169 



Admiral Stephan. "What I am driving at is that I don't think that 

 a "wet Nasa," which I am sure that the Commission didn't intend, is 

 the right Federal organization for the oceans and I think there was 

 a tendency in this direction. Mr. Chairman, as you know early in the 

 days when oceanography was considered, to pattern an ocean organiza- 

 tion along the general lines of space and defense and I think this 

 should be avoided if you are going to have a truly national program 

 with the States and industry playing their main role in the oceans. 



Mr. Lennon. Would you comment on your third summarization of 

 your recommendations "Establisliment of a strong NOAA with par- 

 ticular emphasis on the importance of using Navy capabilities in the 

 Federal civilian programs * * *" Just how would you implement that 

 recommendation ? 



Admiral Stephan. Well, I think that it is a problem for the Navy as 

 it is with anyone else, to work with the diffused ocean program across 

 the civilian branches of the Federal Government. If this were concen- 

 trated in any way then the interface and the contributions which the 

 Navy can make, which are enormous, could be more efficiently made. It 

 is difficult to try to coordinate with the seven or eight Federal depart- 

 ments and the 30 some agencies rather than coordinate with some 

 central group. 



I think the Navy feels this. Their participation and contribution 

 would be larger. 



Mr. Lennon. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Jones. 



Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman, no questions, but I would like to com- 

 mend the Admiral for a very fine statement. I am certainly impressed 

 with your past experience. I recognize, you as an expert on this subject. 



Admiral Stephan. Thank you, sir. 



Mr. Lennon". Thank You. The gentleman from Massachusetts. 



Mr. Keith. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. Admiral, it is good to have 

 you here, and I am sure that you are familiar with my direct interest 

 in this whole question. I would like to elaborate a bit uj^on the rec- 

 ommendations that you have made. You would name it, the National 

 Advisory Committee on the Oceans, as would the Commission. Yet 3'our 

 testimony indicates that you really intend that it should work on atmos- 

 pheric matters as well. The name doesn't imply that, but the supporting 

 language seems to. Do you believe that sufficient stress is given to the 

 atmospheric aspect ? 



Admiral Stephan. Mr. Keith, I think ultimately that the atmos- 

 pheric interests and the oceans will be tied closely together. I recognize 

 that in their NOAA they specifically mentioned that that name includes 

 the National Atmospheric Agency. The NACO is the National Ad- 

 visory Committee on the Oceans. Even if the atmosphere weren't 

 brought in at this time I think it would be a tremendous step forward 

 if you just had an Advisory Committee on the oceans. 



How you will perfect this in years to come, I think you would have 

 to leave for the future, but we seriously lack now a place where indus- 

 try and the States can interface with the Federal program in the oceans. 

 Atmosphere, I presume is the same way, but I think we would be mak- 

 ing a step forward if this Commission were just an ocean commission 

 initially. How it grew and how it included the atmosphere later on, I 

 think we would have to leave to the future. 



26-563— 69— pt. 1 12 



