1219 
monitoring and predicting the state of the total air-sea environment and for 
exploring the feasibility of storm control. 
The establishment of a National advisory committee and the consolidation 
of certain Federal ocean activities are most important recommendations, 
essential to the development of a coherent National ocean program. Together 
they would provide leadership, coordination and the opportunity to minimize 
wasteful duplication for great diversity of interests and activities in oceanic 
matters in Federal and State agencies, the many industries with marine 
interests and the universities and institutions. They would provide the Execu- 
tive Branch and the Congress with a better focus on the total program than the 
present dispersion of marine activities. 
As stated above, we have heard arguments that many ocean activities are 
intimately related to similar activities on land and that, therefore, an agency 
dealing with the ocean exclusively would not be warranted. However, we believe 
that it is in our national interest at this time to initiate a more comprehensive 
oceanic effort. The reasons have been stated quite eloquently in the opening 
paragraph of the Commission Report which are repeated here: 
“How fully and wisely the United States uses the sea in the decades ahead 
will affect profoundly its security, its economy, its ability to meet increasing 
demands for food and raw materials, its position and influence in the world 
community, and the quality of the environment in which its people live.” 
These are essentially, as Dr. Stratton pointed owt in his testimony, human 
problems requiring prompt attention. We are at the stage in our country’s - 
history where the ocean’s potential must be thoroughly examined to determine 
how it can best be used in order to help solve these problems. 
Only about 3 percent of the Federal Government’s annual expenditures for 
all research and development programs goes into oceanic R & D, where this 
figure also includes the classified portion of the R & D budget. The current 
rewards and future potential value of this nation’s ocean activities appear to 
justify a higher percentage. We believe that an agency concerned specifically 
with ocean programs would be better able to evaluate and justify the portion 
of the total R & D funds which should be allocated to oceanic programs. 
One question of immediate importance concerns the administration of ocean 
non-living resources. In reviewing the Commission Report on page 141, we note 
the statement that the, ‘““Department of the Interior should continue to assess the 
national interest in ocean minerals and decide whether the results of mineral 
investigation and technological developments warrant specific action to provide 
further encouragement to industry to mine the seabed.’ OSTAC concurs in this 
statement, and wishes to add the following comments. 
Governmental activities in the administration of non-living ocean resources 
should remain where they are because administration of such resources is not 
peculiarly related to the ocean as distinct from those resources on land. Moreover, 
the administration of all non-living resources—land and sea—under Federal 
Government jurisdiction must be conducted so that all the options available for 
assuring adequate low-cost supplies of energy and metals can be dealt with most 
advantageously. 
Although we are in agreement with the Commission Report on the foregoing 
matter, we do wish to cite examples of where the Commission Report would 
benefit from a further clarification of the functions of the proposed National ocean 
agency and the Department of the Interior. One example is the apparent anomaly 
on page 141 of the Report which assigned the responsibility to NOAA for funding 
and conducting recommended geological surveys and which stated that NOAA 
should also “work closly’” with the Interior’s Geological Survey. One question is 
what would the geological mapping group of the Interior’s Geological Survey be 
asked to do that would not be done by NOAA? The subject of ‘surveys of mineral 
resources” is addressed more explicitly in the bill H.R. 13247, page 6, lines 13 and 
14. In our opinion, the management and funding of these surveys should remain 
the responsibility of the agency now performing this function. Assuming the 
creation of an effective Federal interagency mechanism, we believe that this 
approach is feasible and proper. A second example requiring clarification is the 
statement in the next paragraph that, “NOAA should develop the basic technology 
to assess the feasibility of seabed mining but should secure the assistance of the 
Bureau of Mines in this task.” 
A Federal interagency mechanism 
The Commission Report states on page 244 that major benefit of establishing 
a strong operating agency concerned with marine activities would be to permit 
