« PreviousContinue »
Purposes for expanding our knowledge or of phenomena in and related to the ocean would naturally flow from a use policy.
So also would purposes for development of instruments or vehicles and equipment to give us the capability to work in and perform in the
In my view the policy should also allow encouragement of private investment in the economic utilization of marine resources, not just on the continental shelf, but also regions beyond the Continental Shelf, in fact, wherever our technology will give us the capability.
Although S. 1091 is not the subject of this hearing, from the viewpoint of national policy, I find provisions in S. 1091, the Marine Exploration and Development Act which are complementary to the statements of policies and purposes contained in S. 924.
I would like to see the congressional enactment of a statement on national policy and purposes based upon a national commitment to ocean resources development and use, combining the general knowledge advances cited in S. 944 with the specific development advances cited by S. 1901.
I think it is timely to have a statement of national policy. This stems partly from our general acceptance today of the principle that advancement and welfare will arise when we expand our understanding with respect to any resource system.
By any measure, our knowledge of the ocean is limited and advancements in knowledge with respect to the ocean will represent a very fruitful avenue for advancement in our total welfare.
This timeliness, however, is further emphasized by the fact that ocean utilization is open to all nations and we are in a competitive position. This has been noted in S. 1091, particularly, by reference to the recently adopted Convention on the Continental Shelf, which recognizes international rights that in effect are realizable in proportion to the development of national technological capability.
Perhaps most fundamental, however, to timing on a national policy is the fact that our present effort in oceanography has such a diffused nature. What we are doing is not uncoordinated, but it is done in the absence of a total blueprint.
The oceans are too large a part of the globe, in my opinion, and too important an international entity, to allow our national position to be anything less than a national policy for which we have a planned program,
Consequently, I see the resource opportunities and exploratory challenge presented by the ocean, I see the necessity of maintaining an internationally competitive position, and I see the present diffused nature of our national effort demanding a policy position which recognizes ocean resource development on a par with that for the space environment or the nuclear environment. I think these are all similar types of problems from the standpoint of the needed policy and organization.
Parenthetically, I might also say, although it isn't the purpose of these hearings to cover the subject, that we need this same kind of national position with respect to the development of management of the atmosphere.
Now some things need to be done, as I see it, to implement a broad policy, to create capabilities for understanding, operating within, 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 be 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.
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?
Mr. MARKEL. No.
(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.
STATEMENT OF DR. F. G. WALTON SMITH, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE
OF MARINE SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, AND PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC FOUNDATION
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.