1009 
The Commission report presents excellent guidance for further development of 
oceans sciences. Oceanic development can contribute to our economic growth, in- 
ternational cooperation, and our prestige among the nations of the world. 
Most of the attention of your Committee and the scientific community has 
focused on the Commission’s recommendations regarding governmental organiza- 
tion. It is in this regard that speaking for myself, and not for the Administration, 
I must express certain reservations regarding the advisability of following the 
Commission’s recommendations. I beieve that an organization of the scope en- 
visaged by the Commission would become too unwieldy and perhaps provide more 
problems than it would solve. I recognize, of course, the breadth and depth of 
the Commission’s deliberations. However, I am not persuaded that all aspects of 
marine science can be welded into one agency without some of its components 
drastically suffering. I would be particularly concerned about the health, well- 
being, and advancement of our national scientific research and scientific educa- 
tion potentials in the marine sciences. 
The Commission concluded that additional effort should be given to civilian 
marine technology so that methods of exploiting resources of the sea can be 
brought to the point of commercial application. The National Sea Grant Program 
now focuses on this area, but does not fully satisfy this need. With respect to 
civilian marine technology I should add that I often have wondered how thor- 
oughly the Navy’s vast, longstanding and expert technological efforts in the 
oceans have been analyzed to determine just how much they can contribute to 
our national oceanographic effort. Perhaps such an analysis would reveal infor- 
mation and developments that are useful for civilian purposes. 
The Commission has noted that the marine and atmospheric environments 
are intimately related, particularly in regard to world-wide weather condi- 
tions. The scientific research and resulting technology in weather prediction 
and monitoring must be continued on a high priority, perhaps more for our 
activities on land than at sea. Therefore, I would be somewhat apprehen- 
Sive about assigning the responsibility for scientific research and technology 
relating to the atmosphere to an agency whose primary role is in the oceans. 
If this should be done, I fear that our existing and future progress in atmos- 
pheric monitoring, prediction, and control over our land masses will be ad- 
versely affected and that our programs in agriculture, air pollution, and weather 
prediction will suffer. I recommend further study in this area. 
From my experience on the PSAC Panel on Oceanography, I am personally 
concerned over the Commission’s failure to present alternatives to its proposed 
organization. Certainly, many alternatives were considered. It is not my inten- 
tion to assess the Commission’s work in a negative manner, but I believe 
there are alternatives that would be much less costly and disruptive and if 
employed would accomplish our national objectives. One alternative that re- 
quires additional consideration is the concept of having an appropriate Federal 
agency responsible for each main category of marine-related areas of activity 
corresponding to the Nation’s interests in civilian marine affairs. (Military 
affairs and international affairs should be considered, of course, as separate 
categories.) These main categories are (1) environmental forecasting and 
services; (2) resource development; (3) scientific research and education ; and 
(4) civilian technology development. Such categorization is not only compre- 
hensive and logical, but would suggest, almost by definition, the proper nuclei 
for assignment within the Federal Government. 
A substantial nucleus for environmental services already exists within the 
Department of Commerce’s Environmental Sciences Services Administration 
(ESSA). ESSA is already conducting most of the services recommended by 
the Commission in weather and sea-state forecasting, charting, and develop- 
ment of related technology, including space related activities. ESSA, for in- 
stance, could implement the Commission’s recommendations for establishment 
of a national environmental monitoring and prediction system. 
Similarly, it is not too difficult to envision the Department of the Interior 
as being responsible for marine resource development. Rather than remove 
fisheries affairs from Interior as proposed by the Commission, it seems to me 
at least as appropriate to reconstitute the Department of the Interior so that 
it would be responsible for natural resources development. adding smaller 
programs as necessary rather than removing the Bureau of Commercial Fish- 
eries and elements of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. As the Com- 
mission has proposed, the Interior Department would still be left with re- 
sponsibility for mineral resource recovery in the ocean (Bureau of Mines) and 
