247 



tify problems not being addressed, to medi- 

 ate issues, and to exercise leverage in getting 

 agencies to work together on matters of com- 

 mon concern. The marine programs need to 

 be related to other program activities at the 

 Presidential level. 



The Marine Resources and Engineering 

 Development Act of 1966 vested continuing 

 responsibility in the President for planning 

 and coordinating Federal marine activities 

 and reporting annually to the Congress on 

 their progress and proposed budgets for the 

 coming year. The Act also created the Na- 

 tional (^ouncil on Marine Resources and En- 

 gineering Development to assist him in these 

 tasks. 



The National Council on Marine Resources 

 and Engineering Development and its staff 

 have responded with vigor and imagination 

 to the cliallenge of giving coordination and 

 direction to the present fragmented marine 

 activities. Issues have been raised and actions 

 set in motion which "would have been delayed 

 or overlooked in the absence of the Council 

 and its capable and dedicated staff. 



The Commission recommends that the 

 National Council on Marine Resources 

 and Engineering Development be con- 

 tinued until decisions are reached on the 

 Commission's organization plan. 



Upon its formation, NOAA, with the Na- 

 tional Advisory Committee on the Oceans, 

 would be assuming many of the Councirs 

 present policy initiative, reporting, and co- 

 ordinating activities. The principal marine 

 agencies would be participating as observers 

 in NACO, and the new marine agency could 

 administratively establish interagency mech- 

 anisms to facilitate coordination in matters 

 related to its central functions. The prepara- 

 tion of an annual report on marine affairs, 



as required by Public Law 89-454, might 

 either be terminated or delegated by the 

 President to the liead of NOAA. Con- 

 sequently, w-hen NOAA and NACO are es- 

 tablished, there should be no further need 

 for an interagency body concerned with 

 marine matters within the Executive Office. 



Congressional Oversight 



The dispersion of marine activities within 

 the Executive Branch is reflected in the com- 

 mittee structure of the Congress. Reorga- 

 nization of Federal agencies to provide co- 

 herent focus for marine activities can be 

 successful only if adjustments are made in 

 the jurisdiction of Congressional committees. 

 This was not achieved in the creation of 

 ESSA, and the resulting necessity for the 

 agency to report to three separate legislative 

 committees of the House of Representatives 

 has complicated development of a balanced 

 program. 



Establishment of the proposed marine 

 agency with broad scientific, technological, 

 resource, and service functions should lead to 

 adjustments in the jurisdiction of existing 

 Congressional committees. Activities of the 

 new agency now under the cognizance of 

 several committees should, if possible, be the 

 responsibility of a single legislative and 

 appropriation committee in each house. 



The delegation of responsibility from the 

 President to the head of the new agency to 

 provide leadership in undertaking a national 

 effort and achieving Govenimentwide co- 

 ordination would be very helpful to the 

 Congress. The head of the agency could be 

 available to testify on marine and atmos- 

 pheric matters that extend beyond his own 

 agency's activities. In addition, the periodic 

 report to the Nation by the advisory commit- 

 tee would provide a vehicle for broad re- 

 view by the Congress of progress in achiev- 

 ing national objectives. The hearings at- 



