301 



111 tins instance, the fault is too definitive a recommendation, too soon. 

 I \u'(re that tliis question be considered separately from the rest of the 

 Commission report. 



Before discussing the Commission's central recommendation to pro- 

 Aide focus and coordination at the Federal level, I would like to suIj- 

 mit for the record the statement adopted by the board of directors of 

 tlie National Oceanography Association on January 27, 1969 : 



The National Oceanography Association Board of Directors endorses the uni- 

 fied management advocated by the Commission for Federal nondefense ocean- 

 ographic efforts through formation of an independent agency — the National 

 Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA). We believe further studies should be 

 made promptly with the aim of consolidating views on the appropriate size and 

 composition of NOAA. 



AVf heartily endorse the recommended National Advisory Committee for the 

 Oceans to facilitate close industry-Government coordination. 



We recommend continuation of the present National Council on Marine Re- 

 .sources and Engineering Development until decisions are reached on the recom- 

 mended reorganization as suggested by the Commission. 



We commend the initiative of the Oceanography Subcommittee of the House 

 Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in meeting with representatives of 

 the Commission to discuss implementation of the report soon after its issuance. 



The National Oceanography Association Board of Directors urges further 

 study be given the recommendations of the Commission regarding international 

 law relating to deep sea resources and specifically its endorsement of a narrowly 

 defined Continental Shelf. We believe the United States should not attempt imple- 

 mentation of these recommendations prior to completion of such study. 



In the interim, the U.S. should continue implementation of the principles of 

 the Convention on the Continental Shelf. 



The National Oceanography Association Board of Directors endorses the Com- 

 missions' recommendation that "concrete, definable" National Projects be estab- 

 lished with the broad aim of advancing knowledge and technology. The private 

 sector should participate in the planning of the projects ; Congress should adopt 

 them and provide adequate funding, subject to customary legislative oversight 

 and appropriation reviews. 



Creation of the recommended ISTational Oceanic and Atmospheric 

 Agency is absolutely essential to a stronger national program, in our 

 view. Regrouping within an existing department or continuation of 

 the present council, even with additional authority, will simply not 

 meet the national need. 



The reasons for so stating are many. If we don't take the recom- 

 mended step or something very close to it, we will lose the momentum 

 that has been built up slowly in recent years in our ocean capabilities 

 and knowledge. We will, in fact, move backwards. You gentlemen will 

 have a very understandable reluctance to suggest continuing the coun- 

 cil beyond the June 30, 19Y0, expiration date after the two previous 

 extensions of this interim coordinating mechanism. To my mind, the 

 unlikely continuation of the council makes action on reorganization 

 imperative. 



The Federal organization for marine activities, as has been often 

 observed, is fragmented, sometimes duplicative, and lacking in focus 

 or direction, 



"We simply have to have a competent civilian agency with the ex- 

 pertise to evaluate the Nation's needs as they relate to the Federal role 

 and with sufficient strength to carry out necessary programs approved 

 by the Congress. 



Perhaps the need for this independent agency can best be illustrated 

 this way — who would coordinate varied civilian programs, oversee 



