Ii49 



The interagency mechanism would be primarily for the purpose of 

 information exchange rather than administration. I doubt seriously 

 that it would be feasible for the Director of NOAA to have any ad- 

 ministrative control over the oceanic programs coming within the 

 sphere of the interagency mechanism. The real accomplishment to be 

 achieved by having the Director of NOAA act as chairman of the 

 interagency mechanism is to minimize duplication of effort. For ex- 

 ample, unclassified technology being developed by the Navy could be 

 made available to other organizations within NOAA or within the 

 interagency mechanism if such technology were applicable. 



There is a real need for such an organizational procedure to avoid 

 duplication of projects. At the first David Taylor Model Basin meet- 

 ing of the Ocean Science and Technology Advisory Committee of 

 NSIA, September 20-24, 1965, it was discovered that there was sub- 

 stantial duplication of oceanic projects of the Federal Government. 

 Even the G-overnment people who participated in this meeting were 

 embarrassed to learn for the first time about the excessive duplication 

 of effort. Hence some procedure must be established to avoid duplica- 

 tion of effort in the future. The proposed interagency mechanism under 

 the chairmanship of the Director of NOAA provides the minimum 

 necessary safeguards. Also, in my opinion, it would be well for the 

 Director of NACO also to serve on the interagency mechanism — 

 perhaps as vice chairman, though I don't have any strong feeling there. 



One more item of interest : The major result of this arrangement is 

 that advice by NACO to the head of NOAA would, in effect be advice 

 to all Federal organizations with marine activities. Thus, through the 

 organizational relationship of NACO, NOAA and the interagency 

 mechanism, we could do much to insure sound national planning and 

 program direction. 



Let us realize that we need a truly national program for effective 

 use of the sea — one that involves and is responsive to the needs of 

 private interprise. States and regions, and the academic community, 

 as well as to various Federal bodies. Let us agree, also, that the Fed- 

 eral role should be one of leadership and stimulation, providing an en- 

 vironment for maximum involvement of private enterprise in eco- 

 nomically justifiable oceanic programs. Unless this is achieved, our ex- 

 ploitation of the oceans will fall far short of what is possible. Most of 

 the money for exploitation of the oceans must be generated from 

 profits — not from taxes. Otherwise, the national oceanic program will 

 be a failure. This is in sharp contrast to our exploration of space 

 through NASA. It is true that the Federal oceanic program will be 

 financed out of taxes. Even so, I would consider that the national 

 oceanic program has fallen far short of what it should achieve if the 

 taxes paid by industry derived from its oceanic program do not ex- 

 ceed the amount spent by the Federal Government on its oceanic 

 program. 



Thus, to provide the proper background and guidance for the de- 

 cisions necessary to achieve the goal of a national oceanic program, 

 the Commission recognized the need for and recommended the crea- 

 tion of the National Advisory Committee for the Oceans. The success 

 of a national oceanic program will be directly dependent upon just 

 how well NACO performs its responsibilities. To achieve a truly na- 



