oontiuuiiis;- loworiuji- of support to lUniospherk' projirams within NASA (,$130.1X^2.- 

 000 in FY ISHJS to .$70.24.^.000 planned for FY 1970) stronjrly contrasts to the in- 

 croasinji' public interest and potential benotit from effective xise of space tech- 

 nolojiies for atmospheric studies, one of the most promising areas in all of 

 moiiern science. 



(9) Xatioiial Scinnr FoiintUrtion. FY 1970: S27.S00.000 



The NSF proirrams in the atmospheric sciences, generally speaking, should 

 probably remain with the agency. NSF's mission is to promote the advancement 

 of basic science in all disciplines, and the atmospheric field should not be singled 

 out as an exception. 



XSF now h.is resi>onsibility to sxipport the National Center for Atmospheric 

 Research as well as the research grants programs. Over the ivxst three years the 

 NSF atmospheric program has remained essentially level, in spite of vast and 

 growing public i'onceru with air pollution, weather fortvasting. and a host of 

 other atmospheric problems. This funds freeze has had adverst^ consequences. 

 For example. NOAH has been stopped far short of the major facilities and re- 

 seaivh goals that have been set by widely-based plaiuiing studies, and for which 

 theiv is very strong evidence of national interest and benetit. It may prove uec- 

 essiiry to provide sixMisorship of the new ocean-atmosphere agency, to the 

 National Center for Atmospheric Research in order to make it iK>ssible for NCAR 

 to acquire and operate the necessary facilities and do the appropriate research. 

 This should nor, however, be taken as criticism of NSF. which has had severe 

 limitations to work under. "Within these limitations, the mcHie v>f NSF sponsor- 

 ship has boon very beneticial to NCAR. 



NCAR's FY 1970 budget plan constitutes approximately iO^c of the NSF 

 atmospheric science budget ; it is included as a line-item in the budget request 

 to Cougi-ess for the NSF. 



(10) Federal Communications Commissioti, FY 1970: $:S5M0 



This is a nominal program, and I do not suggest any change in it^ supix)rt. It 

 is closely related to the FCC mission. 



SX7MMART 



Summing up these rei'ommendations. I would include within a broadly-consti- 

 tuted ocean-armosphere agency the atmospheric scienc'e programs of three agencies 

 whose FY 1070 budgets total $20.5 million and part of the atmospheric science 

 programs of live agencies whose FY 1970 budgets total $10o.2 millioTi. These fig- 

 nivs do not include NASA. i>endiug a determination of the imi>ortauce of earth- 

 related programs in the iK>st-lunar U.S. space program. 



Sincv many existing programs are at sub-critical levels when the national in- 

 terest is considered. 1 estimate that the atmospheric research jxirtion of a 

 proi>erly-constituted ocean-atmosphere agency would require an annual biidget 

 averaging between $2tX"> and $oW million ivr year over the next five years (not 

 counting NASA atmospheric research functions, which may be added on) ; and 

 that the budget of the I'.S. Weather Bureau, which stands now at approximately 

 $108 million for FY 1970. should also be included, at a substantially higher figure, 

 in a properly-constituted agency. If NASA atmospheric scieiice functions are in- 

 cluded, the oivrational and research aspects of the atmospheric sciences in the 

 neAv agency would then nxinire on the order of half a billion dollars per year for 

 the next five years. In addition, as much as $10i> million i>er year would be re- 

 quiiiHl for supiHirt of the atmospheric research and development in existing 

 agencies. 



1 wish to emphasize that the recommendations that I have made here are the 

 product of my own thinking only, and that they are not the result of a detailed 

 critical study of the appn.>priate bounds of a viable new ocean-atmosphere agency. 

 The recommendations do. however, reflect my own strong view that not just a 

 part, but all of the atmospheric sciences, as well as the atmosphere-related serv- 

 ices, should be integrally iiivolved in a national agency that nominally encom- 

 passes the o«.»t^anic and atmospheric environments of the earth. I sincerely hope 

 that Pr. Stratton's excvUent Commission can he re-txinstituted with broader en- 

 vironmental n^presentation, or that some other broadly representative Commis- 

 sion can be brought into being, to extend the concept so excellently outlined by 

 the Stnitton Commission for the oceanic portion of the earth-air-ocean environ- 

 ment of man. 



