The U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey is in the Department of Commerce for about the same reason that the Maritime Administration is. There was no other better place to put it. Its work is almost exclusively concerned with the ocean. It, with the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, are the two key civilian ocean research bureaus of the Federal Government.

The National Oceanographic Data Center is a recent confection whose organization in some ways typifies the organizational disarray of ocean matters in the U.S. Government. It is in the Office of the U.S. Navy Oceanographer for housekeeping purposes with the clear understanding that he is to have no unique policy control over its operations.

It is funded by contributions of the several executive agencies that use its services. It has no regular appropriations of its own, although its data are the key element in the entire national ocean program. Its operations are pretty well ordered by an Advisory Board composed of distinguished scientists, some in the Government and some not. Obviously this is the data heart of the Department of the Ocean.

The Coastal Engineering Research Center is a new name for the old Beach Erosion Board and is in the U.S. Army Engineers Corps. The justification for it being in the Department of the Ocean appears plain, as there would not be much beach erosion without ocean action.

The relation of this work to that of the Department of the Army is a little obscure and its scientists are, of course, civilian.

The Sea-Air Interaction Laboratory is a new creation put in the Department of Commerce last year for lack of a better place. Since 71 percent of the earth's atmosphere overlies the ocean, and the ocean is a prime source of the energy driving the winds, the reasons for it being included in the Department of the Ocean are reasonably obvious. If all of these agencies and bureaus were placed into a Department of the Ocean, ocean affairs of the U.S. Government would be consolidated into three large, well-balanced units, with a number of splinters left in the bureaus and agencies whose major activities are land oriented.

The three major ocean organizations would be:

1. The Department of the Navy-representing military interest of the United States;

2. The Department of the Ocean-representing the civilian industry; and

3. The National Science Foundation-representing the academic group.

This would provide a proper balance between the three basic, large interests that the United States has in the ocean and result in the perfection of a balanced national ocean program and a budget for it for the Congress to examine.

There would still be a number of agencies and bureaus which had activities in respect of the ocean which are necessary for them to continue but minor in scope relative to their total activities. These include the Atomic Energy Commission, the Bureau of Mines, the Geologic Society, the Bureau of Sport Fish and Wildlife, Public Health Service, Office of Education, and Smithsonian Institution. There would still be scope for an Interagency Committee on Oceanography for correlating the work of these entities in the ocean with the three major departments noted above.

Mr. Chairman, I have put some other things in the statement. For brevity, I will pass them over and go to my conclusions.

We have been considering S. 944 and related matters pending before this committee dealing with the posture of the United States toward the ocean and the relationship of that to the economic, diplomatic, and military posture of the United States among nations at this stage in history. These four things seem clear to me:

1. The United States is doing poorly in cultivating the use of the sea for these purposes. Particularly it is being brillantly outrun in this field by Russia.

2. It will not do better until it has a governmental apparatus suited to developing a national ocean program and considering a proper budget for it.

3. S. 944, if adopted, will go a long way toward the establishment of such a mechanism, but not far enough nor fast enough.

4. There is required, as well, the consolidation of major oceanoriented civilian functions of the executive department into a Department of the Ocean which can serve as the focal point of developing the civilian national use of the ocean.

Mr. Chairman, you will notice that I have advocated throughout here a national ocean program, not a national oceanographic program. I have done that advisedly. I think Captain Arnold pertinently put this a while ago that we are moving out of the strictly scientific field of the ocean and moving, I hope, toward the use of the ocean.

We should begin talking about a national ocean program which we do not have instead of a national oceanographic program, which we don't have very well, either.

Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The chairman wants to tell you that how deeply I appreciate this well-thought out statement in this whole field. I could ask you a lot of questions about it, but you and I have, over the years, discussed these same questions, so you know my feeling and I know yours.

The chairman couldn't agree with you more than what you have stated here and, secondly, no one respects anyone's opinion on these matters more than I respect yours. I think you have contributed a great deal to the problem here.

