145 



the Commission's report, "Our Nation and the Sea." I want to make it 

 clear, however, that what I shall say represents my personal views and 

 may not agree in all respects with the views of organizations with 

 which I am connected. 



In my opinion, one of the most important problems we face today 

 as a Nation is the initiation of a national oceanic program vis-a-vis a 

 Federal program. This is what the Commission recommended and I 

 agree with them. It should be done now. 



I had the pleasure of serving as a consultant to the Panel on Industry 

 and Private Investment and to the Panel on Marine Engineering and 

 Technology. I was very much impressed with the dedication of every 

 member of the Commission that I met and with whom I worked. Also, 

 I can say the same about the staff with whom the Commission sur- 

 rounded themselves. I have never seen a group of men less self-serving 

 nor more dedicated to doing a job which in their judgment was for the 

 best interests of the United States of America. Their excellent report 

 reflects this in every respect. 



I want to confine my remarks today to what I regard as the heart of 

 the Commission's report. Unfortunately, some segments of the press 

 have badly misunderstood and misinterpreted this part of what the 

 Commission recommended. The Commission directed its recommenda- 

 tions toward a national oceanic program, not a Federal oceanic pro- 

 gram. Time and again I have seen statements in the press and heard 

 over the radio and television that the Commission recommended a "wet 

 NASA." Nothing would be further from the truth. The Commission 

 went to great lengths in its recommendations to avoid proposing a 

 "wet NASA." 



NASA was a creation of the Federal Government to carry out the 

 Nation's exploration of space. During the past 5 years NASA has 

 spent at an average rate slightly in excess of $5 billion per year. Tre- 

 mendous industrial growth has taken place as a result, but essentially 

 all of this private industrial growth has occurred as a result of direct 

 or indirect contractual relationships with NASA. NASA is 100 per- 

 cent tax supported. No profitable enterprises have yet been discovered 

 in space, and so the operations of NASA have had to be financed 100 

 percent out of taxes. In other words, the Federal Government has 

 financed all the work of NASA, including that of its private industrial 

 satellites who supply NASA with services and hardware. I have no 

 quarrel with this. As a matter of fact, I doubt if it could have been 

 done differently. 



But, this is a long way from what has been taking place in oceanic 

 development in the U.S.A. to date. Furthermore, it is a long way from 

 what the Commission recommended for the future. The Commission 

 recommended a national oceanic program, not a Federal program. To 

 have a national program, we must have the Federal Government work- 

 ing in cooperation with private enterprise, with regions and States, and 

 with the academic community. 



In the case of NASA, the Federal Government has appropriated 

 from tax money the funds needed to explore space. But in the case of 

 the oceans most of the money has come from the free enterprise sector 

 and has come out of profits. This is a distinction of paramount im- 

 portance. 



