NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 131 



larly the Navy, because in certain areas if there is any great extension 

 of the limit of territorial waters it means that in certain cases our 

 naval ships might have to sail an extra thousand miles in arriving at 

 their destination. 



What we have seen here in the last few years is an extension not 

 so much of territorial limits, as of the limits in respect to hsliing. 

 Many European nations have done this within the last 2 years. Can- 

 ada last year went out to 12 miles. There are various bills in the 

 Congress now extending our fishing limits to 12 miles. 



As we know, unhappily, some of the South American and Central 

 American countries claim exclusive fishing jurisdiction out to 200 

 miles. 



Mr. Casey. Peru, for instance. 



Senator Bartlett. Peru. This has created agony for our tuna 

 fleet. 



Mr. Casey. I Imow the Senator will recall_ in 1959 we missed by 

 one vote, I believe, over there establishing territorial waters. Russia 

 wanted 12 miles, which would have closed the English Channel and 

 I don't know how many inlets and so forth. 



Senator Bartlett. I think at that time the United States was ready 

 to agree to an extension of territorial limits from 3 to 6 miles and 

 fishing limits an additional 6 miles. 



Mr. Casey. Thank you. 



Mr. Lennon. Senator, just give me your comment as a member of 

 the Senate Committee on Commerce. You will recall the history of 

 the legislation. It went to conference with the conferees of the Senate 

 and the House and we hammered out what we thought was a bill that 

 would be accepted at the White House and, as you know, in the latter 

 part of the 8Tth Congress, I believe, it received a pocket veto. 



We were attempting to establish a commission which would aid, 

 and assist, and counsel, and advise the President in establishing a 

 national goal of oceanography and then subsequent to that pocket veto 

 we sat down with the various executive agencies of the Federal Gov- 

 ernment, including the Bureau of the Budget, the Treasury Depart- 

 ment, and more particularly, the Office of Science and Teclmology, 

 and they conceded and we conceded and we finally reached a con- 

 sensus, and that is a good work up here in this session. 



Senator Bartlett. Appropriate word. 



Mr. Lennoist. Then we introduced that bill and it was a clean bill. 

 It passed the subcommittee, the full committee, and passed the House 

 in August of 1963. We sent it over to the Senate and we didn't get 

 any action on it since August of 1963, and I want to be frank with 

 you, since you are certainly one of the most outstanding men in that 

 body, and particularly on that committee, that it was our thinking 

 that to avoid another presidential veto perhaps it would be judicious 

 to go along with the approach that we finally hammered out and 

 agreed to, and if it did not attain the objective that we sought within 

 a 2-year period, and we have now reached that 2-year period— it is 

 exactly 2 years ago that we passed the bill in the House — that then 

 we would take a new look and determine whether or not it was wise 

 to establish a separate and distinct agency in the Federal Government 

 to administer the various facets and fields of oceanography. 



