550 
mended, we must increase our funding of our national oceanologic 
programs. The only question in my mind is whether the Commission’s 
proposal for a doubling of present expenditure levels during the next 
decade is not too modest. Personally I think it is. 
As the coauthor with Congressman Rogers of the Sea Grant Col- 
lege Act of 1966, I am gratified at the recognition given to the pro- 
gram in the Commission report. Specifically, the proposal for estab- 
lishment of coastal zone laboratories, under the administration of the 
Sea Grant College program, is, I believe, an excellent one. 
T must add here that, speaking personally, I have some reservations 
concerning the thought of moving ahead too hard on the regional 
centers which can tend to dominate the various smaller centers of 
excellence we want to see developed around the country. 
Mr. Chairman, I cannot attempt here to comment on each of the 
Commission recommendations, including the Sea Grant College bills on 
which Congressman Rogers and I have been working together. But I 
would note two recommendations that would be implemented by legis- 
lation now pending in the Senate. 
First, I have introduced in the Senate S. 2230, removing the existing 
restriction on use of foreign-built fishing vessels by our commercial 
fishermen, as recommended by the Commission. 
Needless to say, this is not a bill popular in shipbulding States or 
areas, but it would seem to me a worthwhile bill since it would reduce 
the capital costs for many of our fishermen by a third to half in getting 
their basic vessels. 
Second, I have cosponsored S. 1588, introduced by Senator Warren 
G. Magnuson, who has in our body always taken the lead in every- 
thing to do with the oceans and is most interested in them and has 
helped me tremendously in what small work I have done in this re- 
gard. This bill would establish an Institute of Marine Pharmacology 
in the National Institutes of Health, an action also recommended by 
the Commission. 
Both of these actions, I think, are worthwhile steps which could 
help move us along and need not wait on any overall action in con- 
nection with the broad thrust of the Commission’s report. 
Now turning to the report of the international panel, with which 
as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee I have been particu- 
larly concerned, the Commission said basically that this country’s 
national interest in terms of the development and utilization of the 
ocean space environment demands that we take the lead in (1) limit- 
ing coastal State jurisdiction over the natural resources of the Con- 
tinental Shelf to a depth of 200 meters or a distance of 50 nautical 
miles, and (2) defining a multilateral legal and political framework 
for purposes of mineral resource exploitation beyond the regime of 
the Continental Shelf. 
In addressing this later issue, the Commission recommended that 
such a framework encompass the following provisions: an interna- 
tional registry authority, with limited policing functions; an inter- 
national fund to be used for agreed-upon worldwide community objec- 
tives; an agreement as to the powers and duties of registering nations; 
an arrangement for the settlement of disputes; and provision for an 
intermediate zone, over which the adjacent coastal State would have a 
veto power as to who may exploit the resources of the zone, 
