185 



Mr. Leggett. Let me ask you this. How do you do that when we 

 have a large underw^ater function with the Navy Department and 

 are not merging that with this Department ^ Do you see any conflict 

 there, or duplication ? 



One question that naturally arises with me is that I was working 

 last week on a proposal with the Navy Department for a sea stable 

 platform and you are talking about it too. It seems to me that they 

 have most of the dollars in the Department of Defense and they are 

 going to continue to be doing a tremendous amount of underwater 

 research. If this agency is to be the primary oceanographic explora- 

 tory and engineering agency, I think we have problems of getting the 

 proper allocation of Government dollars. 



Dr. Kavanagh. Well, as I stated, in any large-scale and long-range 

 engineering development project we feel it is important that all line, 

 ocean-related agencies, and this would include the Navy, would have 

 an active interest in these long-range programs. They are of multi- 

 purpose, multiagency interest. Of course, there are shorter-range proj- 

 ects that must be directly in support of agency functions, whether 

 military or civilian. I don't see any conflict in this. 



If some are defense oriented and are of confidential nature, the 

 problem is still the problem of floating a platform. This is a techno- 

 logical problem and the development effort is equally applicable to the 

 Navy requirements or any defense agencies' requirements as they are 

 to civilian use. In the committee's letter to the subcommittee chairman, 

 some criteria for differentiating between long- and short-range engi- 

 neering development were outlined. 



I point out mat we are not specifically endorsing NOAA. We have 

 not prepared comments on the organizational detail of the Commission 

 report. We have tried to supplement the Commission's generally ex- 

 cellent arguments for organizational functional requirements. I think 

 the Commission's presentations are fully in accordance with the aims 

 of the Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of 1966. 

 They do provide a mechanism, but I say regardless of what mechanism 

 is used, the point that we think is very important is engineering devel- 

 opment, long range particularly, which suffers under the present 

 system. 



Mr. Leggett. Let me ask you this : Do you think the inclusion of the 

 Weather Bureau in the proposed agency is helpful or confounding for 

 the mission that you envision in primary engineering underwater ex- 

 ploratory work? 



Dr. Kavaistagh. I can't answer this specifically. I can say that in my 

 book oceanography is so closely related to atmospheric systems that 

 somewhere the atmosphere and the oceans have to get together. 



To this extent, whether it is a weather bureau on land or not, this is 

 beyond my scope of interest and activity. 



Mr. Leggett. It just seems to me that 90 percent of our weather 

 reconnaissance activity is over land. We are very concerned about what 

 is over the sea, but we have just very few facilities to get that kind of 

 information. I think that is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Lennon. Thank you, Mr. Leggett. 



26-563— 69— pt. 1 13 



