162 



This long continued concern with defense and space has generated 

 a tendency to organize other programs of a technological nature in 

 much the same way that space and defense are organized. As this 

 committee will remember, early bills to organize a national ocean pro- 

 gram were concerned only with the Federal structure. It was at your 

 initiative that provision was made for the major roles of the States 

 and industry in the ocean program in Public Law 89-454. This, of 

 course, led to the Commission whose report you are now considering. 



Let us get back to the similarities and differences between the 

 defense and space programs on the one hand, and the ocean programs 

 on the other. 



Generally speaking, defense and space may be paired for comparison 

 with oceanography. Scientifically and technologically speaking the 

 interface between space-defense and oceanography is quite close and 

 space-defense provides very valuable spinoffs to oceanography. 



For example, miniaturized instruments, digital recording, telemeter- 

 ing, and precise positioning, all essential to and paid for by space-de- 

 fense, have very important oceanography applications. Similarly, the 

 science and technology of submarine location and identification, essen- 

 tial to defense, have direct ocean application in fisheries and other 

 areas. The same may be said for such defense systems as the antisubma- 

 rine warfare environmental prediction system. 



On the knowledge-engineering side space-defense are closely related 

 to the oceans but here most similarity ends. On the organizational and 

 budgeting-financial sides, space-defense are totally different from the 

 oceans and this difference is very frequently not realized. 



Organizationally speaking, space and defense are totally Federal 

 programs and the national program is indeed almost completely the 

 Federal program. The States are involved in space and defense only 

 to the extent of providing real estate and facilities. Industry, at least 

 certain areas of it, is involved heavily, but only as a contractor to exe- 

 cute the Federal programs of a narrow segment of the Federal Govern- 

 ment — ^the Department of Defense and NASA. 



This situation in space and defense where the Federal program is, 

 in fact, the national program simply does not exist in the oceans. In 

 the oceans there is and must be a strong Federal program, but it is 

 spread across a wide range of eight or more Federal departments and 

 some 30 agencies instead of being concentrated in two as is the case with 

 space and defense. 



In the oceans, at least the 30 ocean or lake coastal States not only 

 have major marine resource opportunities but they also have very 

 serious pollution and conflicting marine utilization problems which 

 they must solve on a State, county, city, or even smaller political juris- 

 diction basis. The States are deep into the coastal zone of the ocean or 

 lakes in a much more complex and a potentially much more reward- 

 ing way than just providing real estate and facilities as they do in space 

 or defense. 



As important as the State involvement in the oceans, and currently 

 more financially rewarding to both the States and the Federal Govern- 

 ment, is the involvement in the ocean of U.S. industry, particularly 

 the oil, fisheries, pollution control, recreation, and mining industries. 

 These industries are involved in the execution of Federal program con- 

 tracts but they are much more importantly involved in the execution of 

 their own programs in pursuit of profit. 



