1220 
the head of that agency, at the direction of the President, to assume responsibility 
for interagency planning and coordination of Federal civil marine programs. 
We believe that such a mechanism is the third important element of the 
Executive Department reorganization and that it should be statutorily created. 
We also agree with the words found on page VI-25 of the Commission Panel 
Report on Marine Engineering and Technology which states the following: 
“To complement and support the efforts of the agency and NACO and to 
recognize the fact that many marine activities would still be located outside any 
consolidation, it is recommended that an interagency coordinating mechanism be 
established and chaired by the head of the new civilian agency. This mechanism 
would ensure the inclusion of the interests of all Federal agencies with marine 
programs not included in the proposed consolidation.” 
This assignment to the director of a National ocean agency would be analogous 
to the role formerly played by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (R & D) in 
which he chaired the Interagency Committee on Oceanography (ICO). Hence, the 
director of the National ocean agency, wearing both hats, would be the true focal 
point for non-military marine affairs.* 
A major role of the interagency mechanism would be one involving information 
exchange which, as stated earlier, would facilitate planning and coordination. 
The role of the Director should include offering guidance, opinions and informa- 
tion about on-going and planned programs, seeking to avoid unintentional dupli- 
eation of effort, helping to insure the build-up of required competence and 
facilities, and seeking to maximize the utilization of existing capabilities. In 
his appearances before Congressional Committees. he should be the most knowl- 
edgeable in the Federal civilian agencies with respect to marine affairs. Accord- 
ingly, his opinions and testimony would presumably carry considerable weight 
in determining the priorities of civilian marine programs. 
No civilian agency will have marine R & D capabilities anywhere near those 
of the Navy within the near future. Moreover, the Navy Will undoubtedly con- 
tinue its strong oceanographic efforts primarily in response to its defense mission 
needs. Thus some means must be established to insure that our civilian ocean 
program utilizes the Navy capabilities. OSTAC believes that an interagency 
mechanism will provide this opportunity and that the role of the Navy in the 
interagency mechanism will be crucial. Hence, the director of a National ocean 
agency would be expected to rely heavily on the Navy’s capabilities. In fact, 
subject to security considerations, it would be expected that the Navy might be 
called upon to perform various services or permit use of its facilities by 
a National ocean agency on a cost reimbursable basis. As the agency capabilities 
are built up, the Navy should continue to be an extremely valuable source of 
information and services. 
Similarly, the role of the interagency mechanism can be quite important with 
several of the other agencies, such as Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers. 
In addition, as mentioned before, we have heard the comments which state that 
oceanic and certain land activities should be closely coordinated. We believe that 
such coordination can more readily occur through the Federal interagency 
mechanism as recommended by the Commission. 
SOME CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATIONAL OCEAN AGENCY AND THE 
NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 
There are those who have opposed the establishment of a National ocean 
agency at this time for two vital reasons: 1) no agency should be established 
until the Administration completes its current studies on overall Executive 
Department reorganization; 2) the current financial situation imiposes severe 
limitations on allocation of funds for new areas such as oceanic development. 
With respect to the first point, OSTAC notes the statement in the Commission 
Report (page 249) that the organizational recommendations‘ are believed to be 
consistent with any of the several fundamental reorganizations that might evolve 
over the next several years.” 
With respect to the second point,-the creation of a National ocean agency 
and a National advisory committee does not per se require any initial large 
expenditures. On the contrary, the creation of means for coordinating and con- 
solidating existing, as well as any new projects, and for eliminating unintentional 
*Page 231 of the Commission Report states that the National ocean agency should co- 
ordinate the civilian marine activities of the other Federal agencies. However, the bold 
print recommendation found on page 245 states that the agency director should have this 
coordinating responsibility. We believe it was the Commission’s intent to vest this coordi- 
nating responsibility in the hands of the agency director, not the agency. 
