701 
The third, and by far the largest category, is a series of specific 
recommendations for administrative or organizational action designed 
to correct shortcomings in the present national oceanographic program 
as they were identified by the Commission. 
We urge the Congress to recognize that the Commission’s recom- 
mendations can be logically separated as indicated above. We recog- 
nize that many different groups in the United States have ideas con- 
cerning the optimum legal-political international framework for the 
oceans and that some of these ideas conflict directly with the Commis- 
sion’s recommendations. We recognize also that it may take years of 
negotiation, within or without the framework of the United Nations, 
to bring about an international consensus on the legal-political regime 
for the oceans. However, we strongly urge the Congress not to delay 
action on the Commission’s recommendations that concern purely in- 
ternal matters until these international affairs are finally settled. 
Action on domestic matters, in our view, can easily be separated 
from action on ternational matters, and domestic legislation can be 
pursued quite independently while the international matters are 
untangled. 
Turning now to the recommendations concerning creation of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), we again recog- 
nize in these the seeds of controversy. It 1s not realistic to expect the 
administrator of a government agency to willingly give up part of the 
mission, functions or staff of his agency. However, it is apparent that 
a more coordinated program in oceanography is needed. 
For a decade, Government witnesses before congressional commit- 
tees have maintained that adequate Federal coordination of oceano- 
graphic matters existed. For example, in March 1959 the Special 
Subcommittee on Oceanography of the House Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries Committee was informed that “coordination among inter- 
ested Government agencies is accomplished informally through the 
Coordinating Committee on Oceanography established by the Office of 
Naval Research in 1956 * * * this group will insure that a national 
program in oceanography is properly managed and well coordinated 
throughout the Federal agencies concerned.” (Oceanography in the 
United States, 1959, p. 135.) 
Yet within a year the White House found it necessary to create, on a 
more formal basis, the Interagency Committee on Oceanography under 
the Federal Council on Science and Technology. In June 1961, there 
was testimony from its Chairman, and I again quote: 
The Interagency Committee on Oceanography has, I sincerely believe, demon- 
strated that it can effectively coordinate the oceanographic programs of the 
various Federal agencies.” (Oceanography 1961, phase 3, p. 150.) 
This statement, incidentally, was made at hearings on a bill that 
would have created a National Oceanographic Council, a body that did 
not come into existence until 5 years later as a result ‘of grow- 
ing national dissatisfaction with the Interagency Committee on 
Oceanography as a means of effectively coordinating a national 
program. 
These references emphasize the difficulty of recognizing the need for 
and the means of bringing about effective coordination of programs of 
this type. The Commission, composed of disinterested individuals, 
