837 
first, the wisdom of the act itself, and secondly, some of the progress 
that has been made during this time. 
I should add that, from my point of view as executive secretary of 
the Council, there are difficulties with the temporary nature of the 
Council arrangement. I am referring to the difficulties that I have had 
in apraceie and holding good professional people for the Council 
Staif. 
The life of the Council has already had three expiration dates and 
this uncertainty has contributed to the problem. Therefore, I am 
happy that the Commission’s organizational recommendations are 
under active consideration and that presumably this will lead to de- 
cisions on future arangements, including a decision with repect to 
continuation of the Council. 
THE COUNCIL IS NOT AN NOAA ALTERNATIVE 
May I next point out that while the present multiagency arrange- 
ment and the Council are collectively an alternative to NOAA, the 
Council itself is not. A policy and program planning and coordinating 
body is like a steering mechanism on a rocket that directs the thrust 
of separate boosters, but it can add only limited thrust itself. The 
Council is not an operating agency. 
On the other hand, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency 
is conceived as a funding and operating agency. It was recommended 
by the Commission specifically to meet their goals and carry out the 
programs that are now part of the missions of several departments 
and agencies, expecting to gain greater efficiency through improved 
performance in the consolidation of ships, laboratories and personnel. 
NOAA would comprise not only a number of ongoing functions, 
but would be the host for some new functions proposed by the Com- 
mission, such as rapid expansion of civilian ocean technology. Most 
significant of all, the Commission saw the NOAA as making its way 
in the Government structure with an improved management capabil- 
ity to obtain funding for marine science programs. 
ANALYSIS OF NOAA 
In my view, that consolidation would have a better chance than the 
present arrangement to meet the goals set forth by the Commission, 
goals which incidentally correspond to those of Public Law 89-454 
under which the Council has operated. 
Mr. Lennon. Right at that point, Dr. Wenk, you say: 
In my view that consolidation would have a better chance than the present 
arrangement— 
Meaning the arrangement we have now, 1f we have one— 
to meet the goals set forth by the Commission, goals which, incidentally, corre- 
spond to those of Public Law 89-454 under which the Council has operated. 
Now, as you go on, we are coming back and trying to get you to 
definitely state how you differ, if you differ, with the Commission’s 
goals as set forth in this report and as provided in the mandate of 
the Congress to the Commission that if they did recommend the Gov- 
ernment structure, what type of Government structure should it be. 
Will you talk about that as you go on? 
