772 
Mr. Mosuer. Would you object to the inclusion within NOAA of 
ESSA and the atmospheric interests provided that first, in emphasis, 
there was given this more inclusive action, there was effected this more 
inclusive organization of the ocean activities ? 
Dr. Scuarrer. Not at all, sir. However, you must think about what 
you get into organizationally if you do this, because if you put into 
your new organization the environmental modification and resources 
aspects of the ocean, then the question arises: Do you also want to put 
into the new organization those environmental modifications and inter- 
vention aspects of the atmosphere, of which there are two. One of them 
is the whole problem of air pollution, that presently is in HEW, and 
the other is weather modification that is now severally in three de- 
partments, ESSA, Interior, and Agriculture. 
_I would not object to it. I was merely pointing out some alterna- 
tives. 
Mr. Mosner. Then ultimately you raise the question of inclusion 
of NASA’s activities in earth resources and solar radiation and all 
that sort of thing. : 
Mr. Karru. Mr. Chairman. 
Mr. Downine. Mr. Karth. 
Mr. Karru. Mr. Chairman, I was fascinated by the paper that Dr. 
Schaefer has given us. Pursuing just briefly what Mr. Mosher was 
pursuing with you, wouldn’t it be possible, and probably more ap- 
propriate to put all of these functions that you mentioned, including 
atmospheric study, under one agency but breaking them down into 
different departments so that you could have a department for at- 
mospheric study and control and you could have a department for 
oceanology and marine sciences and possibly even a third department? 
It seems to me that putting them under one agency and hopefully 
a new agency so that you don’t have the built-in arguments that I 
think exist in well-established agencies such as you have, and inter- 
departmental squabbling and built-in bureaucracies and everything 
else, establish a brand-new agency and have these various departments 
within the agency all of which obviously could, under the right kind 
of administration, coordinate their activities and dovetail one’s in- 
terest with the other as they must be coordinated to make up the 
total package ? 
Is this what you are thinking of, Doctor, really? Does that kind of 
approach make better sense to you than an NOAA approach as pro- 
posed or putting it, for example, in the Department of the Interior 
where you get the same age-old squabbles of bureaucracy? 
Dr. Scuarrer. For that reason, and some other organizational rea- 
sons, I presented the choice of putting it in Interior or putting it In 
a new agency. I personally would like to see a new agency for at least 
two reasons. One, because it would be able to focus on the oceans and, 
second, because it would be a clearcut break with current bureaucracy. 
Of course, as I said, I would be in favor ideally of the sort of thing 
that John Calhoun recommended in his letter of 27 June to Chairman 
Lennon where he says: 
I visualize a desirable ultimate federal organiaztion as including a depart- 
ment of natural resources and environments which would bring into focus all 
federal policies and programs in these areas. Major elements of such a unified 
department would be sub departments of the ocean, of the atmosphere, and of 
other resource systems. 
