261 



various j^oints to ])rovide oomment on tlie Commission's activities and 

 members of NASC'O were used from time to time as ad\isors to Ijoth 

 the Touncil and Commission. 



In particular, as chairman of NASCO I transmitted to Mr. Sam 

 Lawrence the Committee's response to a numl)er of questions raised by 

 him relati\e to prog;-ram and organization for marine sc-iences. Be- 

 cause of the way in which the questions were phrased, NASCO inter- 

 preted its rei)lies as an addendum to its last major report on the sub- 

 ject, ^'Oceanoo-raphy 1966— Achievements and Opportunities," wdiich 

 was developed under the chairmanship of my predecessor, Dr. M. B. 

 Schaefer. Later, I will refer specifically to parts of this letter. 



I am sure the committee is aware of the report "Oceanography 

 1966 — Achievements and Opportunities," and we feel as a Committee 

 on Oceanography that the recommendations in this report are still 

 very viable. 



Perhaps the most controversial and important recommendation of 

 the Commission is that a single independent agency, designated as 

 NOAA, be established to carry out the missions identified by the Com- 

 mission as being essential to meet national needs. Our letter expresses 

 the Committee consensus on this matter, but I would like to elaborate 

 a little on some of the points that have been identified. 



The question of Federal organization for anj^ program, and I need 

 not tell the committee this, has many ramifications. As all of us know, 

 it is sometimes not so important how an activity is organized as to 

 how the appropriate people will be involved, and the degree to which 

 the activity is given funding and support. Organization questions 

 should arise principally from an examination of the goals to be accom- 

 plished and the most significant thing to ask is whether our organiza- 

 tion will meet the goals we desire. It is in this sense that NASCO be- 

 lieves that some new organization for oceanography is needed and has 

 long held this position. 



If I may quote from the NASCO report, "Oceanography 1966," it 

 contained the following statement on this matter : 



In sum, under present management procedures we have 22 federal bureaus and 

 laboratories doing separate things in and about the ocean. Through ICO they are 

 all kept acquainted with what the others are doing and planning in the unclassi- 

 fied area. As much coordination is arranged for as departmental and agency poli- 

 cies and activities will pei-mit — and it is considerable. These 22 executive entities 

 report to about 29 substantive and appropriation committees and subcommittees 

 of the Congress. 



Thus while Public Law 89-^54, June 17, 1966, states that the policy of the 

 United States is to develop, encourage, and maintain a coordinated, comprehen- 

 sive, and long-range national program in marine science for the benefit of man- 

 kind,' we still have no national ocean program with which to implement the 

 policy and no national ocean budget with which to fund it. Xational needs now 

 require that we build the managerial structure needed to develop these instru- 

 ments. Considerable coordination of managerial function in both the executive 

 and legislative branches of the government will be necessary before these forward 

 steps can be taken. 



We repeat that it is not our present intent to recommend any specific structure 

 to accomplish the necessary improvement. We do point out that any change in 

 the managerial structure must be consistent with the continuing needs of those 

 exisiting agencies whose prinxary mis'sdons involve ^ocean activities. 



That is the close of the quote which NASCO stated in its 1966 re- 

 port, which we still think is germane to the question. 



