302 



their day-to-day operations and provide the mechanism for coordina- 

 tion of programs and research with the military oceanographic effort?' 

 Who in the Federal Government, now, is there to evaluate and then act 

 on the Commission's recommendations? Who, now, would review and 

 recommend to Congress if the recommended national project for in- 

 creased test facilities is valid and, if so, to what extent Federal partici- 

 pation is needed or desirable? And after this examination, who would 

 be in charge? "Where would an interested company go for information? 

 "^Vliere would students write ? 



These same questions can be applied to Commission recommenda- 

 tions for the Great Lakes restoration feasibility project. Continental 

 Shelf laboratories project, civilian deep submersible systems, and the 

 buoy network proposals. 



It is because the Nation needs to move on these and other programs 

 'and because the national interest is involved that we need Federal 

 reorganization. 



I think it is well worth noting here that other nations are moving — 

 in coastal zone management. Continental Shelf research and develop- 

 ment, aquaculture and ocean engineering. Russia, France, Japan, and 

 England, for example, are active in most of these fields today. We dare 

 not be left behind. 



Let me lay to rest the suggestion that industry is only interested in 

 the Federal tax dollars that might iiow from a new agency. While 

 there may be some concerns looking for Federal contracts, because that 

 is their business, there are far more who are not. As you will see from 

 the attached list of NOA questionnaire respondents, there are indus- 

 tries without involvement in oceanography who support reorganiza- 

 tion as well as those that are because of the logic of the agency pro- 

 posal and because they want to see the country have a strong presence 

 in the sea. The support from academicians and the general public is 

 clearly not motivated by self-interest alone. There are thousands of 

 individual citizens who are interested because they see the future of 

 oceanography and understand the need to take action. 



I commend this course to you — form the National Oceanic and 

 Atmospheric Agency now and do not provide one dime of additional 

 funds beyond present Federal expenditures for the components. 

 Charge this agency with implementation of the Commission report 

 and direct it to report to Congress with its recommendations for ac- 

 tion, along with whatever new author'izations would be required. In 

 my view, this is just simply good management. The Federal Govern- 

 ment is already spending a considerable amount on civilian oceanog- 

 raphy activities, estimated by the Commission as $773 million this 

 year, without central control or direction. 



In this age of slogans, I apologize to the committee when somewhat 

 facetiously I suggest that what we are talking about here is more 

 splash for the cash. 



Then, you gentlemen of the Congress would have professional staffs 

 unfettered by departmental restrictions reviewing the report, specific 

 action proposals to consider, a more unified budget — and here I assume 

 the new agency's proposals would be referred to the Appropriations 

 Independent Offices Subcommittees rather than scattered in pieces 

 among many subcommittees — and, after enactment, a chance to review 

 achievements against goals with the responsible G-overnment agency. 



