497 



Whereas, this Comimission has issued a comprehensive series of reconiinenda- 

 tions that would provide organized development of a national oceanic effort under 

 a single agency, and 



Whereas, the interests of the fishing industry will be enhanced in an expanded, 

 comprehensive oceans program, and 



Whereas, certain of the Commission's minor recommendations may not be 

 completely in accord with the best interests of the industry, therefore, be it 



Resolved, That, the National Fisheries Institute support the general broad 

 recommendation of the Commission that would establish a single, comprehensive 

 agency to coordinate our nation's oceanic affairs ; and be it further 



Resolved, That, the Institute would consider on an individual basis secondary 

 recommendations of the Commission as they come before Congress and the 

 administrative agencies. 



Washington, D.C, 31 ay 22, 1969. 

 Mr. John M. Dbewby, 



Chief Counsel, House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 1334 Long- 

 worth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 

 Dear Mr. Dbewry : I have read Prof. Bauer's statement a number of times and 

 I am still uncertain as to the philosophical basis of his objection to N.O.A.A. 

 In one part of his presentation he implies that we have bitten off more than the 

 government can chew; nevertheless he winds up with a recommendation for 

 creating a Department of Environmental Sciences which would indicate that we 

 didn't go far enough. However, I will restrict my comments to a few of his points. 



1. I quite agree with Prof. Bauer's statement that it is impossible in an ultimate 

 sense, to separate "the atmosphere from the oceans or both from the land." But 

 I believe that is a comment that can be made about the entire universe and that 

 logically the planet Earth cannot be separated from the outermost reaches of the 

 cosmos. This philosophical truth, however, must include the fact that arbitrary 

 distinctions must be made if any part of the universe can be studied effectively^ 

 and those distinctions must be based on the sitate of human knowledge at any 

 given time. It is the judgment of the Commission that the state of knowledge has 

 reached the point where it would be useful to study the oceans and the atmosphere 

 as a whole and we so recommend it. Unquestionably, a point will be reached down 

 the road where it will be useful to study the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land 

 as a whole but I believe that at this point in our history such an effort would 

 merelly create an indigestible lump of knowledge. For the time being, the best 

 we can hope for is an exchange of knowledge between those studying the atmos- 

 phere and the oceans and those studying the land mass. 



2. Had the Commission recommended a fisheries agency, a pollution agency, 

 or an undersea technology agency reporting directly to the President, Prof. 

 Bauer's parallel to a cancer research agency would be apt. However, we did not 

 do so. The agency that we proposed is sufficiently broad in scope to justify an 

 official who can report directly to the President just as the Space Agency does. 



3. I am not going to comment upon his remarks concerning the geological 

 survey as I believe Prof. Bauer attaches a greater amount of importance to the 

 issue than actually exists. But I certainly disagree with his conclusion that it is 

 unrealistic to make N.O.A.A. the lead agency in geological surveys of the ocean 

 bottom. It is true that the crust of the earth above and below the seas is con- 

 tinuous. But the techniques for studying the crust must differ in the two environ- 

 ments and it is obvious that those now engaged in a study of the crust have 

 gained very little knowledge of the ocean floor. This knowledge will only be 

 gained when its gathering becomes the responsibility of a marine-oriented 

 organization. 



4. I do not see any way in which the functions of the Bureau of Fisheries 

 would be hampered by placing it in the new agency. The bilateral agreements 

 with other agencies that he discusses could be conducted just as well through 

 N.O.A.A. as through the Interior Department. But the fisheries functions would 

 benefit from intellectual cross-fertilization with other marine-oriented disciplines. 



5. I fail to follow the logic of his opposition to removing the Coast Guard 

 from the Department of Transportation. The Coast Guard unquestionably has 

 the greatest amount of physical resources available for oceanographic work and 

 this is a capability we should not overlook. I believe that this would be far more 

 important to the United States than granting the Coast Guard responsibility 

 for operating and maintaining civilian vessels of the federal government. 



26-563 — 69 — pt. 1 33 



