541 
U.S. Atomic ENERGY COMMISSION, 
October 9, 1969. 
Hon. Epwarp A. GARMATZ, 
Chairman, Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
House of Representatives. 
Deak Mr. GARMATz: The Atomic Energy Commission is pleased to respond to 
your letter of August 4, 1969, requesting our views on H.R. 13247, a bill “[t]o 
amend the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966 to estab- 
lish a comprehensive and long-range national program of research, development, 
technical services, exploration and utilization with respect to our marine and 
atmospheric environment.” 
We note that H.R. 3848, H.R. 4838 and H.R. 11240, introduced in the current 
session, are similar in that they propose the establishment of a “National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Agency” (or a “National Oceanographic Agency’) to achieve 
the objectives described in H.R. 13247. 
H.R. 13247 is directed towards ‘‘a comprehensive coordinated and continuing 
national program in marine and atmospheric science, technology, and technical 
services.” The objectives of the program would relate to the exploration, ex- 
ploitation, control and utilization of the marine and atmospheric environments, 
including the development and advancement of technology, private investment, 
technical devices, education and training, and the utilization of national scientific 
and engineering resources. For this purpose, and to effectuate the objectives en- 
visaged by the bill, there would be established as an independent agency, a 
“National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency,” headed by an Administrator. To 
this new agency there would be transferred the functions of various existing 
agencies, including the Coast Guard, the Environmental Science Services Admin- 
istration, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the National Oceanographic 
Data Center. The new Agency would be assisted in the performance of its statu- 
tory functions by a “National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere,”’ 
to be established under the bill. 
We agree that it is desirable to have effective coordination of Federal activi- 
ties in this field. We believe the bill reflects a feasible legislative implementation 
of the recommendations made by the Commission on Marine Sciences, Engineer- 
ing and Resources in its recent comprehensive report covering a two-year study 
of the Nation’s marine science activities. However, in my statement concerning 
this report, furnished to your Subcommittee on Oceanography on July 28, 1969, 
I indicated that “[t]he recommended reorganization of Federal marine-related 
activities . . . needs to be examined carefully in the broad context of Federal 
organization and program priorities.’’ As you know, the President has asked his 
Advisory Council on Executive Organization to conduct such an examination. 
Accordingly, we believe that reorganization of marine science activities would 
be inappropriate at this time. In regard to AWC’s programs, we believe that 
Section 2 of the bill is consistent with the following statement in the Commis- 
sion’s report: 
“In considering the composition of the proposed National Oceanic and At- 
mospheric Agency, the Commission rejected the idea of consolidating all Federal 
marine and atmospheric functions into a single, massive organization. Some such 
functions which will remain outside NOAA are integral to the agency which 
performs them. Although they should be strengthened and should be fully utilized 
by NOAA, they are best left where they are. The National Aeronautics and Space 
A‘dministration’s (NASA) oceanography-from-space program and the Atomic 
Energy Commission’s (AEC) various marine-related nuclear energy programs 
are examples, as are the strong marine programs of the Navy, the Corps of En- 
gineers, the National Science Foundation, and the marine-related water manage- 
ment programs of the Department of the Interior.” (p. 232) 
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presen- 
tation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program. 
Cordially, 
GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman. 
