We have the National Security Industrial Association report, which we are going to use in our deliberations. I don't know how many jobs or what interest is being generated in this field among young people who are embarking upon careers in school, but it seems to me from the experience of your company and others that there are more and more young people thinking in these terms and their importance to the country. So I appreciate what you had to say.

Senator Hart, do you have any questions?

Senator HART. No; on this last point the chairman made, I am struck by your statement that-I see you are careful not to say that it is your opinion--but you say it has been said one-half of all of the children in the United States now in the first and second grade will have as their first employment jobs that are not in existence today. Is that indeed your opinion?

Dr. EDGERTON. I think it is conservative.

Senator HART. Conservative?

Dr. EDGERTON. But I am optimistic and my opinion is very limited in that area.

Like the farming industry in a few years in the Middle West where I came from, it is amazing in just my lifetime how the skills have changed, how requirements have changed.

We have to look to the world ahead entirely from the way we look at the world today.

Senator HART. Really, that is a statement which, if most people in the country rolled around and thought about, would cause them to have an entirely different outlock with respect to the kind of world in which we should be living, even though most of us are well beyond second grade.

Do you know whether the targets that we have in the general area of oceanography are pretty much the same as the Soviet Union has? Dr. EDGERTON. I do not know, but I have been on many Soviet ships. Every time I come to them, I see them and always go aboard and become acquainted with them and I know they are very much interested in geology and the subsediment part of the world and this is the part that at the present time is demanding my interest.

It is not only the bottom of the ocean, but what is below the bottom of the ocean and this is the part of the world that is now unexplored and difficult to work in and they do have some capable people who are doing excellent research in that field.

Senator HART. Have you ever felt that you were unwelcome when you asked to go aboard one of those ships?

Dr. EDGERTON. No; they have red carpets and they invite you down to see everything. I have been very well received.

Senator MAGNUSON. We have fixed it so you don't have to sign aboard as a seaman anymore.

Dr. EDGERTON. Fine.

Senator MAGNUSON. You can go aboard as a scientist, but the Coast Guard is not going to pick you up anymore. It hasn't been fixed up yet; I think it is on the Senate floor.

Dr. EDGERTON. I think that is wonderful, because restrictions for a scientist is always like waving a red flag and is going to cause problems. I want to point out that there was a Soviet ship that came to Boston and an edict came down that they couldn't leave Boston,

which meant they couldn't come across the Charles River to visit MIT, and after numerous telephone calls, by the time that the ship had gone, they said you would have to give their names and addresses too, to get them to come across.

I think we should do everything we can, whenever we have visiting scientists come, to treat them with all courtesy because they are serious people and we learn from them.

Senator HART. It is a regrettable thing that, in this society that we advertise that is so open, we slam the door in the face of those we are always pointing a finger at. I imagine that boatload went home with a pretty dim opinion, the group that wasn't allowed to come in?

Dr. EDGERTON. They were quite understanding. It did cause more trouble at home really than it did to the Russians. I mean the people at MIT wanted to invite these people over and get aquainted with them and find out what they are doing, and an edict came down, you can't cross the Charles River. Even Paul Revere got across. [Laughter.] It is not a very big thing.

Senator HART. There are those who say he carried dangerous ideas. Dr. EDGERTON. I know, we have to watch Paul.

Senator HART. Thank you very much.

Senator MAGNUSON. Would you say that the Russians have been uncooperative with the results of some of their oceanographic research or have they fairly freely shared it with other scientists in the world? Dr. EDGERTON. Every bit of evidence I have, they are very open. For example, I have a friend, Zenkevitch, who takes deep sea pictures of the Pacific. When he arrived at Scripps, he invited us aboard and gave copies of all of the pictures and locations and everything, a tremendous effort. It is all science. And the same, they, these pictures are just information. They are like the stars, you can't conceal them. Senator MAGNUSON. I would like to see an effort in this field, after we get our own goals established, similar to the International Geophysical Year where we all participated and shared ideas, so that the world would know more about three-quarters of its surface.

