762 
I think this report is an excellent basis for actions that need to be 
taken by the executive branch, and for legislation and other actions by 
the Congress, to make possible the necessary expansion of activities in 
marine affairs that our Nation obviously requires if we are going to take 
full advantage of our opportunities in the ocean. 
This report has so many excellent recommendations, and covers so 
many aspects of marine affairs in so much depth, that it is certainly 
not possible to attempt to review the entire report. I do think it is a 
magnificent report, and the implementation of many of its recommen- 
dations should be undertaken with all possible speed. 
I want to point this out at the outset, because some of the topics that 
T am going to discuss today, are in areas where I don’t completely agree 
with the recommendations of the Commission. 
In fact, I have selected for comment some aspects of the Commis- 
sion’s report which are of importance, that I thik need some further 
consideration, and concerning which my comments may be of some 
utility. 
I would like, therefore, to cover three aspects of the report. First, I 
would discuss the organization of the Federal Government with respect 
to civilian, mission-relevant ocean affairs. 
Secondly, I would like to present some views concerning the very 
urgent problem of freedom of scientific research and exploration of the 
sea, and means by which this problem, that is becoming rapidly exacer- 
bated, might be resolved. 
Thirdly, I would like to speak to the topic of international affairs, 
and in particular the recommendations of the Commission concerning 
the regime of the seabeds in relation to some other aspects of our 
Nation’s international ocean affairs. 
So far as the organization of the Federal Government for civilian, 
mission-relevant oceanography is concerned, this has been studied by 
a number of different groups for quite a number of years, as I am 
sure you are even more aware than I am. This study of the Marine 
Commission is the most recent of the series. 
The first study was that of the National Academy of Sciences’ Com- 
mittee on Oceanography (NASCO), that started in 1957 and was pub- 
lished in 1959 as a report called “Oceanography 1960-1970.” This re- 
port analyzed the organization of the Federal Government but didn’t 
make any recommendations for reorganization. 
Next, there was a follow-on study by NASCO, during the period 
when I was privileged to be its chairman, and simultaneously the Pres- 
ident’s Scientific Advisery Council had a panel on oceanography 
chaired by Dr. Gordon MacDonald. 
NASCO in its second report again identified the many agencies, 
some 33, that are involved in ocean affairs in the executive branch of 
our Government, and pointed out that some consolidation and restruc- 
turing was needed, but didn’t attempt to make specific recommenda- 
tions for reorganization. ; 
The MacDonald panel, on the other hand, did make some specific 
recommendations on a new structure. It proposed to put together the 
Federal functions concerning, primarily, matters of ocean survey, 
monitoring, forecasting, and some aspects of intervention in the ocean 
environment, combining those with similar activities in the atmos- — 
