increase above the average growth predicted for all sciences and technology.

The conclusions we have reached are that the present rate of enrollment and training of graduate students is below the minimum requirements to support the growth of oceanography recommended by the ICO as a long-range program for 1963–72, and that the required rate of Ph. D. production will not be reached until after 1970.

This conclusion is reached after consideration of additional sources of trained oceanographers from graduates in other fields and older scientists who enter the field of oceanography from the basic sciences.

The present enrollment of students will certainly not, in the immediate future, support any great increase in the rate of development in any existing agency, nor will it provide for the founding of any

« PreviousContinue »