303 



Before considering specific composition of the recommended agency, 

 I would like to say a word about the companion National Advisory 

 Committee for the Oceans (NACO). It will do the country little good 

 to establish this advisory body without the agency to advise. Some 

 may recommend this course to you as a last resort, but I urge you to 

 heed to the advice of Commission member John Perry Avho advised 

 on April 30 before you that, without NOAA, there was no point to 

 NACO, and that the two ought to be considered as one proposal. 



On committee composition, I hold with the Commission that there 

 should be no Federal Government members. Also, the committee 

 should not be exclusively industrial but should contain a mix of in- 

 dustry representatives, State representation and people froni the aca- 

 demic community. I would also follow the recommendation of the 

 Commission's Panel on Marine Engineering and Technology that in- 

 dustrial representation should include at least eight major areas: 

 transportation, petroleum, fishing, mining, desalination, recreation, 

 hardware, and services. 



The first organization suggested for inclusion in the National 

 Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is the Coast Guard. It has been 

 described as the "guts" of the agency. I endorse this recommendation, 

 although I recognize questions have been raised about it. To deal with 

 several, on the question of the Coast Guard's defense role, I feel it can 

 continue as well or better in NOAA than in the Department ofTrans- 

 j)ortation, whose main focus is on such matters as railroads, airports, 

 urban mass transit, and highways. 



It has been objected that putting the Coast Guard into NOAA will 

 mix operational matters with programing. While I respect this con- 

 cern, I think careful organization internally can keep the two func- 

 tions separate and prevent operational matters from dominating. The 

 ocean environment is unique and must be served by research as well as 

 operations to do an effectiA^e job. Furthermore, the very uniquenessof 

 the oceans serves to unite the functions conducted there and to diminish 

 the differences between operations and research. 



The Coast Guard belongs in an ocean agency. 



As for the objections filed March 10, 1969, by the Department pi 

 Transportation — which I read with dismay since they seemed to miss 

 the message of the Commission report — I am struck by this fact : some 

 of the arguments used against relocating the Coast Guard could be 

 used to suggest the Department of Transportation never should have 

 been formed. I refer to mentions of possible loss of effectiveness from 

 regrouping, "administrative upheavals" and the abilitj'- to coordinate 

 without reorganization. 



I think the activities of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries would 

 be enhanced by transfer to an ocean agency, as will certain functions of 

 the Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Bureau. 



The Department of the Interior has great responsibilities to protect 

 and preserve our natural land resources, manage our national parks, 

 oversee mineral resources, conduct Indian affairs, conduct geological 

 surveys and promote desalination, and the complex problems of our 

 diverse fisheries industry will be better served in an organization with 

 a sharper focus on the oceans. 



I subscribe to the inclusion of the Enviornmental Science Services 

 Administration basically because of the necessary involvement of the 