Dr. EDGERTON. I am in the education business and I am for that. It is awfully hard to educate people and we have to keep working at it all the time.

Senator MAGNUSON. Let me ask you this. Does some of require you to identify earthquake faults in the ocean yet? Dr. EDGERTON. I would say yes.

Senator MAGNUSON. You can?

your work

Dr. EDGERTON. In some areas, the work of seismic explorations devices is just now revealing many very interesting factors about the bottom of the ocean and geologists, the one thing that they are concluding, is that their previous estimates were completely wrong.

I am not a geologist, but I have ben on at least five expeditions from Woods Hole, where we have gone to places like the Puerto Rican trench, and other areas in the ocean. Everywhere you go, you find something new. It is a fascinating field.

Senator MAGNUSON. The Puerto Rican trench is the second deepest, is it not, next to the Marianas.

Dr. EDGERTON. It is the deepest spot in the Atlantic.
Senator MAGNUSON. In the Atlantic?

Dr. EDGERTON. Yes. The other deepest place

Senator MAGNUSON. My friend Jacques Piccard has been diving in that trench. He has a new deep sea submersible.

I want to thank you very much and ask you something off the record. (Off the record.)

(Dr. Edgerton's prepared statement submitted at the hearing appears in the appendix.)

Senator MAGNUSON. All right, Captain Arnold, assistant to the chief scientist, United Aircraft Corp.

Captain, we will be glad to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF CAPT. H. A. ARNOLD, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED), ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF SCIENTIST, UNITED AIRCRAFT CORP., EAST HARTFORD, CONN.

Captain ARNOLD. Mr. Chairman, as you have said, I'm with the United Aircraft Corp. In addition to this, my background and interest in oceanography had arisen from a long period of working with submarines in the U.S. Navy as a designer and builder. Secondly, my interest stems from having participated in the first deep ocean technology program of the Navy, which was the Deep Submergence Systems Review Group set up as a result of the Thresher casualty. Thirdly, I had 3 years of close contact with the oceanography program as a consultant to the Federal Council of Science and Technology in connection with the National Oceanographic Program.

The history of the National Oceanographic Program is well known to you gentlemen. I will recall some highlights to set the stage for the remainder of my remarks.

The historic report of the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Science in 1958 provided the factual data and recommendations from which the expanded program was derived. The administration of President Eisenhower adopted and launched the program.

The CHAIRMAN. This is one of the first reports that the National Academy put out and it established for us and the department what I call minimum goals.

Captain ARNOLD. Yes, sir; a very important document, I believe, in the whole program.

As you know, President Kennedy added impetus and essential guidance. With the decisive help of the Federal Council of Science and Technology, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography assembled the various agency programs into a Federal program; but it was sometimes unable to generate suflicient support for the long-range aspects, or maintain integrity of the approved program through the appropriation process and subsequent administration in the various agencies. Nevertheless, the program grew-sometimes slowly. In June 1963, you perhaps remember the Federal Council prepared "A Long-Range National Oceanographic Plan 1963 to 1972," expressing for the first time I am aware of a set of national goals. Subsequently, President Johnson has continued the support of his predecessors. He mentioned in his letter transmitting the oceanographic program for fiscal year 1966, a call for a unified thrust seaward.

In spite of a favorable beginning, it has become increasingly evident in the past 2 or 3 years that the establishment of a truly vital national oceanographic program will require additional action. Some of these difficulties I would like to mention today. The goals stated in the long-range program were general: Strenghtening basic science, improving national defense, managing resources in the world oceans, managing resources in domestic waters, and protecting life and property. Although perhaps tacitly endorsed, these goals still lack specific legislative recognition. Pressed by more specific and immediate missions, the busy agency administrators find it difficult to establish and maintain comprehensive programs in oceanography aimed at achieving these long-range goals. This is particularly true for the nonmilitary area, Mr. Chairman.

