57 



economic utilization of marine resources. To this end, we believe that 

 the maintenance of a free interflow of information and ideas among 

 scientists in the universities, the leaders of industry, and the respon- 

 sible agencies of Government is of paramount importance. Accord- 

 ingly, we have recommended that a national advisory committee for 

 the oceans be established to advise the new agency, NOAA, and to 

 report to the President and to the Congress on the progress of Govern- 

 ment and private programs in achieving the objectives of the national 

 ocean program. The members of the committee, perhaps some 15 in 

 number, would be appointed by the President with the advice and con- 

 sent of the Senate. They would be drawn from a wide range of back- 

 grounds, professionally and geographically. As the Commission itself 

 has been, this advisory committee would be wholly free of operating 

 responsibilities. On the other hand, the assistance of such a body in the 

 formulation of major programs and in the independent appraisal of 

 progress would, Ave believe, be invaluable. 



Gentlemen, let me assure you that we did not arrive at our conclu- 

 sions lightly, and we recognize full well that such a bold redesign of 

 the existing Federal structure will not come easily. We have heard the 

 voices of protest and are not surprised. Anyone charged with the re- 

 sponsibility of a department or bureau is under compulsion to serve as 

 a protagonist for the interests of his own domain. But the real issue 

 here is the national interest. The very existence of the Commission 

 expresses the intent of the Congress to develop an ocean program 

 worthy of a great sea nation. And it was clearly for that reason that 

 the President and the Congress turned to an independent body for an 

 outside view of this immensely complex problem — ^to a commission 

 the majority of whose members were completely detached from the 

 inescapable loyalties and commitments that must prevail within the 

 Government. In this endeavor we welcomed and profited enormously 

 from the experience and knowledge of three members associated with 

 the Federal Government at that time. But, as stated in the foreword to 

 our report, we recognized that it was wholly proper that they should 

 abstain from taking a formal position on the matter of organization. 



I might add that one of those three members was the then Under 

 Secretary of the ISTavy, Mr. Baird. I believe he now feels quite free to 

 speak for himself on the matter, and I shall allow him in due course, 

 if he chooses to do so, to speak from his own perspective. 



Mr. Lennon. Right at that point. Doctor, would you identify for 

 the record, and for the benefit of the members who may not recall, 

 the other two members of the Connnission identified with the Federal 

 Government? 



Dr. Stratton. Yes, sir. Dr. Robert "White, who is th& Director of 

 the Environmental Science Services Administration, and Dr. Frank 

 DiLuzio of the Department of the Interior. 



In conclusion, may I say that I think we are at the threshold of 

 decision. This is no crash program that we present to you. Indeed, in 

 this year of budgetary stress, I must emphasize that the incremental 

 cost of prompt action through the creation of this agency to rationalize 

 and consolidate our efforts will, in itself, be relatively small. Indeed, 

 there are a number of recommendations, among those 100 to which I 

 referred, which represent actions which can be taken immediately 

 without large budgetary commitments and for wliich time is of the 



26-563 — 69 — pt. 1 5 