You surely have sounded again a warning to this country of our deficiencies in this particular field. It seems we have largely through the efforts of men like yourself, created a greater interest in this field than we had 5 years ago, 6, 7 years ago, when we first started, but it is not enough. I am hopeful that we can do just exactly what you suggest.

The bill is only a modest beginning and I went through this whole thing in the space program. We did set up a Space Council, headed by the then Vice President, now President Lyndon Johnson.

We come to the Congress with a well-coordinated plan which we can examine, as you point out, as a package. We know where we are going; we can modify it, or increase it as the situation may dictate, but the way it is now, it is almost impossible to do much about the oceanographic program because it is set and built in to certain budgets throughout the Government.

Although we encourage more activity in this field in each department, with relation to their oceanographic and Great Lakes missions, it is very difficult to get Congress to be able to understand what we are trying to do. This is why I deeply appreciate this very excellent statement.

Dr. CHAPMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I am hopeful that we can in a very short time achieve some of these objectives that you state, and I agree with you. This is not any particular criticism of the Interagency Committee at all. It is just that we feel the committee is working under handicaps, and I think everybody on the outside realizes that.

I appreciate your mention of ocean engineering and of the relation of this whole situation to fish.

Surely, there has to be come answers similar to those you suggested here because the situation is not getting any better, as you point out; it is getting worse.

Dr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, if I might say one last word, you and I have been working together more or less on this general problem for right on 30 years now and under your leadership, particularly, and as chairman of this committee, we have made a tremendous amount of progress, but we are going slower than a lot of people.

I deal with the Russians a good deal around the world in various committees and go aboard their boats. There aren't any more of them more than 7 feet tall, and I just hate to be in a position where the United States is 9th and 10th in dealing with the ocean.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I recommend the reading of this statement to everybody in the Congress of the United States. (Dr. Chapman's prepared statement submitted at the hearing appears in the appendix.)

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Rear Adm. Edward C. Stephan, U.S. Navy (retired), President of the Marine Technological Society and former oceanographer of the Navy.

STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. EDWARD C. STEPHAN, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED), PRESIDENT OF THE MARINE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY AND FORMER OCEANOGRAPHER OF THE NAVY

Admiral STEPHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am Edward C. Stephan, Rear Admiral U.S. Navy (retired). Although I am a retired naval officer and was invited to appear before this committee as the president of the Marine Technological Society, I am here as a private citizen to urge stronger steps to advance oceanography and ocean engineering in this country.

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee in connection with the national ocean program and S. 944, a bill to set up a National Oceanographic Council.

The chairman, in his remarks at the time he introduced S. 944, spoke of the magnificent developments in atomic power and space which were stimulated by the enactment of the Atomic Energy Act and the National Aeronautics and Space Act.

To a large extent modern oceanography has been made possible by technologies developed in the atomic-aerospace scientific surge of recent years. Almost directly from these advances have come the high

quality instruments, digital recording of data, vast data-handling capacity, telemetering, precise navigation positioning and modern knowledge display techniques which make it possible, for the first time, to collect the data from which an understanding of the oceans may be derived and displayed in quickly usable form.

Aerospace has provided many benefits to our ability to understand the oceans. I believe the oceans will repay their knowledge debt on the engineering side. The "in this world" and in "our time" opportunities to exploit the oceans for military, economic, political and humanitarian, as well as scientific advancement, are great and obvious. It is safe to predict that what we learn about useful and profitable practical work in the oceans and on the ocean floor will assist, when the time comes, to do useful and profitable work in space. I believe we will learn that whether we work in the hostile environment of overpressure on the ocean floor or underpressure on the moon, the work we want to do will be very much like that we do on the earth's surface, in the streets, on the farm, in the oil or gas field, in the mines, and on the construction job.

