770 
I would like to refer to a statement made by Professor William 
Burke at a recent seminar at the University of Oregon. He has pointed 
out that it would be only prudent to inquire what other issues would 
come up at such a conference, how these might have to be adjusted in 
order to secure the kinds of agreements we might seek concerning the 
seabeds. 
At this symposium he said, and I quote: 
It certainly is not at all beyond anticipation that there will be a strong move 
by some states, perhaps a large number: (1) to secure agreement on a wide ter- 
ritorial sea; (2) to make it entirely clear (as it is not now) that warships do 
not enjoy a right of innocent passage through the territorial sea; (3) to assure 
exclusive fishing rights in a wide fishing zone as a possible alternative to a ter- 
ritorial sea of a particularly wide sort; (4) to establish new and more severe 
restrictions upon the conduct of scientific research; and (5) to place special 
restraints on military uses of the seabed, the water column and the surface. 
As Professor Burke pointed out, in the proper exercise of prudence 
the United States, as well as other nations, needs to examine in some 
detail how its interests are affected by alternative dispositions of these 
several issues. 
Unfortunately there is no evidence from the report of the Marine 
Commission, or of its panels, that these other aspects were considered, 
and that is why I am disturbed. 
I would hope that these would be considered in some detail before 
we charge ahead too rapidly on the seabed issue. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Down1ne. Thank you very much, Dr. Schaefer. You have made 
an important contribution to these hearings. I will withhold my ques- 
tions for the moment. 
Mr. Mosher ? 
Mr. Mosuer. Mr. Chairman, I submit that Dr. Schaefer’s testimony 
this morning is exactly what we need as we begin specific consideration 
of the NOAA proposal. 
I am referring, of course, particularly to the first third of your testi- 
mony. It is analytical and it is critical. It asks very significant ques- 
tions and makes positive recommendations. 
You necessarily skipped through your more complete prepared state- 
ment rather rapidly, and I think all of us are going to have to go back 
to your prepared statement and study it more carefully, but I for one 
am not quite sure what you mean at the point where you question cer- 
tain couplings and recommend less coupling, if I understand correctly, 
in terms of organization between the activities of the oceans and the 
activities of the atmosphere. 
As I understand it, you finally come down very, very definitely in 
support of an independent agency for ocean affairs, at least as a first 
step. If I understand correctly, that is the burden of your recom- 
mendation ? 
Dr. Scuarrer. Yes, sir. However, as to the independent agency, you 
see, the NOAA recommendation of the Commission is essentially to 
take ESSA, which within it contains the Weather Bureau, the Coast 
and Geodetic Survey, and the Bureau of Standards, and some other 
things which are involved in studies of the atmosphere and of the 
ocean, together with other agencies. It, however, leaves out certain 
agencies that are particularly concerned with ocean resources. For 
example, the Commission talks about a bunch of functions to be under- 
