754 
I have served as a member of the NAS/NRC Committee on Oceanography 
(NASCO) from 1957 through 1967, and was its Chairman from 1964 through 
1967, during which period the Committee produced its second comprehensive 
analysis of ‘oceanography in the United States, in a publication entitled ‘Ocean- 
‘ography 1966—Achievements and Opportunities”. 
I presently serve on several panels of NASCO. My involvement with interna- 
tional oceanographic affairs includes experience on the scientific staffs of several 
of the International Fisheries Commissions to which the United States is a party, 
Director of Investigations of one of them (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Com- 
mission) ; service as an Expert on the Secretariat of the International Confer- 
ence on Conservation of Living Resources of the Sea in Rome 1955; and service 
as an Expert on the Secretariat of the International Conference on the Law of 
the Sea in Geneva 1958; as well as professional involvement with a number of 
‘Other aspects of international ocean affairs, as indicated in my résumé. While 
Science Adviser to the Secretary of Interior, I was a member of the U.S. dele- 
gation to the Working Group on Legai Questions Related to Scientific Investiga- 
tion of the Ocean, of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, that 
met in Paris last September. 
Mr. Chairman, it is self-evident that the report of the Commission on Marine 
‘Science, Engineering and Resources entitled “Our Nation and the Sea” is an 
important milestone in the development of oceanography in the United States. 
The Commission was particularly fortunate in including not only members of 
‘educational and research organizations, and of private industry engaged in 
‘marine affairs, but in also having the benefit of the wisdom and experience of 
members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as of the 
‘Executive Branch of the Federal Government. In consequence, this Report pro- 
‘vides an excellent basis both for the actions that need to be taken by the Hxecu- 
tive Branch, and for legislation and other action by the Congress, to make 
possible the expanded and accelerated activities in marine affairs that our nation 
requires to take full advantage of its opportunities in the World Ocean. The re- 
port contains so many excellent recommendations, and considers many aspects 
of marine affairs in such depth, that it is, of course, quite impossible for me to 
-attempt to review it in its entirety. I may simply say that, in general, it is a 
magnificent report and the implementation of many of its recommendations should 
‘be undertaken as rapidly as possible. I wish to note this at the outset, because, 
with respect of some of the topics I wish to discuss today I do not completely 
agree with the recommendations of the Commission. Indeed, I have selected for 
comment some aspects of the Commission’s report that are of importance, that 
I believe require some further consideration, and concerning which My com- 
-ments may be of value to the members of your Committee. 
I would like today, Mr. Chairman, to discuss three aspects of the report: 
First, I would like to discuss the organization of the Federal Government 
with respect to civilian, mission-relevant ocean affairs. 
Second, I will present my views concerning the urgent problem of freedom 
of scientific research and exploration of the sea, and means by which this prob- 
Jem might be resolved. 
Third, I will speak on the subject of international affairs, and in particular 
the recommendations of the Commission concerning the regime of the seabeds 
in relation to other aspects of international ocean affairs. 
‘Organization of the Federal Government for civilian mission-relevant ocean- 
ography A 
The appropriate organization of the Executive Branch of the Federal Govern- 
ment for dealing with ocean affairs, and some corresponding realignments in the 
Legislative Branch, is probably the most urgent matter with which the Com- 
mission, and your Committee, are concerned. As I am sure you gentlemen 
realize even better than I do, it isn’t easy to decide just how to reorganize, or 
organize, or otherwise deal with our activities in the ocean, or in the ocean: plus 
other elements of our natural environment. 
The study of the Marine Commission is actually the iHiost recent of a series of 
Sonus of this general problem. 
The first of the studies that I would like briefly to recall is that of the National 
Academy of Sciences Committee on Oceanography (NASCO) that commenced 
in 1957 and was completed in 1959 with its report “Oceanography 1969-1970”. 
This report analyzed in penetrating detail the national oceanography program, 
and came up with an extensive series of recommendations, but didn’t really deal 
with the governmental structure. It considered the functions, the gaps, and what 
