164 



discussed the organizational differences and now let us turn to the 

 budget/financial differences. 



Defense, for the billions invested in it, discharges the prime respon- 

 sibility of the Federal Government — national security. It is impos- 

 sible to put a value on national security but the enormous dollar cost 

 is measurable. Space for the billions that have been put into it has 

 provided enormous national prestige and tremendous technological 

 advances with many outside of space applications. The returns of space 

 are great and hard to evaluate but the dollar outgo is again measur- 

 able. 



Now, turning to oceans, the outflow of funds at the Federal, State, 

 and industry level is moderate and measurable. The ocean returns 

 contribute to space and defense as well as national prestige and to 

 other technological spin-offs. But the ocean program also brings in 

 very large measurable dollars. 



As I have said before, the inflow of ocean dollars to State and 

 Federal treasuries exceeds the oceanography outgo from them. Re- 

 gardless of the overriding importance of defense and the tremendous 

 values of space, it must be conceded that oceanography alone among 

 the three is an overall dollar maker, financially. 



If national defense and space programs may be likened to essential 

 and valuable financial endowments, then the oceans may be likened to 

 an investment in a proven profitmaker. Such a profitmaker deserves 

 in the interest of the country and its taxpayers every encouragement 

 to flourish. 



The very important difference between space and defense and ocean- 

 ography from a financial point of view brings me to the third orga- 

 nization recommendation of the Commission. The Commission in very 

 general terms recommended improved congressional organization for 

 oceanography. 



I believe that financial considerations as well as the organization 

 difficulties of Federal-State-industry national ocean program argue 

 for stronger than subcommittee jurisdiction over the oceans on the 

 legislative side of Congress. To my mind, committee or joint com- 

 mittee legislative status is deserved. On the appropriation committee 

 side, I think there is general agreement that Federal ocean programs, 

 and in turn national ocean programs, have been handicapped by the 

 diffusion of ocean program budget consideration across a number of 

 appropriation subcommittees. 



The ocean program is an overall profit to national as well as State 

 treasuries and we should be organized to enjoy and enhance the luxury 

 of priming a pump. I believe everyone joins me in hoping that you in 

 the Congress will act soon to improve the congressional organization 

 for the ocean program in both the legislative and the appropriations 

 committee areas. 



I believe the National Commission on Marine Science Engineering 

 and Resources and also the National Council on Marine Resources and 

 Engineering Development deserve special praise for the emphasis they 

 both put on the coastal zone in their recent reports. 



It is in the coastal zone that the financial returns of oceanography 

 are being realized. It is in the coastal zone that pollution problems are 

 critical and must be solved if the marine environment is to make its 

 contribution to urban renewal and a better life for the often impov- 

 erished areas of our cities near the waterfront. 



