758 
the United States would be able to make the rapid strides toward mastery of the: 
ocean and its uses with which we have all been so much concerned. 
Another important question, of course, is whether this should be accomplished 
through combining these activities in some existing agency, or through establish- 
ing a new, independent agency. The existing agency of the United States Gov- 
ernment that would be the logical place to center these functions is the Depart- 
ment of Interior, since the Department of Interior is, essentially, the United 
States’ Department of Natural Resources. Indeed, if some of the functions of 
that Department, such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of Trust 
Territories, were placed elsewhere, and various natural resources and environ- 
mental functions in other Departments were transferred to Interior, it might 
very well be transformed into the Department of Natural Resources and Environ- 
ments envisaged by Dr. Calhoun. I do not, however, see this complex reorganiza- 
tion coming about in the forseeable future. 
Placing the various marine activities I have enumerated above in the Depart- 
ment of Interior would have some obvious organizational advantages. But, off-. 
setting this, is the fact that that Department would still be primarily land- 
oriented. For the reasons already elucidated by the Marine Commission, and the- 
reasons given by Dr. Calhoun in his letter of 27 June to you, I also believe that 
an independent agency for ocean affairs is required, so that its mission will not 
be subordinated to any existing departmental missions, so that Congress can: 
provide a special over-view of the program apart from existing departmental 
structures, and so that ocean affairs will attain large public visibility and draw 
strong public interest and support. If we are to progress rapidly and effectively 
with our mastery of ‘the ocean and its resources for the benefit of our citizens and’ 
for all mankind, it is important that the new Ocean Agency have sufficient co- 
herence of missions, sufficient identity, and sufficient strength to attract the 
necessary support both within the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch of 
our Government. 
Freedom of scientific research and exploration of the sea 
Mr. Chairman, our advances in ocean science and technology have created a 
unique paradox. During the last two decades, expanded programs of ocean re- 
search both in the United States and elsewhere in the world have enabled sea- 
going scientists to obtain the facilities, equipment and capabilities to investigate 
large-scale problems in fundamental oceanograph, and concerning the resources 
of the sea, that were formerly beyond our capacity. J am sure you are aware of 
the far-ranging expeditions and observational systems, and the coordinated par- 
ticipation of scientists of various disciplines, that are required for these impor- 
tant oceanographic investigations. At the same time, however, the advances in 
science and technology that have made such comprehensive studies possible have 
also increased the capabilities of nations to utilize the ocean’s resources more: 
fully, not only close to their shores but far offshore. In consequence, there is a 
a recent spate of extended claims for expanded jurisdictions, or new jurisdic- 
tions, in waters adjacent to the coasts of many nations. This further hampers 
freedom of scientific research and exploration. The scientific progress that is. 
the necessary basis for full utilization of ocean resources is being choked by the 
new regimes men establish because of such enhanced capability for resource use. 
Recognizing this problem, the Marine Commission has devoted a section of its: 
report, commencing at page 201, to it, and to recommendations toward its solution. 
The recent deterioration of freedom of scientific research and exploration com- 
menced with the preparations for and the negotiation of the Conventions on the 
Law of the Sea at Geneva in 1958. It was most unfortunate, for example, that 
the International Law Commission, and the International Conference, did not 
see fit to include scientific research explicitly as one of the freedoms enumerated 
in the Convention on the High Seas, even though the International Law Com- 
mission’s discussion, and the debates at Geneva in 1958, made it abundantly clear 
that it is one of the recognized freedoms. Even more unfortunate was the in- 
clusion in the Convention on the Continental Shelf of paragraph 8 of article 5, 
requiring the consent of the coastal state with respect of any research concerning 
the continental shelf and undertaken ‘there, that, in practice, has tended to ne- 
gate the provision in paragraph i of the same article that: 
The exploration of the continental shelf and the exploitation of its natural 
resources must not result... in any interference with fundamental ocean- 
ographic or other scientific research carried out with the intention of ocean 
publication. 
