NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAM LEGISLATION 317 



We have a concomitant obligation to address ourselves to the ques- 

 tion, "What do we do about it?" At least eight of the ICO niemljer 

 agencies are doing something about it, as described generally in our 

 national oceanographic program document and more comprehensively 

 in a document in preparation, "Oceanographic Research in the Fed- 

 earl Govermnent." 



The ICO decided earlier this year that our interests, that is, tlie 

 interests of the committee, in ocean engineering must now focus on 

 the Continental Shelf. The ICO believes that II.R. 2218 comes close 

 to providing all the legislative support needed to develop and main- 

 tain a Continental Shelf campaign designed for payotf. I would 

 suggest, however, that modification of the bill to provide authorization 

 of funds for general program administration would solve the remain- 

 ing problem of funding the transagency studies that are a prerequisite 

 to good planning. 



This is the basis of my belief that the stronger arrangements speci- 

 fied in H.R. 5584 by Mr. Rivers, H.R. 5884 by Mr. Keith, and H.R. 

 7849 by Mr. Teague are not needed at this time — that the ICO ought 

 to be given the opportunity to proceed within the authority encom- 

 passed by Mr. Lennon's bill. 



Fifth, Congressman Wilson has introduced a bill calling for a 

 National Oceanographic Agency. 'Wliile this would admittedly solve 

 many of the oceanographers' problems, such as gaining the attention 

 of a wholly oriented group in Congress, it would cause serious prob- 

 lems for other agencies. This proposed centralization would excise 

 the useful oceanographic services and products from several Federal 

 agencies which require them in accomplishing their own missions. 



Oceanography, as with many other sciences, provides maximum 

 benefits to the Federal agencies when its results are applicable to 

 specific problems within the Government. Many Federal agencies 

 require varied kinds of oceanographic information in order to do 

 their jobs. In fact, this link to the missions of the agencies makes 

 the oceanographic prograui productive and viable. 



Most information is highly specialized and obtained to assist in 

 meeting existing or foreseeable problems. Examples are the kind 

 of information needed by the Navy Department to hxnit submarines, 

 to be prepared to launch Polaris missiles, and to conduct amphibious 

 and submarine operations. 



Similarly, in the Commerce Department, oceanographic informa- 

 tion is required for chartmaking and assisting maritime trade, in the 

 Department of the Interior for exploiting the mineral and food 

 resources of the ocean and increasing U.S. efficiency in fishing, botli 

 commercially and as a recreational asset through sport, fisheries. 



The Public Health SerAnce needs oceanographic information as it 

 affects offshore pollution, and the Atomic Energy Commission as it 

 affects disposal of atomic waste and radioactivity in the oceans. If 

 each of these Federal users must go to a different agency to obtain 

 oceanographic support, both the user and oceanography will suffer. 

 I believe that no central, single oceanographic office could ever ade- 

 quately fill all these specialized requirements. 



^ There is a continuing need for national coordination and collabora- 

 tion on projects of mutual interest. Difference agencies often need 

 the same information ; and only one agency then need obtain it. The 



