1095 
who would lose functions to the new agency; and forth, the Depart- 
nent of the Navy. 
it ment say that at that time there was also modest opposition from 
within the academic scientific community, but mostly from those ele- 
ments which drew considerable funding support from the Navy at 
that time. 
The Bureau of the Budget opposition was, and perhaps still is, 
simply that it did not wish constructed another large entity like NASA 
that would have so much congressional support that the bureau could 
not control its funding support with suitable ease. 
With the civilian ocean establishment split between several Depart- 
ments, the bureau could, and did, and does, control, or stiffe, growth 
in ocean-orjented activity with considerably oreater e ease, on the tried 
and true basis of divide and conquer. 
The Office of Science and Technology opposition was the effective 
surface one in 1964 and 1965, when that office delayed by effective 
lobbying the passage of the Marine Resources and omg tnsen ag Act 
of 1966 as long as it could, and set up the Panel on Oceanogr: aphy of 
PSAC, and so forth. 
The motives of the President’s Science Advisor were not clear at 
that time, but it seemed to be not wishing the sphere of marine affairs 
to ship out of the grasp of his office, as it cer tainly would do with the 
creation of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. This was 
ridiculous parochialism, because oceanography had already broadened 
into what we now call ocean affairs in the minds of Congress and the 
public, and OST had aiready lost the control of the action. 
They cannot get it back. It has broadened beyond them. Perhaps 
with the new administration and the new Science Advisor this moti- 
vation will have mitigated. I know nothing about that. 
Mr. Lennon. I wish we could be optimistic about it. 
Dr. CHapman. In 1965, the Departments of Government which 
would have lost functions to a NOAA were uniformly opposed to 
such a NOAA concept on strictly empire-protection grounds. Each 
of them thought it could de the job better than any new agency, and 
really that it should have the whole job. 
So far as I know, that is still the vigorous position of each of the 
departments affected, except that one of the departments has changed 
in the interim, from ‘the Department of the Treasury to the Depart- 
ment of Transportation. 
IT predict that the Congress will simply have to walk over the top of 
Interior, Commerce, Transportation, and Bureau of the Budget, if it 
is going ‘to form a NOAA, because each of those wants to keep ‘all it 
presently has, plus getting ‘the other fellow’s part, if possible, and also 
the forces are so equally balanced in the executive that I am not 
sanguine of even this rather modest bill becoming law. 
The view of the Department of the Navy has seemed to be different 
than that of the other departments, and in my mind, more serious. I 
don’t think that anybody pushing fora NOAA, ora similar agency, has 
ever seriously proposed taking away any N avy function to give to Hie 
except the National Ocean Data Center, which is really outside the 
Navy anyhow, and working under conditions pretty satisfactory to 
the Navy. 
The Nanay S opposition, or faint and damning praise, seem to derive 
from an unspoken fear that a strong NOAA would weaken the ability 
