142 NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 



As I see it now, you havfo three basic approaclies pending before the 

 committee. One is a national commission; one is the establishment 

 of an independent agency ; and the other is the format of the bill which 

 I have cosponsored on the House side, H.K.. 5654, the National Oceano- 

 graphic Act of 1965, which would establish a national oceanographic 

 council, among other things. 



The bill has two major legislative purposes. One is to establisli 

 a clear set of policy objectives for this Nation's marine sciences and 

 engineering, and the second is to provide sustained, high-level leader- 

 ship, guidance, and coordination of the program which is necessarily 

 supported in relation to missions of a number of separate agencies 

 rather than one. 



H.R. 5654, on the House side, corresponds to S. 944 sponsored by 

 Senator Warren G. Magnuson and others, and I am happy to note 

 that S. 944 was unanimously voted out favorably, with amendments, 

 by the Senate Commitee on Commerce on July 15. 



I am hopeful that the testimony you will receive in these current 

 hearings, including considerations that I shall outline subsequently, 

 will be helpful and lead to favorable conclusions by this committee 

 in support of the proposals I have outlined. 



Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I will support any approach that comes out 

 of this committee, but I believe an analysis of all of the approaches 

 that are made will lead to a reasonable conclusion that the approach 

 which is suggested in this legislation is the best approach at this time. 



I intend to cover three major points very quickly: First, the im- 

 portance of oceanography to the Nation; second, my concern about 

 the lack of progress and the dangers of this country losing its leader- 

 ship in this area; and third, a summaiy of provisions of H.R. 5654 

 that I believe will provide the necessary legislative base to a sound 

 program in marine science and engineering. 



I am not going to dwell too long on the importance of oceanography. 

 I know that you will take judicial notice of that fact, but, Mr. Chair- 

 man, I can pose this one thought : Supposing it were possible for ocean- 

 ographers to divert the flow of the Gulf Stream away from the United 

 States? It is scientifically problematical whether life as we know it 

 on this continent could exist. 



It was your own committee 6 years ago that first responded to these 

 opportunities for U.S. leadership advocated in the report by the Na- 

 tional Academy of Sciences through the establishment on February 17 

 of a special subcommittee and you have continued your very fine work 

 in this area ever since. 



I would want to make comment about further study. In recognizing 

 the need for careful review of the various functions and responsibilities 

 of agencies engaged in ocean research it is my opinion we cannot afford 

 to delay for any lengthy period the necessary reorganization of that 

 activity. 



Study may be all right, but we have had a lot of study and it has 

 been reported on by many independent committees, scientifically, tech- 

 nically, politically, agencywise, congressionally, and every other way. 



There is a wealth of information on this subject already available. I 

 do see, however, considerable value in bringing together a group of 

 experts, a small group, to do what my colleague from Florida, Mr. 

 Rogers, has suggested. I think this vrould be responsible, reasonable, 



