839 
then, simply submit the rest of the written statement for the record, 
and then be available to answer questions. 
Mr. Mosuer. Mr. Chairman, some of you have read the statement 
in advance, but I have not. I would like to hear the statement. 
Mr. Lennon. Go ahead. Will you finish your statement ? 
Dr. Wenk. All right, sir. 
However, we must not be enchanted by reorganization as a panacea. 
Unless more funds are made available, the Commission’s objectives will 
not be achieved. In today’s budgetary climate, there is absolutely no 
expectation that large increases visualized by the Commission can be 
realized, and thus reorganization cannot possibly have the result they 
sought in the short run. 
Furthermore, the Commission proposal would establish yet another 
agency reporting to the President. Some students of government feel 
we already have too many. 
Although a NOAA consolidation, in my view, clearly improves a 
Presidential] leadership in the specific area of the oceans, atmosphere 
and coastal zone, it is not without serious side effects in nonoceanic 
missions. Departments of Transportation, Interior, and Commerce 
would lose agencies and functions related to their present missions, and 
these separations must be evaluated—especially regarding the Coast 
Guard, because it is such a large component of a still young Depart- 
ment of Transportation. 
The Commission, incidentally, recognized that many other permuta- 
tions were possible, and anticipated that NOAA could be transferred | 
into a new Cabinet-level department with a more comprehensive pro- 
gram at a later date. 
But the Commission believed that until unity is provided for the 
oceanic and atmospheric components on their own, attempts for a 
larger amalgamation would be premature and possibly harmful. 
One alternative to NOAA is to consolidate the same functions in an 
existing department. Considering their goal of a separate identitv for 
oceanic/atmospheric activities that already face a severe competition 
for attention as elements in departments with broader missions, the 
Commission did not see this alternative as successful. 
Another proposal would take the Commission’s National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Agency and add the Maritime Administration. Such 
a proposal would in effect provide for a stronger Federal agency deal- 
ing with the oceans, but continue problems of relating ocean activities 
with other activities; for example, in matching maritime with air and 
land modes of transportation. 
Such an approach would be desirable only if the President and the 
Congress decide that the marine and maritime presence of the United 
States is so important and of high priority as to warrant an agency 
with that objective reporting to the President. 
Yet another alternative is to create a Department of Natural Re- 
sources and the Environment, with a strong marine component. 
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF NOAA 
In reviewing the Commission’s proposal, I should like to propose 
some criteria for evaluation of alternative organizations : 
First, is it better to organize around activities involving the oceans 
