92 



logical and geological oceanography studies, the activities of the Office 

 of Naval Research and the Naval Oceanographer, and the marine- 

 related nuclear energy programs of the Atomic Energy Commission. 



I think the decision to keep these out of the proposed new agencies 

 is realistic, at least for the time being, since they are major components 

 of their parent bodies. At the same time it is most vital that NOAA 

 exert some type of coordination and planning role over these as the 

 Conmiission has recommended. 



For example, the Navy is way out in front as a leader in ocean- 

 ographic research and development work, especially with the "Man 

 in the Sea" program begun last year. 



Much of this work has spin-off civilian benefits of great value to 

 our civil marine program. I am most concerned that NOAA has some 

 built-in mechanism to catch such spin-off benefits and to avoid du- 

 plication. 



I think any legislation to create NOAA should clearly define its 

 role with relation to civil marine programs outside the agency and 

 provide an effective means for their coordination. 



Hopefully, this will be one of the primary responsibilities of the 

 National Advisory Committee for the Oceans under NOAA, as was 

 proposed by the Stratton Commission, I question whether the head 

 of NOAA could directly assume the sole responsibility for interagency 

 planning and coordination as the Commission report has suggested. 



However, there are marine programs within various Federal de- 

 partments and agencies which are peripheral to the primary mis- 

 sions of their parent bodies and in their present form are too small 

 to have much visibility and impact. 



Instead, they breed insularity, overlap, and competition and are 

 obstacles to an integrated national approach. These are the components 

 which must be brought together in a strong independent agency of 

 our Government, an agency like NOAA. 



The Stratton Commission recommends that NOAA should be com- 

 prised of the U.S. Coast Guard, the Environmental Sciences Services 

 Administration, the Bureau of Conmiercial Fisheries, the U.S. lake 

 survey, the national sea grant program, the National Oceanographic 

 Data Center, certain programs of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

 possibly the National Center for Atmospheric Research and support 

 for the U.S. Antarctic research program. 



This reorganization would shift some 55,000 employees under the 

 roof of NOAA as well as 320 seagoing ships. The Commission is also 

 recommending several new programs under NOAA as well as the 

 development of an undersea capability. 



The proposed bureaucratic shifts are bond to raise some controversy, 

 especially among those who tend to jealously guard their bureau- 

 cratic preserves. This is understandable and the full implications of 

 such shifts should receive a thorough airing, by this committee. But, 

 as Dr. Stratton so ably pointed out in his testimony before this sub- 

 committee last week, we must look beyond mere bureaucratic interests ; 

 in his words, "The real issue here is the national interest." We must 

 think in terms of the human problems and needs that such an ap- 

 proach addresses itself to. 



