824 
tee, Mr. Lennon, and its ranking minority member, Mr. Mosher, and 
Senators Magnuson and Cotton. ae 
Over 2 years of hard work, the Commissioners produced a mature 
analysis which I believe holds meaning for the entire N ation—tor 
State governments local communities, industries and universities, as 
well as the Federal Government. “Our Nation and the Sea” should 
also prove of value to other nations that are considering their own role 
in the oceans. 
LIMITATIONS TO THE COMMISSION'S REPORT 
The Commission was confronted with an exceedingly wide range of 
subject matter, for almost every issue that is derived from a land activ- 
ity has some counterpart at sea that was eligible for their considera- 
tion. As a consequence, they chose to limit the scope of inquiry by ex- 
cluding certain areas. Questions of national security are not treated 
comprehensively, although the Commission insisted on the importance 
of marine science to the Navy and urged that Navy facilities be used 
for civilian purposes, and opportunities sought for civilian spinoff. 
The complex questions of the merchant marine were excluded, al- 
though they discussed the need to study the Nation’s port and water- 
way systems, and requirements for marine transportation services. 
The Commission also decided not to go deeply into economics of 
marine resources although they recognize that in most instances re- 
sources extracted from the marine environment would be in competi- 
tion with land sources and would be exploited only when the economics 
are favorable. 
Parenthetically, I am pleased to report that the Council recently 
contracted with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to supple- 
ment the Commission’s study by an economic analysis of protein con- 
centrates, coastal zone land, and waste disposal. 
On their most controversial proposal—that on organization—the 
Commission recommended a National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Agency as the organization arrangement best suited to implement the 
marine program and national goals it had set forth. However, there 
is little discussion in the report of alternatives considered and rejected, 
and the arguments for and against each alternative. 
Finally, I would like to point out that the Commission did not set 
forth priorities. 
There is also one potential source of confusion. Some Commission 
proposals are extensions, modifications, or refinements of already on- 
going enterprises. The Commission report does not fully convey the 
magnitude of activities already underway in areas covered by Com- 
mission recommendations, and they did not state which are inhibited 
only by the present severe fiscal stringency. 
ACTION BY THE ADMINISTRATION ON THE REPORT 
Let me now discuss some of the actions on the Commission report 
that this administration has taken. Almost immediately after entering 
office, President Nixon asked Vice President Agnew and the Council 
members for recommendations on the Commission’s proposals. 
The Commission’s 122 recommendations were reviewed carefully. 
Out of these, six programs areas were recommended by the Vice Presi- 
