76 



As it seems to lis at tlie moment — lefivino; out the factor of elections 

 and timinc; which you have broug'ht to our attention, but recognizing 

 that we, too, desire that our recommendations be useful and effective — 

 that the best plan would be to complete our work, as far as the first 

 decisions and tentative conclusions are concerned, on schedule in June 

 or July. But we do believe it would be wise to have a little time to test 

 and weigh these decisions and conclusions in an orderly fashion. 



We will make some very basic recommendations, and Ave would like 

 to be sure that we have considered all the implications and have an 

 opportunity to discuss them with you gentlemen and the agencies 

 before making our own final judgments. Then, of course, there will 

 be time needed for the final processing and printing. 



So, I must say, Mr. Chairman, I have reluctantly come to the con- 

 clusion that we could give you a much better report and better results 

 with an extension of about 6 months. But we will abide by your own 

 decision on that matter. 



Mr. Lennon. I would like to comment on that by saying that we 

 must recall that the Commission was appointed on January 9 of this 

 year. Under the legislative mandate they had 18 months, or until July 

 9, 1968, to file their report. As I understand, since the decision was 

 made, and I think properly so, to divide the Commission into several 

 panels to make studies in depth of the various facets of oceanography, 

 oceanology, and marine sciences, and to have hearings throughout the 

 country, I would assume in the next several months, perhaps into 

 early spring, these panels will be engaged in this activity. Then they 

 will have to report to the full Commission. Assuming these reports 

 came in from the several panels to the Commission in, say, late Feb- 

 ruary of next year, that would give the Commission only approxi- 

 mately 30 clays, at the most 45 days, to assess the findings, conclu- 

 sions, and recommendations and to make your final report. 



Then you run into the question of the editing and the printing, 

 which can vary from 6 weeks to 3 months. 



On the other hand, if the statutory limitation of July 9, 1968, were 

 extended, you could carry on your activity until approximately Au- 

 gust or early September, but by early September of next year you 

 would have had to have all of your reports in from your panels, assess 

 them, evaluate them, and then you would be faced with 6 weeks to 

 3 months for editing and printing, which gives a target date, as I see 

 it, of approximately December 9, or thereabouts, of next year. 



It is Mr. Mosher's understanding and my understanding that we 

 were selected only as advisers to the Commission by reason of the fact 

 that Mr. Mosher and I happened to be the respective ranking mem- 

 bers on the committee. I want to make it crystal clear if I did not think 

 the Nation and the world would benefit by this extension of time, if 

 I did not have the sincere conviction that the Commission was of the 

 caliber that it is and that it is rendering the service that it is, I would 

 be the first one to say stay within the legislative mandate deadline. 



I think it might be well to comment, too, on the attitude of the Na- 

 tional Council. You remember, Mr. Downing and others, how wide a 

 variance of opinion we had with respect to whether there should be 

 a Council. The executive branch of the Government was opposed to 

 a Council. I had my trepidations about the Council, especially a perma- 

 nent Council. You recall when we went to conference we provided 



