54 



environmental problems. It is inconceivable that all these recommenda- 

 tions will be greeted with unanimous approval. The subject is too com- 

 plex, there are too many conflicting- interests which have grown up 

 over the years, there is too long a history. But we have tried to meet 

 each issue squarely, to oflper our own best judgment of the wisest course 

 to follow, however difficult. 



Rather than just present alternatives^ we have tried to make the best 

 choice we could, feeling that we would serve you best in that fashion. 



Over the weeks which haA^e intervened since the release of the report, 

 comments from members of the oceanographic community and by the 

 professional press have been extraordinarily favorable, notwithstand- 

 ing differences of opinion on specific points, as might be anticipated 

 and is proper, and we have been amazed and enormously gratified by 

 the evidence of support. We shall have accomplished our purpose, the 

 purpose foreseen by the Congress in establishing the Commission — in 

 which this committee had a predominant part — if only in due course 

 this Nation can move from an era of study and discussion to one of 

 organized effort with plans and funding of a range and magnitude to 

 match needs and opportunities. 



Gentlemen, rather than consume your time this morning with a 

 lengthy summary, may I refer you to a statement on the highlights of 

 the Commission report which was prepared for an informal meeting 

 of the subcommittee on January 2Y, 1969, and entered into the record 

 on that day. In these brief introductory remarks of my own, however, 

 I should like to comment on the general character of our approach. 



The Commission recognizes very clearly that the key to an effective 

 use of the sea lies with science and technology. The report opens, in 

 fact, with a discussion of the need to develop technical capabilities — 

 the capability to move under the surface at any depth — ^to do productive 

 work — ^to gain access to the furthest reaches of the ocean bottom — in 

 short, to establish the technical ability to carry out any task. 



We have much to say on the role of basic science and the need for 

 continuing support of a selected number of national laboratories. 



There is an excellent presentation, I believe, of the concept of funda- 

 mental technology to serve a wide range of industrial interests. Our 

 panel on technology under Mr. Perry has put forward a most imagina- 

 tive proposal for a series of national projects to focus engineering 

 development and to impart a sense of priorities. 



Yet this is not primarily a report on marine science and technology. 

 It is a report directed towards the needs of people — and I cannot 

 emphasize this point too strongly at this time — ^towards the vast re- 

 sources, living and mineral, which await our exploitation ; towards the 

 abuses of technology which threaten the quality of our environment; 

 and towards the consequences of a national failure to take action now. 

 Science and technology are the principal means to these ends, and we 

 have endeavored to treat them within the more comprehensive frame- 

 work of economics, political realities and necessities, and management. 



It is in this respect, I believe, that our report differs most markedly 

 in character from those that have gone before. And it is only such an 

 approach that leads one to the conviction that this extraordinary but 

 coherent complex of problems, encompassing the resources of the 

 oceans, the preservation and use of our shores, the pollution of our 



