328 



account the effect of mountains and land areas on the atmosphere. It 

 embodies a concern for severe land storms like tornadoes and hail- 

 storms. It puts atmospheric chemistry in an important position. 



Such a broad view is an essential ingTedient for progress toward 

 great practical usefulness. Any narrowing of this scope would de- 

 crease the relevance of atmospheric research to primary national goals. 



NOAA's sights should be set as high as this. If the incorporation of 

 NCAE, into N0Ax4. would help guarantee such a broad scope in the 

 concept of the atmospheric components of NOAA, it might work to the 

 benefit of the whole countr3^, and to the position of this Nation in world 

 science. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Hathaway. Thank you, Dr. Roberts, for a very enlightening 

 statement. 



I presume you mean that you go along with the Commission's rec- 

 ommendation, which says that NCAR should be incorporated into 

 NOAA eventually, but you think it should not be immediately. 



Dr. Roberts. I think it would be useful for NCAR to be incorpo- 

 rated into NOAA, if the agency adheres to the broad concept of the at- 

 mosphere that would embrace atmospheric environmental pollution 

 control and the many other fields of atmospheric science, which the 

 Commission report has not recommended be incorporated, at least at 

 the outset, into the new agency. 



For example, there are areas of work in the Bureau of Reclamation, 

 Department of the Interior, and there are areas of work in the Public 

 Health Service having to do with air pollution chemistry, that the 

 Stratton Commission report does not recommend for inclusion in 

 NOAA. Without the inclusion of these equally integral parts of the 

 atmospheric science in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, 

 I believe the NOAA concept becomes inadequate, and that the agency 

 itself becomes insufficiently comprehensive. 



Mr. Hathaway. Thank you. 



Dr. Roberts. I feel similarly about certain parts of the NASA 

 weather program, as well. 



Mr. Hathaway. Congressman Keith. 



Mr. Keith. We noted, and the Commission also has noted, the many 

 diverse parts of the oceanography effort, and the extraordinary costs 

 and duplication. Is there a parallel in the field of atmospheric research ? 



Dr. Roberts. Yes, sir. In the oceanic sciences, I believe the Commis- 

 sion report states there are 22 Federal agencies, with overlapping 

 interests. 



In the atmospheric sciences, there are, I believe, some 16 agencies in- 

 volved ; the difficulty of coordination and the fractionation of the sup- 

 port for major programs among different agencies and among differ- 

 ent committees are quite parallel to the situation in the marine sciences. 

 In fact, I am very much attracted to the idea that was suggested in 

 these hearings yesterday, that perhaps what is needed is a reorganiza- 

 tion that would create a Department of Resources and Environments, 

 of which perhaps NOAA would be one component. 



Mr. Keith. In developing our arguments for this, it is helpful to 

 talk of costs and possible savings. Would it be difficult to draw up a 

 letter that would outline the nature and extent of these duplications 

 and possible efficiencies, or has the Commission done it adequately as 

 it pertains to the atmosphere ? 