The economic and military importance of the oceans, their potential to solve world problems in food, fertilizers, and raw materials of all sorts, and the many countries of the world in addition to the space leaders Russia and the United States-who have all that is necessary to exploit the oceans, insures that tremendous strides will soon take place in ocean engineering. The big question is will the United States establish a leading position?

The Congress, in its action on S. 944 and other ocean legislation and appropriations, will have a major role in the answers to the question of U.S. leadership. I would like to say a few words about the importance of U.S. leadership.

The oceans make up about 70 percent of the earth's surface. Of these oceans about 10 percent lies between the shoreline and 1,000 feet in depth, only another 10 percent lies between 1,000 feet and 12,000 feet; the remaining 80 percent lies between 12,000 feet and 20,000 feet, except for about 11/2 percent which lies between 20,000 feet and the maximum known depth of 36,000 feet.

The 10 percent between the shore and 1,000 feet, the Continental Shelfs, have a worldwide total area equal in size to the continent of Africa. The Continental Shelfs are accessible today and peculiarly rich in all resources. The race to get to the Continental Shelfs and establish the legal rights that go with occupancy is on. England, Canada, Japan, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and others, as well as Russia, are in the race.

A new continent has been opened up for the first time since the discovery of the Americas. What we do now will affect our position on that new continent, just as what England, France, Spain, Portugal, Holland, and Sweden did after the discovery of the Americas affected their position in the new world.

Ocean development offers the same sort of opportunity for government, industry, and science collaboration that was offered in the past by canal, railway, mine, agriculture, highway, and aviation development. Government, industry, and science collaborated for tremendous national advancement in these areas. We should be as responsive to today's challenges as our fathers were to yesterday's.

The need in the oceans is more urgent. Any delay in the inland <developments of years past would not have affected U.S. sovereignty over resources within our national boundaries. Delay may cost us important loss of rights or severeignty forever in the confused legal tangles of the oceans.

Ocean development offers great opportunity for international cooperation in solution of world problems today and in tomorrow's exploding population. The chain from nutritious diet-to sound health-to education-to strong, free government is a clear one, and the United States has a big stake in this chain. The oceans have the capacity to feed the hungry, directly, or through land fertilization, and thus start that chain moving in the diet-poor countries around the world.

Dr. Chapman so ably pointed out the Russians are doing a better job than we and reaping benefits from their programs.

The interplay between military and nonmilitary ocean development is so complete that ocean engineering offers great opportunities for transition from military to economic development and back to military, if necessary. This may be helpful if a better world permits reductions of military expenditures which in turn create economic problems.

Finally the oceans not only can pay their way-they are paying it. In the years 1961-62 and 1963 the total Federal expenditures in nonmilitary oceanography were approximately $375 million. During those same years approximately $800 million was paid into the Treasury of the United States from the lease of oil rights in national waters. A great deal more was paid into the treasuries of coastal States. This ocean return to the taxpayers, and it can also come from the Great Lakes, is uniquely rewarding among Government-supported programs. Such a rewarding program should be encouraged.

This committee is met to consider specific legislation to stimulate and encourage a strong national ocean program for military, economic, political, humanitarian, and scientific growth.

I believe it is very important to recognize the difference between the ocean program and the space and defense programs that have commanded so much of our attention and support in recent years.

Both space and defense are essentially programs conceived and executed by the Federal Government. There is no direct State government participation. Science and industry support Federal Government defense and space on a contract basis.

In the oceans there will be Federal programs for defense and other purposes but there will also be State programs to develop and protect their ocean or Great Lake industries. Furthermore, there will be industry programs not related to either Federal or State efforts. Today there are ocean engineering programs by industry which are under the pressure of competition to move faster than related Government programs. Such a situation is difficult to imagine in either space or defense. In the oceans, science-both basic and applied-will be working with industry and State government, as well as Federal Government.

The partnership between Government, science, and industry will be more equal and a more independent one than has been the case in space or defense. In addition to the entrance of State as well as Federal