300 



Mr. Clotworthy. The National Oceanoo^raphy Association is a 

 citizens' organization dedicated to a stronger national program in the 

 oceans, consisting of approximately 600 corporate and 900 individual 

 members. 



I have submitted for the record a list of our board of directors. 



The Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources 

 has put before the country a major question — are we to have a stronger, 

 concerted national ocean program or not? 



We have been discussing, studying, recommending, and debating 

 this question for a full 10 years. Significant actions have taken place 

 during the decade since 1959 in response to these studies, principal 

 among which, in my opinion, was the enactment in 1966 of the Marine 

 Resources and Engineering Development Act for which this subcom- 

 mittee is in large measure responsible and which sets the stage for 

 present deliberations. 



Now, I submit, we are at the time of decision. Do we as a Nation 

 move ahead on a broad scale into the oceans, or do we continue to study 

 the problem while other nations move to establish operational com- 

 petence that will assure continued decline in U.S. position as a mari- 

 time nation ? 



The Commission report puts the case for action in brilliant fashion 

 and with the right emphasis on the benefits to the public from such a 

 move. The people of this Nation do have a real stake in the decision we 

 make — our security, or economy, our ability to meet demands for food 

 and raw materials, our position in the world community, the quality 

 of our coastal and Great Lakes en^'ironments, our comprehension of 

 weather systems — all will be greatly affected by the direction we 

 choose, as the Commission report states. 



It is not possible in a short period to review the Commission recom- 

 mendations in detail. Nor, as the Commission itself recognized, have 

 all of the findings and suggestions met with approval. During these 

 hearings, there will be no doubt be recorded objections to this recom- 

 mendation or that finding. No such commentarj^ can or should be 

 allowed to obscure or diminish the excellence of the report as the whole, 

 the soundness of most of its conclusions and the propriety of its 

 advocacy of a concerted national ocean effort with a strong emphasis 

 on private enterprise. 



I, and I think many in the oceanography community, have two 

 major reservations with the work of the Commission — but these in no 

 way lessen my respect for the excellence of the effort. First, I don't 

 think the Commission adequately treated the significant role the U.S. 

 Navy has played in the development of our existing ocean capabilities 

 and the role it will certainly play in the future. 



Perhaps this represents a maturing of view- — a recognition that a 

 true national ocean program is bipolar, involving a nonmilitary as 

 well as military capacity. 



Second, I think the recommendations in the field of international 

 law dealing with undersea resources are subject to question as to 

 whether or not they are in the best interest of this country. The 

 Commission recommendations in this complicated legal field, along 

 with the objections you will certainly hear, should be examined most 

 carefully and deliberately before a choice is made or action initiated. 



