148 



to the President and to the Congress on the progress of both govern- 

 mental and private oceanic programs in achieving the objectives of the 

 national oceanic program. Such a report would be furnished biennially 

 and made public. NACO would offer guidance and recommendations 

 on long-range goals and on means for achieving them and would seek 

 to insure that optimum use is made of the capabilities and contribu- 

 tions that can be furnished by all sectors. 



Note, however, that NACO would be an "advisory" committee. 

 Offering good advice does not guarantee a Federal role which will 

 stimulate a truly national program for effective use of the seas — par- 

 ticularly not when our nonmilitary Federal programs are presently 

 fragmented among so many different departments and independent 

 agencies. The Commission has, therefore, also recommended quite prop- 

 erly, in my opinion, the creation within the Federal Government of a 

 strong independent civil agency with adequate authority and adequate 

 resources to organize and conduct appropriate nonmilitary govern- 

 mental programs to stimulate a strong national oceanic program 

 responsive to the needs of all segments of the marine community. 

 Specifically, the Commission recommended a National Oceanic and 

 Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) reporting directly to the President. In 

 my opinion this is the second most important recommendation made 

 by the Commission. It would bring together the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

 Environmental Science Services Administration, the Bureau of Com- 

 mercial Fisheries, and the national sea grant program plus certain 

 other smaller oceanic-oriented Government organizations. By giving' 

 this agency sufficient size it will be able to undertake successfully the 

 Federal civilian oceanic responsibilities encompassing science, services 

 and fundamental or multipurpose technology development. NOAA 

 would then be able to present an adequate case for oceanic R. & D. so 

 that a more equitable portion of the total R. & D. funds would be 

 allocated to the national oceanic program. 



As mentioned earlier, the National Advisory Committee for the 

 Oceans would furnish advice and counsel to the Director of NOAA. 

 As a result of the recommended consolidation of much of our Federal 

 oceanic activities, NOAA would be able to direct effectively a substan- 

 tial portion of our nonmilitary efforts as required by the agreed-upon 

 national program. 



In addition, as the Commission points out, a major benefit of estab- 

 lishing a strong operating marine affairs agency would be the oppor- 

 tunity to assign the head of NOAA the responsibility for interagency 

 planning and coordination. This would be done at the direction of 

 the President. In my opinion this is the third most important recom- 

 mendation by the Commission. 



This means that the Director of NOAA would have a second respon- 

 sibility, namely, chairman of the newly constituted interagency mech- 

 anism. Agencies with marine interests that are outside of NOAA, such 

 as Interior, AEC, Smithsonian Institute, NASA, Army Corps of En- 

 gineers, yes and the unclassified Navy programs would also be in- 

 cluded. This additional assignment to the director of NOAA would be 

 completely consistent with the broad mission of NOAA. Unfortu- 

 nately, this dual responsibility of the head of NOAA has also been 

 largely overlooked by the press. 



