1103 
and OST had already lost control of the action. Perhaps with a new administra- 
tion and a new Science Advisor this motivation will have mitigated. 
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-pro- 
tection grounds. Hach thought it could do the job better than any new agency and, 
really, that it should have the whole job by it self. 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. I predict that the Congress will simply 
have to walk over the top of Interior, Commerce, Transportation, and the Bureau 
of the Budget to form a NOAA, because each of those wants to keep all it pres- 
ently has, plus getting the other fellow’s part, if possible. 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 more serious. Nobody involved in pushing a NOAA, 
or a Similar agency, has ever seriously proposed taking away any Navy function 
to give to it, except the National Ocean Data Center, the policy control of which 
has been outside the Navy for some years anyway under conditions pretty satis- 
factory to the Navy. The Navy’s opposition, or faint and damning praise, has 
seemed to derive from an unspoken fear that a strong NOAA would weaken the 
ability of the Navy to fund the specialized and general ocean research and engi- 
neering work that it required for its own particular needs. This could be a serious 
problem. In my view the Navy must be able to fund scientific and engineering 
ocean research and development on a substantial scale, of a nature not quite that 
required for civilian applications, if it is to fulfill its mission effectively. That is a 
quite general view and it might well be stated in this bill, to reassure the Navy, 
as was done in Senator Muskie’s 1965 bill. 
The one thing that has changed steadily in favor of NOAA in these recent years 
has been opinion at the working level in the affected Government Agencies. This 
is not an opinion which the Congress can get in open testimony because working 
level people in government cannot testify contrary to Departmental position with- 
out fear of disciplinary action. Nevertheless the working level opinion on the 
need for this consolidation has strengthened sharply during the past five years. 
The same is true of positions in the academic scientific community, although 
ordinarily no two scientists ever agree on precisely how such a reorganization 
should be done. I know of no objection to the concept of a new agency on ocean 
affairs in the scientific community ; the backing and filling is concerned with what 
functions should go into it. 
My view on what components should go into NOAA, and how the Congressional 
Committee assignments should refiect this, is also different than expressed in 
H.R. 13247. tt still remains what I told the Committee in 1965, and as was subse- 
quently expressed more cogently by Senator Muskie in his bill of that year. 
1 do not consider those differences, however, to be consequential or even very 
pertinent. NOAA, as expressed by the National Commission, and as incorporated 
in H.R. 13247, is, in my view, the most important step the Congress can take in 
enhancing the posture of the United States in respect of the ocean, and I support 
its adoption unequivocally. I find no fault with either the rationale, the anlysis, 
or the recommendations the Commission made in this aspect of its work. 
The elements included in NOAA by the Commission’s recommendations, and in 
H.R. 13247, encompass the key agencies and functions required to provided a 
viable and desirable core to which other activities could be added from time to 
time if further consideration showed such additions to have merit. I ‘think, 
myself, that the merchant marine functions of government, at least, should be 
added to NOAA, and as soon as polities permit. I am surprised that the maritime 
unions ure not demanding this action, and expect that in due course they will. 
I am aware that large sections of the Federal structure are under serious 
study from the standpoint of reorganization, and I am sure that the whole struc- 
ture would benefit from substantial stirring up and modernization. This, how- 
ever, will take time and we are already so delayed in getting a suitable Federal 
ocean structure that I do not believe we can safely wait longer. I view this ur- 
gency not only from the national, but from the state and international view- 
points. 
In the State of California J am Chairman of the California Advisory Commis- 
sion on Marine and Coastal Resources. Our main problems are connected with 
the Coastal Zone. Population, industry, and all social and economic forces in 
California concentrate steadily and intensively on the interface between land 
and water. With each month those pressures become more critical within the 