In the beginning a proper emphasis was placed on the scientific aspects of the oceanography program-the acquisition of knowledge. On the other hand, it was more difficult to find ways and means for applying this knowledge, for initiating imaginative government and private technology, and for usefully exploiting the oceans. Perhaps the problem is partly semantic. In a narrow sense, the word "oceanography" defines a science or combination of sciences; but the national program of oceanography must be more than this.

The CHAIRMAN. Captain, right there, you get to the meat of this problem because it is a combination of sciences. Therefore, the necessity of having some vortex in which you can establish goals becomes more and more evident. If this was some sort of specific science on its own, you probably would have no trouble going down a narrow path toward your goals, but oceanography encompasses so many things. Captain ARNOLD. I agree with you.

The CHAIRMAN. This is the real problem.
Captain ARNOLD. I agree with you.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Captain ARNOLD. It must also derive vitality and extract broad benefits from the application of this scientific knowledge. Because it involves exploration, engineering, and development, the national program of oceanography is much more like the national space program than like the national program in high-energy physics.

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly what we are talking about.

Captain ARNOLD. Just what I am saying. I believe that the reduced rate of growth of the Federal oceanographic budget after 1962 is partly a reflection of the difficulty experienced in devising and launching new programs of ocean technology.

In fact, it might be well to suggest that you consider naming this the national ocean program instead of the national oceanographic program.

This is not to imply that scientific oceanography should not continue to grow in proportion to the need for it and availability of qualified investigators. I would make the additional point that a vital program of technology and engineering will stimulate and guide science by identifying specific areas which need investigation. An example came up during one of the Nation's first deep ocean efforts the deep submergence systems review group study which followed the Thresher casualty-several questions without answers were posed: "What are the bearing strengths in the ocean bottom sediments on which sunken

submarines may come to rest or on which structures may be built?" "What is the precise speed and direction of near-bottom currents in various deep-ocean areas?"

Those were questions to which we had no answers 2 years ago. Exploitation of the oceans is inevitable. If the United States does not lead a unified thrust seaward, others will. A recent international agreement, which since June 1964, has the effect of an international treaty, grants each nation the right to explore and exploit its continental shelf to a depth of 600 feet, and deeper where the capability exists to do so. That last part is very important to us. It might well be the starting gun of an international race to develop deep-ocean technology. Here is our opportunity to regain leadership in the sea through application of our great strength in science and technology. But exploitation of the oceans will, of course, produce conflicts of two kinds. First, other nations will contest our influence, our use, and perhaps our occupation of the ocean bottom. That nation which has a proven history of greatest accomplishment in the ocean will have an advantage in determining the settlement. A second kind of conflict will surely arise among our own citizens, just as expanding population and urbanization now produce conflicts over land utilization and river pollution. If we wish to avoid a future crash program of ocean renewal, parallel to urban renewal, it would be wise to have long-range, comprehensive "usage" planning for the general benefit of all of our citizens. No agency has such a broad mission today.

I am sure you are well aware of the wide interest of U.S. industry in the national oceanographic effort and its applicable capability of this industry. In the years between 1958 and 1962, many small companies sprang up and many large companies established oceanographic, or marine departments. For instance, in 1962, 87 companies were in a position to contribute to a summary of industrial capabilities available for the national oceanographic program. Many of these companies are now participating in oceanography in some small way; but the majority of U.S. industry is oriented more toward engineering and production rather than toward science. To date, the engineering and production efforts of the program have been confined mostly to the relatively specialized and limited fields of shipbuilding and instrumentation.

Some companies have recently backed their interest with modest investments of company funds in those areas which promise early returns. Some others have become discouraged as a result of the slowed rate of growth of the national oceanographic program and the failure of the program to move vigorously out of the restricted realm of scientific oceanography. Except for the Navy's deep submergence systems program, there have been meager indications of specific national requirements and Government support for long-range

programs.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the legislation you are considering is one essential step in the continued growth of the national oceanographic program; and that program is essential to the political, economic, and military welfare of this country. I believe that the statement of national policy and the National Oceanographic Council which would result from enactment of S. 944 would provide the following: