265 



I am willing personally, however, fo discuss furtlicr some of the issues relative 

 to the Commission Report and especially to elaborate on the question of a federal 

 organization to achieve the goals set forth by the Commission. My discussion is 

 not to be construed as a position of either the National Academy of Sciences or its 

 Committee on Oceanogi-aphy. In formulating this letter, 1 have availed myself of 

 thoughts offered by others, including members of the Conmiittee, but the views are 

 strictly my own. 



I would like to express again enthusiasm for the Commissions' report and a 

 concern that its main re<^-ommendations be implemented in the inmiediate future. 

 This report puts the importance of the oceans to the I'nited States in proper 

 perspective. It is apparent from the Commission's study that the oceans must be 

 placed on the same general level of national concern as outer space, public health, 

 foreign aid, transportation, urban problems, and many other matters of high 

 priority. The stake of the United States in the oceans is so large and so in need of 

 development that a new national program should be launched. Further, I l)elieve 

 that the strength and capahility of the United States is such that it can en- 

 compass not only immediate problems such as those of the cities, but also prob- 

 lems of longer range potential such as those pertaining to ocean resources. 



1 reemphasize my former statement to the effect that organization, or reorga- 

 nization, is a critical matter, but is derivative from and secondary to the recog- 

 nition of a new mission for ocean affairs and to the allocation of funding to do the 

 necessary job. If we focus our concern on program.s and on goals, the need for 

 certain organizational elements becomes clear. If nothing more is done than to 

 combine several existing agencies into a new structure without recognizing a 

 role over and beyond current roles, little will be accomplished. If existing agen- 

 cies are brought together in a new foi-mat with no provision for additional federal 

 expenditures, little can be done beyond what is now being done. 



Some federal organization for marine affairs, stronger than the existing format, 

 is clearly needed. Although it may not be possible to provide the ideal organiza- 

 tion at this time, it is useful to project what the ideal might be. In this respect, I 

 visualize a desirable ultimate federal organization as including a department of 

 natural resources and environments which would bring into focus all federal 

 policies and programs in these areas. Major elements of such a unified department 

 would be sub-departments of the oceans, of the atmosphere and of other resource 

 systems. 



Clearly, this desired reorganization cannot be done without considering the 

 role of many existing federal agencies and the manner in which they are related. 

 However, steps to provide a focus for ocean resources cannot afford to wait upon 

 the broader goal. Some action is needed now — action which will not prejudice, but 

 perhaps enhance attainment of the ultimate goal. 



There are many ways by which a new organization could be structured. I am 

 of the opinion that the creation of NOAA would be hetter than maintaining the 

 status quo. I recognize, as have others, that it is po.ssi'ble also to fashion an 

 agency which would he either larger or smaller than the group for NOAA as 

 recommended by the Commission. 



Taking all these elements into consideration, I suggest that action at this 

 time should be centered around three points : (1) establishing a new independent 

 agency whose principal mission is to do things not now being done; (2) combin- 

 ing into the new agency a limited number of existing activities based on ocean- 

 centered missions, and (3) providing funding to the new agency sufficient to 

 make it a viable force toward focusing the direction of all civilian ocean develop- 

 ment. 



My reasons for helieving that the new agency should he an independent agency 

 are similar to those voiced by the Commission — 



"In getting a major and diverse effort underway, the case for independent 

 status is comi>elling. An independent agency can bring a freshness of outlook and 

 freedom of action difficult to achieve within an existing department. Its greater 

 public visibility would draw stronger public interest and support. A head of an 

 independent agency would he "better ahle to organize the agency's activities, to 

 achieve the multiple purposes of a national ocean program than would an officer 

 of a larger organization in which other interests are represented and, perhaps, 

 dominant." 



An independent agency at this time has merit simply to avoid the subjugation 

 of the new ocean mission to any existing departmental mission until a total 

 balanced department can be created. An independent agency is desirable at this 

 time also so that Congress can provide a special over-view of the program apart 



26-56.3 — 69 — pt. 1 IS 



